Laci Peterson case tied to Roe debate - (NOW argues baby was not murdered)

Daily Record ^ | 4/20/03 | Rob Jennings

[Mark Felton]

The head of the National Organization for Women's Morris County chapter is opposing a double-murder charge in the Laci Peterson case, saying it could provide ammunition to the pro-life lobby.

"If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder," Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark said on Saturday.

[Carolinamom]

Contrary to NOW's mantra of a woman having control over her own body, Laci did NOT have control over HER body or of Connor's when the TWO of them met death.

He was a real child. He had a name. He had a mother who was looking forward to holding him in her arms. To deny that Connor was not a baby is sick, sick, sick.

[GummyIII]

Hi, Kim. I was just remarking to my daughter yesterday that I find it odd abortionists would seek a murder penalty for the death of the baby. Pro-life folks like us definitely see it as murder. Of course, we see abortion as murder, too. I'd like to see him tried for the murder of the baby. I'd also like to see abortion called murder.

[wardaddy]

Words of wisdom.

Thank You.

[gitmo]

I recognized from your response that you were arguing from a legal perspective, wheras I was speaking from an ethical perspective. Murder was defined long before SCOTUS or the US existed.

From a legal standpoint, Roe v Wade is a flawed decision, and has been improperly applied.

The case was based on perjury.

The decision improperly gave precedent to a less-important Right (privacy) over a more-important Right (life). It is comparable to giving me carte blanche to kill anyone who interferes with my right to speak in public.

The Supreme Court made up an immense amount of law with no grounds nor with any precedent. There was no legal basis for their Trimester schemes. They simply pulled it out of thin air.

But back to the original thesis: If someone agrees that unjustifiable killing of humans is wrong, then abortion fits that category.

[MHGinTN]

You can't get inside the box unless the woman gives you permission. You must violate a woman's right to privacy before you can outlaw abortions. You may again be able to do that, but the women who continue to want abortions afterward will go so far as to commit suicide to evade your intrusion. The very act of asking for an abortion affirms that the woman believes she has an individual alive human being inside 'the box', else she would not need to hire a serial killer to deal with the 'problem'.

[MHGinTN]

The acrimony will continue as long as people think they have a right to tell a woman what to do with life that may or may not exist inside of her. Apparently, you have a problem with syllogistic arrangement. Only when life exists in the woman's body is she hiring a serial killer ... killer, as in one hired to end life.

[savedbygrace]

In the Garden of Eden, God pronounced punishment on three, the serpent (the devil), the woman, and the man:

Of the three, the woman's curse was: I will greatly multiply thy sorrow (pain) and thy conception; in sorrow (pain) thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

The devil has been trying for 6,000 years to prove that God was lying or not able to make those curses permanent.

Abortion says to the woman, "You don't have to suffer pain in childbirth. Just get rid of the thing." I believe that abortion is sent directly from the evil one.

I'll stop the preaching there, but I think you can see that the rest of the curses these three received has gotten the same satanic treatment, for the same purpose.

But God is not a man that He should lie. His Word is Truth. Amen.

[incindiary]

You cant have it both ways, people who kill unborn babies are either murderers, or they are not. It doesnt matter if it is Scott Peterson killing an unborn baby, or a woman having an abortion. It is the same thing.

Exactly. It doesn't make sense that Baby A (a wanted baby) is murdered... and Baby B (an unwanted baby) is not murdered, but aborted.

The baby is either a person, or not. I say the preborn baby is a person. And the law is inconsistent.

[longtermmemmory]

The feminists call all heterosexual intercorse rape and a violation of the woman. This is not about whether or not a baby is inside a woman. Feminists have no hesitation allowing born, unborn, inocent, or their own being sacrifieced in their political goals of power. The feminist HATE the family unit of mother and father and baby makes three. The greatest threat to feminists is NOT the antiabortion/prolife groups, the greatest threats to feminsts is a happily married couple, children who love their father, children who love their mother. The feminists HAVE TO kill the family as an institution to validate their own desctructive world view. This child that never was is just another blood sacrifice on the altar of feminism

[cpforlife.org]

"His Word is Truth. Amen" AND AMEN!

[cpforlife.org]

EVERY Freeper needs to see this 9-minute film on abortion
(It’s FREE & on-line)

A January poll on FR ended with 80% in favor of overturning Roe v Wade. That is great and makes me proud to be a Freeper.

I propose that if you have not seen the 9-minute documentary Hard Truth or other films like it, then you might not fully appreciate the magnitude of what has happened 42+ MILLION times since Roe v Wade in 1973. That is the number of reported surgical abortions since 1973 in the US alone.

