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

[diamond]

Laci Peterson case tied to Roe debate

By Rob Jennings, Daily Record

The head of the National Organization for Women's Morris County chapter is opposing a double-murder charge in the Laci Peterson case, saying it could provide ammunition to the pro-life lobby.

"If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder," Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark said on Saturday.

Prosecutors in California announced Friday their intention to charge Scott Peterson, 30, of Modesto, both with killing his wife and their unborn son. Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when she disappeared Dec. 24.

Both bodies were identified on Friday after washing up on the shore of San Francisco Bay.

More than two dozen states, including California, have adopted "fetal homicide" statutes, and prosecutors often will seek a double-murder charge when a pregnant woman is killed.

Marie Tasy, public and legislative affairs director for New Jersey Right To Life, countered that a double-murder charge against Scott Peterson is appropriate. She assailed pro-choice activists for opposing fetal homicide statutes.

"Obviously he was wanted by the mother," Tasy said.

"Clearly groups like NOW are doing a great injustice to women by opposing these laws. It just shows you how extreme, and to what lengths, these groups will go to protect the right to abortion."

Fetal homicide laws have been opposed by some pro-choice organizations that fear they will undermine a woman's right to choose an abortion, even though the statues exempt legal abortions.

After watching news reports of Peterson's arrest, Stark expressed concern with the tone of the coverage.

"There's something about this that bothers me a little bit," Stark said. "Was it born, or was it unborn? If it was unborn, then I can't see charging (Peterson) with a double-murder."

Some pro-lifers hope fetal homicide laws will establish a precedent that fetuses are human beings, thereby fueling efforts to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Laci Peterson's due date was Feb. 10, and she already had picked out a name -- Connor -- for her unborn son. Stark said that added to the tragedy of the case, but shouldn't result in an additional murder charge.

"He was wanted and expected, and (Laci Peterson) had a name for him, but if he wasn't born, he wasn't born. It sets a kind of precedent," Stark said, adding that the issue was "just something I've been ruminating on."

There is no fetal homicide statute in New Jersey, considered one of the nation's most pro-choice states. Under California law, murder charges can result if the fetus is older than seven weeks.

To convict Peterson of murdering his unborn son, prosecutors would have to prove either that he intended to kill the fetus or knew that it would die as a result of Laci Peterson's death.

"The argument that (fetal homicide statutes) would interfere with abortion rights is ridiculous," Tasy said. "These groups are so radical that they would deny recourse to a family for the loss of a wanted child."

The second murder charge against Peterson is crucial because he otherwise would not be eligible for the death penalty. The double-murder charge qualifies as a "special circumstance" for which capital punishment may be sought.

Prosecutors have not said whether they will seek the death penalty against Peterson, who will be arraigned on Monday. He is being held in the Stanislaus County Jail.

Stark said that despite her opposition to the double-murder charge, she is not sympathetic to Scott Peterson. "I'd like to see them string him up," Stark said, "any way they can."

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Some pro-lifers hope fetal homicide laws will establish a precedent that fetuses are human beings, thereby fueling efforts to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Personally I think this is wrong - there is a genuine debate to be had about abortion, and people should have that debate openly instead of trying to push through pro-life legislation 'by the back-door'.

The second murder charge against Peterson is crucial because he otherwise would not be eligible for the death penalty. The double-murder charge qualifies as a "special circumstance" for which capital punishment may be sought.

This kind of raises the issue of how on earth a person can be pro-life on the issue of abortion, but also pro-death with regard to the death penalty. I can't understand how you can oppose abortion on the grounds that it's murder, but then also support the death penalty which is very clearly murder.

 

[diamond]

"This kind of raises the issue of how on earth a person can be pro-life on the issue of abortion, but also pro-death with regard to the death penalty"

That answer is so EASY.

Connor(unborn baby)=innocent-Pro Life for him
Jeffery Dahmer(guilty)-not innocent-Capital Punishment for guilty.

In other words..Pro Life =let the innocent live.

When is an unborn child guilty of anything?
Why Capital Punishment for innocent life?

diamond

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Diamond,

I think that raises the question of who gets to declare a person "guilty" or "innocent" - who decides for what crimes the death penalty ought to be an option? What happens when an innocent person is executed, which we all know has happened, and will continue to happen as long as the death penalty is used? Then it is the killing of a person who is innocent of the crime they were killed for.

Fizz

 

[diamond]

Diamond,
? What happens when an innocent person is executed,
Fizz

I think there are alot more innocent babies being slaughtered than a few wrongly convicted prisoners.

And if an innocent prisoner is wrongly executed that responsibility of the prisoner's innocent life would fall on the prosecuter.
Its about accountabilty.
Accountability for what we do as a ppl for innocent life, be it innocent prisoners or innocent babies.

DB9

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I think there are alot more innocent babies being slaughtered than a few wrongly convicted prisoners.

That isn't an excuse for it though. You don't excuse something that's bad simply because there are other bad things in the world.

And if an innocent prisoner is wrongly executed that responsibility of the prisoner's innocent life would fall on the prosecuter.
Its about accountabilty.
Accountability for what we do as a ppl for innocent life, be it innocent prisoners or innocent babies.

DB9

So does part of the responsibility for the murder of an innocent person fall on the government which permits the death penalty in the first place? After all, without that, a prosecutor couldn't ever seek the death penalty.

And when you talk about "accountability" - who are you saying people are accountable to? If a person was wrongly executed then the people who passed that sentence on the innocent person should be accountable to who? The person's family? The government of the country? Who?

 

[pax]

Actually, according to Roman Catholic and some other Christian theology, even babies aren't innocent--we all carry original sin into the world, which is why babies are baptized. Don't know how anyone feels about this, but I just thought I should point it out.

 

[diamond]

.

"That isn't an excuse for it though. You don't excuse something that's bad simply because there are other bad things in the world"

im not excusing human error, im saying those who error should be held accountable.
those erroring would be-
muderous criminals
an occassional prosecuter.

Last time I checked babies have never been muderous criminals nor errored and have nothing to be accountable for.
I also do not see Capital Punishment as bad.
I see Abortion as bad as it indiscriminately takes human life unlike Capital Punisment.

"So does part of the responsibility for the murder of an innocent person fall on the government which permits the death penalty in the first place? "

No.
Think about all wrong convictions of every broken law.
Kind of a ludicrus suggestion on your part.

"And when you talk about "accountability" - who are you saying people are accountable to?"

The rule of law.
Its not that difficult of a concept unless you have a problem w/indivual accountablity..

DB9

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

im not excusing human error, im saying those who error should be held accountable.
those erroring would be-
muderous criminals
an occassional prosecuter.

No, but you said that killing innocent people because of the death penalty is bad, but it's not as bad as the number of babies who are killed by abortion. I'm saying they're both bad!

I'm saying that while the death penalty is permitted, innocent people will always be executed, as people are imperfect and do make mistakes, therefore mistakes are made regarding the death penalty and innocent people are murdered. The only way we can insure an innocent person is never murdered because of the death penalty is to stop using the death penalty, which IMO is what should happen.

Last time I checked babies have never been muderous criminals nor errored and have nothing to be accountable for.

Again, who should decide when a person has committed a crime that is worthy of the death penalty? I think most people here would agree that the decision of a Nigerian court to execute Amina Lawal for becoming pregnant outside of marraige was wrong - so whose responsibility is it to decide what a person can be executed for?

I also do not see Capital Punishment as bad.
I see Abortion as bad as it indiscriminately takes human life unlike Capital Punisment.

Well, I'll admit I do see capital punishment as bad. Regardless of whether the person executed is guilty of the crime they're accused of, I still don't believe the state should ever have the right to take a person's life.

No.
Think about all wrong convictions of every broken law.
Kind of a ludicrus suggestion on your part.

