N.O.W., Abortion Right's Crowd and their good intentions.

[MrsSpringsteen]

I can't believe that woman is even making this an issue..exploiting the murder of Laci and Connor for such purposes

The death penalty is too good for this guy, but sitting in a jail cell every day contemplating what he did is really irrelevant-does someone capable of such an act really care? Maybe he can still keep in touch w/ his mistress while he's in jail...

And I'd have to say I don't support the death penalty-but emotionally it's extremely difficult not to want it for the Scott Petersons of this world.

 

[diamond]

Then you aren't pro-life at all; just anti-abortion.

Melon

Iam Pro Life
for
innocent prisoners
innocent babies.

Its just that simple, Melon.
Please dont try and type-cast me.

thank you-
diamond

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Diamond,
Just out of interest, why do you support the death penalty? I mean presumably you think there are some benefits of it, but what do you think they are?

Thanks,
Fizz

 

[sharky]

Going back to the original story, I'm against trying to connect the Peterson case to anything involving abortion. They are two separate things. One is the decision of the woman and voluntary. The other is not the decision of the woman, is not voluntary, and the act itself has little to do with whether or not the woman is pregnant. A murder of a woman is a murder of a woman.

As for the life and death debate, I am pro-choice [not pro-abortion] and anti-death penalty. A woman's decision to have an abortion is her decision alone. I don't believe in abortion but that's my belief and should be pushed on to others. But the government's death penalty decisions are way out of whack. Most of the people on death row are poor and can't afford an attorney to get them off. In most cases, their attorney isn't trained to handle death penalty cases. etc., etc., I could go on and on about the death penalty being outlawed because the system is so flawed.

So what do I think should happen to Scott? Frankly, I think he should have to sit in a cell for the rest of his life with pictures of his wife and unborn child. And let whatever happens to him happen to him. Prisoners don't take kindly to fellow convicts who hurt children in any way. They have Scott in isolation to protect him for that reason. Let's see what happens when he has to face them -- because I bet it will be worse than a government-sponsored death. I know that sounds cruel, but the guy killed his wife and child.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I have always found it rather hypocritical that, on one hand, the government made abortion legal, which is tantamount in effect to saying "we declare that an unborn baby is not a human life protected by murder laws", and yet on the other hand, teh same government can charge 2 murders if a pregnant woman and her unborn baby are murdered. I think it shouldn't depend on if the woman wants the child or not. If an unborn baby is a human life, it should be protected. If not, then you can't have it both ways.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I don't believe in abortion but that's my belief and should not be pushed on to others.

But sharky, does that hold water? Almost all laws come from someone's moral code and belief system, including murder.

I still don't understand how someone can believe abortion is murder and yet not want it to be made illegal.

 

[anitram]

I still don't understand how someone can believe abortion is murder and yet not want it to be made illegal.

What if you don't believe it's murder?

A first trimester fetus is not viable. Science supports me - never has a first trimester fetus been delivered and survived. It's actually not even close, because the youngest fetus delivered which survived was a late 2nd trimester.

Therefore, it's not murder to me to have a first trimester abortion. You can argue when life begins, but that is up to debate. It is a undebatable and undeniable fact, however, that no first trimester fetus can sustain life on its own, even with the medical advancements we have made.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I still don't understand how someone can believe abortion is murder and yet not want it to be made illegal.

This is how I would have justified that to myself, although I'm not so sure I agree with this anymore.

1) I believe abortion is murder, but I acknowledge this isn't based on any scientific knowledge, it is simply my personal moral belief. Therefore I don't have a right to force my morality on to people who don't agree with it.

2) If abortion were made illegal, would women turn to 'back-street' abortions which could be extremely dangerous and even lead to their death.

3) What about situations where a woman would face horrible consequences if she didn't have an abortion? What if she might lose her home or be beaten by her partner? What if she's underage and her parents might throw her out of her home? What if she is pregnant after being raped?

Like I said, I'm not sure I do agree with those ideas anymore, but that's how I would have justified it to myself.

 

[80sU2isBest]

What if you don't believe it's murder?

