One thing that struck me funny about the Laci Peterson case I'd like to point out:

It would have been totally legal for Laci to abort her baby, of course. But when Scot did it, hot dam, he gets charged with murder. Funny how it's legal for the mother to kill a fetus, but not the father.

I would hardly call this an "abortion."

What the heck are you whinning about??????????? He also killed Laci, but I quess that does not matter............

Originally posted by mad dog
What the heck are you whinning about??????????? He also killed Laci, but I quess that does not matter............

I think he's talking about a SECOND charge of homicide for killing the baby (If indeed he's being charged twice). No one's questioning the homicide charge for killing the woman.

If the fetus cannot survive on its own then IMO it's not alive, and no murder charges should be filed regarding that. Let the initial homicide charges for killing Laci stand. That fetus was not aborted, it 'delivered' spontaneously as Laci's body decomposed.

I think the reality of abortion hits home with this example. It is considered murder in some cases.

Ok, ES, so what would the charge be if someone killed a woman's fetus against her will? Theft?

Assault against the woman. Aggrivated assault, assault with intent, attempted murder of the woman...any of those are fine. If the fetus cannot survive on its' own, then it is not alive...yet. Since it is not alive, it has no rights. IMO.

es, an 8 and a half month old fetus would have an excellent chance of survival if it came out early, whether it be by emergency C section or by early childbirth. I think you are mistaken that an 8 and a half month old cannot survive.

But this isn't the point. If Laci had survived and the baby had died, under California law it sounds like Scott would still be tried for murder. And as I stated before, Laci has every right to have an abortion if she wants. I'm simply pointing out that the mother apparently has rights that the father doesn't have.

Taking away someone's CHILD and you want assault charges? Man, that is sick. Taking someone's child is equal in your eyes to someone giving another a black eye and a fat lip. Scarey.

Since this fetus never took a breath on its' own, it is not homicide. What do you say.... it was almost alive? Remember the old adage: "....close only counts with horse shoes & hand grenades...". It was not a child...yet. That's not making anything equivalent to anything. I know full well what miracles are available in neo-natal care facilities. Such was not the case here. Laci had not presented for child-birth, she was killed. The fetus terminated along with the mother-to-be.

Originally posted by es347fan
Assault against the woman. Aggrivated assault, assault with intent, attempted murder of the woman...any of those are fine. If the fetus cannot survive on its' own, then it is not alive...yet. Since it is not alive, it has no rights. IMO.

No baby can survive on its own, hell, a 3 year old could not survive on its own, does this mean until a person can survive on its own its murder should not be called that? And about the 8 and a half month old not surviving, my daughter was born at 8 and a half months old because of a planned C section, she was a perfect little baby, in fact, all planned C Sections are scheduled to arrive early, up to a month, so as to make the delivery easier. THese babys are not hooked to machines, they are the same as full term babies, just a pound or two lighter, that is it. Do you think that people hooked to machines to live, or the severley retarded who can not survive on their own have no rights, and if they are murdered the murderer should not be charged with murder?

I've never been comfortable with the granting of rights to a fetus. That line of thinking has prevented some women from exercising their right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

"It would have been totally legal for Laci to abort her baby, of course. But when Scot did it, hot dam, he gets charged with murder. Funny how it's legal for the mother to kill a fetus, but not the father."

Such a conundrum.
My point, is not that the fetus could not survive, but that it had yet to take even one breath. This is saying nothing at all about any delivery, regardless of style, or date. The mother was killed, the fetus died with her. The fetus was not alive on its' own, it was still attached to the mother.

"Do you think that people hooked to machines to live, or the severley retarded who can not survive on their own have no rights, and if they are murdered the murderer should not be charged with murder?"

We've been discussing "apples" & here you come changing the subject to "hubcaps". ??
Now you're talking about live, breathing people. Whole different category. Of course they have rights. Murder is murder.

Es,

so what crime is it if you kill someone's unborn child? Do you really think that should be classified as an assault? Or is it even a crime, since it sounds like your opinion of a fetus is basically that it's nothing, just a part of the mother.

