Does Laci Peterson's baby count?

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by pinkyphimu
i am sure that there are some other causes they could be taking up......like lobbying the health care companies to decrease the costs for birth control. i bet you could save a lot of babies from being aborted if birth control didn't cost $25 or more per month!

Obviously, you aren't familiar with the platforms of groups like PP and the Center for Reproductive Rights. Right up there with preserving Roe v. Wade is lowering contraceptive costs and having more insurance companies cover them on a larger scale. It would behoove you to do some research before making a statement like that.

But, yes...at 32 weeks the baby is viable. But, like I said earlier, until we can pinpoint the cause of both maternal and fetal death, it might be hard to judge this one. If she drowned while pregnant, I'd feel a lot differently than if she was vivisected and the baby removed from her womb.

[aephi alum]

It should be a double homicide. Laci was visibly pregnant and almost certainly wanted the baby.

I can sort of see why some pro-choice orgs oppose the concept that destroying a fetus is murder even if the baby was wanted. Saying "destroying a fetus is wrong except for abortions" is pretty close to "destroying a fetus is wrong including abortions."

But as long as you have that exception for abortion, I'm ok with it. I am pro-choice (with qualifications; you should have a legitimate reason for seeking abortion, not "I'm pregnant with a boy and I want a girl"). But if a woman is pregnant and wanted the baby, and the fetus is deliberately destroyed, it's murder in my book.

(I hope this makes sense; I haven't had my morning coffee yet...)

honeychile, I'm so sorry to hear about what happened to you.

[White_Chocolate]

this is all baffling to me. . .

[AlphaGamDiva]

just gonna re-state what others have already said just to put my sought-after .02 in.......

double homicide, no doubt. 8 months along, she wanted this baby, whoever killed her (just b/c i'm all about some innocent until proven guilty...even though, well.....) could SO tell she was pregnant. whether this baby was born before or after laci died is irrelevant in deciding if his death was also murder.......hello? mom is murdered with baby inside, baby will die, too. is this a hard concept? i don't think so.....whoever killed her wanted to get rid of her......all of her....including her baby growing inside. 2 innocent lives were taken, and the murderer should be charged for both deaths. period. not understanding why some pro-choicers are taking their stance so far. partial birth abortions are not legal.....after so long, you can't have one. i'm pretty sure 8 months along is past that point. am i wrong in that????

[James]

As Mmunchkin03 was pointing out it comes down both to the definiton of when fetus becomes a person (therefore murderable) and the way laws can be applied.

I think pro-choicers want to avoid being backed into a corner in the future.

Imagine a time where fetuses are univerally recognized as people and therefore laws such as murder and manslaughter apply to all fetuse EXCEPT in the case of abortion.

Especially when abortion is an issue that comes up for periodic review.

ITs a half step towards declaring abortion ilegal.

I can see the legal argument now: "So what you are saying Mr. Pro-choicer, is that in every case where a fetus dies by another's hand its murder or manslaughter. When its planned its premeditated murder. But when the mother does it, its all good.

We put person in jail for 20 years for causing the death of a fetus but the mom can kill her fetuses all day? Is that what you are telling us?



LOL

[madmax]

Originally posted by bethany1982
James,

CA Penal Code, Section 187, simply defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

AF

Friends may come and go but sisters are FOREVER.

The law in California is a result of a 1969 case.

A guy and his girlfriend broke up. The girlfriend started dating another man and she eventually got pregnant. During the pregnancy the ex boyfriend saw her and was furious that she was pregnant. He beat the crap out of her and intentionally hit her in the area of the baby. The baby died but the man was found not guilty because the baby had not yet been born. The CA. law was changed because of this case.

[Eirene_DGP]

Originally posted by pinkyphimu
i am sure that there are some other causes they could be taking up......like lobbying the health care companies to decrease the costs for birth control. i bet you could save a lot of babies from being aborted if birth control didn't cost $25 or more per month!

I have heard this argument before...BUT there are alternatives. If the cost of the birth control were really the issue here, the women complaining about the cost of birth control should look into planned parenthood or go to the clinic if money was REALLY a factor...

As far as whether or not Peterson should be tried for double homicide...He knew his wife was pregnant and obviously if he killed her, his child would have no chance without the proper care, hospitilization etc.

