PDA

View Full Version : Peterson Trial & Abortion



Figs
11-13-2004, 01:21 AM
With Scott Peterson being convicted of second degree murder for killing his unborn son, do you think this ruling will have any ramifications towards abortion? Could you point to this case as a precedent for abortion being a first degree (premeditated) murder? Or would that comparison be thrown out. I think this case opens up some interesting legal battles...

lms2
11-13-2004, 01:28 AM
I don't think so... I think that is sort of a forced abortion issue, but that is an interesting question about the murder charges.

Figs
11-13-2004, 01:37 AM
If anyone knows if there has been any previous murder convictions of an unborn child I'd be interested.

Figs
11-13-2004, 01:40 AM
For the record I guess I'm Pro-Death in that I wouldn't want to make abortion illegal. I can see it in cases of rape, etc., but I think it's a pretty sick form of birth control.

lms2
11-13-2004, 01:45 AM
I agree. I also have more of a problem with late terms abortions than first trimester.

ELVIS
11-13-2004, 01:49 AM
Partial birth murder should warrant twenty years to life...

lms2
11-13-2004, 01:50 AM
but for who? the mother, or the doctor?

ELVIS
11-13-2004, 01:55 AM
Both...

lms2
11-13-2004, 01:59 AM
murder and conspiracy to commit murder
how bout endangering the life of a child as a minimum?

ELVIS
11-13-2004, 02:22 AM
Endangering ??

It's premeditated murder, period...

TongueNGroove
11-13-2004, 02:23 AM
I beleive any style abortion is illegal after the second tri-mester. Seeing as how Lacy was well into her third tri-mester I don't see any confilct of interest.

BTW, the women's right to choose ends when she spreads her leggs.

thepunisher
11-13-2004, 02:29 AM
What really gets me is those lefties that are anti-death penalty but are pro-abortion.
They'd rather protect the life of a piece of trash than that of an unborn child. Oh wait its not a child it's tissue. Yeah right.

Jesus Christ
11-13-2004, 02:31 AM
Laci and her son are with Me :(

FORD
11-13-2004, 02:33 AM
The problem with this law is how its implemented. Obviously Peterscum had full intention of killing the kid as well as his wife, and at 8 months, the viability of the child is not questionable. Therefore considering this a premeditated double murder is very warrented.

Now on the other hand, let's say a drunk driver hits a woman in a crosswalk who is one or two months pregnant. You would have a hell of a time arguing the premeditation of that one.

TongueNGroove
11-13-2004, 02:36 AM
My daughter has lupus and she became pregnant. Around 5 months into it she developed Toxemia, which forced the doctors to induce labor or they might both have died. The baby was born at 5 months and survived.

That is a whole month earlier than when some late term and partial birth abortions are done. If that's not murder I don't know what is.

ELVIS
11-13-2004, 02:41 AM
Exactly!

Thanks for the story...

Switch84
11-13-2004, 02:41 AM
:confused: So the real question of which unborn child is more protected under the law depends if the mother wanted it or not? Laci's child was more important because she wanted it. Whereas if I was headed to the abortion clinic, my unborn child woudn't get the same protection. This abortion issue does conflict me, I'll admit. How do you pick and chose which fetus/embryo/child is more important than the other?


I say they're all important, therein lies my confliction, because I don't think it's right to tell a woman what to do with her body!

FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!

Nickdfresh
11-13-2004, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Figs
With Scott Peterson being convicted of second degree murder for killing his unborn son, do you think this ruling will have any ramifications towards abortion? Could you point to this case as a precedent for abortion being a first degree (premeditated) murder? Or would that comparison be thrown out. I think this case opens up some interesting legal battles...

I'm not sure, but I think there is speculation that Laci gave birth post-mortem. Conner was alive and out of the womb for a short time after Laci died making Peterson a baby killer.

Also, though there are two murder charges:

First Degree (for Laci) Penalty- 25 to life w/ parole possible,

Second Degree (for Conner) 15 years w/ parole possible,

-AND-

There is a third penality in which takes into account that Laci was pregnant:

First Degree Murder under a "Special Circumstance,"-Penalty 25 years to Life in Prison w/ no parole or DEATH.

Nickdfresh
11-13-2004, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by thepunisher
What really gets me is those lefties that are anti-death penalty but are pro-abortion.
They'd rather protect the life of a piece of trash than that of an unborn child. Oh wait its not a child it's tissue. Yeah right.

What really gets me are the righties that are screaming with religious conviction that abortion "is murder," yet feel it is okay to defy the "Thou shall not kill" commandment and kill any criminals they deem fit.

Even though it has been shown that a sizable percentage of people killed in the "chair" were innocent of the crimes that sent them there!

By the way, anyone for adopting all of these unwanted pregnancies? How about cutting welfare and social services for poor children that are already here?

There are a lot of "conservatives" that feel life is only precious inside the womb and FUCK "EM ONCE THEY"RE BORN!:mad:

By the way I hope Peterscum dies!

Figs
11-13-2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I'm not sure, but I think there is speculation that Laci gave birth post-mortem.

Maybe that's why there is the second degree murder conviction. So maybe he was considered "born."

BrownSound1
11-13-2004, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
What really gets me are the righties that are screaming with religious conviction that abortion "is murder," yet feel it is okay to defy the "Thou shall not kill" commandment and kill any criminals they deem fit.



Whoa! hold just a second there! You had better read the rest of the Old Testament, before you make this statement.

While we do have this commandment, it is referring to committing murder, and not to capital punishment. For instance, during this time, it was perfectly legal for unruly children to be stoned to death...and this was in accordance with God's law. In fact I cannot think of one instance where capital punishment is condemned by God.

The "righties," as you put it, seem to have a grasp of what murder is. No unborn child has ever sinned or committed a crime. However, they can find many examples in the Bible of what is to be done to those who defy the law.

Nickdfresh
11-13-2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Brownsound1
While we do have this commandment, it is referring to committing murder, and not to capital punishment. For instance, during this time, it was perfectly legal for unruly children to be stoned to death...and this was in accordance with God's law...

I rest my case.

BrownSound1
11-13-2004, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I rest my case.

What the hell are you talking about?

lms2
11-13-2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Switch84
:confused:
FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!

Inner conflict is a bitch ain't she!

I am against partial birth abortion... I respect a womans right to a first trimester abortion, even though I have no real idea at what point a fetus becomes a life...

I disagree that a womans right to choose ends when she spreads her legs... her body is still hers after she closes them. ;)

Capital punishment... I am for it. I just wouldn't be able to be the one to do it, ya know. So what if innocent people died in the chair. the real pity is in the fact that they got convicted anyway. How will that change whether or not they are dead or alive. Let a man out of prison 20 years later and say... "Oh sorry, we made a mistake" is not going to give him his life back.

Quoting the bible is also a tricky situation. They are not called the ten suggestions you know...but still, talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth. And then the interpretations as to whether such statments as any eye for an eye are metaphorical... God did some evil things to sinners. But he also forgave a good deal of them.

So, I guess it boils down to "Judge not lest ye also be judged" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Thank goodness no one listens to me anyway.

BrownSound1
11-13-2004, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by lms2
So, I guess it boils down to "Judge not lest ye also be judged" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Ah, the two quotes I've been waiting to see. :D If you are using the word of God to judge wrongdoing, then that is ok. For instance, if I tell you that you are doing wrong by being a thief because God has taught against it, then I'm not the one judging you, it is God's word. Same goes for the use of the laws of our country.

Now, when people quote Jesus saying, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," they think they have it made. I've seen this used so many times it is funny...people's way of justifying their wrongdoing. What they forget is the rest of what Jesus said in that story. Jesus told that woman to "go and sin no more." It is true that the law of the time said that she could be stoned to death, but I do believe that she would have had to have been brought before a judge and tried for her crimes. This mob was nothing but a mob of angry people, and Jesus diffused the situation.

lms2
11-13-2004, 02:55 PM
Which is pretty much what Americans (or people in general) are today isn't it? A mob of angry people, so angry they get totally caught up in stories brought to them via the media...stories in which they have no personal involvement in, and know only what they have been told about that particular situation, assuming everything you read is correct?

So you can judge me to be a theif because it is what God has taught, but God does not want you to judge me. God knows all... you only know part of the story. If my cow wonders into your pasture, then you possess the cow, do you not? (possession is nine tenths of the law) If I then come and retrieve my cow, am I stealing from you?

premeditation, crimes of passion, intent to kill or accidental death, life in prison, or a death sentence. I tend to think that God would cringe at these things. Judgement from mortal man with all his limitations is more what I was getting at.

lms2
11-13-2004, 02:56 PM
And what about the COWS right to choose?

fanofdave
11-13-2004, 03:02 PM
thought for the day:

if you want the government to keep their hands
off your body, then keep your hands off the unborn
as well.

Nickdfresh
11-13-2004, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Brownsound1
What the hell are you talking about?

The logical inconsistencies in the Bible. It's okay to stone children to death, but according to those with strict fundamentalist views, the Bible prohibits abortion? Basically, I am talking about using a document that is thousands of years old and written by often times prejudiced, narrow minded men that were products of their time and trying to turn it into a political treatise by selectively quoting and often misquoting it!

But I digress, this thread is about Peterson and his victims. I was just responding to someones "lefties" political bullshit and just letting them know their is plenty of moral hypocrisy to go around.

Warham
11-13-2004, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I rest my case.

I don't see how you rested anything.

God regularly told the Israelites to slay whole armies and civilian populations in Canaan and other areas because they were Pagan worshippers and sacrificed their kids to these various 'gods' or other atrocities.

Capital punishment was fully endorsed by God in the Old Testament.

Nickdfresh
11-13-2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I don't see how you rested anything.

God regularly told the Israelites to slay whole armies and civilian populations in Canaan and other areas because they were Pagan worshippers and sacrificed their kids to these various 'gods' or other atrocities.

Capital punishment was fully endorsed by God in the Old Testament.

First of all, I don't accept that God fully endorsed anything in the Bible, because he/she didn't write the Bible, a collection of men did that had their own concerns, fears, prejudices, and limitations in their world views that were far less than all-knowing.

But assuming the Bible is the word of God, and not the word of divinely inspired, but very flawed men; What did God say about abortion?

lms2
11-13-2004, 03:10 PM
Depends on if the fetus is unruly I guess????

Are these political issues, or moral ones?

Warham
11-13-2004, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by lms2

Quoting the bible is also a tricky situation. They are not called the ten suggestions you know...but still, talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth. And then the interpretations as to whether such statments as any eye for an eye are metaphorical... God did some evil things to sinners. But he also forgave a good deal of them.

Evil is defined in the Bible as doing something against God's will. Therefore, God doesn't do evil acts because whatever He does is in accordance with his own will. If he wanted to wipe out a whole country, he has that right. As Bill Cosby said, "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!"

Warham
11-13-2004, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
First of all, I don't accept that God fully endorsed anything in the Bible, because he/she didn't write the Bible, a collection of men did that had their own concerns, fears, prejudices, and limitations in their world views that were far less than all-knowing.

But assuming the Bible is the word of God, and not the word of divinely inspired, but very flawed men; What did God say about abortion?

This is quoted from another site because it fits my view on the matter, and says it better than I could...

'In Psalm 106 God speaks specifically against killing innocent children and babies. He says of His people: They mingled with the nations and adopted their customs. They worshipped their idols which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughter to demons. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan and the land was desecrated by their blood.

Today we may scoff, or wonder in disbelief how anyone, especially someone who claimed to follow God, could sacrifice their child to an idol or a demon. Yet, an idol is anything that we worship before God. Today, children are sacrificed to the idols of selfishness, convenience, "freedom," and ambition--sacrificed to the very demonic powers that are behind such idols. Times really haven't changed that much. Human nature hasn't changed, nor has Satan's schemes against that which God considered so precious that He died to redeem it--human life.'

lms2
11-13-2004, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Evil is defined in the Bible as doing something against God's will. Therefore, God doesn't do evil acts because whatever He does is in accordance with his own will. If he wanted to wipe out a whole country, he has that right. As Bill Cosby said, "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!"

True, true... but isn't men judging men against God's will... thats why there is judgment day when we ALL be judged.