Originally posted by es347fan
I've never been comfortable with the granting of rights to a fetus. That line of thinking has prevented some women from exercising their right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

"It would have been totally legal for Laci to abort her baby, of course. But when Scot did it, hot dam, he gets charged with murder. Funny how it's legal for the mother to kill a fetus, but not the father."

Such a conundrum.
My point, is not that the fetus could not survive, but that it had yet to take even one breath. This is saying nothing at all about any delivery, regardless of style, or date. The mother was killed, the fetus died with her. The fetus was not alive on its' own, it was still attached to the mother.

"Do you think that people hooked to machines to live, or the severley retarded who can not survive on their own have no rights, and if they are murdered the murderer should not be charged with murder?"

We've been discussing "apples" & here you come changing the subject to "hubcaps". ??
Now you're talking about live, breathing people. Whole different category. Of course they have rights. Murder is murder.

I'll actually take the argument a step further. I would say people who are hooked to machines and have no hope of ever recovering have no right to life either. That determination should be made by the person who has to support them.

As for how to punish someone for killing an unborn fetus, an assault charge is plenty. In my state, an intentional or knowing assault can be punished as a felony w/ a term of upto 10 years in prison. And I have little doubt attacking a pregnant woman would incur the heftiest penalty possible. I don't know about you guys, but I think 10 years in prison is an appropriate penalty for an involuntary abortion.

I disagree. Think about the intent there.

Let me make a hypothetical case. Let's say I, for example, had a wife that was 8 months pregnant. My wife wanted the kid but I didn't. I assaulted her, targetting her belly with the intent of hopefully causing a miscarriage, do you really think that should be considered simply an assault?

I vehemonently disagree. I guess this goes back to whether you consider a fetus a life. I can't help but feel that they are pretty much a baby just still in the belly.

Well, in your hypothetical, that would surely qualify as attempted murder....that is, you intend to cause serious bodily injury and commit an act that is clearly dangerous to the mother's life.

Since this fetus never took a breath on its' own, it is not homicide. What do you say.... it was almost alive? Remember the old adage: "....close only counts with horse shoes & hand grenades...". It was not a child...yet. That's not making anything equivalent to anything. I know full well what miracles are available in neo-natal care facilities. Such was not the case here. Laci had not presented for child-birth, she was killed. The fetus terminated along with the mother-to-be

Wow. Sickening. Because the baby can't breathe on it's own you think that killing it (and yes, it IS alive actually) is on a par with assault. Incredible.

Whether you like it or not, Laci was a mother. Her baby was in her stomach. That was taken away and you want assault? WOW.

Here's a hypothetical for you: (this will probably never happen in a million years, but bear with me) suppose I don't want my wife to have our baby. Also suppose I'm a doc and know how to perform an abortion. I slip something in her drink and put her to sleep. While she's out cold I perform an abortion. What is the charge then? Assault? Theft? Or maybe you don't feel any crime was comitted?

I apologize Karankawa, I did not relize where you were going when I made my first post.

It is funny how if a woman wants an abortion she can have it, but if the man doesn't want the baby he doesn't have a choice. If the woman decides to have the baby the man is still stuck with paying even though he didn't want the baby. If the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't, Well tough sh**....... With that said, the problem with this case is that everyone is more worried about the abortion issue instead of the actual crime. This will be draged through the courts for a long time because the lawyers are going to waste time on the baby. BOTTOM line is, this guy is a KILLER, and for that he needs to be put to death. Fighting over whether the baby has rights or not is not going to make this guy any less quilty of the act of murder. I can see both sides of this argument and both sides have good thoughts, but it is one of those things that is irrelevant to the case of how evil this person is. This is why we waste to much time and money in our court system because we are more worried about little things instead of just going after the crime. Sometimes things are black and white, but for some reason human nature likes to bring out the gray and as Leper would say, red & blue.

the 8 month old fetus would be a live breathing person if they were on the other side of the fetal wall, so you say a couple inches of flesh and fluid and murder is OK?