These important 9 minutes are worth more that a million words about the subject.

Go to Abortion Videos , at the NATIONAL AMERICAN HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL. Simply click “HERE” where it says: “You may view it online HERE”. I’d also ask for you to go back to the home page, stay a while and read about the facts.

The file size is about 5mb, so if you don’t have broadband you’ll have to be patient. You might want to download it to your hard drive cause it will breakup if streaming from a slow connection. Also be sure to have your speakers on.

If you are one who thinks abortion is “OK”, or are one who is “on the fence” then this film is ESPECIALLY for you.

From the website: “It is perhaps the most powerful film ever produced on abortion. Actual footage of living, in-utero children and their aborted peers tell the hard truth about abortion in ways "just words" never will. Hard Truth packs such unprecedented power, viewers can scarcely watch without being profoundly affected. In total, the film is only nine minutes long, and except for the introduction, there is no narration.”

Again, go to Abortion Videos , at the NATIONAL AMERICAN HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL. Simply click “HERE” where it says: “You may view it online HERE”

Please let me know what you think, and if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[WKB]

What the hell else could you call it?

Playing Doctor

No! Playing G-d!

You are right the NOW gang is playing God.
But you would think at the least they would want to charge Scott with "Practicing medicine without a license"

[longtermmemmory]

But what is the now gang's goal. REAL bottom line goal?

[MHGinTN]

I've been wondering about something. What if Scott chose to plead he should have had a right to reject Connor before he was born, pleading that way to avoid the death penalty for two homicides?... Uneven application of law is one of the ways a ruling gets set aside. There is no doubt in my mind that his case would make it to the SCOTUS. When it arrived there, the issue would divide as the uneven application of right to reject parenthood, to reject the unborn ... women are allowed to do so, but men are not. This wouldn't bring up Roe beacuse Roe was decided on a privacy penumbra.

What if the Ca. State statute that defines fetal homicide were challenged by Scott in order to avoid the double homicide charge? How would he challenge that?... By laying claim to the inference in Roe that dehumanizes the unborn, thus no homicide can be defined unless a human being is murdered. That approach to defeating the double homicide charge would revert back to Roe and the flawed lack of characterization of alive unborn, since the SCOTUS, in Roe v Wade, stated that it could not make that judgement (of course they could have, as easily as they created the penumbra of privacy to justify killing), thus when California assumed what the SCOTUS stated it could define, the CA statute would be a contravention of the Roe decision.

Why do I cogitate on these vagaries?... Because ultimately, these court decisions are assumed to be outside of the tolerance level of the society, thus not the right of the society to be intolerant of such farsical rulings. It is time for the society to voice outrage over SCOTUS decisions that protect the salughter of alive individual human beings ... and this Peterson murder case may be an excellent pitard upon which to raise the specious rulings of the SCOTUS. [I'm continually outraged that the SCOTUS ruled in Roe based on perjury (lies by plaintif and the falsified data presented by the attorney) to the court in the Roe case, yet the SCOTUS refuses to even consider the unlawful foundation of their own decision that has resulted in legalizing the slaughter of babies waiting to be born. Baby Connor's right to be defined as a fellow human being should not be brushed aside in a rush to hang a likely criminal.]

Someone reminded us of the name of the bay where Baby Connor's body was found. It regaled my soul to learn that the bay is named for the noted Saint! God does indeed work in mysterious ways, His wonders to behold!

[cpforlife.org]

“The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.” C. S. Lewis

1973 United States Supreme Court

[rolling_stone]

I understand your position, but am not convinced Roe v Wade was a flawed decision from a legal standpoint. Controversial yes, one of the most controversial of decisions, and with substantial ramifications.

As far as perjured testimony, I am not aware of what you are referring to.

Although it has been over 20 years since I closely visited this issue at which time I decided it was not debatable due to emotions on both sides of the issue, I did refresh my memory of the opinions here:

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/roeins.htm


While one might agree that unjustifiable killing of human beings is wrong, that still leaves the issue of what is justifiable and to whom and at what point is one a human being. All issues subject to opinions, whether correct opinions or flawed ones....

regards

[pooh fan]

NOW has ALWAYS been irrelevant--always has been a single issue group.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Great quote and picture. I wish it was available as a poster.

[cpforlife.org]

Note that the only two who voted against the majority are on the right side of the photo. Rehnquist standing and White seated. Now isn’t that interesting….Hmmmm………