Thread: Scott Peterson - Guilty

Or you could explain yourself. Otherwise it just seems like you are taking the easy way out. At least I admit when I am wrong, or at least not making any sense (which right now, you aren't).

edit:
Do you feel no compassion for the family that lost a daughter and a grandchild? Sometimes the intellectual stance isn't the appropriate one buddy, and I'm usually on the 'left' side of things, but come on, give me a break.

I admit that I am not making sense... too many exams, too little time.

I personally feel that while a fetus is in the woman's body, an individual should not be held liable for murder if actions inflicted on the mother have mortal repercussions on the fetus. The individual should however be responsible financially for any emotional trauma that is imparted on the mother due to the miscarriage(i.e. civil suit).

EDIT: I do feel pretty sad for the family, I just don't think that the justice system should have such a shoddy(really up to interpretation whether the individual was going against the woman's choice) law.

Okay, that was very clear, very concise, and made sense

Originally Posted by EvBladeRunnervE

I personally feel that while a fetus is in the woman's body, an individual should not be held liable for murder if actions inflicted on the mother have mortal repercussions on the fetus. The individual should however be responsible financially for any emotional trauma that is imparted on the mother due to the miscarriage(i.e. civil suit).

That's one of the dumber things I've read on here in awhile. The person's not responsible as long as they pay for it?

Because the fetus is just a collection of cells, it is no more wrong than if I cut of someone's finger. if you did the previous you would be charged with assault(like one would for beating a woman), and probably be sued for the loss of dexterity/finances incurred by the finger being cut off.

of course that is presuming you agree that a fetus is just a jumble of cells.

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

That's one of the dumber things I've read on here in awhile. The person's not responsible as long as they pay for it?

He's saying the person is responsible, but being charged with murder is too harsh. It would have been more appropriate if he said that the person should be charged with a lesser crime, instead of going to civil court.

> How do you think prohibition ended? Or was that unconstitutional?

Prohibition was an amendment to the US Constitution, and had to be repealed by another amendment.

> Because ...

That's pretty poor reasoning.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever been charged with murder of a fetus that was within abortion limits? I kind of see your point Blade but ONLY IF the baby is still within the legal age to abort. If the baby is older than this, then I don't see how it would set any kind of precedence considering in both cases (abortion and being beaten/killed) the law would view it as murder of a child.

When I say I kind of see his point, I believe the person should certainly be punished, just not tried for MURDER if the mother was still allowed to abort.

You are right govtcheez, it was poor reasoning.

this any better?

I am going to remove anything besides stuff that is directly influencing the fetus. So instead of a man beating a woman let us presume a person is a really wierd sicko and actually performs an abortion on a woman against her will, and let's presume he can't get charged with murder or assault for harming the fetus, he still has the following against him:

1) rape with a foreign body. AFAIK penetration of any of the three major orifices with any object against a woman's will, even if it is not for sexual gratification, counts as rape -- felony.

2) assault with a deadly weapon(scalpel). If he is not trained and/or doing it in a sterile environment, He is endangering the woman's by performing an abortion. Even if he is doing it with the required skills and setting, cutting someone counts as assault, and he is cutting the bundle of cells which IS a part of the woman's body. -- felony

why even provide an endangerment to abortion rights when this guy is already going to be going to prison, and he didn't murder anyone.

"Sorry ma'm, we know you loved and wanted your baby, but your husban killed something when abortion was still illegal. We dont care if it was your choice or not, its not murder. Have some crackers."

Well, maybe there should be an exception if the fetus was at the age where it could live outside the womb. Thank you for pointing out that case .