Susanann your post is sort of all over the map; however:
I believe that aborting a fetus in the 8th month IS illegal in the US, in every state. (This may have changed recently, but to the best of my knowledge, it is not).
Secondly, aborting a fetus in any month is illegal unless you are a medical professional. Even if it’s only illegal in a ‘practicing medicine without a license’ sort of way.
Thirdly, assaulting the mother as a means to terminate a pregnancy (I’m sure as hell not calling that abortion) is illegal in every state in the US. Actually KILLING the mother as a means to terminate a pregnancy is REALLY illegal.
Now, should he have been convicted of Murder X 2? - Again, I refused to answer the OP because I didn’t like the options, so I don’t know.
Now you’re really confusing me. If all that Scott Peterson did was murder his wife and perform an abortion?!?!?!? then the baby wasn’t murdered.
Secondly, if you are pro-choice you must accept that women are the only ones who ultimately get to do the choosing. Fathers do not have the right to assault or murder mothers because they are annoyed that mom is still pregnant even though dad REALLY isn’t ready to be a father. They can go to court and have their parental rights terminated, but they don’t get to decide what women have to do with their bodies. That’s the whole point - the right to choose is the right to choose including choosing to continue a pregnancy even if dad isn’t happy about it.
not understanding equal rights and responsibilities of both fathers and mothers
Assault is not murder. While it is true that the father could be guilty of an “assault” upon the mother when the father commits an act to abort his baby(depending on how he does it), in the final analysis, as far as killing the baby, the father has just as much right, exactly the same right, to terminate his unborn baby as does the baby’s mother.
Killing the baby is the key point - dont get confused and sidetracked about the mothers body or the fathers body.
I have no problem with the legal system, in this type of case, considering a fetus a person. If corporations can be “people” in some legal sense, then surely fetuses can have a similar legal fiction.
I thought about it, and I only think he killed one person. Even though the fetus was viable, I don’t think of viable fetii in the womb as ‘people’. Not until they are fully born and breathing and have a visible tiny personality of their own.
I don’t think the fact that he killed both is any more morally reprehensible than killing just his wife, but it adds an extra layer of horror and sadness to the situation.
In what cracked out universe do you live that this is true? What possible means, other than Super Magical Death Ray is the father going to terminate the pregnancy without the mother’s consent WITHOUT assaulting her?
Even if he’s a physician and sedates her and terminates in a medical way, if he’s done it against her wishes he’s still committed a crime against her.
I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Honestly, I’m not sure you do either.
None. He was framed. The police always goes for the husband, and Scott was scum, thus convicting him was easy. Also, the more horrible the crime, the more likely the jury will convict with feeble evidence.
There was excatly zero, zip, nil nada evidence that Scott killed his wife. Plenty of evidence he was scum- selling her car, cheating on her, and what not. He did act very strange after his wife disappeared. None of that is evidence he killed her.
Mind you, he certainly could have been the murderer, I agree. But there was no evidence that he was.
Saying that there was no evidence against him (which I’m not sure is true) and saying that he was framed are two different statements. The first does not imply the second.
I think BigT’s response makes the most sense to me as well.
Here’s how I see it:
A woman may, or may not, deserve the right to have an abortion if she wants to, depending on your opinion. (I hope we can save that debate for another thread!)
However, I can’t think of anyone who would think it’s acceptable to take a pregnant woman hostage and perform an abortion against her consent.
Likewise, if a pregnant woman is attacked, and survives, but her pregnancy comes to an end as a result of the attack, the crime is…well, I don’t know the legal definition, but, that’s a major crime, right?
Therefore, anyone who kills a pregnant woman is guilty of A: whatever the penalty is for causing a termination of pregancy, and B: murder.
It might be some kind of crime, but its not murder. Unborn babies are killed/aborted by various means every day and the person doing it/causing it is not convicted of murder. It was very unusual for Scott Peterson to be convicted of killing a fetus, it is very rare for someone/anyone to be convicted of murdering a fetus - it could only happen on a high profile “zoo media trial” .
I never said aborting babies, with or without consent, is “acceptable”. HOwever, in this particular case, we are not talking about just “anyone” aborting the baby, we are talking about the father aborting his own baby. A parent aborting his/her own baby is treated much differently than a total stranger killing someone elses baby. Either way, it would be quite rare, and unusual, for anyone killing a fetus to be convicted of “murder”
I think you are rather confused. First, a MOTHER aborting her own baby is treated much differently than a total stranger killing someone else’s baby. The entire point of the pro-choice stance is that a woman ought to have dominion over her own body. A father has no right, morally or legally, to do a damn thing about it because that would mean interfering with that dominion. Secondly, if it was a baby vs, a fetus, then it doesn’t matter if it’s the mother, the father, or a complete stranger who did it…any which way it would be murder. So…what’s your point here?
Sure, but it’s still possible that there was no evidence against him, yet he was not framed. The authorities could simply have been mistaken.
But I think you’re confusing “no evidence” with only circumstantial evidence. You yourself said, among other things, that he acted strangely. That is evidence. How much value it has is up to a jury.
Of course!!! a father would have as much right to abort his baby as the mother.
Likewise, the father, or the mother, should also have the same right to stop/prevent an abortion of his child.
I dont think it is right if the father wanted to kill his baby but the mother did not want to kill her baby, that the baby should die. On the same point, I dont think if a mother wanted to kill her baby but the father did not want to kill his baby, that the baby should die either. In an ideal world, as long as 1 parent wants to keep the baby, then that should be enough to save it.
Obviously, if both the mother AND the father want to keep the baby love and protect it then there is no controversy. If both parents did not want their baby and both of them wanted to kill their baby it is generally not very “newsworthy” in today’s society - the attitude is that there are so many unwanted babies anyways who cares if both parents want it to be dead?
The baby is a creation from both the father and the mother. Both the father AND!!! the mother should have equal rights and equal responsibilities for their children.
Davis v. Davis rulled that, because the genetic father no longer wanted to become a father with the frozzen embryos of him and his ex-wife, she did not have the right to have them implanted into herself or any other woman. The “life begins at conception” crowd was surprisingly quiet on this ruling.