Scott Peterson convicted

[chris-uk04]

style="WIDTH: 98.44%; HEIGHT: 190px">Date: 11/13/2004 5:28:19 PM
Author: 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.

She could have claim that she was mentally anguished and got an abortion claiming her mental health was in jeopardy so i think she could have gotten one.

I still think all the hoopla about the Peterson trial is about. Why did this case attract all the media attention. There are murders every day in this country. What is so special about Laci Peterson?

 

[EdSkinner]

One of my pet peeves in this country, is that a woman who is raped, her idenitiy is confidential in the press, I have no problem with this. However the accused rapist has his name plastered across the papers. A person is innocent until proven guilty. Now if the woman recants or it is discovered that she made up the whole thing or was just seeking some kind of revenge, where does that leave the man who has already been prosecuted on the press? Very few people will read the retraction from the paper. It could mean the end of his family or job. So what Iam saying is that both parties should have confidentiality until the end of the trial.

 

[Matata]

Chris,
The Peterson case strikes at some fundamental beliefs and raw emotions -- innocent wife, happily anticipating birth of 1st child is murdered by cheating husband who didn''t want to risk paying child support and alimony through a divorce. That little skeleton washing up on the beach and the possibility that the baby was born shortly before or after the death of Laci made good headlines and the media capitalized on it.

 

[psuheather]

Diamondgeezer--
I would post your response and then insert my responses, but I fear that the length of the post would scare people, so I will just try to list a few things. I want to start off by saying that I will try to respond to each individual point, but that some of it is irrelevant since I believe that it all really comes down to one issue, which I will state at the end.

Regarding your response on ways to discover which persons requesting an abortion are actually victims of rape or incest....I don't even know where to begin because I honestly find your response a bit ridiculous. So now we're saying that only "reported" rapes are acceptable for instances of pregnancy termination. Do you know the percentage of rapes that are actually reported to the police every year? I do not know exact statistics, so I will not even try to present them, but let me assure you that it is WELL BELOW even half of the rapes that occur every year. Rape is an extremely traumatic event which different victims deal with in many different ways. Some have the courage to report the incidences, others do not. After experiencing the trauma of rape, many women find the trauma of a having to go through a trial, in which the victim is interrogated and her entirre past sexual and non-sexual history is subject to being splashed across every newspaper, unbearable. Not to mention the fact that many victims are threatened and believe that, if they report the incident, their lives will be at risk. Yet, we are going to look down upon the women that do not report these incidences by denying them the same rights that another raped woman who happens to muster up the courage to go to the police is given. Regarding the physical evidence--let me also assure you that there is not always physical evidence to determine rape. As well, there are women that do not report the incident, and therefore are not given a rape exam, and it is not until weeks, possibly even months later that they realize they are pregnant. By this time, there is no physical evidence. These women should also be denied the right to terminate a pregnancy sustained from rape? And, last but not least--psychological screening??? This, as are the aforementioned "ideas", is really an attempt to grasp as some way to conjure up a solution, when, based on your own comments ("this is a very difficult gray area") we all know that there really isn't one.

You repsonded to the issue of the 42 year old woman getting pregnant after a sterilization procedure by stating that "there is always the slight chance of pregnany no matter what precautions are taken, ergo, they should accept their responsiblity." Again, I am perplexed about how I should even begin to tackle this one. Let me get this straight...you are, in fact, stating that married couples, who have undergone sterilization procedures, should still abstain from sex if they do not wish to have another child? So, basically, after a woman gives birth to her final child, she should abstain from sex until she goes through menopause because there is always "that chance" that a sexual incident could result in pregnancy.

Regarding the woman having four children and a successful career. I included these statements as mere additional factors...not as the sole reasons for abortion. But, I have to say, that I do believe they are important in this particular case. Maybe they would not be as pertinent in others, as each case is a separate one that has its own contributing factors. It would be an extremely daunting task for this woman to have carried a fetus to term at 42, while trying to raise her four children and explain to them why mommy is giving this baby away. And how do you determine what is a risk to the pregnant woman? At 42, the pregnancy may not be categorized as "life-threatening" to some, but it is undeinable that there are significant risks and complications at hand. As well, I don't believe that this woman's successful career that she has worked hard to acheive, is merely a matter of convenience. Women struggle to break through the glass wall and possess a career that, only decades ago, would have been limited to men. It is fortunate for men that pregnancy does not affect this aspect of their lives. But the reality that women must face is that it does affect theirs. ***Again, I must stress that my comments do not mean that I believe that this reason, and this reason alone, is "acceptable" to undergo an abortion.

Your response that "they should face the consequences of their actions" implies that this woman making love to her husband of 15 years after undergoing sterilization surgery, is somehow a dirty thing. I prefer to believe that it is a beautiful and necessary act in a marriage. Again, your comments imply that you believe sex should only occur for the sake of procreation. Of course everyone understands that every time that sex occurs, there is a possibility of pregnancy. So people should only engage unless they have a clear intention to conceive?

You commented that "casual sex without having to accept the consequences" is not a constitutional right. I don't know that anyone ever stated that it is. I never once mentioned casual sex in my post. I discussed a married couple in love.

***Again, although I responded to most things, a lot of them are moot as, in my opinion, it comes down to this. We agree that abortion has an appropriate application in society. Unfortunately, you can't enforce the occurence of abortion for the "right" reasons only and not for the "wrong" ones. I made the analogy previously to the justice system in the United States, stating that everyone in this country has the right to a fair trial. It is NOT the guilty that we are trying to protect...it is the innocent. BUT, in effectively protecting the innocent, we inadvertently protect the guilty. That is the bottom line. You will never truly know the intentions behind every request for an abortion. By protecting the rights of those that you believe are terminating the pregnancy for the "right" reasons, you must inadvertently protect those that will undergo the termination for the "wrong" reasons. I am not suggesting that this is an easy reality to face...I know that those who believe that a fetus is a life have an incredibly difficult time facing the fact that, what they consider to be innocent lives, may be wrongfully terminated in order to protect the rights of those who have not given consent. I, myself, also find difficulty in facing the reality that guilty rapists and murderers are set free every day in our justice system. But I face that reality because I know that there is a greater purpose in protecting the innocent.

 

[psuheather]

Just one more quick comment. I will not dare start another whole debate about the death penalty because I would be at my computer for the rest of the night. I just wanted to respond to diamondgeezer''s comment that she (he?, sorry, don''t know your gender) would repsect opposers of the death penalty more if they were consistently pro-life. Actually, I believe that my views of pro-choice and anti-death penalty are extremely consistent. It all comes down to human and individual rights. I believe in a woman''s right to choose and a human being''s (not a fetus'') right to life. So the two beliefs are inconsistent, huh? Interesting how most pro-choice people are also anti-death penalty and most pro-life people are also pro-death penalty.....coincidence?

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

I think your attack it rather disingenuous, as I did readily accept that some rapes go unreported and poses a great problem for the solution I initially proposed. however, as rape victims are given counselling, I simply asked would it be an imposition to ask the psychiatrist if they are making it up or not?

and no, I don't think that married couple should not have sex, I never said that. but if, despite their best efforts, they get pregnant, then they should bring the child to term. period.

it is interesting that most pro-lifers tend to support the death penalty and most pro-choicers oppose the death penalty, but I'd rather be fighting for the life of an innocent unborn baby (can you bring yourself to use that word?), unborn child, than for the life of a convicted rapist.

a woman has the right to control her own body, and reproduction. however, this right ends when she consents to sex. she can control her own body and reproduction by not having sex. if she wants sex then you must accept the consequences. so a woman has an absolute right to control her body, and an absolute right to sex, but not both. again this is true of guys, if guys want sex, they must be prepared (forced if necessary) to pay child support for any child that is born.

 

[psuheather]

Again ,there are things to which I could respond, but I will not waste time or space with that. I find it interesting that every time I dicuss the issue of protecting the guilty to protect the innocent, those with pro-life views follow exactly the same pattern. First, trying to throw together a solution for regulating intentions of abortion that, even they admit, is not sufficient and end up empty-handed. Then, reverting back to preaching their fundamental beliefs about abortion (usually in a hostile manner) and completely ignoring the issue at hand.

I do not wish try to change your or anyone else''s beliefs regarding whether a fetus is a life and whether a woman has the right to make a choice which affects her own body. This is a fundamnetal belief that that is deeply ingrained in each individual''s moral fiber. Forget all of that. I know your feelings about this...what I would like to hear from you is a response to the issue of portecting the guilty to protect the innocent. If there is no feasible solution to determing a woman''s intentions for abortion (psychological testing falls short for many reasons--a couple being that not all woman receive counseling, and that psychology is not even close to being an exact science) then which would you prefer? Banning abortion all together? Or facing the tough reality that, while some abortions may occur that do not fit your view of "acceptable" termination, ultimately, the greater purpose of protecting the rights of the women that do deserve the choice of termination, has been served.

 

[ForteKitty]

Date: 11/16/2004 1:35:21 AM
Author: diamondgeezer
if guys want sex, they must be prepared (forced if necessary) to pay child support for any child that is born.

Men have it so much easier. If I didn't want a kid to begin with, I'd much rather write a check once a month than spend my life raising that child. Men who have illegitimate children (and is not caring for them) should be castrated.

 

[psuheather]

Great point Fortekitty

 

[AGBF]

When someone says a couple who conceives a child has a responsibility to bear *and raise* the child, it is mind boggling. This position goes far beyond being anti-abortion. It adds that the couple cannot give up the child for adoption!

The practical implications of having this be law would be enough to drive legislators mad!

What about a couple that has a child together while each is married to and has children with someone else? How do they "raise" this child together?

Men who are aware of offspring evade even finanicial responsibility. How would anyone get them to have parental responsibility for "raising" a child as well?

Many men are unaware they have children. Some women do not know who the father of their children is.

An anti-abortion law (which I oppose because I do not believe an hour-old fetus is "an unborn child") is one thing. That just forces every girl or woman who conceives to give birth. Adding that the father and mother have to raise the child renders this proposal impossible and therefore illegal since unenforceable.

(Please notice I am *not* arguing about whether a fetus is an "unborn child" but whether the notion that a couple who has relations has a duty to bear *and raise* a child is remotely possible to put into law or practice.)

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 11/15/2004 8:57:44 PM
Author: psuheather
; Interesting how most pro-choice people are also anti-death penalty and most pro-life people are also pro-death penalty.....coincidence?

I''m pro choice (not pro-abortion BTW). I am not anti-death. Personally, I don''t believe that a first trimester fetus has the intellectual capability that a grown person does. Nor, do I think of the fetus as an innocent "life". It''s not viable. Quite frankly, I had one friend riddled with guilt as she believe she may have some culpibility in her having a miscarriage. Was she taking a life? Also to follow the logic, the women who had the abortion should be brought up on murder charges?

What is that evolutionary premise? ontolony repeats phylology? - I know I''m butchering this - the premise that in utero we repeat developmental to each of the related evolutionary paths. In believing this, it takes quite a while before a fetus reaches human development. Maybe the cut off of when the spinal column starts to form. I do believe that the fetus has a soul. But, I don''t think a soul must live to live on.

I''m not pro-abortion. But, I do believe that a women (who is dramatically affected by any pregancy) has the right to choose. And, I do think abortion should be safe, legal & rare.

As for the death penalty, I believe society is better off with some people out of it - in a final way. I lived in an area that had a serial killer. This man (who was in a half-way house already committing several crimes) did *absolutely* unspeakable things to tortue these women he killed. Unspeakable & certainly less than animal. Living through that time really had an impact on my stance. I think I was a bit naive & cavalier. What''s that phrase - "A conservative is a liberal that was mugged yesterday".

To topic, the kicker for me was the changed idenity, cash money on body & ready to flee. Is this a man who is mouring for his pregant wife? Is this a man who truly wants justice served to the man that "actually" murdered is wife?

 

[psuheather]

style="WIDTH: 95.89%; HEIGHT: 173px">Date: 11/16/2004 1:35:21 AM
Author: diamondgeezer

and no, I don''t think that married couple should not have sex, I never said that. but if, despite their best efforts, they get pregnant, then they should bring the child to term. period.

it is interesting that most pro-lifers tend to support the death penalty and most pro-choicers oppose the death penalty, but I''d rather be fighting for the life of an innocent unborn baby (can you bring yourself to use that word?), unborn child, than for the life of a convicted rapist.