So I guess Cosby is pro abortion, even after birth abortion? LOL... I tell my kids the same dang thing.

Warham
11-13-2004, 03:16 PM
In Exodus 21:22 God gives a specific law regarding social order for the Israelites. He stated that if two men were fighting and hit a pregnant woman, thus causing her to give birth prematurely, they must be fined according to any damage done to the baby. The fine must be paid in relation to the amount of damage inflicted upon the child. If God would make a law specifically referring to the rights of the unborn, then surely the unborn must mean something to Him!

Warham
11-13-2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by lms2
True, true... but isn't men judging men against God's will... thats why there is judgment day when we ALL be judged.

So I guess Cosby is pro abortion, even after birth abortion? LOL... I tell my kids the same dang thing.

That quote by Jesus has been misunderstood in my opinion lms2.

I think what Jesus means in that quote you mention, 'judge not lest ye be judged', is that we are not to have a judgemental attitude because that's how Jesus will judge us when our time comes. There are certain people we all know who have an attitude that everybody else does everything wrong and they themselves do nothing wrong, ala their shit doesn't stink. That's what I think Christ was referring to. It's perfectly acceptable to point out the mistakes others make, but just make sure you are aware of your own failings.

My interpretation. :D

Warham
11-13-2004, 03:22 PM
Also, scientific info from that site I quoted:

'Just 18 days after conception, the baby's heart begins to beat. At six weeks, brain waves can be measured. At eight weeks the vital organs are functioning and fingerprints have formed. At nine weeks, the unborn baby is able to feel pain. Over 700,000 abortions each year are performed after this point in the pregnancy. By the beginning of the second month, the unborn child, small as it is, has begun to look distinctly human, though the mother may not even be aware that she is pregnant! By the time the baby is eleven weeks old, he or she breaths (fluid), swallows, digests, sleeps, dreams, wakes, tastes, hears, and feels pain. Babies born prematurely can survive outside the womb as young as 20-25 weeks old. Yet, all that is necessary to make the baby a grown human being is already there from the moment of conception. All it needs is time to mature.'

This is why in my mind abortion is wrong. Who decides WHEN a child is considered viable inside the womb, and what standards does that person go by? His own?

Just my thoughts.

lms2
11-13-2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Warham
In Exodus 21:22 God gives a specific law regarding social order for the Israelites. He stated that if two men were fighting and hit a pregnant woman, thus causing her to give birth prematurely, they must be fined according to any damage done to the baby. The fine must be paid in relation to the amount of damage inflicted upon the child. If God would make a law specifically referring to the rights of the unborn, then surely the unborn must mean something to Him!

Yes, but does the fine get paid to the baby? Or to the woman? Or to the father of the child? Is the baby being respected in its own right as a person, or as the property of another?

Warham
11-13-2004, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by lms2
Yes, but does the fine get paid to the baby? Or to the woman? Or to the father of the child? Is the baby being respected in its own right as a person, or as the property of another?

Here's the whole passage...

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Ex. 21:22-25 The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1996.

lms2
11-13-2004, 03:31 PM
I was asking for your interpretation of the passage as to the ownership of/respect for the life of the unborn child.

Warham
11-13-2004, 03:37 PM
God owns the child, like He owns everything else.

lms2
11-13-2004, 03:40 PM
Thats a good answer. It also pretty much settles the argument about whether life is life prior to its ability to survive outside the womb... or the issue of quality of life determining what is life. But then it does raise some other questions if you want to continue the discussion.

BigBadBrian
11-13-2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
First of all, I don't accept that God fully endorsed anything in the Bible, because he/she didn't write the Bible,

The Bible was the inspired Word of God and as such, is considered to be written by God. Lesson 1, Christianity 101. :gulp:

Warham
11-13-2004, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by lms2
Thats a good answer. It also pretty much settles the argument about whether life is life prior to its ability to survive outside the womb... or the issue of quality of life determining what is life. But then it does raise some other questions if you want to continue the discussion.

Sure, I'm up for it.

:D

FORD
11-13-2004, 04:08 PM
Yes, and bats are birds, all insects have 4 legs, and the sun & moon are nothing more than lightbulbs placed in the sky for our convenience.

lms2
11-13-2004, 04:09 PM
Actually I kind of agree with Nick on that one. Beware of false prophets and graven images and all that jazz. If God had wanted his word written, it is within his power to do so. ;)

ELVIS
11-13-2004, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Yes, and bats are birds, all insects have 4 legs, and the sun & moon are nothing more than lightbulbs placed in the sky for our convenience.


Christian FORD pipes in...:rolleyes:

Warham just did a beautiful job of putting abortion up to God's word and you add this crap ??

ELVIS
11-13-2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by lms2
Actually I kind of agree with Nick on that one. Beware of false prophets and graven images and all that jazz. If God had wanted his word written, it is within his power to do so. ;)

His word is written...

God uses people, that's the way he works...

Warham
11-13-2004, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Yes, and bats are birds, all insects have 4 legs, and the sun & moon are nothing more than lightbulbs placed in the sky for our convenience.

FORD, you need to study your Bible before you post.

SUN AND THE MOON:

Genesis 1:16-18
God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. (NIV)

BATS AS BIRDS:

Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. (See also Deut. 14:11, 18)
A biological boo-boo here? Plenty of critics think so, including one in particular who prompted my wife and I to write a letter to the editor of our local paper.

Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.

The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers). It's similar to refuting geocentrism charges against the Bible by showing that even modern astronomers use terms like "sunset" and "sunrise" without being accused of being geocentrists, so why shouldn't we make the same allowance for the Bible writers.

INSECTS WITH FOUR LEGS:

The passage? "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing, that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; (including) the locust . . . the beetle . . . and the grasshopper after his kind" (Leviticus 11:21,22). Tucked within a list of dietary regulations for the people of Israel, it refers to a number of animals whose exact identification is obscured by antiquity. But let's look closely.

First, we must recognize that modern day taxonomic categories, like species, genus, family, etc., are not the same as the Biblical "kind." Even the term "creeping thing" finds wide application meaning, in general, small animals which exist in great numbers. In this chapter it is used for insects (v. 21), various small mammals and reptiles (vv. 29,30), as well as animals which "move" in the ocean (v. 10).

Likewise the term "flying" applies both to flying insects and birds (vv. 13-19). Obviously, the context and description must take precedence in identification, and in this case, the "four legged insect" applies, in particular, to the grasshopper/locust kind.

In our modern classification system, all insects have at least six legs. They are members of the large and varied arthropod phyla, which includes also the eight-legged spiders, the multi-legged centipedes, as well as crabs—anything with segmented legs. Some insects also have wings, but these don't count as legs.

Today, locusts are considered migratory grasshoppers. They all have two large hind legs, quite different in appearance, size, and function from the front four legs. Their front legs are used for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," while their back legs rest "above" their front legs and feet, and are used for "jumping." Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated "beetle" actually comes from the verb "to leap," implying a similar leaping insect, not our modern beetle. Thus, the Biblical description of grasshoppers turns out to be exactly anatomically correct. Far from being an embarrassment to Bible believers, this passage bears sterling testimony to the accuracy and inspiration of Scripture. As always, arguments which claim that the Bible is wrong are themselves wrong, and the Bible still stands!

lms2
11-13-2004, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
His word is written...

God uses people, that's the way he works...

and so does Satan...

lms2
11-13-2004, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Sure, I'm up for it.

:D

I missed that and thought that you were tired of me already!

ummmm new topic on another day. I gotta get for awhile. But it was fun!

ELVIS
11-13-2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by lms2
and so does Satan...

God allows evil where it is welcome...

Nickdfresh
11-13-2004, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
The Bible was the inspired Word of God and as such, is considered to be written by God. Lesson 1, Christianity 101. :gulp:

"Inspired" and "authorship" are two entirely different things. English Literature 101. By the way, which translation are you using, because the language itself alters the "word of God."

ELVIS
11-13-2004, 05:30 PM
And your point is ??

ELVIS
11-13-2004, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
By the way, which translation are you using, because the language itself alters the "word of God."

No it doesn't...

Show me an example...

