|Scott Peterson. <i>Double</i> Murderer?||czardonic|
Apr 24, 2003 6:09 PM
|From what I hear from the liberal media, there is some confusion amongst pro-choice activists over the issue of whether murderers of pregnant women should also be charged with murdering the child she is carrying. This is a no-brainer for those who consider abortion murder as well. But it is a real noodle-scratcher for those who want to preserve a woman's freedom to end an unwanted pregnancy but also punish others who end it against the woman's will.
I am pro-choice. I abhor abortion, but I also abhor the idea of bringing unwanted children into the world. Especially a world where they are increasingly subject to the punitive whims of those who often champion their rights while they are in the womb and then leave them poor, hungry and in the hands of unwilling mothers once they are out.
One "pro-choice" solution to the double-murder conundrum would be to add additional penalties without calling it murder. However, this is just a stop-gap measure against a tide of political reality that will force pro-choicers to choose between supporting freedom of choice and supporting measures that protect women who choose not to end their pregnancy.
The solution? Stop letting the champions of the Miracle of Life off the hook. If these children are so precious to them, they won't mind pitching in to raise and support them. Sure, it isn't fair and it isn't cheap. But is it fair to punish these children for the mistakes of their parents? And aren't these children worth the expense?
So let Roe v. Wade be overturned. Like it or not, any State that bans abortion will be stuck supporting a lot more unplanned children. Of course, being so adamant in their desire to welcome these children into the world, those who voted to spare them will be delighted to support them.
If pro-choicers can come to terms with reality, than so can pro-lifers. If you are against sex-education and you are against abortion, then you must be champing at the bit for a few more mouths to feed. Right?
|I don't see the conundrum||purplepaul|
Apr 24, 2003 6:28 PM
|Keep abortion legal but make it a crime to kill a fetus without the mother's consent.|
|Based on what principle? Vandalism?||czardonic|
Apr 24, 2003 6:35 PM
|The conundrum is why the law should protect a fetus (not just from crime but for benefits, etc.) except from the mother. It also extends to laws that seek to charge women for harming their unborn children by means other than abortion. There is a hypocracy there that I beleive will ultimately undermine the pro-life position completely.
|No, violation of a woman's body||purplepaul|
Apr 24, 2003 6:58 PM
|If a woman can sue her doctor because he tattooed his school's initials in her uterus during removal, certainly there must be some protection afforded to killing a form of human life existing within and dependent upon her. However, I am aware of no laws that restrict what an expectant mother does or does not do to/for the fetus. She could consume large amounts of alcohol, not seek medical care, go to karate class. But if someone spiked her drink, restricted her from seeking medical care or kicked her in the stomach, the law would be violated.|
|And what if she is dead?||czardonic|
Apr 25, 2003 10:13 AM
|She isn't using her body any more. No harm no foul then?
There are indeed "fetal harm laws" that have been introduced to punish women who's drug use harms their unborn children.
|"fetal harm laws"||purplepaul|
Apr 25, 2003 11:16 AM
|If that is the case, then I would expect them to be of much greater concern than the Laci case as the state (I'm assuming these are state laws) has invaded the woman's privacy to force her to treat her body a certain way. Seems like the die has been cast.|
|Which is the point I was making in the first place.||czardonic|
Apr 25, 2003 11:33 AM
|I wasn't talking about pro-choice absolutists who believe that soverignty over a woman's body trumps all. I'm talking about those of use who care about a woman's right to choose, but also in protecting fetuses are are brought to term.|
|I'm having a harder time defending my views on abortion||purplepaul|
Apr 25, 2003 11:50 AM
|because I want the mother to have ultimate say over her body but the current protection forces me to declare the fetus as just another part of the woman, like a pancreas. I think a better form of protection would allow for the fetus to be treated as a separate human life, but still give full control to the mother as long as the fetus is in her body. Don't know if that's possible under any law.|
|An interesting point...||TJeanloz|
Apr 25, 2003 12:04 PM
|I'm really not sure what I think about this, but: if the fetus is part of the woman's body, could it also be construed, at least partly, as part of the father's body? Half of the genetics in the fetus came from an outside source, doesn't the source get any credit for his hard work?