I know that I said that I wouldn''t respond to each thing, but these two points have really been bothering me, so I need to address them.

On the first one--You may not believe that you are stating that married couples should abstain from sex, but how else do you suggest that a married couple ensure, with 100% accuracy, that they do not get pregnant? If they do not wish to "accept the responsibility" as you have put it and be faced with the reality of bringing a fetus to term, then they would have no other option but to abstain.
Secondly, again, we do not live in a black and white world. Nothing is EVER simple enough to state that something should be a certain way all the time, period. Do we say that every person that kills someone should be put to death? Certainly, in some cases, we (meaning society) do. But we also recognize that the reality of murder is not that cut and dry. There are situations in which the killer shows remorse, and therefore is given leniency. There are cases of self-defense, where the person killed to protect their own life. There are accidental deaths, in which the killer did not carry intention to kill. There are even various ways that we categorize murder...first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter,etc. as an attempt to show that some murder is deemed "worse" than others. I could go on and on...the point is that each individual case has its own contributing factors and therefore, can not be painted with one, broadly swept brush.

And on the second point--you stated that you would rather fight for the life of an unborn baby (I will use that word because it is the word that you used) than for the life of a convicted rapist. Since you view both of these as forms of life, I find it interesting that you feel the right to play God and determine which "life" has more meaning and deserves to exist in this world. It is certainly the easy way out to argue what a horrible person the rapist is and how horrible his/her act of rape was, and therefore he/she deserves to die while the unborn "baby" is innocent. But the truth of the matter is that we are not God, and we ( as human beings) don''t even come close to understanding the meaning of life and who deserves to have it. I am not fighting for the life of a rapist or murderer...I am fighting for the right of one, and only one, divine being to make the decision to take a life. ***Again, this is not an easy decision to make. There are often times when I hear of a serial child molester and think "That person should fry." It takes a lot of willpower to be able to put emotions aside and look at situations on a higher level. It is not up to me to decide whether that person should fry. I don''t have that capacity.

 

[psuheather]

Fire&Ice--I can definitely see your point about the death penalty...it''s hard to be against the death penalty without, in a way, feeling a lack of allegiance to the victims of the situations. Believe me, I have really struggled over this issue a lot, and continue to struggle with it. It just comes down to the fact that I don''t see how any human being has the capacity to decide whether another human being lives or dies, regardless of who that person is or what they have done. We are condemning them for taking a life (or lives) because they had no right to do so, yet we are now going to turn around and take theirs? It''s a very interesting and difficult issue--I have to admit that I waiver now and again.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 11/16/2004 5:42:35 PM
Author: psuheather
Fire&Ice--I can definitely see your point about the death penalty...it''s hard to be against the death penalty without, in a way, feeling a lack of allegiance to the victims of the situations. Believe me, I have really struggled over this issue a lot, and continue to struggle with it. It just comes down to the fact that I don''t see how any human being has the capacity to decide whether another human being lives or dies, regardless of who that person is or what they have done. We are condemning them for taking a life (or lives) because they had no right to do so, yet we are now going to turn around and take theirs? It''s a very interesting and difficult issue--I have to admit that I waiver now and again.

Ever since my experience I haven''t waivered. I don''t see it as deciding who should die. Linguistics perhaps - but I see it as ridding a society of someone who will kill again & cause more pain given the opportunity. Also here, we had a couple of brothers convicted of murder - life sentence - escape & go on another killing rampage. Those lives lost deserved to live more so than those that took the lives. I find this thought logical & not that we are trying to play God.

So, even by my language you can see it''s not that black & white.

But, I''ve always been a believer in situational ethics. Not rationalizing ethics - just looking at the situation surrounding the action.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

Men have it so much easier. If I didn''t want a kid to begin with, I''d much rather write a check once a month than spend my life raising that child. Men who have illegitimate children (and is not caring for them) should be castrated.

I could not agree more. they should be.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/16/2004 6

6:24 PM
Author: diamondgeezer

Men have it so much easier. If I didn't want a kid to begin with, I'd much rather write a check once a month than spend my life raising that child. Men who have illegitimate children (and is not caring for them) should be castrated.