I'm talking specifically about people who say "I believe it's wrong". Is there any reason that someone would think it is wrong, if it's not because they think it's murder? I can't think of any reason abortion would be wrong if it's not murder.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

A first trimester fetus is not viable. Science supports me - never has a first trimester fetus been delivered and survived. It's actually not even close, because the youngest fetus delivered which survived was a late 2nd trimester.

Is there evidence of whether a 1st trimester fetus can feel pain - ie would suffer in abortion?

And if you say abortion in the first trimester isn't murder, does that mean a first trimester fetus isn't actually a human being? Presumably if it was a human being, then to kill it would be murder?

 

[80sU2isBest]

This is how I would have justified that to myself, although I'm not so sure I agree with this anymore.

1) I believe abortion is murder, but I acknowledge this isn't based on any scientific knowledge, it is simply my personal moral belief. Therefore I don't have a right to force my morality on to people who don't agree with it.

2) If abortion were made illegal, would women turn to 'back-street' abortions which could be extremely dangerous and even lead to their death.

3) What about situations where a woman would face horrible consequences if she didn't have an abortion? What if she might lose her home or be beaten by her partner? What if she's underage and her parents might throw her out of her home? What if she is pregnant after being raped?

Like I said, I'm not sure I do agree with those ideas anymore, but that's how I would have justified it to myself.

Thanks for carifying those for me. If I were talking to someone who used those points in a discussion with me, I would answer him thusly:

1)Some scientific evidence does suggest that life begins at conception. Not only that, but this is not a case of "I can't shove my morality down people's throats". In some cases, that might be true, such as if the thing in question only hurts the person doing it. But if abortion is murder, then it is a crime that not only affects the life of the person having the abortion, but also ends the life of someone else. Oen person's rights end when it infriges on another's safety or well being.

2)The idea that "if it were made illegal, women would still do it, and do it unsafely" doesn't hold water, either. That would be like saying "Well, people are gonna do heroin anyway, so we might as well make it legal and provide safe places for them to get high." or "well, people are gonna rape others anyway, so we might as well make it legal and set up "rape zones" so that at least people can get free condoms."

3)Someone could walk up to me today, point a gun in my face and say "If you don't kill you're neighbor, I'm gonna blow your head off, or I'm gonna kick you out of the house, etc." Then, if I kill my neighbor to prevent something horrible from happening to me, I am still guilty of murder and should be prosecuted. Also, i do have compassion on women who are raped, but if I am to be consistent in my opposition to abortion based on the fact that I feel it is murder, I can't logically make any exceptions.

 

[sharky]

look, the end result is that abortion is always a hot issue that will always be debated here. [btw, good debate and good points on each side]. I think we need to stick to the Peterson case. Fact is, if Laci did for some reason go in to labor the day before she disappeared, the baby would have survived most likely. As someone pointed out, a three-month old fetus would not. So put the abortion issue aside. This was a child that could have sustained life out of the womb if born early. This should be what CA bases their decision on.

 

[Scarletwine]

Is there evidence of whether a 1st trimester fetus can feel pain - ie would suffer in abortion?

Just a thought to this, I would say the medical community does believe that a 1st trimester fetus cannot feel pain. Maybe the nervous system has not developed enough.

In the US several surgical procedures are routinely performed on full term infants. The most common of these is circumcision.
They seem to think the nervous system still is not mature and the infant doesn't feel the pain in a true sense. As the mother of a boy, I couldn't disagree more. A local would be much more humane.

They also do some more invasive procedures as they feel the benefits of anesthesia do not outweigh the dangers.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

3) What about situations where a woman would face horrible consequences if she didn't have an abortion? What if she might lose her home or be beaten by her partner? What if she's underage and her parents might throw her out of her home? What if she is pregnant after being raped?

I agree that a woman has the choice as to what to do with her body... the woman had the choice wether to have sex or not. By making that choice, you accept the potential consequences of your actions... wether that be an STD or pregnancy. For a person to voluntarily consent to having sex come back later and say that "oh but it's my choice what to do with my body" after the fact just doesn't make sense to me. If the mother does not want the baby, does not want to take care of the baby, there are other options available. Plenty of parents out there can not have children and would love the opportunity. Even if the child is forced to go through a very rough childhood, a rough childhood is still a childhood, and that person still has a chance to make a life for themselves.
This NOW woman should be ashamed of herself. The whole "well abortion is fine because it's a choice, but murder isn't because it isn't a choice" thing just makes no sense to me.
As for the death penalty... if there is significant DNA data to backup the case, I believe the death penalty should be an option in this case. If Laci were a relative of mine, I could not live with myself knowing that the person who did this to her and Connor was allowed to continue living. Call it an eye for an eye, call it what you will.
This is a double murder, and anyone who would commit such a crime, if it is Scott Peterson or if it is someone else, deserves what is comming to them.

