Posted on 06/09/2003 12:02:29 PM PDT by presidio9
Edited on 06/09/2003 12:05:34 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
When Scott Peterson goes on trial for the murder of his wife Laci last Christmas Eve, he won't be charged with killing just one person, but two: Laci and their unborn son, Conner. California, like about half of the states, not including New York, makes it a separate crime when a person committing a crime causes the death of an unborn child.
If Scott Peterson is convicted, it probably won't upset many people if he gets the death penalty or two consecutive life sentences for a double murder.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
What kind of status is the author trying to lock unborn children into?
The Rats are facist.
Being shameless is mild, evil and perverted is closer to the true face of these people.
|
Cold Hearted View My Cold Hearted View of abortion says that it is really a self curing problem. In time, the problem will go away by itself. Those women who don’t have the time or want to take the trouble to raise a child and have an abortion are removing their genes from the gene pool. As time passes, only mothers who want children and are willing to take care of them will remain in the population. Therefore, slowly, the defective genes are being systematically removed from the gene pool. As a sidebar, Rush was talking on his radio program awhile back that there have been about about 40 million abortions since Roe v Wade. That makes me wonder...... Could it be that the Liberals have also aborted themselves out of power? If only a small majority of the 40 million who were aborted were now alive and voting Liberals, the Liberals would be in control of the US Presidency, the House, and the Senate! |
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
If I were her, I'd be wondering by the lesbian crowd at Planned Parenthood is promoting infanticide in minority communities....
"You obviously didn't pay a bit of attention to what I wrote. I said that I AGREE with making it an enhanced crime if someone kills not only the woman, but her unborn child as well. The key is to make it an enhanced crime against the woman, not a separate crime against the unborn baby.
It's a slippery slope when you start giving unborn children rights equal to those of their mothers. When that happens, the rights of the mother become more and more diminished, until finally the woman has no rights at all.
The bottom line is it's not your business or mine to tell a pregnant woman whether she should have her baby or not. That's her decision."
My response to her follows
"If the unborn baby is victimized It is and should be a separate crime. When the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was being debated on the House floor last year, there was instance after instance cited about very pregnant women who were viscously attacked BECAUSE of the unborn baby. It was the intent of the attacker to kill the baby. Of course the baby was victimized, and of course it should be a separate crime.
One of the things that screamed out to me during those debates was that the democrats who were arguing against the act refused to refer to the baby as a baby. It might humanize it. Instead the baby was a "fetus". One rep from the bay area said she called some of the victims mentioned and discussed their attacks with them. She wouldn't say "I'm sorry you lost your baby". Instead, she said "I'm sorry you lost your pregnancy", or "I'm sorry you had a miscarriage." What a terrible thing to do to a woman who has suffered the loss of their child. She used language to deny the babies existence. How very heartless.
If this abuse of language was obvious to me, It was also obvious to countless others. I don't know why the democrats feel that they need to further victimize those who have already suffered so much.
Did you call the Rocha family to tell them that Conner's death didn't matter? However as a consolation prize, the value of Lacy's death has been "enhanced". Will you write a friend of the court brief to the DA's office to explain why they should drop all of the charges relating to Conner? Frankly, I want to see extremist views like your widely read. It takes a slap in the face like this to make people realize just how inhuman the pro-abortion crowd is.
As for a woman’s right to choose. You are right. Neither you or I have a right to tell a woman whether she should have a baby or not. the choice is hers. Until she gets pregnant. Then, she has made her choice.
Being a woman does not mean that I am so idiotic that I don't understand how pregnancy happens. I don't get it at the supermarket if someone nearby sneezes. I don't get it if I forget to wash my hands after using the restroom, and I don't get it from kissing on a first date. I am a product of public education. that meant that I had sex education every year from sixth grade through high school graduation. I don't get pregnant unless I choose to. I am in control of my body. I am woman, hear me roar!
The law requires that I treat my checkbook with respect. I am not to abuse it or write checks when I don't have the funds in my account.. I could go to jail for violating the law. The law says I am responsible to pay taxes, and if I don't, I could go to jail. I have to be responsible with my car. I can't go over 25 miles per hour in a school zone, or I might harm a child. However, I can be irresponsible with my body! I can have gratuitous sex and get pregnant. I can create new life, and I can kill it if it inconveniences me. I believe a woman has the right to choose whether or not to get pregnant. Once pregnant, there are two people to consider. Her, and the baby. Someone must speak for the baby, because the baby can't speak for itself.
The women’s rights movement of the 60's and 70's that was so loud when I was growing up got it all wrong. They shouted down men and told the world about "women’s rights". They forgot about women’s responsibilities. And they forgot about the joy of being a woman. A woman has the responsibility to be responsible with her reproductive system, She needs to treat others with the same respect and dignity that she was screaming about wanting for herself. She needs to appreciate what it means to be a woman. She needs to recognize the influence that she has over those around her. She needs to recognize that just because she can do something, doesn't mean she should."
Sorry. You substitution of slavery for the issue of abortion doesn't work, isn't even logical. It's so interesting to me that white people tend to think that race is the most tender issue for all black people, and that if you substitute race for some other issue it will bring the right moral message home to them.
Slavery and abortion are very different issues and you can't use verbal semantics to make them the same. Slavery is over. The slaves have been freed, and the great grandchildren of the slaveowners are doing just fine. However, there are still attempts to treat women as if they primarily a vessel for childbearing. When you do that, women wind up with no rights at all.S.M.
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.