I could not agree more. they should be.

What a bloodthirsty lot we have become! Good grief!

Deborah

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/16/2004 5:42:35 PM
Author: psuheather
Fire&Ice--I can definitely see your point about the death penalty...it''s hard to be against the death penalty without, in a way, feeling a lack of allegiance to the victims of the situations.

I see it differently. In no way am I turning my back on a victim by not wishing to take the life of his alleged killer.

First, one should remember that the states who have been putting people to death have also been finding that they have incarcerated the wrong men for crimes. If one takes the wrong life, it cannot be given back.

Second, I feel that civilization exists to restrain us from our basest impulses. If my parent or child were murdered, I would want to kill the killer myself. I doubt I could ever forgive the crime. But I see the role of civilization as holding me back...for the greater good, so that society can be more civilized than its angriest members at their worst.

 

[psuheather]

I am also a strong believer that it''s important to look at each situation individually and that things are never simply black and white.

This is why I waiver...but I feel that my waivering occurs when I allow my emotional reactions to get the best of me. I just have a personal belief that, since human beings do not have the capacity to explain or understand life, we also do not have the capacity to take life (whether it be under the guise of murder or under the guise of punishment.)

Now, let me assure you that I have not lost any sleep nor shed any tears for convicted murderers or rapists that were put to death (although there have been many that were exonerated after their executions.) I also believe that society is a better place without these corrupt individuals...but what does it say about our society when we are stooping to the level of the corrupter?

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 11/16/2004 6:19

0 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 11/16/2004 5:42:35 PM
Author: psuheather
Fire&Ice--I can definitely see your point about the death penalty...it''s hard to be against the death penalty without, in a way, feeling a lack of allegiance to the victims of the situations.

; If my parent or child were murdered, I would want to kill the killer myself. I doubt I could ever forgive the crime. But I see the role of civilization as holding me back...for the greater good, so that society can be more civilized than its angriest members at their worst.

My view on the issue has nothing to do with vengence. Pure & simple - ridding society of a parasite. It''s not on an emotional level. I would not hestiate to shoot a rabid raccoon (though I don''t own a gun). It''s in the best interest of the whole. A person that takes the lives of others, inflicting horrible tortures as in the case of the serial killer has no place in society. Jail is not secure enough.

 

[JCJD]

This is an exercise I intend to be solely for diamondgeezer. I''m not specifically asking for a response, I just want him to think about it. I am absolutely aware that what you are about to read is highly unlikely for diamondgeezer to actually experience, and I do not want to hear arguments about the likelihood of such a thing actually occurring in his or your own life. However, I do want him to understand that this is something that could possibly happen to somebody in the world at some point in history, past present or future. More terrible situations than this have occurred in human history, and this is not outside of the realm of possibilities, in my opinion.



Imagine you are married to a wonderful woman, and you take the proper precautions to prevent pregnancy; let''s say she''s on the pill and you use condoms every time you make love. Imagine also that you have a very disturbed identical twin brother who lives nearby. Imagine you wake up one morning, make love with your wife, taking your usual precautions, and you both then get up and go to work. Tragically, your disturbed twin has chosen to stalk your wife this morning and brutally assaults and rapes her (using a condom, surprisingly). Your wife promptly reports the assault to the authorities, has a rape test done, her injuries are treated by competent medical personnel, she (and you, her devoted husband) attends counseling (and her psychiatrist is certain that she is telling the truth about the rape), testifies against your brother in court, i.e. she does everything possible to bring your evil twin to justice and prevent conception from the rape, but despite all of the precautions that have been taken, she soon discovers that she is pregnant, and the most likely time of conception is the day of the rape. You both had relations with her on the day she conceived, so you can''t use the timing of conception to sort out paternity. Since you and your evil twin are identical, you can''t conduct a paternity test to determine who is the father either. Both instances of intercourse took the same precautions, so that can''t help determine paternity likelihood either. In other words, your wife could be pregnant with a child resulting from loving sexual relations with her husband, or from a traumatic, psychologically, and physically damaging rape, and there is no way to determine which it is.


My question to you: What do you do? Have an abortion, or carry out the pregnancy?