And let's not be too quick to convict Scott Peterson... last I checked he hasn't had a trial yet. It looks very much so like he did it by his actions, but just because he acts like an asshole doesn't make him a murderer. Let's wait for the trial before we sentance him to life in prison or the death penalty.

 

[BAW]

look, the end result is that abortion is always a hot issue that will always be debated here. [btw, good debate and good points on each side]. I think we need to stick to the Peterson case. Fact is, if Laci did for some reason go in to labor the day before she disappeared, the baby would have survived most likely. As someone pointed out, a three-month old fetus would not. So put the abortion issue aside. This was a child that could have sustained life out of the womb if born early. This should be what CA bases their decision on.

Exactly. This is truly a good debate with great points being made but this is not about abortion...it's about a baby boy who most likely would have lived if he been born at 8 months gestation, had his mother not been murdered. Connor Peterson was also murdered and for NOW or anyone else to try to and use this issue for their own cause is just shameful.

The State of California rightfully charged Scott Peterson with 2 counts of murder IMO.

 

[guaca]

I have a real problem with some of these analagies..the whole pro-life status quo where let the innocent live I dont know gets me to thinking...

what if the case were of a youngster, say a 14 or 15 year old...was raped..and the resulting pregancy that exists afterwards...the youngster who was raped was innocent..so as a pro-lifer, you would force that child to believe that the child that will be born should be allowed to come into this world no matter what..because it isnt that childs fault so you should condemn that child to death......

well what about the child who is condemned to have that child....what about their innocence and rights...

I dont know. I just have a real problem with being so blocked in thinking that abortion is not right period, regardless of circumstance...I mean I certainly dont agree with abortion being used for example as an alternate means of birth control, but I also dont agree that choices should be taken away from people either...because when choices are taken away, people get desperate..and then what ends up happening is instead of one life(which is debateable as to whether a fetus in first trimester is considered a life)..you lose 2....the life of the fetus and the life of the woman or child who is forced to go behind closed doors for help...

 

[BVS]

I have a real problem with some of these analagies..the whole pro-life status quo where let the innocent live I dont know gets me to thinking...

what if the case were of a youngster, say a 14 or 15 year old...was raped..and the resulting pregancy that exists afterwards...the youngster who was raped was innocent..so as a pro-lifer, you would force that child to believe that the child that will be born should be allowed to come into this world no matter what..because it isnt that childs fault so you should condemn that child to death......

well what about the child who is condemned to have that child....what about their innocence and rights...

I dont know. I just have a real problem with being so blocked in thinking that abortion is not right period, regardless of circumstance...I mean I certainly dont agree with abortion being used for example as an alternate means of birth control, but I also dont agree that choices should be taken away from people either...because when choices are taken away, people get desperate..and then what ends up happening is instead of one life(which is debateable as to whether a fetus in first trimester is considered a life)..you lose 2....the life of the fetus and the life of the woman or child who is forced to go behind closed doors for help...

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[Mrs. Edge]

Me too guaca...no one has ever sufficiently explained that one. Especially now with girls going into puberty younger and younger...my niece got her period at 9 years old! Does any pro lifer honestly expect a 9 year old to have a baby? It's horrendous!!!

 

[Dreadsox]

Those who claim to be pro-life and pro-death penalty are as morally bankrupt as it gets.

Melon

So if I am anti-abortion ....... and pro-death penalty am I morally bankrupt? Just checking?

 

[anitram]

Is there evidence of whether a 1st trimester fetus can feel pain - ie would suffer in abortion?

And if you say abortion in the first trimester isn't murder, does that mean a first trimester fetus isn't actually a human being? Presumably if it was a human being, then to kill it would be murder?

Re: fetal pain.

You have to understand the difference between sensing and feelign pain. Cortical processing of pain theoretically becomes possible after development of the thalamo-cortical connections in the 26th week of gestation (Brain Dev 2000 May;22(3):145-50).

However, a critical factor in feeling pain is the arrival of thalamocortical connections. These first penetrate the frontal cortical plate at 22-34 weeks, and their arrival correlates well with evoked potential studies, which show that the distinct component signalling the arrival of sensory impulses at a cortical level cannot be detected before 29 weeks (BMJ 1996;313:797-798). This article as well as the references, if anybody is interested can be found here, and it concludes with "So can a fetus feel pain? Given the definitions of feeling and pain the answer must be no." This is the general view of the medical community at large, as you will find if you delve deeper into the subject.

As for the first trimester - I see it as a fetus, because it cannot support human life. It has no thought processes, it is not viable outside the womb, its central nervous system is undeveloped, many organs have not yet been colonized by their resident cells - ie. the thymic epithelium. That's my feeling anyway.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Me too guaca...no one has ever sufficiently explained that one. Especially now with girls going into puberty younger and younger...my niece got her period at 9 years old! Does any pro lifer honestly expect a 9 year old to have a baby? It's horrendous!!!

I think in response the pro-life argument would be:
a) 9 year olds shouldn't be having sex.
b) Do you honestly expect a 9 year old to have an abortion?

Which of course doesn't take into account a 9 year old who got pregnant after being sexually assaulted, and assumes abortion would be more traumatic for the child than giving birth to a baby.

There actually was a whole controversy about a 9 year old girl in a country in Latin America who got pregnant and was prevented from having an abortion recently. I'll try to find an article I read about it.

 

[Mrs. Edge]

I think in response the pro-life argument would be:
a) 9 year olds shouldn't be having sex.

Well Good Heavens no! Of course not. I meant via sexual assault, either through molestation or rape. And yes I also saw that article about the child in Latin America...she is a baby herself (she was worrying about sharing her toys with her child!) and yet they expect her to have a baby.

I can't even imagine how a baby could fit through a child that age/size....I would think it would be far worse for her body than the abortion iteself if performed properly.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Thanks for the reply, anitram. I knew almost nothing about that subject, so it's good to learn about it. Thank you!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Those who claim to be pro-life and pro-death penalty are as morally bankrupt as it gets.

So I can be fair to infer that you instead believe that the killing of innocent lives who have never had a chance to live, and saving those who have been proven to be the lowest scum on the face of the earth is acceptable, just, and moral.

 

[melon]

So I can be fair to infer that you instead believe that the killing of innocent lives who have never had a chance to live, and saving those who have been proven to be the lowest scum on the face of the earth is acceptable, just, and moral.

Open your eyes...

<-- pro-life, anti-death penalty

Why would I make a proclamation of moral bankruptcy if I were just as hypocritical as the people I'm criticizing?

Melon

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

well i checked the mirror and yes, my eyes are open... thank you for making me go check, though... ya never can be sure if they are actually open or not

you claimed that people who are against abortion and for the death penalty, like myself, were as moraly bankrupt as they get. so i was just asking you to clear that up. if i wasn't fair to assume that, i whole heartidly appologize. i wouldn't want to offend you.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Here's what I don't understand about being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty: you say abortion is wrong - it's the murder of an innocent person. But when you talk about the death penalty, you say murder is okay because that person was guilty! Leaving aside the problem of an imperfect judicial system which DOES make mistakes and execute innocent people, what makes you think any person has the right to decide who lives and who dies? How can a person, an imperfect person get to decide another person isn't worth keeping alive? Just...how can you justify that? The death penalty is murder: it's one human being killing another human being! How on earth do you justify it?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

you want justification? timothy mcveigh

 

[diamond]

I will say this..
in the event of rape or incest..
I would b ok w/an abortion in the 1st trimester.

These types of pregnanies account for less than 2% of pregnancies, studies show..

db9

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

So it was correct to execute McVeigh because he killed a certain number of people (I'm sorry, I don't recall how many). So is it correct to execute someone who killed one person? What about three people? What about someone who killed one person but was acting in self-defence? Do they get the death penalty?

Who gets to decide? That's my fundamental question: what human being gets to decide when it's okay to take the life of another human being?