For those who are thinking about Roe v. Wade, and a woman's right to choose:

Don't you think that Laci Peterson would have chosen to let her son Connor live?

A woman who is 8 months pregnant thinks first about her child - she probably begged for the life of Connor, just as Sharon Tate begged for the life of her son. I just don't see any way that this particular case can be ruled as anything BUT a double homicide. Whoever killed Laci knew that she was pregnant. Whoever killed Laci killed Connor.

Cream, your post above says it all, so eloquently.

honeychile

Amen!

Thanks :)

actually, i am familiar with these groups and their positions. what i am trying to get across is that there plenty of other ways to promote a women's right to choose rather than opposing a murder conviction for an unborn baby. i am not saying that you have to agree with me, but honestly, with a huge lobby like that there are plenty of good things for them to do! looking at murder from a legal point of view involves malice. abortion does not. if the pope can even understand that difference, then i hope other people could too! this is sort of like the legal defination of insane. personally, i think anyone who kills another human being is insane. unfortunately, the legal defination is much different! i pay $25 dollars per month for my birth control. my other friends pay $30. i got off "cheap." i have health insurance and so do my friends...we would never qualify for reduced rates from planned parenthood. actually, i once got pills from them and it cost me $60, so i think i will stick with cvs! yep, these groups have helped to get more insurance cos to pay for bc, but now most insurances have a tier method. when reviewing my new health plan in sept, there was not ONE birth control pill on the tiers less than $25. my last insurance plan had all of the birth control meds on the second tier ($15) until last spring which all of the bc pills jumped up to $20 on tier 3. i guess my point is that they are obviously not doing that great of a job at lobbying for a decrease in cost!

Sorry, this is a gross answer to an earlier question...
 

I was listening to the radio yesterday morning and they were talking to a forensics expert, who said that when someone dies, the bacteria in his or her body builds up gases that are eventually released. In this case, the gases that built up helped to eventually expel the baby. That's why the baby's body is in much better shape than Laci's body (her body was exposed to the elements much longer than the baby's body was). The forensics expert also said that her head and legs weren't necessarily cut off, but that they could have had weights tied to them to keep her down, and the ropes that tied the weights down could have sliced through her neck and legs.

Re: Sorry, this is a gross answer to an earlier question...
 

Pleasant let me grab lunch now . . .

Re: Re: Sorry, this is a gross answer to an earlier question...
 

Sorry, I tried to warn ya!

I personally think they've done a wonderful job. I know that I have haggled with my insurance company for a few months about increasing coverage, and lo and behold, it was done! I believe that a big influence on MAJOR insurance companies (BCBS/Aetna/etc) to cover BC for nonmedical reasons has been because of groups like PP, not to mention major lawsuits. I'm not saying they're perfect. But for good insurance carriers, they've done a damned good job.

---------

Back to the topic at hand:
If the forensic pathologist's suggestion that her body expelled the fetus holds true, like in the same way the body expels or liquefies its own organs, then the circumstances regarding cause of death for the baby would be different from the cause of death of Sharon Tate's baby. So, someone doesn't have to "help" the fetus out of the womb in order for it to be expelled from the body. After three months of decomposition, especially underwater, no help was needed.

I imagine that he will be charged for a double murder, which, depending on the circumstances of death, may be an accurate charge. I am very concerned, however, about the ramifications of such a charge, and what the extreme pro-life faction could do with such a conviction.

I am very concerned about Roe v. Wade as well but I don't think the California pro-life faction will do anything. This law is a result of the 1969 case mentioned by madmax (was added to the statute in 1970) and SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES abortion.

I copied the text of CA Penal Code Section 187:
It is important to note that viability is NO LONGER an element of fetal homicide in California. In the case of People v. Davis (1994) 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 50, 7 Cal.4th 797, 872 P.2d 591, the court stated, "'Viable' fetus, under prior California case law required a showing of viability as prerequisite to convicting defendant of fetal murder, is fetus which has attained such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of living outside the uterus. Viability is not an element of crime of fetal homicide; third-party killing of fetus with malice aforethought is "murder" under statute, as long as state can show that fetus has progressed beyond embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks." People v. Davis (1994) 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 50, 7 Cal.4th 797, 872 P.2d 591.