Bonus question: Did you ask your wife what she wants to do before you made a choice? Shouldn''t you? After all, she is the one who has been raped and will endure the physical pregnancy, as well as the many demons resulting from her traumatic experience. Just think about this please... that''s all I''m asking with this post.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 11/16/2004 6:22:38 PM
Author: psuheather
I also believe that society is a better place without these corrupt individuals...but what does it say about our society when we are stooping to the level of the corrupter?

They are not innocents & usually won''t stop without intervention. It isn''t them I am thinking of. It is preventing them from killing again.

 

[Matata]

Wow. I had no idea when I posted the verdict that it would generate such discussion. F&I the phrase you were referring to is ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

The death penalty is problematic for me too. I used believe that perpetrators of heinous crimes should be put to death if for no other reason than that society should not have fund their lifetime existence in jail. But I''m torn by the realization some criminals are products of their environment and as such, perhaps deserve a chance to be redeemed and pay back society by becoming honest and productive citizens.

For example: I was raped at age 13 by my cousin''s fiance. He was raised by a mentally ill mother and an alcoholic father who used to beat the entire family. The rape occurred shortly after he returned from Vietnam. This man was in torment and psychologically damaged by his experiences there. One example, his best friend, running ahead of him down a dirt road under heavy enemy fire was blown to bits trying to rescue a baby sitting in the road. The VC had booby-trapped the baby''s diaper with a grenade that exploded when the baby was lifted. One symptom of his war experiences coupled with his childhood was rage and he was indiscriminate in taking his rage out on those who were powerless. This person is still in counseling after all these years and has not had much joy in his life. I can''t imagine condemning him to death for that rape. He never repeated the crime and is trying to life his life as best he can.

 

[psuheather]

style="WIDTH: 99%; HEIGHT: 184px">Date: 11/16/2004 6:19

0 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 11/16/2004 5:42:35 PM
Author: psuheather
Fire&Ice--I can definitely see your point about the death penalty...it's hard to be against the death penalty without, in a way, feeling a lack of allegiance to the victims of the situations.

I see it differently. In no way am I turning my back on a victim by not wishing to take the life of his alleged killer.

AGBF--Just wanted to clarify that I wrote this in order to illustrate the fact that being against the death penalty is not an easy position to take. It requires the ability to supress certain primal emotions and reactions to realize that no human being has the right take the life of another's, under any circumstances.
***Also want to clarify that this is my OPINION--I am certainly not condeming another for having a different one.
After reading this...I want to adjust my wording. As nothing is black and white--I take back my comment regarding that fact that one human being does not have the right to take another's, under any circumstances. They may be a circumstance out there that I would agree with (i.e. defending your own life.) Just another example that it's important to view each situation individually.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

JCJD - leaving the utter absurdity of the question aside...

I assume you are asking a moral question, not a legal quesion? because as I stated a woman who has been raped must not be forced to take the pregnancy to term against her wishes, she would be legally entitled to an abortion.

morally, it would be a decision that should not be taken lightly, and after considerable discussion between both the husband and the wife, however ultimately the final say would rest with the woman. if I was in the situation, I would not like for my wife to have the termination, but it would be her decision if she did, and wouldn''t change anything in the relationship - due to obvious extenuating circumstances. but you can not really answer this question until you were in this highly bizarre situation

bonus answer: the brother should get the death penalty. period.

 

[jenwill]

Date: 11/16/2004 1:35:21 AM
Author: diamondgeezer

... but I''d rather be fighting for the life of an innocent unborn baby (can you bring yourself to use that word?)

Just as an FYI- PSUHeather is using the correct terminology. In medicine, until the fetus comes out of the womb, it is never referred to as a baby in anything but a casual verbal communication with the parents. Any interpretation of any exam done on said fetus, or any communication between MD''s- fetus is the terminology used.

A baby is a being that is capable of sustaining life- on its own or with intervention- outside of the mothers body.

