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

[Ben Kenobi]

Imran:



Consider that a summoning.

Sorry Zkribbler.

My own opinion is that Roe v. Wade is one of the worst pieces of legal reasoning in existence. I'm not saying that because I am pro-life (I'm not) or because I'm pro-choice (I'm not); but because it seems to me a shaky case.

And you'd have lots of company, Agathon.

UR:
Quelle surprise.

[Ben Kenobi]

Jaguar Warrior:

Not many. I'm pretty pro-life, but I fully understand the need for exceptions to the rule. It depends on how old the fetus is. I think that it's important to realize that there isn't a single point when the fetus/baby becomes a person with rights. It's a gradual thing. So you have to have a better reason at 5 months than you do at 4 for a justified abortion.

Thanks for the reply. I agree that we do need an exception, for the life of the mother. The reason we can justify this is that it is better to save one life than to allow two to die. The most common medical condition triggering this exception is ectopic pregnancy, where the developing embryo will rupture the mother's fallopian tubes if allowed to develop.

In this situation, to allow the embryo to grow will kill both the mother and the embryo, since the embryo is not yet viable. If the child is viable, then we can attempt a c-section to allow the child to be born prematurely.

However, where I disagree is with the gradualist position. This position requires you to accept a continuum of development from conception to birth. The problem is where do you draw the line? It seems to me much more consistent to place personhood at conception than to attempt a gradualist position.

[Zkribbler]

California's Penal Code § 187: Murder Defined.

(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:

(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.

(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, whould be substantially certain or more likely than not.

(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.

(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Sorry Zkribbler.

Hey, to be confused with someone of Imran's caliber is an honor.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Scott screwed up. and that laci chick was pretty hot i think. and the one he was messin around with was a dog! sorry - but i call em like i see em. what the heck was he thinking?!? anyway, what's the topic???

How can he be guilty of murdering his unborn son? hmmm... well. the unborn son is dead, right? he (at least what the cops are saying) did it. so that makes him guilty of murdering his unborn son. pretty easy to understand i think. duh.

[Elok]

St. Leo may believe that being conservative is immoral, but I doubt he classifies being conservative as a form of murder. A very large distinction, and the reason why the "personal morality being forced on others freedom of religion and blahblahblah" argument is so absurd. Granted, the Pro-life movement often blurs the issue itself because of its religious association, but there is a legitimate violation of civil rights at the heart of the issue.

[Sava]

I'm just curious, to self-proclaimed Pro-Lifers:
Do you agree with assisted suicide i.e. the right to die for terminally ill people?

[Elok]

I don't know whether it is moral or not, but provided the terminally ill person in question is mentally sound, I do not see why it should be illegal. My big beef with abortion is not over its immorality, but that it allows the execution of a clearly non-consenting human being, and therefore its legality is a dereliction of duty by the gov't. If people want to destroy themselves, they have the right to determine their own destiny, provided it does not harm others to do so.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm just curious, to self-proclaimed Pro-Lifers:
Do you agree with assisted suicide i.e. the right to die for terminally ill people?

Good question sava. A good way to sum up the prolife position is to protect human life from conception to natural death.

Opposition to euthanasia is generally the second branch of the prolife movement, one that does not get much press.

Rather than assisted suicide, we point out that adequate palliative care will address all the shortcomings provoking demand for euthanasia. If doctors do their job properly there is no need to administer lethal dosages of medicine under the guise of healing.

That being said, there is no such thing as a 'right to die' because said right cannot be exercised by the person, it produces no ongoing benefits for the person who exercises the right.