I'm saying it was never alive...not breathing, so the charge should not be murder. It had not been delivered. "Would" and "if" are great words, but in this case, they do not apply. A living being was not brought into the world.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Wow. Sickening. Because the baby can't breathe on it's own you think that killing it (and yes, it IS alive actually) is on a par with assault. Incredible.

Whether you like it or not, Laci was a mother. Her baby was in her stomach. That was taken away and you want assault? WOW.

Here's a hypothetical for you: (this will probably never happen in a million years, but bear with me) suppose I don't want my wife to have our baby. Also suppose I'm a doc and know how to perform an abortion. I slip something in her drink and put her to sleep. While she's out cold I perform an abortion. What is the charge then? Assault? Theft? Or maybe you don't feel any crime was comitted?

I think you're hypothetical would involve multiple crimes: There would be either assault or sexual assault (if there's "penetration...by any means") in addition to a charge of unlawful restraint or possibly aggravated kidnapping...at the very least you're talking about a double felony.

But the fact that the baby was eliminated is irrelevant, huh? Incredible.

If abortion is totally legal, then no, the baby's life is not relevant. Now if *I* were legislating, late term babies would have a right to life and these hypotheticals would be subject to murder charges.

So you think anyone has the right to terminate anyone else's pregnancy regardless of the mother's wishes? Absolutely insane. You are one sick bastard.

No...I think he's saying that the fact she's pregnant is irrelevant and that the guy should be charged with assault etc. etc.

so let me get this straight, I am a guy who doesnt want the baby my girlfriend is carrying, she wants to keep it. I hire a guy to go kick her in the stomach as hard as he can to force a miscarrige and all he gets is an assault charge and some probation? Thats just freaking great, talk about setting a dangerous precedent.

The way you look at the pregnancy as irrelevant is what scares me so much. What if I slipped something in a pregnant woman's drink that wouldn't harm her at all, but would kill the baby? Am I completely within the boundry of the law? To hear you tell it, I am. Wow.

At what point in fetal development have you decided that the fetus gains human rights? Is there some magical day that this takes place? Why do you think it's called a "birthday"?? That's when the change occurs. Regardless of the manner of birth, when it takes that second breath, it's alive. And in your hypothetical, the same question applies. Where on your timeline does the fetus gain "rights"?

Personally I believe that the fetus is human from the beginning. The fact that it needs it's mother to survive is irrelevant to me.

You don't see anything wrong with Scott killing his baby. Fine. Do you see anything wrong with him killing it against Laci's will??? What about her rights? I mean she can BREATE even!! wow!

It's already been established that Scott will face murder charges for the death of his pregnant wife.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
So you think anyone has the right to terminate anyone else's pregnancy regardless of the mother's wishes? Absolutely insane. You are one sick bastard.

Lemme correct something: I mean that the baby's life is irrelevant in terms of what charge is brought (although I think it could play a role in determining whether an attempted murder charge on the mother is applicable). In terms of sentencing, I have no doubt that it would and should play a role. Clearly the person who kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach will suffer a much harsher punishment than someone who punches another guy in the face. That's probably why assault has very broad sentencing possibilities. *You* concentrate on the word "assault" when you *should* be concentrating on the 10 year sentence. I don't know about you, but I consider a 10-year prison term a pretty bad consequence.

As for Trav's post, reread what I wrote in response to Karan. I'm sick of repeating myself for you.

Yes your highness king liberal Leper, wahtever you say, SIR!

I don't know about you, but I consider a 10-year prison term a pretty bad consequence.

Yes, but when parole comes around, we all know what that really means. It's obviously not the right term for this type of crime.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Yes, but when parole comes around, we all know what that really means. It's obviously not the right term for this type of crime. Didnt you know liberals believe themselves to be "the glass is half full" kind of people. That is, until something like murder hits too close to home. Then they become more conservative than most conservatives. Let their mother or sister become a victim of violent crime and see what comes out their mouths. I guarantee you a 10 year sentence wouldnt be "a pretty bad consequence" then.

