We celebrate their first BIRTHday 12 months after they are born. I’m not sure this proves what you think it does…
Thanks for saying so. For a second I was like “Whoa…” because you’re not typically so snappy from what I’ve seen.
I wasn’t challenging your opinion; everything after the first line of my previous post was MY opinion, directed to the thread as a whole rather than a specific response to the post of yours that I quoted. I was just wondering if the fact that I’m not so close to delivering as Lacy was would change your opinion. Obviously because we do have a name and he has formed a bond and he does view our child as a person, you would think (pretty much regardless of how far along I am, or does that factor in at all for you?) he had killed two people, right?
Well, it proves that I can make some people bust out their CAPS LOCKing finger by asking a simple question. 
Fine, I’ll bold next time! Not really aiming for outraged capitalising nutjob here…
He murdered two people.
First, there’s the fact that the fetus was viable. I can’t say precisely at what point a fetus attains personhood, but I’m sure it’s prior to 8 months. So he killed two people.
But in a different case a distinction would have to be made regarding the term “murder.” If some random stranger attacked Laci Peterson, deliberately killing her . . . but not noticing that she was pregnant . . . I’d say it’d be one murder and one manslaughter.
But obviously in this case Scott Peterson was aware of her pregnancy, and must also have been aware of the viability . . . so it was two murders.
Yah - the 30 degree heat and the fact that I’m ready to drop RIGHT FRIGGIN’ NOW is making me quite a bit testier than ususal - sorry about that!!
It doesn’t make a difference to me - I think if dad is treating the fetus like his child - talking to it, reading to it, planning activities with it, to me it doesn’t seem believable that he would suddenly be able to divorce himself from that completely and have Junior suddenly be just a ‘lump of cells’. Of course, we are talking about a murderer here, so his way of looking at things is pretty different than mine, or my husbands or I assume yours. This I think also goes to lavendarviolet’s point - we’re not dealing with a normal ‘dad’ here - we’re dealing with someone who murdered his 8 months pregnant wife because she was inconvenient to him.
So, with that in mind I can only answer the question based on the father of MY child and he has pretty much said that he would consider offing me to be offing two people. Just like if he decided to leave me, he would be leaving his wife AND his son - not his wife and 9 month fetus.
I recognize that this is only how HE (and I) view the situation and others with different experience will likely view things differently.
In the specific facts of this case, I’d say two for the reasons previously enumerated – that the pregnancy was well beyond medical viability, that the couple had joyously cooperatively prepared for the birth of their son, creating space in their home and plans for their lives and giving him a name together. Lacy had made her choice, and in killing her, her choice was vitiated.
I picked “Two–Laci Peterson plus their viable fetus.” I have trouble thinking of any unborn baby as having a specific name, because it often gets changed before it’s put on the birth certificate. I’m not sure that’s in the ballpark of why the OP offered the choice of fetus or Connor, though.
I chose two - Laci Peterson and her viable fetus, and the baby would have lived even if delivered at that time.
More than that, as Laci had decided to carry her pregnancy to term and give birth, killing her baby was a direct violation of her right to choose. I doubt it’s on the law books anywhere as a crime specifically described in that manner, but I consider it wrongdoing.
He committed 1 murder, and he also performed 1 abortion.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Would this poll have any different result if you simply asked: are you for (1 person) or against (2 people) abortion?
YOu mean…is killing any unborn baby a murder?
He killed his wife and his son. They found the badly decomposed bady of Lacey washed up and Connor was found later. The coroner said he was better preserved because he was inside her. He was a beautiful baby boy she said with blond hair and eyelashes.
Yeah, but if killing an unborn baby is not murder… then so what?
Well, apparently he was convicted of TWO murders so someone doesn’t see the situation as quite so cut and dried as you do.
The mother had already chosen to deliver the baby. That makes it a potential person. I however did not classify the child as “their son”, as the father obviously didn’t want the child. And our source for the name Connor is at least slightly dubious. Therefore, only option 3 makes sense.
I don’t think fetal viability has anything to do with it. It’s all about intent. And we know that the mother’s intent was to have the baby. This means the father knew the fetus was a potential person, and thus he killed two people.
According to the link in the OP he was convicted of two counts of murder. This was certainly not an abortion, abortion is not performed at 8 months. I also don’t see any moral similarity between this case and the abortion “debate”, but others appear to disagree.
[nitpick]Conner[/nickpick].
Nitpick - there are certain types of abortion which are performed at 8 months, although I suspect they are no longer available in the US (although I’m not positive on this point as I live in a different country).
However, based on extensive Law & Order watching I believe that killing a fetus passed a certain point in the pregnancy is NOT considered being guilty of performing an abortion without a license (or whatever else you would call it) - the person would be guilty of something else, but again, I’m not super familiar with the law in the US.
That was so hypocritical, it was a total sick joke.
There is no way Scott should have ever been convicted of 2 murders. Killing an unborn baby is not considered to be murder, aborting a baby is not illegal, esp if when it is the mother or father that does it.
Scott Peterson has exactly just as much right to abort his baby as Lacy, or any other mother or father. The baby getting killed certainly does not distinguish who is killing it or why. Does anyone really think the baby cares either way if it is the mother or father who is murdering it?