Replies

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.

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!

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