Regards, Ivan
The flag of Canada...before the trouble started.
Posted on 04/23/2003 6:01:16 AM PDT by MadIvan
The National Organization for Women is backing away from comments an official made on the decision to charge Scott Peterson with two murders in the deaths of his wife and unborn child.
The furor came as the parents of the murdered Modesto, Calif., woman broke their silence to say how much they missed their daughter and hoped "the person" who had killed her would be brought to justice.
The controversy was touched off on the weekend when Marva Stark, president of a NOW chapter in New Jersey, said she feared the double-murder charge could strengthen efforts to enact a ban on late-term abortions.
California law provides for a second murder charge to be laid if a pregnant woman is slain, even if the fetus is not viable. The law has been on the books for about 30 years.
On Monday, after a barrage of hostile criticism from such talk-show hosts as Bill O'Reilly and conversations with NOW officials, Ms. Stark modified her position.
"I was thinking out loud," she told the Daily Record of Parsipanny, N.J. The "viability of the Peterson fetus ... makes a great deal of difference" in assessing the case.
"The position I was veering very close to was not even in synch with those of all the pro-choice organizations I belong to."
The bodies of Laci Peterson, 27, and her unborn son were identified on Friday after washing up on the shore of San Francisco Bay a few kilometres from where her husband said he had gone fishing the day of her disappearance.
Mr. Peterson, 30, has been charged with two counts of premeditated murder. He pleaded not guilty at his arraignment in Modesto on Monday.
James Brazelton, the Stanislaus County district attorney, said his office would probably decide by a May 19 hearing whether to seek the death penalty.
"I think just the nature of the crime itself is pretty heavy on the side of proceeding as a death penalty case," he said yesterday.
Laci Peterson's parents spoke longingly of their daughter but would not publicly speak the name of her husband.
"I can only hope that the sound of Laci's voice, begging for her life, begging for the life of her unborn child, is heard over and over and over again in the mind of that person every day for the rest of his life," said her mother, Sharon Rocha.
On Monday, Mrs. Rocha wept as the charges were read out in court. Jackie Peterson, Mr. Peterson's mother, hugged her before the arraignment but the two sat on opposite sides of the courtroom.
Public defender Tim Bazar was assigned to the case after Mr. Peterson said he could not afford to hire a lawyer.
Lawyer Kirk McAllister, who had represented Mr. Peterson before the arraignment and met with him in jail on Saturday night, said there was a good explanation for the US$10,000 in cash his client had during his arrest, but declined to discuss that or other elements of the case.
"The press wants instant truth. The police want self-serving truth. Hopefully, there will be a process to get to the whole truth about what happened," the lawyer said.
"The police had to make an arrest in this case or they would have looked like Mayberry RFD."
Investigators had long declined to name Mr. Peterson as a suspect, even as they seized his truck, fishing boat and more than 100 items from the couple's home.
He said he had nothing to do with his wife's disappearance, saying he last saw her when he left to go fishing the day before Christmas.
Mr. Peterson joined in the many searches by hundreds of volunteers who combed the banks of reservoirs, rivers and canals across the vast Central Valley that runs up the middle of California.
He also watched while police searched the area where he said he had been fishing.
Regards, Ivan
The flag of Canada...before the trouble started.
You were doing SOMETHING out loud; please don't insult the thoughtful by calling it "thinking."
I call it "verbal flatulence."
Thinking?? I think not, Ms. Cretin.
In other words: "I stepped off the reservation for a second, but I'm back on track, parroting all the lines they tell me to parrot. I'm not thinking for myself with either my head or my heart -- I promise!"
SInce when do the NOW COWS care about 'viability'?
If they did, we would stop late term abortions.
Unless, of course, it's a question of abortion. Then viability is just an irritant.
What kills me is that this 'viability' argument has had such success in the first place.
Why should 'viability' be a criterion for whether someone is permitted to live, or forced to die?
Let's say you've been in a car accident and have to be placed on a respirator, at least temporarily. You are not 'viable' at that moment. If the 'viability' argument is a good one, why not just terminate you right then and there?
Should New Jersey enact a fetal homicide law that allows murder charges in the death of a fetus?Yes
No
Unsure
The poll is currently running about 70% for YES.
Go here to vote. Poll is about halfway down page, beneath picture on left.
If only your mother had.
Q - Is it murder to take the life of an unborn child?
A1 - No, if the person is the mother.
A2 - Yes, if the person is someone else, including the father.
Your Yes / No postion raises a sticky legal question: Can a pregnant woman in California be charged with fetal homicide if she kills her unborn baby outside the confines of an abortion clinic not in the presence of an licensed abortion "doctor"? This assumes she survives the act and had no assistance.
First of all the 'viability argument' has not had success. If it did, we would not have tens of thousands of late term abortions each year.
But if the argument was successful, we would cut the abortion rate by 10-25 percent.
I think this would be a good step in the right direction. And I'm sure you would too.
Bodies of babies
Buckets of parts
Haul them away
On cute little carts.
It also makes a great deal of difference to many people regarding the morality of abortion, especially the PBA procedure you want to protect, ma'am.
Doesn't sound like a backdown of a response to me .. sounds like they still believe what they said but just wish they didn't say it outloud
But if the argument was successful, we would cut the abortion rate by 10-25 percent.
I think this would be a good step in the right direction. And I'm sure you would too.
You didn't answer my question re the non-'viable' person who needs the aid of a respirator to live.
Any reduction in the number of abortions would be welcome; but we are not going to get that by persuading women that it's fine to abort their babies before 'viability' (whatever that may be), but not after.
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.