Nickdfresh
11-13-2004, 05:36 PM
I am trying to say that if anyone takes the Bible to be the absolute word of God that is an untenable position. The Bible is a cultural document, not just a religious one. It is prone to different interpretations and none of them can be considered an absolute. As Jacques Derrida said, "the text deconstructs itself."

The Bible does not specifically mention abortion. But it does prohibit the killing of innocent children. So is bombing Baghdad and inflicting "collateral damage" and killing children morally justified when abortion is not?

Nickdfresh
11-13-2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
No it doesn't...

Show me an example...

The King James version of the Bible is an inferior scholarly translation of the ancient Hebrew, though it is the most literary interpretation and easiest to read. Whereas the translation in my "Catholic Bible" is a more scholarly translation, but a much worse read.

ELVIS
11-13-2004, 05:51 PM
Show me where the meaning is altered, which is, what I believe you were implying...

ELVIS
11-13-2004, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I am trying to say that if anyone takes the Bible to be the absolute word of God that is an untenable position. The Bible is a cultural document, not just a religious one. It is prone to different interpretations and none of them can be considered an absolute.

I generally agree with this...

I'm not one of these bible freaks that believes the earth is 6000 years old...

Nickdfresh
11-13-2004, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Show me where the meaning is altered, which is, what I believe you were implying...

Let me do some research and I'll get back to you on it, even start a new thread because I think this one has significantly veered from the first post. But I am fairly sure that translations have been problematic.

ELVIS
11-13-2004, 06:09 PM
Ok...

What was this thread about ??

hahaha...

Nickdfresh
11-13-2004, 06:12 PM
I thought it was about Peterbeaterscum and why is unborn son's death was murder. I think, but am not sure, they somehow concluded the child was alive after Laci was killed (by poison?).

OK- I found a link with the forensic pathologists tesitmony. The discussion pretty gruesome. http://www.findlaci2003.us/prelim-day10-autopsy-conner.html But basically, Conner was in much better condition than Laci's body, and Geragos (who may have fucked Peterson with this) asked the Pathologist if he could rule out that Conner wasn't born alive. He said he couldn't, but that he thought Conner was released after death due to decomposition.

ELVIS
11-13-2004, 06:17 PM
I dunno...

But I do know that dying your hair won't get you off...

Nickdfresh
11-13-2004, 06:23 PM
Running to the Mexican border with a goatee, $15K in cash, in addition to the dyed hair isn't good either.

ELVIS
11-13-2004, 06:26 PM
..and what was in the trunk of his car ??

Everyone I know thought this guy was going to walk...

I kept on saying NO WAY!

Switch84
11-13-2004, 07:41 PM
:rolleyes: It would've been alot easier if Scott just asked Laci for a divorce, the dumb fuck. Didn't she know about his sideline piece of ass anyway? She would've been happy to get rid of him!


Justice is served. Rest in peace, Laci and Connor.

Nickdfresh
11-13-2004, 07:44 PM
A lot of people thought he couldn't be convicted on circumstantial evidence, but, when you were "fishing" 90 miles away from home and two miles away from where they would eventually find your wife and son washing up on shore, in a boat that police concluded hadn't recently been in the water. And you had concrete dust from your driveway on the boat, neighbors saw you loading up the truck with something in a black tarp and a black tarp washes up on shore, you try to sell your wife's car when she's still missing, and you are calling your girlfriend and telling her that your wife is missing before it was reported, you are storing stuff in your son's room that you were tearfully claiming was like a shrine, that just adds up to a conviction. I hope they put him to sleep, or he gets raped in prison everyday of his remaining life. This guy couldn't have acted more guilty if he admitted it.

Ally_Kat
11-13-2004, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Switch84
:rolleyes: It would've been alot easier if Scott just asked Laci for a divorce, the dumb fuck. Didn't she know about his sideline piece of ass anyway? She would've been happy to get rid of him!


three words -- alimony, child support.

ELVIS
11-14-2004, 12:01 AM
Huh ??

Ally_Kat
11-14-2004, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Huh ??

If he left Laci for Amber and got a divorce, he would ahve to pay alimony to her. Then he would have to pay child support for Connor. Now, if he killed them, then he wouldn't have to deal with that.


BTW -- what was up with him telling Amber he was at Paris for New Years at the vigil? If she was known to be missing at that point, wouldn't word have gotten out to Amber?

ELVIS
11-14-2004, 12:13 AM
I don't think he killled her just to get out of paying support...

Ally_Kat
11-14-2004, 12:13 AM
Getting back on topic.


Originally posted by Figs
With Scott Peterson being convicted of second degree murder for killing his unborn son, do you think this ruling will have any ramifications towards abortion? Could you point to this case as a precedent for abortion being a first degree (premeditated) murder? Or would that comparison be thrown out. I think this case opens up some interesting legal battles...

No, I do not think this will affect abortion.

The thing that is different with this case and abortion is that Laci fully intended to have Connor. He was a wanted a baby. There was a nursery and all. She proudly displayed her pregnancy. Her family was waiting for the child. She was definately keeping this child. It was wanted.

I think it would be the same as if someone randomly snatched a pregger woman and gave her a clotheshanger abortion against her will.

It's murder because the pregnant party is not a willing participant.

Abortions are mostly unwanted pregnancies; Women and girls who cannot be pregnant for whatever reason. The other cases being medical complications. Those women are willingly having the procedure done.

The intent is different.

Switch84
11-14-2004, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by Ally_Kat
three words -- alimony, child support.

:confused: If that was the case, more wives and kids would be dead right now, Ally! It had to be more than that to drive him to kill her.

rustoffa
11-14-2004, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Getting back on topic.

It's murder because the pregnant party is not a willing participant.

The intent is different.

Read and heed.

Ally_Kat
11-14-2004, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by Switch84
:confused: If that was the case, more wives and kids would be dead right now, Ally! It had to be more than that to drive him to kill her.

Not every guy wanting to leave his wife will turn to murder, but he seems like the kind that would.

I'm sure you've seen the internet joke about why the sister killed the other after her mother's funeral. Logical people won't kill the wife they want to leave, but maybe...

Ally_Kat
11-14-2004, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by rustoffa
Read and heed.

I'm talking from a law-side approach, my personal views aside and not withstanding

ELVIS
11-14-2004, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Not every guy wanting to leave his wife will turn to murder, but he seems like the kind that would.




C'mon Ally...

You're a smart girl...

He "seems" like blah blah blah fill in the blank...!?!



That kind of thinking is worthless nothing...

rustoffa
11-14-2004, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Ally_Kat
I'm talking from a law-side approach, my personal views aside and not withstanding

That's what I was talking about.:D

Switch84
11-14-2004, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Not every guy wanting to leave his wife will turn to murder, but he seems like the kind that would.

Logical people won't kill the wife they want to leave, but maybe...

:D 'Logical' people won't. That's what makes Scott such a predictable criminal. He isn't logical. He probably liked it.

Ally_Kat
11-14-2004, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by rustoffa
That's what I was talking about.:D

sorry hun. Blonde moments are happening often lately for me. :(

Cathedral
11-14-2004, 01:52 AM
This can be applied to abortion because it sets a precedent that a fetus is a life while still in the womb. there were no "special provisions" made about the age of the fetus.

This certainly can, and will be used in the near future. it will be tested so abortion supporters are correct to be concerned about it.

For so long the argument has been used that a child is not a child until it is birthed, well, this new law says that a child is a child at the time of conception, or for those who don't understand, entered the womb.

My belief is that aborting any fetus is murder at any time after conception.
And i also agree that a woman has a right to choose. But her choice was to have sex without birth control, and if the birth control fails and she gets pregnant, the government has no right under God to permit that woman to shrug off the resonsibility of giving birth.

Abortion is a right that should never have been provided by the government, period.
It is nothing more than another liberal minded tool to gain favor among the vile in our society with a right to vote.

And another thing, If a woman gets pregnant, she didn't do it alone and therefore should not have sole power on what happens with that fetus.
This is where it gets personal to me because it was also the fathers choice to lay down with the woman.
So, if she decides all by her lonesome to abort, the father should have legal recourse to file a charge of pre-meditated murder against her.
It's my seed, and i don't give up ownership of it, or the responsibility simply by injecting it into the female because it is a well known and documented fact that seeds produce living organisms.