Sorry, I think I must have explained myself wrongly here so I'll try and explain it properly. You stated that if a person was executed for a crime they hadn't committed, then the prosecutor who was responsible for them being sentenced to death would be accountable. Right? Well, the only reason that prosecutor is able to seek the death penalty is if the state s/he lives in permits the death penalty - if the state didn't permit the death penalty, that person couldn't have been executed. So if you're going to assign blame to the prosecutor for a person being murdered, then it's also logical to blame the state for making the death penalty an option in the first place.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Actually, according to Roman Catholic and some other Christian theology, even babies aren't innocent--we all carry original sin into the world, which is why babies are baptized. Don't know how anyone feels about this, but I just thought I should point it out.

I was thinking about that too. I guess if a person who believed in that was pro-life then they would also have to be against the death penalty as they couldn't use the "but unborn babies are innocent" argument.

 

[diamond]

Pax and Fizz-
I dont believe in the original sin concept

Db9

Fizzing-

"Sorry, I think I must have explained myself wrongly here so I'll try and explain it properly. You stated that if a person was executed for a crime they hadn't committed, then the prosecutor who was responsible for them being sentenced to death would be accountable. Right? Well, the only reason that prosecutor is able to seek the death penalty is if the state s/he lives in permits the death penalty - if the state didn't permit the death penalty, that person couldn't have been executed"

I was taking your argument a step futhur thats all.
If Capital punishent is a "punishment", all punishments for wrongly convicted crimes would be the burden of the govt, jurors..according to your assertion.
instead of the errant prosecutors-where they belong.
I was pointed out the flawed logic.

"Regardless of whether the person executed is guilty of the crime they're accused of, I still don't believe the state should ever have the right to take a person's life."

I dont believe that State has the right to take innocent life, apparently you do supporting Abortion Rights which takes innocent life, no matter how tou try and repackage it.

"I think most people here would agree that the decision of a Nigerian court to execute Amina Lawal for becoming pregnant outside of marraige was wrong :"


I agree w/that.
Im glad America does not share this archaic way of thinking.

DB9

 

[diamond]

This could be the Anti Capital Punisment's new poster boy

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I dont believe that State has the right to take innocent life, apparently you do supporting Abortion Rights which takes innocent life, no matter how tou try and repackage it.

I don't believe the state has a right to take any life, innocent or otherwise. That said, I'm not really a supporter of "abortion rights" - I used to believe 100% that abortion should be legal and available (with reasonable limits) but I'm not entirely sure anymore. So...put me in the "thinks abortion is wrong but doesn't know how the state should legislate for it" category, rather than the "pro-abortion rights" category.

"I think most people here would agree that the decision of a Nigerian court to execute Amina Lawal for becoming pregnant outside of marraige was wrong :"

I agree w/that.
Im glad America does not share this archaic way of thinking.

Right, but my point was that most people in the US think it's wrong to execute a person for extra-marital sex. However, the people who wrote that law clearly believe it's okay. So who gets to decide? Who gets to say if a person commits a certain crime then they should die for it? Who gets to decide which crimes are worthy of the death penalty and which are not?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

And for the record, the man in the picture should spend the rest of his days in a jail cell. The state has a right to punish people and to protect its citizens but it doesn't have a right to kill people. Putting him in prison will punish him and prevent him hurting anyone else: the state doens't have to kill him to achieve that.

 

[diamond]

And for the record, the man in the picture should spend the rest of his days in a jail cell. The state has a right to punish people and to protect its citizens but it doesn't have a right to kill people. Putting him in prison will punish him and prevent him hurting anyone else: the state doens't have to kill him to achieve that.

Tell you what Fizzing

I will protect life for these human beings

You can fight for this person's right to live.
Peace.

diamond

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

You mean to say a person can't be pro-life with regard to both abortion AND the death penalty?

I just told you, I think abortion is wrong, I'm just not sure what I think about how the state ought to legislate for the issue. (And trust me, I've spent more time than I care to remember trying to make up my mind about this in the last few days.) I'm not pro-abortion!

And again, I think that man is disgusting. I think what he did is unspeakably evil. But what does killing him achieve? It prevents him committing another crime, yes - but so does imprisoning him for the rest of his life. It punishes him - but again, putting him in prison is a punishment. The death penalty has no deterrent effect - there is no difference in the crime rate between states which permit the death penalty and states which don't. What exactly does the death penalty achieve?

 

[Ormus]

Typical pro-lifers and their death penalty.

It's hypocritical, really, but religion isn't exactly known to be either rational or tolerant or consistent at any manner. Save the unborn, kill the prisoner. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...as long as you aren't gay--thus you should be discriminated against and spit-upon. Everyone is equal, just as long as you don't actually expect to be equal to the Christian white heterosexual male--and, if you try, you must be expecting "special rights."

But, overall, if you're expecting some logical pattern to the conservative way of thinking--don't waste your time. It's irrational and selective.

(Brought to you by someone who is pro-life, anti-death penalty, and a supporter of the still-alive Equal Rights Amendment)

Ormus

 

[80sU2isBest]

Diamond,

I think that raises the question of who gets to declare a person "guilty" or "innocent" - who decides for what crimes the death penalty ought to be an option? What happens when an innocent person is executed, which we all know has happened, and will continue to happen as long as the death penalty is used? Then it is the killing of a person who is innocent of the crime they were killed for.
Fizz

I can't believe it - twice in just a few days. I agree again, Fizzing!

i am pro-life and anti-death penalty.

One innocent person executed makes the death penalty wrong in these days, I think. Some people may say it's worth it, if many more guilty people are done away with. But I don't think it's true, and I think if they were the ones that had family members wrongly executed, they'd feel differently.

There's way too much chance these days for innocent people to be wrongly convicted. They may go to jail, but as long as tehy're alive, there is a chance their innocence will be proven, and tehy will be set free.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Typical pro-lifers and their death penalty.

It's hypocritical, really, but religion isn't exactly known to be either rational or tolerant or consistent at any manner. Save the unborn, kill the prisoner. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...as long as you aren't gay--thus you should be discriminated against and spit-upon. Everyone is equal, just as long as you don't actually expect to be equal to the Christian white heterosexual male--and, if you try, you must be expecting "special rights."

But, overall, if you're expecting some logical pattern to the conservative way of thinking--don't waste your time. It's irrational and selective.

(Brought to you by someone who is pro-life, anti-death penalty, and a supporter of the still-alive Equal Rights Amendment)

Ormus

Shame on you, Ormus. Do you know everyone's minds and hearts, so that you can make such generalizing, sweeping statements like that? I should say not.

You are the one being close-minded.

 

[Ormus]

Shame on you, Ormus. Do you know everyone's minds and hearts, so that you can make such generalizing, sweeping statements like that? I should say not.

You are the one being close-minded.

"Sweeping generalizations" is what life is all about. "Sweeping generalizations" is what gets innocent people convicted. "Sweeping generalizations" is what makes homosexuals dangerous to children.

"Sweeping generalizations" is what makes this demented pseudo-moral husk of a world go 'round, and how dare I turn the other cheek? After all, Jesus came with a sword, not peace, as I am told selectively.

Ormus

 

[80sU2isBest]

Your sweeping generalizations are what told you that all conservatives are pro death penalty and hate gays. That's not true at all. How would you like it if I said that all liberals are people who just want to punish the rich man and believe in killing unborn babies? I can't say that, because I know for a fact several people who classify themselves as liberals (many here at the U2 forum!) who are pro-life and don't fit other stereotypes of liberals.

And yes, I believe that war is justified in some cases. Does that make me less compassionate than you somehow, or less intelligent?

Why are you so angry about this? Don't tell me you're not; your anger toward conservatives makes itself clear in bright as day technicolor.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Melon this really isn't anything to do with mass generalizations about homosexuals or conservatives or whatever. By your logic, it would be acceptable for people to make whatever assumption they want about you, which defeats the purpose of what you just said.

Anyhoo, Diamond and Fizzy, thanks for what you've both said so far. You both made really excellent points.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I can't believe it - twice in just a few days. I agree again, Fizzing!

i am pro-life and anti-death penalty.

We have to stop agreeing like this, 80s.

I'm starting to feel like I'm not really a liberal anymore!

 

[melon]

Melon this really isn't anything to do with mass generalizations about homosexuals or conservatives or whatever. By your logic, it would be acceptable for people to make whatever assumption they want about you, which defeats the purpose of what you just said.

I try very hard to challenge existing schools of thought. I think that there are glaring logical errors all around.

Is it acceptable that people make assumptions about me? No. But does that stop them from being made? Equally no. I still stand by the statement that "sweeping generalizations" make the world go 'round, if only because it takes too much effort for us to study all the nuances of the many cultures and subordinate hegemonies.

And, yes, I did go off-path, but how tired I am of right-wing Protestant Christianity being somehow paraded as "true Christianity," no matter how sweepingly generally hypocritical it is. Those who claim to be pro-life and pro-death penalty are as morally bankrupt as it gets.

I'm not just angry at conservatives. I'm angry at ideology all around. Putting people and ideas in convenient little boxes, and any challenge to those boxes are, more often than not, dismissed merely because it is outside of the box.

I'm glad to see that 80sU2isBest is consistent.

Melon

 

[diamond]

iam pro life for the innocent.
i try to be consistntly unpredictable

thank u
db3

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I'm not just angry at conservatives. I'm angry at ideology all around. Putting people and ideas in convenient little boxes, and any challenge to those boxes are, more often than not, dismissed merely because it is outside of the box.

I agree with you, many people seem to assume that if a person has a "liberal" opinion on one issue then they must automatically agree with liberals on all issues. It's like there's a package of political opinions and you have to subscribe to all of them or none of them.

Discussions about abortion make this really obvious for me: I can't believe how angry my "liberal" friends get if I say I'm pro-life. It's as though there are entry qualifications for the liberal club and one of them is to believe abortion should be 100% freely available up until the moment a child is born. If you don't believe that then no matter what you think on other issues, you're always suspicious because you're not really a liberal.

The other one is religion: for some reason, apparently it's incompatible be a "liberal" and believe in religion of any kind. Unless you're willing to condemn all religions as 'nonsense' and those who believe in them as 'stupid' then you're not really a liberal.

I hate those stupid labels: you're either on the "left" or the "right" - you can't possibly mix in ideas from all across the political spectrum. You just have to pick a side and then agree unquestioningly with everything they believe in.

Sorry for taking this post over with yet another of my meaningless rants, it's just something that makes me angry.

 

[melon]

iam pro life for the innocent.

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

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

Huh? Melon is Ormus?

 

[meegannie]

You mean to say a person can't be pro-life with regard to both abortion AND the death penalty?

I just told you, I think abortion is wrong, I'm just not sure what I think about how the state ought to legislate for the issue. (And trust me, I've spent more time than I care to remember trying to make up my mind about this in the last few days.) I'm not pro-abortion!

And again, I think that man is disgusting. I think what he did is unspeakably evil. But what does killing him achieve? It prevents him committing another crime, yes - but so does imprisoning him for the rest of his life. It punishes him - but again, putting him in prison is a punishment. The death penalty has no deterrent effect - there is no difference in the crime rate between states which permit the death penalty and states which don't. What exactly does the death penalty achieve?

to all of this.

I do think, however, that prision sentences should be tougher for violent crimes. I have serious issues with the fact that someone who rapes a child can be out of jail in five years.

 

[melon]

Huh? Melon is Ormus?

I keep on forgetting that people forget that I am Ormus. Maybe it is because I bring him out so infrequently...

I was using another name, b/c I was waiting to write a brilliant post #3000 in "It's Official." Now I am back to melon for a long while; probably until #3999, when I'll want to write a brilliant post #4000.

Melon