10 years then freedom? beats laying at the bottom of SF bay with fish picking at your bones.

Ten years is a bit shy of addressing the enormity of the crime. Sentencing parameters shoud be 25 to life, must serve at least 25.

It's so easy to say "lock em up for life." Of course, none of you people are willing to admit there's too many people in prison as it is. Then you bitch about people getting out of prsion too quickly due to prison overcrowding.

You know Mike Tyson served less than 10 years? That was for rape, a greater crime if you ask me. I don't think you people are truly grasping what 10 years means....I bet half of you can't even remember what you were doing 10 years ago.

And that's 10 years for assaulting a pregnant woman w/out going after the child. If you go specifically after the fetus I bet you'll get attempted murder, equivalent punishment to manslaughter (Keep in mind I'm referring to punishment in TX).

As for the person referring to me as a "glass as half full" person, you're just making me laugh. I'm tempted to print that off and mail it to a friend.

The US prison system is indeed overpopulated. Take out all the non-violent, no other crimes prisoners convicted of merrywanna possession/use/sale. Let's see what effect that has. Then pick another category of criminals that are the next least offensive to society, and let them out. It's a start.
Mike Tyson being out of circulation for 'only' 10 years was a gift. No doubt he did the crime, however, the woman involved bears some responsibility as well. Tyson was a known sex offender, a known abuser of women, known to be a pre-psychotic heavyweight boxer, and she invites him to her room at 2 AM? Most of us probably understand that "no" means "no"....however reluctantly...but to expect that same understanding demeanor and then demonstrating self-control in acceding to the woman's choice is beyond Tyson's capability. That was something even the prosecution had to acknowledge, hence the 10 year stint.

I've clear memories of my activities a decade past.

How the heck did you guys go from a baby, too Mike Tyson, now there is something real close :D
If someone kills on purpose, just for the sake of it, then they should get death nothing less. What is this 10 year bull sh**. The person that was killed won't be reborn in 10 years.

"How the heck did you guys go from a baby, too Mike Tyson, now there is something real close "

That's classified. You know the drill.....we could tell you, but ..--..yadda-yadda

You know Mike Tyson served less than 10 years? That was for rape, a greater crime if you ask me.

Rape is a nasty, nasty, nasty crime that also doesn't get enough of a term for the crime. But I'm going to disagree with you about which is worse. In any case, we all know that the rich and famous get off light in our justice system.

And I thought I remembered reading that prisons were actually becoming less populated in the past decade. In any case, whether prisons are overcrowded or not is no reason to give someone a lighter sentence. That should never figure into the equation.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Rape is a nasty, nasty, nasty crime that also doesn't get enough of a term for the crime. But I'm going to disagree with you about which is worse. In any case, we all know that the rich and famous get off light in our justice system.

And I thought I remembered reading that prisons were actually becoming less populated in the past decade. In any case, whether prisons are overcrowded or not is no reason to give someone a lighter sentence. That should never figure into the equation.

True. Rich and famous have it easier. It's a good point. Unfortunately, all I can point to are famous cases. Well, back in high school, I heard of a guy getting 3 years for stabbing someone to death in the middle of a fight. Now I heard that secondhand, but I'm afraid I can't give any firsthand examples that aren't rich and famous....not yet:)

I've also heard the same thing. There's less overcrowding, but that was because we have expanded the prison system. I've also read/heard the U.S. has the highest proportion of our population incarcerated compared with ALL other nations. I think this is a per se indicator that we are too eager to imprison people.

Parole's no good either because parole's supposed to be used where the ratio of parolees to parole officers are about 20 to 1. In populated areas, that ratio is literally about 200 to 1.

My point is that our country is punishment-happy. While this may not directly apply to the scenario we've been debating, I think it's relevant. no it's not a reason to let one person off easy, but I think it's reason to punish a CLASS of people to a lesser degree.

