Scott Peterson convicted

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

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...

I could have written that myself, I agree 100%, the norms of society are a kind of collective superego

however, for me, traditional morality is the superego. the role of the id is taken by two forces in society, firstly, the internal logic of capitalism (though I remain an advocate of the free market, as there is no viable alternative - imho) seconldy, the (imho) more pervasive force, the "do whatever you feel like" liberals (yes I know this is a tad unfair - but only a tad

)

finally, as I have said, I truly dislike my support of the death penalty, but see no other option in the case of rape and murder. these are the most anti-social (in the true sense of the word) of actions, people who could commit such acts can never be allowed back into society again. if you accept this, as i hope you would, the only other option becomes to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives

 

[psuheather]

Date: 11/16/2004 8

1:52 PM
Author: diamondgeezer

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.

I don''t think that you understood my post. I don''t really follow your perception of what I was trying to state, so maybe I''ll just try to restate in different words...

There is no way to enforce the limited application of abortion to those who are victims of rape or incest or in cases where the mother''s life is at risk. This is because there is no way to truly know the factors in each individual case. This is why I mentioned psychological testing--you suggested it as a way to determine whether a woman has actually been raped. Since I had not disputed this suggestion directly in my previous post (I only directly gave disputes regarding reported rapes and physical evidence), I was illustrating why this is not a feasible option. Now, this brings us back to the fact that there is no real solution for determining the background regarding how the woman conceived. So which do you prefer...banning abortion all together so that, while taking away the right to termination for rape and incest victims, you are assured that no abortion ever occurs for the "wrong reason" OR legalizing abortion and knowing that, although this may result in some terminations for reasons that you do not agree with, there is a greater purpose of protecting the rights of those that were victims of rape and incest.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/16/2004 8:11:30 PM
Author: diamondgeezer

"as I have said, I truly dislike my support of the death penalty, but see no other option in the case of rape and murder. these are the most anti-social (in the true sense of the word) of actions, people who could commit such acts can never be allowed back into society again. if you accept this, as i hope you would, the only other option becomes to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives"

I think it is far too simplistic to say that *all* rapists and murderers should be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, but I suspect that I would agree that 90% of them deserve that sentence and that society would be the better for it.
Actually, I think there are people who have not yet committed those crimes who should have that sentence (or a similar one).

There is a psychiatrist who wrote about this several years ago. His ideas were very controversial, but they echoed things my father had always said. He felt that some people were sociopathic and that they shouldn't be *punished* for it, but should be kept away from society forever.

My father used to say that instead of a prison these people could be kept in a benign but secure situation, kind of like an escape-proof Holiday Inn where they were fed and allowed to read and watch TV, but were never, never let out on the streets again.

Since you do not know my father you must be pardoned for not realizing that he is the kindest yet wisest person on the face of the earth...a kind of Albert Schweitzer. Even a Mother Theresa. Not only is he social worker trained back in the 1940s when everyone was taught classical analysis, but he is an active member of The Society of Friends-a Quaker-who rarely misses a Sunday meeting for worship. He is my idol.

Deb, who never resolved her Oedipal Complex

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

Actually, I think there are people who have not yet committed those crimes who should have that sentence (or a similar one).

that scares the hell out of me!!!

it is utterly incongruent with the idea of a free society, it smacks of totalitarianism.

the fact that they would be looked after is immaterial, is it not an argument for institutionalising the poor?

"those who would surrender liberty for safety deserve neither"

Deb, who never resolved her Oedipal Complex

do you mind? I understand it was in jest, but still, please have a modicum of decorum (sorry, yes, I am an utter prude) lol not that I think that is a negative in any way, certainly not in this day and age

not since Rome has decadence been so pervasive across a civilisation. I think I must be the oldest 21yr old on Earth lol

 

[psuheather]

Date: 11/16/2004 8:21:15 PM
Author: psuheather

Date: 11/16/2004 8

1:52 PM
Author: diamondgeezer

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.

I don''t think that you understood my post. I don''t really follow your perception of what I was trying to state, so maybe I''ll just try to restate in different words...

There is no way to enforce the limited application of abortion to those who are victims of rape or incest or in cases where the mother''s life is at risk. This is because there is no way to truly know the factors in each individual case. This is why I mentioned psychological testing--you suggested it as a way to determine whether a woman has actually been raped. Since I had not disputed this suggestion directly in my previous post (I only directly gave disputes regarding reported rapes and physical evidence), I was illustrating why this is not a feasible option. Now, this brings us back to the fact that there is no real solution for determining the background regarding how the woman conceived. So which do you prefer...banning abortion all together so that, while taking away the right to termination for rape and incest victims, you are assured that no abortion ever occurs for the ''wrong reason'' OR legalizing abortion and knowing that, although this may result in some terminations for reasons that you do not agree with, there is a greater purpose of protecting the rights of those that were victims of rape and incest.

Diamondgeezer--just making sure you got this one...

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/16/2004 8:43

3 PM
Author: diamondgeezer
do you mind? I understand it was in jest, but still, please have a modicum of decorum (sorry, yes, I am an utter prude) lol

Oh, would you have been one of the Viennese who tried to hound Freud out of the university because of his belief in infant sexuality? I do think so, yes, I do!!! You are blushing!

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

So which do you prefer...banning abortion all together so that, while taking away the right to termination for rape and incest victims, you are assured that no abortion ever occurs for the ''wrong reason'' OR legalizing abortion and knowing that, although this may result in some terminations for reasons that you do not agree with, there is a greater purpose of protecting the rights of those that were victims of rape and incest.

that is fairly black and white...

I would argue that the best solution would be to determine whether someone is in genuine emotional distress or the life is in danger, compared to being inconvenienced in their career plan for instance. this would be a professional medical opinion, the process would be that you go to doc wanting an abortion, he/she sends you for authorisation from a shrink, if he/she says it is genuine emotional distress etc, then it would be permitted. how lenient/flexible those boundaries are could vary from state to state.

indeed, I think I am correct in saying that prior to Roe, every state made up its own mind. why not revert back to that? let Alabama ban all abortion and birth control* and let Massachusetts provide taxpayer funding for it. (if I am incorrect on the facts there I do apologise, I am British)

*[I believe that judicial activism in Griswold vs Connecticut to overturn ban on contraception was the case that provided the legal precedent in Roe - I agreed with the dissenting opinion that banning birth control may be silly, but the federal court had no power to overrule the state legislature, the law should be changed by legislature, no judicial fiat]

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

Oh, would you have been one of the Viennese who tried to hound Freud out of the university because of his belief in infant sexuality? I do think so, yes, I do!!! You are blushing!

yes, I would have

I'd have been calling in to all the Viennese talk radio shows

 

[fire&ice]

; 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.

This is precisely *why* I believe in the death penalty. I see it as protecting, not only my own life, but the lives of others.

I think it should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes. I think the evidence should be conclusive. The Ted Bundy''s, Southside stranglers & Snipers of the world come to mind.

There are more escapes from prisions than there are executions. Many "escapes" result in taking the life of another.

As for rapists, define "rapist" & rape. I think castration should be an option for serial rapists & child molesters. Any of you against this procedure want these people to be released from prision and live next door to you & your young ones? They will be released. They have to live somewhere.

Matata, thanks for the clarification about the evolutionary premise/zoology. Also, I agree. It saddens me that my income tax contribution would go to the feed & care of a serial killer.

 

[psuheather]

Fire&Ice--Again, I see where you are coming from and sympathize with your position. I do however see a difference in taking a life as a last resort to protecting your own and taking a life as a form of punishment. I do think that it''s important to remove destructive criminals from society, but I don''t think that the only resource to doing this is execution. This is why we have maximum security prisons and life with no chance of parole. It is unfortunate that tax payer money is used to feed and house criminals, but this is the price we pay for living in a progressive, non-barbaric society.

Again, I sympathize with your position. I have no doubt that you can easily and quickly respond with a lucid and valid argument to redefend your beliefs on this issue, and I respect that. I am very happy to agree to disagree on this topic

 

[JCJD]

diamondgeezer - If you had read my previous post thoroughly, you would have read this: "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." So, I shall ignore your classification of my proposed hypothetical situation as "absurd" because I agree that it is.

I posed the question to you because I wanted to offer a hypothetical situation in which your proposed legal checks and balances for obtaining a legal abortion in the event of rape would clash with the legal checks and balances for preventing abortion as a method of birth control between consenting sexual partners. The situation I dreamed up is bizarre and unlikely for anyone without an evil identical twin brother, but aren''t there other situations that could result in this type of legal confusion? I personally can''t think of any way that these types of situations can be legally resolved without introducing countless loopholes into the legislation, restricting the rights of those who wish to terminate a rape-manifested pregnancy, or introducing so much bureocracy and red tape into the system that it would result in women actually giving birth to their rapist''s baby before a legal abortion could be authorized! Individual women and their doctors understand their own situations and morals much better than any law could, so I think the right to choose should be left up to the individual. Although I very much agree with you (and many others) that abortion should not be considered a method of birth control and should only be utilized in situations of dire need on the part of the pregnant woman, I have to understand and accept that there are people in the world who cannot afford or access birth control, there are people who believe that having intercourse in a specific position will prevent pregnancy, there are people who are unaware that birth control is not 100% effective, there are people who are too afraid for their lives or ashamed to report a rape (only an estimated 37% of all US rapes are reported), there are people who might not even know that they have been raped (date-rape drug, women raped by doctors while under anesthesia, women in comas, mentally disabled women...), and there are people whose religious and moral standpoints do not classify a fetus (prenatal) as a human life (and therefore, not equivalent to murder) (Unitarianism, Judaism, some Protestant denominations, and Islam, although all decry abortion as birth control). I even know a 26 year old never-married lady who has 5 children under the age of 10, with 4 different fathers, who refuses to use birth control because of her Catholic faith, although apparently premarital sex is OK... This type of misinformation needs to be counteracted, and the only way that the unwanted pregnancy rate and abortion rates can be decreased, thereby decreasing the demand for abortions, is through balanced, informative, non-judgemental education, IMO. The United States has a constitutional obligation to protect the freedoms and rights of all of its citizens, and since you don''t become a US citizen until birth as far as I know, that means the rights of US citizens (postnatal individuals) takes precedence over the rights of unborn non-citizens. Now, if we issued citizenship at the moment of conception, that would be a different story...

And besides, how is life sanctified if women are legally required to carry out pregnancies they are emotionally, financially, medically, developmentally, or otherwise unprepared to handle? Isn''t human life all the more precious when it is chosen? I was a "mistake" - diaphragm, spermicide, and condom failed - and my parents chose to have me. The fact that they actively decided to have me is much more meaningful to me than if they had been prohibited from choosing, whether or not it was against their will. I know that from the moment my parents made that choice, they truly WANTED me! Isn''t that what every child deserves?

With regard to the Peterson case, I think that the conviction of the fetus'' murder is a touchy subject. It is unclear in this case whether the child was in utero or had already been born at the time of its death. Killing a newborn is murder in my book, but a 9-month old fetus? My hesitation here is where do you draw the line? Murdering a woman who is 12-hours pregnant is very different from a woman who is 8-months pregnant, for example, but in both cases, the fetus dies. How do you quantify the difference? The problem becomes - where do we stop? Where is the cut-off for murder of the fetus? Is murder of a 49-days pregnant woman legally the same as or different from murdering a 50-days pregnant woman? It becomes subjective and therefore problematic... I don''t know what the solution should be...

 

[jenwill]

Date: 11/16/2004 7:47:42 PM
Author: diamondgeezer
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?

? I believe that you must know what the intent of sustaining life means- not being a wage earner, but being able to keep the body itself alive either alone or with intervention (as i noted in my prior post).

Fetus was being used before the big abortion debates started.

 

[fire&ice]

I do however see a difference in taking a life as a last resort to protecting your own and taking a life as a form of punishment. I do think that it''s important to remove destructive criminals from society, but I don''t think that the only resource to doing this is execution. This is why we have maximum security prisons and life with no chance of parole

There in lies the disconnect. To clarify - I do not believe the death penalty to be a "form" of punishment. I see it as a form of protecting the life of myself & others in society w/ permanent removal. Escapes from maximum security prisons are not unheard of. In fact, the Briley brothers escape is still fresh in my mind. In that escape *6* death row inmates escaped. All hardcore killers, who upon their escape, left a trail of torture, rape & death once again in their wake.

