Skip to comments.
NOW defends Scott Peterson's right to choose
Jewish World Review ^
| 4/22/02
| Scott Ott
Posted on 04/22/2003 12:55:36 PM PDT by Caleb1411
The National Organization for Women has decided to broaden its fundraising base by supporting a man's right to choose in addition to the traditional woman's right to choose.
In this case, the man is Scott Peterson, currently staying in private quarters as a guest of officials in Stanislaus County, CA. A local NOW chapter spokesman issued a formal apology to Mr. Peterson for the "grievous injustice he has suffered at the hands of those who would limit his rights."
The spokesman called on local officials to drop one of the two murder charges against Mr. Peterson on the grounds that the late-term fetus his wife carried was not a person.
"If he had killed his wife then removed a tape worm from her and it died, he would only be charged with one murder," said the NOW spokesman. "That is a precisely accurate analogy using irrefutable logic."
A memo from the NOW legal department also defended Mr. Peterson's alleged decision because of the extraordinary situation.
"Terminating the fetus at that late date was still permissible," according to the memo,"because there was a clear threat to the life and health of the mother."
JWR contributor Scott Ott publishes the satirical website ScrappleFace.com, whose motto is "News fairly unbalanced. We report. You decipher."
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Political Humor/Cartoons
KEYWORDS: abortion; lacipeterson; prolife; scottpeterson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
1
posted on
04/22/2003 12:55:37 PM PDT
by
Caleb1411
To: Caleb1411
bump...thanks for the post.
To: Caleb1411
National Organization for Women has decided to broaden its fundraising base by supporting a man's right to choose ...Men have a choice. Visa, Mastercard or DebitCard.
3
posted on
04/22/2003 12:57:49 PM PDT
by
Hodar
(With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
To: Caleb1411
Well, when a woman's parents name her "Mavra Stark" she's bound to grow up angry.
4
posted on
04/22/2003 12:58:59 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: All
The sad thing is, this story isn't that far from NOW's real agenda.
5
posted on
04/22/2003 1:00:21 PM PDT
by
Kieri
To: Caleb1411
"If he had killed his wife then removed a tape worm from her and it died, he would only be charged with one murder," said the NOW spokesman. Heh. For half a second, I actually belived they said that!
6
posted on
04/22/2003 1:01:12 PM PDT
by
HairOfTheDog
(Not all those who wander are lost)
To: Caleb1411
I swear I thought this was from the Onion, then I read the last paragraph, hehehe :)
7
posted on
04/22/2003 1:03:41 PM PDT
by
TheSpottedOwl
(America...love it or leave it. Canada is due north-Mexico is directly south...start walking.)
To: Caleb1411
Shout it from the rooftops, Marva....let the whole world know what you're really all about.
8
posted on
04/22/2003 1:04:32 PM PDT
by
Brad’s Gramma
(Become a Monthly Donor to Free Republic. Please?)
To: Caleb1411
"...it's just something I've been ruminating on." American Heritage Dictionary: Ruminate 2)To chew cud.
What else would you expect of a cow?
9
posted on
04/22/2003 1:04:33 PM PDT
by
beelzepug
To: HairOfTheDog
So did I. It just shows that anything the NOW people say to get their agenda across would not be surprising. I think they hate the unborn, even though they were once unborn themselves. Idiots and sickos, all of the NOW gang.
10
posted on
04/22/2003 1:06:33 PM PDT
by
Luna
(Evil will not triumph...God is at the helm)
To: Doctor Raoul
I thought this was a Raoul thread at first. You'll appreciate it nonetheless.
To: 2nd amendment mama; A2J; aposiopetic; attagirl; axel f; Balto_Boy; bulldogs; Charlie OK; cgk; ...
ProLife Ping! If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
12
posted on
04/22/2003 1:10:04 PM PDT
by
Mr. Silverback
(God Bless the United States and her valiant allies.)
To: Caleb1411
"If he had killed his wife then removed a tape worm from her and it died, he would only be charged with one murder," said the NOW spokesman. "That is a precisely accurate analogy using irrefutable logic."A tape worm is the same as a viable infant boy. These people are beyond sick, and will go to ridiculous lengths to defend their perverse views. And WHAT irrefutable logic exactly?
A memo from the NOW legal department also defended Mr. Peterson's alleged decision because of the extraordinary situation.
WHAT are they talking about??? Alleged decision? Extraordinary situation? They are DEFENDING the murder of this unborn child because his father had already murdered his mother?
"Terminating the fetus at that late date was still permissible," according to the memo,"because there was a clear threat to the life and health of the mother."
What clear threat? The threat to her life by her husband's hand??? Can they be any more twisted? This has got to be satirical. Please tell me it is.
13
posted on
04/22/2003 1:11:06 PM PDT
by
agrace
To: Caleb1411
"If he had killed his wife then removed a tape worm from her and it died, he would only be charged with one murder," said the NOW spokesman and ex-tapeworm... oops, did I say ex?
To: agrace
I see the answer to my own question, missed in my initial outrage. Not too surprising, since NOW is pretty close to the edge on this one as it is.
15
posted on
04/22/2003 1:13:59 PM PDT
by
agrace
To: Caleb1411
Let's post the Santorum/Clinton partial birth abortion debate all around the internet so people understand why Santorum is being ruthlessly attacked today.
It's to get NOW/NARAL off the front page.
To: Caleb1411
CHOOSE DEATH OR BE PRO-LIFE...By golly what a difficult choice! (/sarcasm off)
LIFE!
17
posted on
04/22/2003 1:18:44 PM PDT
by
Cindy
To: HairOfTheDog
To NOW, an unborn baby has no more rights than a tapeworm.
18
posted on
04/22/2003 1:27:00 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: agrace
his has got to be satirical. Please tell me it is. Ummmm, the article itself said it was satire.
19
posted on
04/22/2003 1:28:54 PM PDT
by
HairOfTheDog
(Not all those who wander are lost)
To: Caleb1411
"Terminating the fetus at that late date was still permissible," according to the memo,"because there was a clear threat to the life and health of the mother."By that logic, it would have been permissable to "terminate" Scott. He clearly was a more "clear threat to the life and health of the mother".
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson