Originally posted by mateuloseUgh, duh?...look at your last post...'accident' does not equal 'manslaugter'...if a pregnant woman slipped on some stairs resulting in the death of her unborn child, it would be classified as an accident. If a woman wantonly drinks two gallons of vodka, knowing it could be harmful to her baby and resulting in the death of her unborn child, it could be classified as manslaughter...keep scratching your head, you may activate some neurons...murder is not an accident!
Ugh, YES! Think about it, should the woman be charged with manslaughter if she accidently bumped her stomach causing a miscarriage? You can get charged with manslaughter for hurting yourself now? *scratches head* All this "crime against the unborn children" crap, is just that, crap.
2 edits
Originally posted by OmnislashPoint taken Omni, however if the rights of the women will be taken away with any new court definition or case that leads to a change in the laws than this will be a horrendous step back for women's rights. (i am in no way a lawyer so i'm sure if this is even possible but i believe it is) Although, I don't agree that the man, who obviously had more in mind than assault, should possibly get away with such leniency, anything that takes these rights away from women is bad in my book. period. i am as pro-choice as they get without getting into ivanhoe-bbarr-like discussions on the rights of a fetus or whatever. my belief is from the heart and has nothing to do with science or law.
Now I EXTREMELY disagree with this! The right for a woman to choose to abort an unborn child definitely should NOT infringe on a womans right to give life to her unborn child unhindered.
Originally posted by chancremechanicCome now lad, keep a civil tongue. I know this is an emotional issue, but we can bring our point about with respect to the opposition. You have a good point, don't cloud it with inflammatory remarks.
Ugh, duh?...look at your last post...'accident' does not equal 'manslaugter'...if a pregnant woman slipped on some stairs resulting in the death of her unborn child, it would be classified as an accident. If a woman wantonly drinks two gallons of vodka, knowing it could be harmful to her baby and resulting in the death of her unborn child, it co ...[text shortened]... laughter...keep scratching your head, you may activate some neurons...murder is not an accident!
Originally posted by darvlayWhy do you think this judge was in error?
Wow, I acutally agree with Mateulose. I can't believe they charged him for the murder of the unborn child, that's ridiculous.
It's ghastly to think that all the publicity and exploitation this case has experienced was due simply to the fact that the victim was pregnant. I'm glad it's over and I hope nothing becomes of this gross error on the part of the judge.
Here's a thought experiment:
Suppose that Mr. Peterson first induced labor in his wife (via drug or physical assault), and after delivering the infant a month early, killed his wife. Suppose that just after killing his wife, he then killed the newly delivered infant. This is clearly two murders.
Now, what is the moral difference between this scenario and the actual case. As far as I can tell, the only difference is that in the actual case the infant was enclosed within the wife. But why does the location of the infant make a moral difference to the case?
Originally posted by darvlayI like the way you see things darvlay. I am your converse, being very pro-life. Like you though, I also have respect for the opposition. It is my personal belief that the best thing we can do as a society is find the middle ground in the issue by allowing women choice while respecting the unborn. I believe it is possible to respect the "life" of the unborn AND give women a choice such that both sides are given equal value, and I believe that to reach that middle ground we have to respect our oppositions values.
Point taken Omni, however if the rights of the women will be taken away with any new court definition or case that leads to a change in the laws than this will be a horrendous step back for women's rights. (i am in no way a lawyer so i'm sure if this is even possible but i believe it is) Although, I don't agree that the man, who obviously had more in mi ...[text shortened]... of a fetus or whatever. my belief is from the heart and has nothing to do with science or law.
The point is, they could of simply of charged him with murder in the first degree, life inprisonment, and that would of been enough. This "2nd degree murder for killing an unborn child" seems to be nothing but a political coup d'etat. Shame on the jury for diciding so quickly and not seeing that broader scale of things, thinking outside the box, and not seeing how this case could change US political history by claiming that killing a fetus is a serious 2nd degree murder crime/charge. Personally I think this moral issue of protecting the unborn by neo-cons is beyond stupid, as they seem to take great joy is racking up the "raghead" kill count in wars... Conservatives don't have any morals, they are just greedy ppl who are generally quite violent.
Originally posted by bbarrThe moral difference? I don't think there is one. If there was a way to convict him of murder without affecting how abortion is defined in law then I'm all for it. I'm just afraid that these rulings may be used to lawfully define abortion as murder. It's not that I don't think the man is not a murderer, I would just rather see him be charged with manslaughter to protect the rights of women. As I pointed out, I am completely unfamiliar with how these potential changes in law may be processed, so I guess my stance can seem a little ambiguous. I guess it's a case of me rather seeing the dirtbag charged with manslaughter than see the right of an abortion taken away, if that is what the end result would be.
Why do you think this judge was in error?
Here's a thought experiment:
Suppose that Mr. Peterson first induced labor in his wife (via drug or physical assault), and after delivering the infant a month early, killed his wife. Suppose that just after killing his wife, he then killed the newly delivered infant. This is clearly two murders.
Now, wha ...[text shortened]... d within the wife. But why does the location of the infant make a moral difference to the case?
Originally posted by darvlayFair enough, thanks for clarifying.
The moral difference? I don't think there is one. If there was a way to convict him of murder without affecting how abortion is defined in law then I'm all for it. I'm just afraid that these rulings may be used to lawfully define abortion as murder. It's not that I don't think the man is not a murderer, I would just rather see him be charged with ma ...[text shortened]... slaughter than see the right of an abortion taken away, if that is what the end result would be.
Originally posted by OmnislashI try my best to see the pro-life point of view but, respectfully, there's a reason why I'm pro-choice. It's impossible for me to accept the opposite view. Don't get me wrong though, I will not judge a person due to their pro-life beliefs. I may throw a cheapshot at them in the forums for my own laugh, but judge them I will not. 😉 But I am a firm believer in compromise, so we agree on that aspect.
I like the way you see things darvlay. I am your converse, being very pro-life. Like you though, I also have respect for the opposition. It is my personal belief that the best thing we can do as a society is find the middle ground in the issue by allowing women choice while respecting the unborn. I believe it is possible to respect the "life" of the unbo ...[text shortened]... alue, and I believe that to reach that middle ground we have to respect our oppositions values.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf he had thought there was a moral difference between the two cases, I would have continued. He claimed there was no such difference, but that he was worried about the effects of this precedent on abortion law generally. How can I argue with his opinion on the possible precedential effects of this case? I have no reason to think that he's incorrect about such effects, because I don't know how far the ramifications of decisions like this spread. This could make a huge difference to abortion law, or the effects of this case could be negligible. 😕
.... if this was me reasoning the way Darvlay does I would have to be prepared for much more than a simple "Fair enough, thanks for clarifying" reaction.
...... I don't believe this, Bbarr !
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes, he should be convicted for murdering the child because only she can choose to have an abortion, and at that age of the child, she can only do that if her life is at stake for medical reasons to do with the child.
Didn't he deprive her of that "right" by murdering her ?
Of course I meant "could this man still be convicted for murdering the unborn child" in my previous post. I hope that was clear ... or not ?