[LXAAlum]

Originally posted by James
At what month do you know? Like if it were three months would it be murder?

This reminds me of the ONLY sex ed I received from my mother:

Rule #1: If you're man enough to make it, you're man enough to raise it.

Rule #2: Conception begins at the moment the first article of clothing is removed.

Rule #3: Confused? See Rule #1.

[xok85xo]

Originally posted by James
As Mmunchkin03 was pointing out it comes down both to the definiton of when fetus becomes a person (therefore murderable) and the way laws can be applied.

I think pro-choicers want to avoid being backed into a corner in the future.

Imagine a time where fetuses are univerally recognized as people and therefore laws such as murder and manslaughter apply to all fetuse EXCEPT in the case of abortion.

Especially when abortion is an issue that comes up for periodic review.

ITs a half step towards declaring abortion ilegal.

I can see the legal argument now: "So what you are saying Mr. Pro-choicer, is that in every case where a fetus dies by another's hand its murder or manslaughter. When its planned its premeditated murder. But when the mother does it, its all good.

We put person in jail for 20 years for causing the death of a fetus but the mom can kill her fetuses all day? Is that what you are telling us?

uhm, as far as I know third trimester abortions are still illegal unless the mother's life is in danger.. abortions are not performed any time after the fetus could feasibly survive outside the womb.

there is a huge difference between killing a woman who is visibly pregnant and the fetus is far enough along in gestation to survive outside the womb and aborting what could not sustain outside the uterus.

i am pro-choice..but i do see the murder of connor peterson as that, murder. perhaps if "whoever" killed her had done so in the first month or two of pregnancy, i would not consider the fetus murdered, but thats not the case. its pretty obvious that the murderer's intent was to kill not only laci, but the baby as well.

[James]

The specifics of the Peterson case is not really the point of the Pro-Choicers . . . maybe we are doing a bad job explaining this.

Pro-Choicers are worried that any definition of fetus that allows them to be murdered could cause complications down the road for the legality of abortion.

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by xok85xo
uhm, as far as I know third trimester abortions are still illegal unless the mother's life is in danger.. abortions are not performed any time after the fetus could feasibly survive outside the womb.

Actually they're not, although most doctors will not perform one so late in the game unless there is danger to the mother's life or health.

The specifics of the Peterson case impact how I personally feel about it, but I am very wary of sweeping new legislation that could open the door for the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

The availability of birth control and contraceptives, like Eirene_DGP said, will not lower the incidence or need for abortion. Dude, nothing is 100% effective.

[texas*princess]

According to the Associated Press:

California law permits a murder charge for a fetus if a pregant woman is slain, even if the fetus is not viable (quoted from Hallye Jordan, spokeswoman for the state attorney general)

[LeslieAGD]

Originally posted by James
But everyone does understand why the pro-choice people are concerned?

No, honestly, I don't. The fetus/baby was 8 months along...it'd be a different story if it were around 3 months.

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by LeslieAGD
No, honestly, I don't. The fetus/baby was 8 months along...it'd be a different story if it were around 3 months.

This is why (many, I won't speak for all) pro-choicers are concerned: Roe v. Wade is in a perilous position. It will probably never be repealed in actuality, but there will be more and more assaults on it until the letter of the law has so many stipulations, that it means nothing. There is a considerable amount of concern that such a high-profile case will trigger a lot of people to call for a law that considers ALL fetal deaths of unnatural causes murder. This knee-jerk reaction could lead to a serious assault on the 1973 decision--which is what makes us worry. Add to the fact that we have an anti-choice President and Congress, and it's not hard to see why we're fighting mad about anything that could weaken the law. Some of the laws similar to this are so vague that some states and legislators can use them to outlaw abortion.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

I think that Lacy's pregnancy with Conner was the motive for their murder. She's pregnant, he's cheating, she finds out and is leaving. He can't afford or doesn't want to pay child support for the next 18 years so he, well you know the rest. I think that it was a double homicide. I can understand the concern of the pro-choice advocates. I think that they ought to be more concerned about a society where a man thinks that he can get away with the murder of his pregnant wife, a society where women are disposable and expendable. This whole situation is so horrible and sad. This should have been the most joyful time of Lacy Peterson's life, and it went so terribly wrong.