 

[psuheather]

Date: 11/16/2004 2

2:45 PM
Author: psuheather
Again ,there are things to which I could respond, but I will not waste time or space with that. I find it interesting that every time I dicuss the issue of protecting the guilty to protect the innocent, those with pro-life views follow exactly the same pattern. First, trying to throw together a solution for regulating intentions of abortion that, even they admit, is not sufficient and end up empty-handed. Then, reverting back to preaching their fundamental beliefs about abortion (usually in a hostile manner) and completely ignoring the issue at hand.

I do not wish try to change your or anyone else''s beliefs regarding whether a fetus is a life and whether a woman has the right to make a choice which affects her own body. This is a fundamnetal belief that that is deeply ingrained in each individual''s moral fiber. Forget all of that. I know your feelings about this...what I would like to hear from you is a response to the issue of portecting the guilty to protect the innocent. If there is no feasible solution to determing a woman''s intentions for abortion (psychological testing falls short for many reasons--a couple being that not all woman receive counseling, and that psychology is not even close to being an exact science) then which would you prefer? Banning abortion all together? Or facing the tough reality that, while some abortions may occur that do not fit your view of ''acceptable'' termination, ultimately, the greater purpose of protecting the rights of the women that do deserve the choice of termination, has been served.

Just curious if diamondgeezer is going to respond to this?

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

first and foremost, should we be surprised that doctors would not use the term baby when most support legalised abortion?

secondly:

A baby is a being that is capable of sustaining life- on its own or with intervention- outside of the mothers body.

do you know any babies that can hold down a full-time job, afford a rent, grocery bills and tidy their own diaper, thereby being capable of sustaining life? or are we now arguing in favour of post-natal abortions? forget the first trimester, lets debate whether you should be able to terminate a child who keeps asking you for money when they are in college. if they have a job at wal-mart it is not ok, if they can''t sustain their own life then it is ok to get rid of them?

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/16/2004 6:35:22 PM


Author: psuheather
AGBF--Just wanted to clarify that I wrote this in order to illustrate the fact that being against the death penalty is not an easy position to take. It requires the ability to supress certain primal emotions and reactions....

Yes, I was very sympathetic to your posting. I can easily envision that I would have "primal" (let's just say beyond bloodthirsty) emotions if someone I loved and wanted to protect were murdered. Not only would I kill to defend myself or another person, I might even be capable of killing "in cold blood" shortly after such an attack. It is the taking of a life *after* a danger has passed that I descry. Especially when it is done by the state.

I am in agreement with you that these emotions are natural...and, also, that it would be best if civilzation forced us to be unable to act on them.

In psychological terms, I see society as the superego, taking the place of the person who tells us right from wrong. We, ourselves, in this situation become the id...wanting what we want when we want it [and what we want is to kill the person who killed our loved one(s)].

F&I's argument is another matter. I would prefer to shore up the prisons rather than to impose the death penalty. As I said, there are two factors involved: the morality of the death penalty itslef and also the possibility of executing the wrong person.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

If there is no feasible solution to determing a woman''s intentions for abortion (psychological testing falls short for many reasons--a couple being that not all woman receive counseling, and that psychology is not even close to being an exact science) then which would you prefer? Banning abortion all together? Or facing the tough reality that, while some abortions may occur that do not fit your view of ''acceptable'' termination, ultimately, the greater purpose of protecting the rights of the women that do deserve the choice of termination, has been served.

if any pregnancy was having serious repercussions on the mental health of any mother, it would be permissible on these grounds alone. I think that the severe mental distress that the pregnancy would inflict upon the mother is implied in the case of rape, so the rights of the women who do deserve the choice of a termination would be served. I think this covers and protects all scenarios, please highlight any it doesn''t, even if they are as off-the-wall as JCJD''s lunatic rapist identical twin one

btw sorry for not replying initially, but a) I am in college and have essays due b) if there are several posts between each time I check, I tend to miss some. sorry, I certainly didn''t mean to ignore it, or duck the issue.

 

[fire&ice]

F&I''s argument is another matter. I would prefer to shore up the prisons rather than to impose the death penalty. As I said, there are two factors involved: the morality of the death penalty itslef and also the possibility of executing the wrong person.

Shoreing up the prisions? In a perfect world.

Our case was the first case that used DNA techology PLUS eyewitnesses PLUS circumstance. NO wrong person.

One has to go no further than Patricia Cornwall''s book to understand the process involved. I lived it.