Scott Peterson convicted

[Matata]

on two murder counts: 1st degree for the death of his wife; 2nd degree for the baby.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

fantastic news, I am glad the law finally recognises that the pre-meditated murder of an un-born child is murder

 

[strmrdr]

as expected.
The media had him convicted before the trial started.
Im not saying he didnt do it but the question is was it a fair trial?
Nope it wasnt in my opinion it was a joke and a joke with a man''s life at stake....

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/12/2004 9:46:24 PM
Author: Feydakin

It's only murder if a man does it.

Steve

Yeah...a first trimester abortion on your own body is the same as killing your 9 months pregnant wife. I told you before: A collection of cells at 6 weeks is not-IN MY OPINION-a person!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's people like you who make me sorry as hell to see that killing an unborn baby be added to the crime of killing a pregnant woman. You just can't keep your hands off the bodies of other people. Everyone has to live *your* way.

I said this to you before: liberals aren't forcing anyone to have an abortion, but conservatives like you want to force women NOT to have them. Then you say WE are forcing morality on YOU?

Keep your hands off women's bodies...unless they give you permission to touch them!

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

Keep your hands off women's bodies...unless they give you permission to touch them!

it is quite simple, if women don't want a child, they should not give any guy "permission to touch them"

the only time abortion should be legal is cases of rape and incest, where there is no consent, and instances where the life of the mother is in danger

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

I said this to you before: liberals aren''t forcing anyone to have an abortion, but conservatives like you want to force women NOT to have them. Then you say WE are forcing morality on YOU?

using your ''logic'' we should make theft legal, afterall I am not forcing you to steal, am I?

 

[sxn675]

Actually, I don''t see why Scott wouldn''t have had a fair trial. The jurors who were dismissed seemed to be leaning towards the not guilty mark. I am pleased with the verdict and hope that it gives Laci''s family some closure.

 

[ClownFishFunk]

Date: 11/13/2004 12:29:10 PM
Author: diamondgeezer

Keep your hands off women's bodies...unless they give you permission to touch them!

it is quite simple, if women don't want a child, they should not give any guy 'permission to touch them'

So are you saying a woman should be forced to abstain from sex if she doesn't want a child?

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

yes. if you are not willing to raise a child, you should not be having sex, (it is hardly rocket science...)

the problem is that most guys want sex without strings, (and somehow have convinced women that this is ''freedom'') but they don''t want to deal with the consequences.

the problem with the abortion debate is that it focuses solely on women, when as we all know, it takes two to tango. men who father children then leave should be tracked down and forced to pay child-support.

 

[mightyred]

Diamondgeezer:

"fantastic news, I am glad the law finally recognises that the pre-meditated murder of an un-born child is murder"

FYI She was in her third trimester so she could not have aborted him at that point, unless her health was in serious danger. In this case, Peterson terminating the pregnancy was against the mothers will. There is a distinction made between abortion and fetal homicide.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

feydakin - you seriously needed your wife''s permission to have a vasectomy???

mighty - I was just making a point

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

so let me get this straight... a 12 year old girl could get an abortion without her parents knowledge, but you need a note from your wife to have the snip...

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/13/2004 3:58:20 PM
Author: diamondgeezer

yes. if you are not willing to raise a child, you should not be having sex, (it is hardly rocket science...)

Ok, so you feel married people who do not want to conceive should not be able to have intercourse and use birth control. I believe that is the *traditional* Catholic position. I am not Catholic .

(That reminds me of the Monty Python movie in which a Protestant man explains to his wife that since he is not a Catholic he can have sex any time he wants and that, moreover, he can wear anything he likes on his John Thomas...that he could even wear a French tickler if he so chose!)

Deborah

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

I didn't say people should not be allowed to use birth control, but as it is not 100% fool-proof, there is still some chance that a child may be conceived despite their best efforts. so, yes, if people are having sex, they should take whatever precautions that they wish, but should accept that they have to be prepared to have and raise the child

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/13/2004 8:27:55 PM
Author: diamondgeezer

I didn't say people should not be allowed to use birth control, but ... it is not 100% fool-proof

Sez you!!! In the early years of our marriage we never missed using two kinds of birth control at once: a diagphragm with spermicidal gel *and* a condom. I was quite annoyed to find a few years later that we had gone through all that when we were apparently infertile!

On the other hand, after we adopted our daughter (I was then 41) and I told my gynecologist we were no longer using birth control, he warned me that there was no reason I could not get pregnant. At that point I would have welcomed a second child, so I took my chances!

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

in my opinion, consenual sex is a binding contract with any child that may result from it, and therefore abortion should be outlawed. the only exceptions to this would be incest and rape (as they are not consensual there is no legally binding contract) and instances where the life of the mother is in danger, as the life of the mother must take priority.

however, prior to Roe vs Wade, the decision was left upto the individual states, if it is about ''choice'' why not let conservative states prevent the procedure and let liberal states like california use taxpayers money to fund it, if that is what they want to do?

