How can Scott Peterson be guilty of murdering his unborn son?

[Ben Kenobi]

Trajanus:

Click on my link, it gives a bit more background information.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Yes...3rd trimester abortions are a no-no I think."

In theory they aren't supposed to do it barring "medical nessecity". Of course, that doesn't mean abortion doctors don't do it.

I'd imagine after appellate courts upheld the conviction of Kenneth Edelin for manslaughter for aborting a fetus two weeks past the legal limit, they'd be a bit cautious about it. If not for "ethical" reasons, for ones of not wanting to risk revocation of their medical license and felony conviction.

Wrt Peterson, time and circumstances of death obviously aren't known, but there is precedent in California law for prosecuting fetal homicides. In one particular case I remember, some ******* got his girlfriend pregnant, ditched her, and some six months later, when he figured out she hadn't gotten and abortion, he kicked her in the stomach area repeatedly. He was prosecuted for voluntary manslaughter and aggravated mayhem (on the mother), which carries up to a life sentence. The reason he wasn't prosecuted for murder related to fetal age.

With Laci Peterson's late pregnancy, it's clear that she could have given birth when she disappeared, and the baby would likely have lived with routine neonate supervision. She was very close to full term.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83881

Link to Jules thread, and the original CNN report.

[Frankychan]

I hate to be a skeptic, but Scott is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Even though he does look suspicious and the situation points to him (Scott Peterson) as the most likely culprit, we have to remember that our criminal justice system revolves around Innocent before proven Guilty.

[Ben Kenobi]

Spoilsport.

[Agathon]

The notion of prosecuting people for "murdering" fetuses is a political fraud, given the liberal policies on abortion in developed nations.

Either the fetus is a person, or it isn't. It's just pandering to irrational whim to class it as one in one case and one in the other.

Actually, if a fetus isn't a person I don't think a neonate should be either. So people who kill neonates should not be done for murder if we are to remain consistent.

[Frankychan]

I agree, the ambiguity of defining what murdering a fetus actually is, is very slippery. Certain groups think killing a fetus outright is murder while other groups say after a certain amount of months pass, it's considered murder.

[Ben Kenobi]

Either the fetus is a person, or it isn't. It's just pandering to irrational whim to class it as one in one case and one in the other.

Well said Agathon. In order to make the law consistent, we should overturn Roe v. Wade.

Actually, if a fetus isn't a person I don't think a neonate should be either. So people who kill neonates should not be done for murder if we are to remain consistent.

Where do you draw the line Agathon? You were once an infant. What about you has changed since then to make you a person?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Well said Agathon. In order to make the law consistent, we should overturn Roe v. Wade.

That's not the only option. We could also go the other way and still remain consistent.

Where do you draw the line Agathon? You were once an infant. What about you has changed since then to make you a person?

Don't groan, but this is a very deep and difficult philosophical question.

I used to think that language use made the difference because I thought that any being without a language was not a thinking being.

I'm not sure I believe this anymore as I found out about an incident from my own childhood that counts as strong proof that thought precedes language. Roughly what happened is this: my mother took me to the UK to visit relatives before I could talk and I learned to talk while I was there. When I returned I asked about a picture at a friend's house that had been moved during my absence. I even identified what the picture was of (well almost - I said "where's the horse?", in fact it was a picture of a llama). I think this is grounds to suppose that I already knew a great deal before I could talk.

I think that cognitive science or neurophysiology could possibly provide an answer to this question in the future, but I don't believe that pro-choice people would like it whichever way it goes because it is unlikely to place the cut off point where they'd like it.

On the other hand, I'm surprised that, given the high rate of early miscarriage (usually not even noticed by the woman) that pro life forces aren't agitating for medical science to come up with a solution to that problem.

In any case I think that attempting to make the law consistent will fail because the law is formulated according to political pressures and these are often inconsistent. Basically a group whines until it gets what it wants and consistency be damned.

[Sava]

Originally posted by obiwan18
The Partial Birth abortion ban, as I see it, only prevents an abortionist from pulling part of the child out of the womb and then slaughtering her. The bill says nothing about other methods of late-term abortions.

Then you really need to find the legislation and read it again. I posted a thread on this subject and exposed all the pork that was hidden away in the bill.

for this thread... and attempt to equate the murder of this woman and her child to abortion. I don't understand how some people believe they are helping protect life.

[Ben Kenobi]

Agathon:

There are smilies for groaning, which I would be happy to employ if that is the emotion I intended to convey.

Your previous post indicated the influence of Peter Singer, hence my question in response.

I think this is grounds to suppose that I already knew a great deal before I could talk.

Very clever, Agathon

On the other hand, I'm surprised that, given the high rate of early miscarriage (usually not even noticed by the woman) that pro life forces aren't agitating for medical science to come up with a solution to that problem.

Actually, prolifers are agitating to ease the problem. One of the risks factors related to induced abortion is an increased chance of miscarriage in future pregnancies. By lessening the number of induced abortions, we can increase the overall fertility of women with respect to miscarriage.

But this is a side point. Miscarriage is quite different from abortion, and is usually distinguished from induced abortion with the term 'spontaneous abortion.' Induced abortion is entirely preventable, an elective surgery that kills an unborn child, usually by dismemberment inside a suction machine.

Basically a group whines until it gets what it wants and consistency be damned.

How do you come to this conclusion from an analysis of the prolife position? We argue that the unborn child is a person and deserves the same protection accorded to other persons. This is an argument from consistency.

Compare this to your own admission of the prochoice position:

I think that cognitive science or neurophysiology could possibly provide an answer to this question in the future, but I don't believe that pro-choice people would like it whichever way it goes because it is unlikely to place the cut off point where they'd like it.

Prolifers in contrast do not shy away from the science that says human life begins at conception. We do not shy away from fetal ultrasound allowing us a window into the womb.

Ask a prochoicer if they favour ultrasound for every woman considering an abortion. They will unequivocally reject this preposition because they are afraid of what women will see when they are exposed to the truth.

Examine your comments again, Agathon. Do you really support those who will reject the truth when it does not fit what they want to hear?

[Frankychan]

Hey, I'm not trying to tie this incident with abortion. I'm merely trying to remind everyone that Scott Peterson is innocent until proven guilty.

[Ben Kenobi]

Frankychan:

We always need people to remind us of the constitution.

Sava:

Then you really need to find the legislation and read it again. I posted a thread on this subject and exposed all the pork that was hidden away in the bill.

Please post because I missed your comments.

for this thread... and attempt to equate the murder of this woman and her child to abortion. I don't understand how some people believe they are helping protect life.

Assumes that unborn children are somehow less than persons. If one defines human life beginning at conception, then prolifers are most definitely protecting human life.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Agathon:

Your previous post indicated the influence of Peter Singer, hence my question in response.

In philosophical circles like mine, comparing a person to Singer who is a utilitarian and worse an Australian is a heavy insult.

Very clever, Agathon

There is more to say on the topic but it would quickly get boring.

Actually, prolifers are agitating to ease the problem. One of the risks factors related to induced abortion is an increased chance of miscarriage in future pregnancies. By lessening the number of induced abortions, we can increase the overall fertility of women with respect to miscarriage.

I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about all pregnancies. If pregnancy is diagnosed before implantation the probability of birth eventually happening is only about 25-30%. That means that a lot of fertilised eggs just don't see the light of day. I think that the pro lifers should be upset about this and agitate for medical research to prevent it since more potential children die this way than from abortions. It is only until 6 weeks of gestation that the probability of birth goes up to 80-90%.

But this is a side point. Miscarriage is quite different from abortion, and is usually distinguished from induced abortion with the term 'spontaneous abortion.' Induced abortion is entirely preventable, an elective surgery that kills an unborn child, usually by dismemberment inside a suction machine.

It isn't different in that according to the people who think personhood begins at conception many morally significant beings are dying and this should be prevented.

How do you come to this conclusion from an analysis of the prolife position? We argue that the unborn child is a person and deserves the same protection accorded to other persons. This is an argument from consistency.

I was thinking of the current policy which is just the result of pressure from interest groups rather than a consistent system of values.

Compare this to your own admission of the prochoice position:

That isn't an admission to the pro-choice position at all. It's an admission that I believe that the question of whether a being thinks or whether it is conscious can only be decided by scientific method, perhaps aided by philosophical reflection on conceptual reduction. Any other method seems to involve mere faith, rather than testable hypothesis.

Prolifers in contrast do not shy away from the science that says human life begins at conception. We do not shy away from fetal ultrasound allowing us a window into the womb.

What science is that? It isn't clear what the question means, let alone presuming an answer to it.

[Agathon]

And before I get flamed - I'm probably the only person on this forum who has no settled position on the abortion issue, pro or contra.