NOW official modifies stance in Peterson case

The National Post (Canada) ^ | April 23, 2003 | Araminta Wordsworth

[MadIvan]

NOW is run by a bunch of lunatics.

Regards, Ivan

The flag of Canada...before the trouble started.

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[Puppage]

Ya mean they don't have the power of their OWN convictions?

[Poohbah]

I was thinking out loud

You were doing SOMETHING out loud; please don't insult the thoughtful by calling it "thinking."

I call it "verbal flatulence."

[Carolina]

"I was thinking out loud," she told the Daily Record of Parsipanny, N.J.

Thinking?? I think not, Ms. Cretin.

[ClearCase_guy]

"The position I was veering very close to was not even in synch with those of all the pro-choice organizations I belong to."

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!"

[11th Earl of Mar]

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."

SInce when do the NOW COWS care about 'viability'?

If they did, we would stop late term abortions.

[veronica]

Heartless NOW cows think nothing of pushing their agenda any time, any place. Until of course they realize they have offended decent people everywhere. They are on the losing side of this one anyway. The Peterson baby took on an identity from day one. The NOW cows ought not to add to the pain of Laci Peterson's family by trying to take from them the love they have for the baby Laci Peterson was so close to delivering. That baby should not be made a political football by the hideous NOW hags.

[theDentist]

The "viability of the Peterson fetus ... makes a great deal of difference".

Unless, of course, it's a question of abortion. Then viability is just an irritant.

[shhrubbery!]

SInce when do the NOW COWS care about 'viability'?

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?

[shhrubbery!]

There's a poll in the Daily Record of Morris County, the leftist rag that originally reported the odious Mavra Stark's remarks:

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.

[A2J]

"I was thinking out loud," she told the Daily Record of Parsipanny, N.J.

If only your mother had.

[DougF]

The incredible thing is that CA can have laws on the book that are so inconsistent:

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.

[jriemer]

The incredible thing is that CA can have laws on the book that are so inconsistent:

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.

[11th Earl of Mar]

What kills me is that this 'viability' argument has had such success in the first place.

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.

[Enterprise]

Well, as any good feminist will admit, The only good baby is a dead baby.

Bodies of babies
Buckets of parts
Haul them away
On cute little carts.

[DougF]

The incredible thing is that CA can have laws on the book that are so inconsistent:
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.

I think the issue is sticky anyway, defining murder by the perpetrator's relation to the victim. And your point just adds to the quagmire. I guess she could be nailed for practicing medicine w/o a license, but not for murder??

[Atlas Sneezed]

"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.

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.

[Mo1]

"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.

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

[shhrubbery!]

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.

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.