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/13/2004 9:20:26 PM
Author: diamondgeezer

in my opinion, consenual sex is a binding contract with any child that may result from it, and therefore abortion should be outlawed. the only exceptions to this would be incest and rape (as they are not consensual there is no legally binding contract) and instances where the life of the mother is in danger, as the life of the mother must take priority.

You stated that this is your opinion. I cannot argue with the opinion of someone else. You have a perfect right to your beliefs, and I do not mean that to be condescending. I mean that because what you are stating are beliefs, I cannot argue with you. All I can say is that my beliefs are different.

Deborah

 

[ClownFishFunk]

Date: 11/13/2004 3:58:20 PM
Author: diamondgeezer

yes. if you are not willing to raise a child, you should not be having sex, (it is hardly rocket science...)

So if you have a married couple that does not want children, then they can never have sex? What about having sex for enjoyment and intimacy?

And just because you dont wish to have a child does not mean you are being irresponsible - there are many cases of when someone was on birth control or using some form of protection and they still got pregnant.

This being your opinion, you are entitled to it, however *your opinion* should not directly affect my or anyone else''s life, and wanting to outlaw abortion DOES do so. If you disagree with it, then having no law against it does not interfere with your or anyone else''s life.

Sorry, but this topic just really pushes my buttons.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

So if you have a married couple that does not want children, then they can never have sex? What about having sex for enjoyment and intimacy?

they can have sex for enjoyment and intimacy, if they do not want children they have many options, from birth contorl to sterilisation. however, if they do become pregnant against the odds, then they should accept the responsibility and raise the child.

And just because you dont wish to have a child does not mean you are being irresponsible - there are many cases of when someone was on birth control or using some form of protection and they still got pregnant.

I am not saying they are irresponsibile for getting pregnant, but they just have to accept that accidents sometimes happen and when they do, that you are expected to accept the responsibility for them.

*your opinion* should not directly affect my or anyone else''s life, and wanting to outlaw abortion DOES do so.

some people want to raise taxes, directly affecting my or anyone else''s life, taking more money out of our paycheck

some people want to cut taxes, directly affecting my or anyone else''s life, cutting money spent on public services

some people want to restrict gun rights, directly affecting my or anyone else''s life, preventing self defence

some people want to eliminate all gun controls, directly affecting my or anyone else''s life, increasing the number of guns on our streets

some people want to go to war with Iraq, directly affecting my or anyone else''s life, spending our money and risking the lives of servicemen

some people did not want to go to war with Iraq, directly affecting my or anyone else''s life, by leaving Saddam in power to flout the will of the international community and possibly sell WMD to terrorists (he was still pursuing them even though there were no stockpiles)

some people want to have sex-ed in schools, directly affecting my or anyone else''s life to raise their kids how they see fit

some people don''t want sex-ed in schools, directly affecting my or anyone else''s life cos these kids will do it anyway and end up on welfare

some people want to expand welfare, directly affecting my or anyone else''s life, taking taxpayers money to pay for it

some people want to end welfare, directly affecting my or anyone else''s life, depriving people of their only means of survival

some people want unlimited immigration, directly affecting my or anyone else''s life, changing the nature of our community

some people want affirmative action, directly affecting my or anyone else''s life, preventing whites, asians or jews getting jobs they are qualified for

some people don''t want affirmative action, directly affecting my or anyone else''s life by keeping blacks and hispanics out of top jobs

some people want to keep religion out of the classrom, directly affecting my or anyone else''s life by freeing students from the shackles of religious bigotry

some people want to keep religion in the classroom, directly affecting my or anyone else''s life, giving kids a religious eduction

I think I made my point, most decisions in a democratic society do affect everyone and they are always based on opinions.

If you disagree with it, then having no law against it does not interfere with your or anyone else''s life.

this argument is utterly disingenuous,

1. I think that it interferes with the life of the child.

2. I think that it defines the nature of the society in which we live, slavery may not have affected my life personally, but I would not want to live in a society that could tolerate such inhuman treatment of people based on the colour of their skin

3. having no law against consensual incestuous relationships does not interfere with mine or anyone elses life, but society says it is wrong and they are illegal. prostitution has no direct effect on anyones life, but it remains illegal in most places. narcotics have no direct effect on anyone but the user, but they remain illegal in most places, gambling has no direct effect on anyones life but the mug who wants to throw away the families'' life saving, but that should remain highly regulated.

4. the only legitimate, defendable argument in favour of legalised abortion is that it enables people to have sex without thinking about the consequences. now, it is my personal opinion that this is not a valid argument, because I don''t think we should value the convenience of two horny people, over the life of a child.

just out of interest, do you oppose the death penalty for murderers and rapists? sorry, cheap shot.

 

[AGBF]

diamondgeezer,

You may not give a hoot about my opinion, but I do. I am always impressed when someone impresses me. I think it takes a lot to impress me, actually. I totally disagree with your basic belief that a couple has any contract with an "unborn child", but given that that is your belief you have been entirely logical (brilliantly logical); concise; and thorough. Everything you argued is correct. If one holds the moral position that you do, what you feel should come next are the only natural consequences. I do not know where you obtained your skill in writing (and critical thinking), but it is substantial.

Deborah

PS-I do not believe in the death penalty for anyone.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

thankyou deborah, and whilst things remain good natured, I recommend we respectfully agree to disagree.

I believe that rapists can NEVER be allowed back into society again, under any circumstances. they have forfeited those rights.

as for the death penalty, I really would like to be against it and I have nothing but respect for someone who has the moral character to oppose it.

"You will not exact vengeance on, or bear any sort of grudge against, the members of your race[children of your people], but will love you neighbour as yourself. I am Yaweh" Leviticus 19:18 (New Jerusalem Bible)

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/14/2004 5:45:25 PM
Author: diamondgeezer

thankyou deborah, and whilst things remain good natured, I recommend we respectfully agree to disagree.

Er...agreed!

 

[ClownFishFunk]

If you disagree with it, then having no law against it does not interfere with your or anyone else's life.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, when I say this I do not mean simply what kind of taxes we have, etc., of course everyone has their own opinion and their own way they wish to live, but the actual effects of what can or cant happen to someone's own body. It is utterly horrifying to think that control of my body can be taken out of my hands. Have you ever read the book The Handmaid's Tale? It is one of my favorites, and though it portrays a horrible dystopian world that is far worse than our actual society, the topic of anti-abortion really sets me off because I refuse to be a baby making machine. Perhaps that sounds harsh and unrealistic, but it wouldn't take much more after an anti-abortion law to come close to such a society. I know it wouldn't be imminent and (hopefully) not in my lifetime, but I wouldn't want it to be in my childrens or their childrens lifetime either. Of course, if you havent read the book, you'll have no idea what I am talking about.

But anyway, I am tired of arguing about it. So I'll agree to disagree.

 

[mightyred]

Diamondgeezer: as for the death penalty, I really would like to be against it and I have nothing but respect for someone who has the moral character to oppose it.

So are you for the death penalty or against it?

 

[EdSkinner]

From what I have read about the trial is that most of the prosucution was circumstancial evedence. With this in mind I do not think he should get the death penalty I feel he should not have been tried for the fetus. If life begins at birth, why don''t we have funerals for miscarrages?

 

[psuheather]

For those who believe that abortion should be restricted to those who have been victims of rape or incest or in situations in which the pregnancy poses risk to the life of mother...I am curious to know how you would suggest that this be enforced? Would we force the pregnant woman to undergo a trial in which she bears the burden of proving that she was actually the victim of rape or incest? Does the rapist have to come forward and admit that, yes, this pregnancy was a result of his rape? Does a child have to convince the father that raped her to come forward in order to terminate the preganacy? This argument is completely unenforcable and therefore, in my opinion, null and void.

I would also like to know why it is up to you to decide which situations are acceptable for abortions and which are not. It would be nice if it were that black and white, but unfortunately, as with most situations in this world, there is a great deal of gray. I know a woman who was married, had four children and decided that she was finished bearing children. She underwent sterilization surgery and, after the surgery, often made love to her husband (as sex, fortunately, can be a wonderfully intimate and connecting experience and does not simply carry the sole benefit of procreation.) She discovered a year after her surgery that it had failed and she was pregnant. At this time she was 42...carrying the fetus to term was not necessarily a risk to her life or her health, although it did pose some complications that a younger pregnant woman would not have faced. As well, let''s not forget that she has four children and a successful career. She did everything "right" (I say this because she followed all of the rules that the pro-lifers seemed to lay out in terms of the "correct" route of action that needs to be taken in order to ensure that pregnancy does not occur.) Yet she still became pregnant...what now? Under your strict legislation, she is forced to carry the fetus to terms. This is simply one story that illustrates the gray area (it is completely true and happened to someone I know) and there is no doubt that there are tens of thousands more. I don''t know how you expect to draw the line.

You obviously agree that abortion has an appropriate place in our society, as do I. I also agree with you that the use of abortion as a form of birth control is wrong. However, the fact of the matter is that we must deal with some of these unfortunate situations in order to protect the rights of those that "do everything right" and still are faced with the unexpected and unwanted issue of pregnancy. We give every person in this country a fair trial because we believe that each individual has rights. Does this mean that some guilty people fall through the cracks? Absolutely. This is an unfortunate occurance but we accept it because the bigger picture remains that we are giving the innocent people the opportunity to avoid immediate condemnation and to defend themselves as best as possible.