Perhaps someone who kills fetuses is not the class we're looking for (I'm w/ es347...let's legalize some friggin drugs to solve the outrageous prison issues this country has), but I think if you're gonna make abortion legal, it's pretty damn inconsistant to call it a crime worthy of life imprisonment for someone who is not the mother to cause the abortion. I think there's only two acceptable approaches. Either the fetus cannot be legally aborted and killing a fetus is murder or the fetus can be legally aborted and killing the fetus is not murder. But it's unreasonable to impose responsibilities on a third party that the mother herself is not subject too.

if you're gonna make abortion legal, it's pretty damn inconsistant to call it a crime worthy of life imprisonment for someone who is not the mother to cause the abortion

EXACLTLY!!!!!! And now the case for making abortion illegal becomes EVER so clear!!!!!

It's clear that Scot Peterson (assuming he killed Laci and her baby) should get something for killing that baby, but it makes absolutely no sense that Laci could legally do the same thing without any repercussions. If you can agree with that statment, then you have to begin calling yourself Pro-Life.

There are two other possible positions to take in this scenario.

One, you can take the position that it's legal for a woman to kill a fetus, but not a man, which I doubt anyone would go for, and is downright unconstitutional.

Or two, you can take the position that it's legal for anyone to kill any fetus they want.

Personally, neither of those two positions sound right to me. But that's just my opinion!

You grossly oversimplify, Karankawa. Abortion is sometimes for the mother's health (or the baby's...it might not stand a chance of living), but commonly it's because people don't want it. I think that other alternatives, such as putting the baby up for adoption, should be considered beforehand, but the abortion doesn't actually kill anything, because the fetus is still a part of the woman's body and is not alive yet.

And that is my opinion. I can already hear the footsteps of Dave & Trav coming to scream at me that the fetus is alive...

It s to bad the abortionist didnt become fruits of their own labors..if all the abortionists were aborted what a world that would be

rabbit season

duck season

::shoots both es & blib:: *Elmer Fudd chuckle*

elmer season

You grossly oversimplify, Karankawa. Abortion is sometimes for the mother's health (or the baby's...it might not stand a chance of living), but commonly it's because people don't want it.

I purposely simplified. You can take just about any law, rule, whathaveyou and make exceptions to it. I think it's pretty clear that abortion should be legal when it comes to saving the mother's life. You're fencing with me now, trying to make it seem like abortion is still a good idea because there are exceptions. Forget that, let's stick to the basics.

And about people not wanting it....sorry, but that is weak. Let's kill it because we don't want it, okay!!!! Why don't we just kill anything we don't want then? :) You mentioned adoption, and this of course is an obvious compromise.

Originally posted by Karankawa
EXACLTLY!!!!!! And now the case for making abortion illegal becomes EVER so clear!!!!!

It's clear that Scot Peterson (assuming he killed Laci and her baby) should get something for killing that baby, but it makes absolutely no sense that Laci could legally do the same thing without any repercussions. If you can agree with that statment, then you have to begin calling yourself Pro-Life.

There are two other possible positions to take in this scenario.

One, you can take the position that it's legal for a woman to kill a fetus, but not a man, which I doubt anyone would go for, and is downright unconstitutional.

Or two, you can take the position that it's legal for anyone to kill any fetus they want.

Personally, neither of those two positions sound right to me. But that's just my opinion!

Well, do you agree that if a state legalizes abortion, it should not be able to punish a third person for crimes against an unborn fetus?

Funny how it's legal for the mother to kill a fetus, but not the father.

I wrote this, in the very first post on this thread.

Not regarding the fetus as a living being at the moment of its' demise should in no way detract from the enormity of the crime. Some legal eagles will have to come up with the proper wording to address the issue of fetal termination during a homicide on the mother, but it would still fall under an "assault*" charge of some flavor.

Originally posted by Karankawa
I wrote this, in the very first post on this thread.

Is that in response to me? If so, observing that the contradiction is "funny" really doesn't answer my question.