Like I said, I don't know the answer, but it seems unreasonable to give ALL the rights to the mother - it does take two to tango.
|FWIW, I would say no.||czardonic|
Apr 25, 2003 12:42 PM
|Half of the father's genes came from his father. Does that give the grandfather a stake in the fetus?
I think the mothers primacy stems from her role in gestation, not conception.
|Then, of course,||purplepaul|
Apr 25, 2003 4:51 PM
|if the mother has the sole say in what happens to the fetus, I can't see compelling the father to support it if he doesn't want it. That would force all of the responsibility onto the woman, which hardly seems fair in practice. But it sure doesn't seem fair to allow the father no rights except to pay.|
|It depends of what your definition of "Double" is. (nm)||Bruno S|
Apr 24, 2003 9:33 PM
Apr 25, 2003 5:05 AM
|There is a line many miles long to adopt babies....society is stepping up and saying they will take care of the unwanted babies....|
|Even NOW Back-pedaled on that issue||Alpedhuez55|
Apr 25, 2003 5:45 AM
|NOW National Organization of Women) at first came out and said that they should not charge Peterson with Double Murder then backed off the position pretty quickly. Even their pro life supporeters were up in arms over that.
Most people are able to distinguish between voluntary abortion and a crime like murder. You will always have the small minority of extremists on both sides of the issue who will see all abortion as murder or think this case could be used to limit abortions.
I know someone who was convicted of a double murder for killing his pregnant wife. I have no problem with that. If they want to call the crime something else other than murder they can do that as well. THe penalty should be a stiff one though.
|I don't see the shade of grey...||TJeanloz|
Apr 25, 2003 6:13 AM
|In general terms, I would consider myself 100% pro-choice. The line to be drawn, in my [albeit flawed] mind, is whether the fetus is viable outside the womb. Definitions of viability are tough, but I would argue that there should be some time-based (like after the 7th month) guideline, after which, a fetus is considered viable. Having an abortion at 8.99 months, however pro-choice I am, seems like murder to me. Having an abortion at .01 months seems like the mothers' perogative.|
|I wish I didn't.||czardonic|
Apr 25, 2003 10:17 AM
|I really would like to make it 100% a woman's perogative over if she carries a child to term. But there seems to be (to me) a lot of grey between .01 months and 8.99 months.|
|abortion is a tough one||ColnagoFE|
Apr 25, 2003 2:23 PM
|even if you take the religious issues/agendas out of it (as i do) it seems a bit slimy to say that life only begins when it is viable outside of the womb. Once the sperm and egg unite you are on your way to creating a new being and, assuming it doesn't spontaneously abort, it requires deliberate human intervention to stop the process. that being said (sorry couldn't resist that phrase) i am 100% pro-choice. it's a very tough decision to make for the woman AND the man involved. i've personally been in that situation and there is no way you will realize the emotions that go through if this happens to you (long story which i won't go into now). definately shades of grey to me. not at all black and white, but the alternative of making them illegal and thus creating a black market for abortions is so unattractive i hope it never happens.|
|Good points to think about||Funston|
Apr 25, 2003 10:32 AM
|I think you're on to something. How can you murder somebody you've never seen; much less somebody never even born; nevertheless there is argument for considering additional penalties short of murder for death of a fetus as a result of the murder of the mother.
This Peterson case is touchy as it is. To get murder to stick without proper evidence will be tough. I'd say the prosecution will have to play up the anti-Scott emotions that exist, and hope that defense can't successfully defuse pro-Laci sentiment.
|Dude, you drinkin' tonight?||Sintesi|
Apr 25, 2003 7:18 PM
|You seem a little excited and off your normal writing style. Not that your style is "good" or anything. As a matter of fact, keep up this trend by all means.
If the child could conceivably live outside the womb then it is (or should be) murder. Younger fetuses do not enjoy these rights. Isn't that the Solomon descision the Supreme Court made? Don't want to make the cut yourself? Then debate a reasonable crossover line and vote on it in a case by case basis utilizing a jury of some sort. No conundrum save in the wish-list world of either side in the extremis.