As for Scott Peterson, thank god he was found guilty. The justice system worked this time. And, although I am disgusted by him and what he did, I do not believe in the death penalty. I think that it will be worse for him to have to carry out the remainder of his life staring at cement walls and dwelling over the fact that he was not "smart" enough to get away with his crime anyway...

 

[jenwill]

 

[psuheather]

Although I have rambled on quite a bit, I also just want to quickly say that I enjoy having intelligent debates with others on issues such as these. So often, you run into people that just scream "This is the way that it is (or should be)!" and don't have anything with which to back up their claims. Even if I disagree with a person's beliefs, I can respect their ability to defend their claim with commitment.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

For those who believe that abortion should be restricted to those who have been victims of rape or incest or in situations in which the pregnancy poses risk to the life of mother...I am curious to know how you would suggest that this be enforced? Would we force the pregnant woman to undergo a trial in which she bears the burden of proving that she was actually the victim of rape or incest? Does the rapist have to come forward and admit that, yes, this pregnancy was a result of his rape? Does a child have to convince the father that raped her to come forward in order to terminate the preganacy? This argument is completely unenforcable and therefore, in my opinion, null and void.

very good point, however, in order to ensure that women who want an abortion don''t falsely claim to be raped, any woman who had been raped wanting an abortion would have to have to report the rape to the police, and undergo a rape exam (this would not add any stress to the situation, as it is standard procedure in cases of rape anyway). if evidence suggests rape, then there are abortion pills, or pills that prevent conception (I am not entirely sure what they do I must confess) like RU... something 6? you know what I am talking about anyway. and if in the unlikely event that these did fail, then as she had reported the rape to the police, it would be on file and she would not be forced to carry her rapists baby to term. there are those who would argue, why punish the child? but as the woman did not consent to the rape, in a free society it has to be her choice. - key words being ''did not consent.'' in alleged cases of incest, I believe they can do a genetic screening of the baby in utero to establish whether it was or was not incest, as this is not consensual, abortion would be down to the choice of the woman/girl concerned.

the only problem arises when a woman reports a rape perhaps weeks after the attack, and hadn''t come forward earlier due to trauma, shame, whatever. I am not sure how this situation could be resolved. you don''t want to say yes to anyone who alleges rape weeks later, that would open the floodgates to false claims in order to get an abortion. perhaps so sort of psychological screening... this seems a little extreme, but a rape victim needs counselling, so it would not add any stress to the situation to ask the shrink whether he/she thinks they are telling the truth... but this is a very difficult grey area, to say ban all abortion or let anyone have an abortion does not tackle the issue it just makes it a moot point, imho.

She discovered a year after her surgery that it had failed and she was pregnant. At this time she was 42...carrying the fetus to term was not necessarily a risk to her life or her health, although it did pose some complications that a younger pregnant woman would not have faced.&nbsp

sue the doctors who botched the sterilisation, this is not a frivilous malpractice suit, it is serious negligence. but as I said, there is always the slight chance of pregnancy no matter what precautions are taken, ergo, they should accept their responsibilty to the child their actions created

As well, let''s not forget that she has four children and a successful career.

so the career and convenience of the mother is more important than the life of the child? I fundamentally disagree. why should her career make a difference? to argue that a child may interfere with her career may well be accurate, but it is no reason to sanction the use of abortion as birth-control.

She did everything ''right''

that does not mean they should not face the consequences of their actions. few things are ever 100% reliable. however you look at it, they conceived that child by their actions, even if they did not intend on it. do we need to issue warnings "warning! having sex may result in pregnancy"? there is always a slight risk of pregnancy no matter what precautions are taken, people who choose to have sex must accept that risk and the consequences of their actions.

However, the fact of the matter is that we must deal with some of these unfortunate situations in order to protect the rights of those that ''do everything right'' and still are faced with the unexpected and unwanted issue of pregnancy

protect the rights...? is ''casual sex without having to accept the consequences'' a constitutional right...? I don''t believe that it is.

nice discussing this important issue with you

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

mightyred, yes, I do support the death penalty in certain instances. I simply cannot, not, support the death penalty for rapists and murderers. I respect those able to oppose the death penalty in those cases, though I would respect them more if they were consistently pro-life. I understand the potential hypocrisy in my own argument, however I am not sure there is much of a comparison between an innocent un-born child and a rapist.

justice demands that rapists are slowly tortured to death

. fortunately however mercy prevails

, they should be killed, quickly and painlessly. rapists can *never* be allowed back into society, if you''d rather lock them up forever that is a valid argument, but rather inhumane imho, a protracted mental torture