I understand your principle. But, I don''t view it as punishment. Though I am unsure that the punishment yeilds deterint, many people would have been alive today if these "men" had already been out of society in a permanent fashion.

My view is not one that does not come with a heavy heart. Murder, especially henious ones, is unacceptable to the human race. We can not always put things in God''s hand.

 

[strmrdr]

http://www.freep.com/news/locmac/fetus17e_20041117.htm

Should they be charged?

I normaly stay out of abortion debates but this fits right in with what your talking about.

 

[psuheather]

Interesting and sad story...how desperate these two teenagers must have been to induce a miscarriage with a baseball bat. It''s a tragedy that they were so miseducated about their options. I am curious to know how willing a participant the young lady was in all of this. The article does seem to imply that it was a joint attempt at terminating the pregnancy...had the boy attacked her and swung a baseball bat into the girl''s belly, then we would have a very clear case of assault. I think the question is the status of the fetus once it exited the birth canal and entered the world. The article referred to the process as a miscarriage, therefore, I assume that the fetus died in the womb and therefore was not alive once it exited the birth canal and never had the capability to sustain life. Thus a murder did not take place.

 

[JCJD]

Terribly sad story and what a horrible situation those kids found themselves in...

Again, I think the "cure" for this would be freely-available and non-judgemental education and information about sex, relationships, birth control methods (including abstinence, Rhythm, condoms, morning-after pill, RU-486, etc etc etc, everything!), pregnancy, and raising a child, universal access to birth control, and safe legal abortion services available to all in the rare occasion that it is needed. In a perfect world, of course...

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

JCJD, education simply does not work, period. kids are simply not responsible, mature or rational enough. they are no confident, self-assured or self-aware enough at that age. the only way to avoid situations like this is to preach (yes, preach) abstinence at least until there is an e-ring.

teen pregnancies in the US are at historic lows due to the abstinence message. teen pregnancies here in the UK keep rising steadily, despite millions upon millions of taxpayers money spent on education. They have a program, Kondoms for Kids, well that is not its real name... but it might as well be. they are giving condoms and the pill no questions asked, without parental consent, to 11year olds (sadly that is not an exaggeration) and they can''t fathom why the rate keeps climbing.

as for the case in question, one has to ask where were the parents in all of this?

also - I bet you girls would get much nicer rings if you made guys get a ring in order to... well, there is no polite way of finishing this sentence, but you get my drift

the so-called ''sexual liberation'' did not make women free, so much as freely available.

 

[jenwill]

Date: 11/17/2004 8:12:34 PM
Author: diamondgeezer

also - I bet you girls would get much nicer rings if you made guys get a ring in order to... well, there is no polite way of finishing this sentence, but you get my drift

This sentence to me speaks volumes......

So if the ring isn't up to par- he doesn't get any?

There is no price to be put on something freely given. That is why it is freely given.

And my FH's ability to purchase a ring in no way changes whether or not he has had relations with me before he gives it to me.....

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

 

[jenwill]

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

my comments re: deb and her oedipal complex were also meant in jest (well... maybe not entirely, I am a total prude) lol

however, I do apologise, my post to you was a little snippy - I blame less than 5 hours sleep since 5:45am tuesday morning - and no prospect of sleep til late afternoon tomorrow

also my sense of humour can be rather subtle, so in future I shall suffix all my jokes with j/k just so it is clear

 

[jenwill]

Not a prob- lack of sleep is one thing I can totally relate to.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

 

[Matata]

Diamondgeezer wrote: teen pregnancies in the US are at historic lows due to the abstinence message.

Not true according to several reports I''ve read which state that 80% of the decline is attributable to improved use of contraceptive methods and 20% to abstinence.

 

[JCJD]

I am sorry diamondgeezer, but your post offended me. I was raised by parents who were very open concerning human sexuality, not as something dirty and sinful, but as a basic human act that comes with adult responsibility and raw emotions. I was also raised in a school system in which sex education was based on scientific facts - birth control is available, this is its effectiveness/failure rate, these are STD''s, you can prevent them by being abstinent or by using barrier contraceptives... - not in pseudo-morality or fear-based "information". And despite what you may think, I am still a virgin, and so is my boyfriend, and we will remain virgins until our wedding night. So don''t tell me that kids who aren''t preached to about abstinence-only cannot become responsible abstinent adults.