This whole idea that sex is a social activity that can be slept off like a severe drunk is complete horseshit.
The facts are, have sex, and you can create a baby.
The choice should have been a responsible choice by not engaging a sex act if you have no intention of raising a child.

Sex was intended for procreation, and parenthood is the consequence for the act.

It's murder, and there is no other way to view the situation.

Ally_Kat
11-14-2004, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
C'mon Ally...

You're a smart girl...

He "seems" like blah blah blah fill in the blank...!?!



That kind of thinking is worthless nothing...

I don't know what kind of person he is. Of what I have seen, he's a lying scumbag. But that's all I've seen of the guy. Don't know him personally.

Of what I've seen -- I think he liked the fling with Amber. I think it woke up memories of how his life used to be. I think he didn't want to be married to Laci anymore let alone have her have a kid that would keep him tied to her. I think something within him snapped, something along the lines of what could be considered a mid-life crisis but not so mid-life, so that he took the ultimate step and murdered them both.

I don't buy the bullshit that he didn't intend to hurt Connor. Every functioning adult knows how babies are born and they know that if you dump your pregnant wife at water bottom that you aren't going to have that baby in your crib anytime soon. He knew if he got rid of her, he got rid of him.

He kept going back to the spot. I think this was a paranoia move. He went to make sure everything was clear. He went to notice who else was going around there.

It was scary/uncomfortable to watch footage of him sometimes because he reminded me of someone.

Cathedral
11-14-2004, 02:19 AM
Charles Manson?

Scott Peterson is a cold calculating fuck, who doesn't deserve to live.

But i'm against killing him. Put his ass to a lifetime of hard labor and make him suffer for his actions.
I was all over Tim McVey being put to death, but after the fact i thought ill of the decision.
It's an easy way out, and in most cases only serves to gratify the victims families, but only for a moment.

Jeffery Dahmer is more the example i'd like to see made of Peterson.
His ass was killed after much torture in my opinion, which is something Scott won't get at the hands of the system.

But if he doesn't get taken out by inmates, let his ass rot in prison so he is fully aware that his freedoms are gone forever.

Warham
11-14-2004, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I am trying to say that if anyone takes the Bible to be the absolute word of God that is an untenable position. The Bible is a cultural document, not just a religious one. It is prone to different interpretations and none of them can be considered an absolute. As Jacques Derrida said, "the text deconstructs itself."

The Bible does not specifically mention abortion. But it does prohibit the killing of innocent children. So is bombing Baghdad and inflicting "collateral damage" and killing children morally justified when abortion is not?

No war is morally justified.

But what Saddam did to his own people is not morally justifiable either.

With that, I end my portion of this off-topic subject.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

aesop
11-15-2004, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
What really gets me are the righties that are screaming with religious conviction that abortion "is murder," yet feel it is okay to defy the "Thou shall not kill" commandment and kill any criminals they deem fit.

Even though it has been shown that a sizable percentage of people killed in the "chair" were innocent of the crimes that sent them there!

By the way, anyone for adopting all of these unwanted pregnancies? How about cutting welfare and social services for poor children that are already here?

There are a lot of "conservatives" that feel life is only precious inside the womb and FUCK "EM ONCE THEY"RE BORN!:mad:

By the way I hope Peterscum dies!

There are also MANY good christians (and others) I know that have adopted one, two, or three children, from here and from other countries (Russia, etc.). I don't believe in the death penalty at all. The imprisoned are the biggest untapped source of cheap labor to keep things 'made in america' if only the unions and big labor would allow it. Worked fine years ago. Just think, we could have prisoners MAKING the state money, not sucking it dry.

Cathedral
11-15-2004, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by aesop
There are also MANY good christians (and others) I know that have adopted one, two, or three children, from here and from other countries (Russia, etc.). I don't believe in the death penalty at all. The imprisoned are the biggest untapped source of cheap labor to keep things 'made in america' if only the unions and big labor would allow it. Worked fine years ago. Just think, we could have prisoners MAKING the state money, not sucking it dry.

I like the way you think, 5 stars for you and your "Buy American" idea.