I resent your suggestion that I resist sex until my boyfriend gets me a rock. Is that what your relationship is based on? I hope not, but if it is, that''s your prerogative. But stay out of my bedroom. I can take care of myself.

Women''s liberation means women can choose their own destinies rather than have them dictated to them by societal roles. I have chosen to remain abstinent because it is the right choice for me, and I have also chosen to have a career because that is where my gifts and talents lead me. How can you tell me that women''s liberation is a bad thing? Feminism is the radical notion that women are people. If that offends you, then so be it.

 

[AGBF]

I must have missed the posting that offended you, JCJD. (One has been erased.) But I agree with everything you say. Although I would not choose abstinence until marriage myself, I love it that someone who made that choice is so non-judgmental of others with different views. It is just so refreshing!!! You are a very thoughtful (as in thinking deeply about matters) woman. I am sure your wedding and wedding night will be incredibly wonderful because of the dimension added by abstinence prior to then.

As to rings and sex...well, when I was growing up a friend told me her grandmother said, "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk 'for free'?". I just don't consider myself a cow or sex milk. Sex is something shared; it is not simply something a woman gives to a man in order to keep him happy and providing.

Deb

 

[JCJD]

Date: 11/17/2004 8:12:34 PM
Author: diamondgeezer
JCJD, education simply does not work, period. kids are simply not responsible, mature or rational enough. they are no confident, self-assured or self-aware enough at that age. the only way to avoid situations like this is to preach (yes, preach) abstinence at least until there is an e-ring.


teen pregnancies in the US are at historic lows due to the abstinence message. teen pregnancies here in the UK keep rising steadily, despite millions upon millions of taxpayers money spent on education. They have a program, Kondoms for Kids, well that is not its real name... but it might as well be. they are giving condoms and the pill no questions asked, without parental consent, to 11year olds (sadly that is not an exaggeration) and they can''t fathom why the rate keeps climbing.


as for the case in question, one has to ask where were the parents in all of this?


also - I bet you girls would get much nicer rings if you made guys get a ring in order to... well, there is no polite way of finishing this sentence, but you get my drift

the so-called ''sexual liberation'' did not make women free, so much as freely available.

I agree AGBF, that wasn''t clear which one offended me. This is it. It wasn''t the one erased.

I refuse to allow others to tell me how to live my own life, and therefore I refuse to tell others how to live their lives. I try my best not to be a hypocrite. Thanks AGBF!

 

[psuheather]

JCJD--

Couldn''t have begun to say it better myself if I had tried!!!!!!!!!!

 

[psuheather]

One of the things that has always bothered me about the whole pro-life/pro-choice and sex/abstinence debate is that I feel that the "other side" implies that, since I have these "liberal" beliefs, I am running around having sex with everyone and getting abortions every other weekend. I feel that this difference between my beliefs and theirs is that I have the ability to understand that what I choose is not necessarily right for everyone, and that everyone should have the right to make their own decisions.

 

[JCJD]

Date: 11/18/2004 12:47:53 PM
Author: psuheather
One of the things that has always bothered me about the whole pro-life/pro-choice and sex/abstinence debate is that I feel that the ''other side'' implies that, since I have these ''liberal'' beliefs, I am running around having sex with everyone and getting abortions every other weekend. I feel that this difference between my beliefs and theirs is that I have the ability to understand that what I choose is not necessarily right for everyone, and that everyone should have the right to make their own decisions.

Exactly my feelings as well. I also find it strange that many of the "other side," as you say, say they follow Christian teachings, but they seem to neglect the parts that say do not judge others for you will be judged harshly for your judgement, love your neighbor as yourself, give away all that you have and follow me, humans have God-given free-will, and God is omniscient, meaning He is All-Knowing and can and will use all possible human events and actions to His greater good. My faith is between me and God, not between me and you, and that faith cannot give me the power to dictate your life for you. Period.