Triple Grrr to Scott Peterson

[EricCKS]

I wish I would not post when I am Teed off but here goes.

(Disclamer-- I am 100% prolife)

If conventional wisdom is correct, shouldn’t Scott Peterson have received 1 count of murder not 2?? For all we know Lacy may well have been to an abortion clinic exercising her choice and she would not have been punished. But Scott is!! Grrr!
No leniency to Scott-May God have mercy on him.

Now, to heart of the matter. Roe vs. Wade is the most sexist and unfair legislation on the books today! A pregnant woman can be murdered, involved in a car accident or any number of accidents that invovle the loss of the fetus and suddenly a baby has been murdered (Thank you Mr. Bush for your new legislation last year- no sarcasm intended). If you are a man you better be prepared for wrongful death if not homicide charges. (a woman can fall under the same rules however I have not heard of any women brought under these charges…yet) Grrrr.

So when does life begin liberal critics? When women decides she is having a baby and not a fetus? Or when a law has been broken and a prenant women got in the way? Which law?? Grrrrr. To drive my point home in a debate I said “If my wife had an abortion, I would take to civil court and file wrongful death suit”. Any bets on who would win? I can make one heck of an arguement that my child was killed.

Until next time. I promise to be positive next time.

Thanks

Eric

 

[dhgray]

Eric,
Nice posting. I too am suprised about the second murder. After all it’s California. If the second murder does not get overturned (and I hope it does not) then the judicial system of California has just slit it’s own “pro-choice” throat.
When will they wake up to the double standards.

By the say, I disagree with the ruling, it sould have been 2 first degree murder charges.

 

[ridesawhitehors]

Let not your heart be troubled so, Eric.
I think we are winning. A new, albeit small precedence was set, and I am optimistic that slowly eyes will be opened and one day we are going to win.
We are talking about the biggest civil rights issue ever - and it is going to come to the surface soon. I believe!
Pray and believe!

 

[AmyS]

dhgray:

Eric,
Nice posting. I too am suprised about the second murder. After all it’s California. If the second murder does not get overturned (and I hope it does not) then the judicial system of California has just slit it’s own “pro-choice” throat.
When will they wake up to the double standards.

By the say, I disagree with the ruling, it sould have been 2 first degree murder charges.

It won’t get overturned because California has been prosecuting this way for years. You would be surprised how ahead California is when it comes to victims and their rights. It is ahead of any other state.

 

[Jermosh]

I think this case is going to have a strong positive effect for the Pro-Life movement. Hopefully we can get the national ammendment to the constituion like the CA law.

 

[dhgray]

AmyS:

It won’t get overturned because California has been prosecuting this way for years. You would be surprised how ahead California is when it comes to victims and their rights. It is ahead of any other state.

So why is it MURDER when Scott killed the unborn child and not murder when a mother kills her unborn child?

Sounds like a double standard. Why not make it murder in both cases?

 

[AmyS]

dhgray:

So why is it MURDER when Scott killed the unborn child and not murder when a mother kills her unborn child?

Sounds like a double standard. Why not make it murder in both cases?

I agree with you… but, that is the way it is right now. I know that doesn’t help… but, I see it as being a step in the right direction. Right now they have to work with the laws the have on the books… It is horrific.

 

[TheresaP]

dhgray:

So why is it MURDER when Scott killed the unborn child and not murder when a mother kills her unborn child?

Sounds like a double standard. Why not make it murder in both cases?

Well because Laci wanted her child, or so we think. If you are wanted and killed it is murder but if you aren’t wanted it is a woman’s choice.

FWIW–from what I read in the papers I would have not convicted him.

 

[AmyS]

TheresaP:

Well because Laci wanted her child, or so we think. If you are wanted and killed it is murder but if you aren’t wanted it is a woman’s choice.

FWIW–from what I read in the papers I would have not convicted him.

The papers are the worst place to get a good idea on a case… they only print bits and pieces…

 

[Christian4life]

I read a book by Alexander Sanger, the grandson of Margaret Sanger and president of Planned Parenthood until 2000. In his book, Beyond Choice, he said that at the Margaret Sanger abortion clinic, about half of the time a man doesn’t want his child to be aborted, and the woman does. The man will usually say something like “It isn’t fair, it’s my child too. I should have some say in this.”

So guess what they tell him.

They tell him, “You did have a choice before you went and had sex.”

And that’s exactly the point. Once you’re pregnant, the choice has been made, and that’s what we pro-lifers have been saying forever. They went on to say that oh now it is the woman’s choice. That isn’t fair at all. That baby has just as many of his genes as hers.

I personally know a man who’s girlfriend went and aborted his child without ever asking him or even telling him she was going to do it, and that sort of thing is totally okay with a lot of people.

Well I can tell you one thing, It’s not okay with him. How would you feel if someone went and killed your very first child before you even knew he existed?

 

[KCT]

dhgray:

So why is it MURDER when Scott killed the unborn child and not murder when a mother kills her unborn child? /QUOTE]

Because the law of the land says it’s OK. It doesn’t make a bit of sense. It means life is decided by someone wanting it, not because a soul has been created. —KCT

 

[Sir_Knight]

TheresaP:

Well because Laci wanted her child, or so we think. If you are wanted and killed it is murder but if you aren’t wanted it is a woman’s choice. .

So a mother has to right to keep her unborn child or not keep her unborn child and no laws are broken but a father does not have the same right? Seems like an unfair double standard.

If a wife can decide to keep a child when the husband doesn’t want it, than the husband should have the right to keep a child if the wife doesn’t want it and if the wife and abort / murder and unborn child without the husband’s consent without breaking any laws, the the husband should be allowed to murder his unborn child that he doesn’t want without breaking an laws either.

You just can’t have it go both ways. If the second murder conviction stands, then second degress murder charges should start being filed against all abortion doctors.

I think that we are slowly on our way to reversing Roe vs. Wade – the ground work is slowly being laid down and this case is one of those pieces.

 

[dhgray]

TheresaP:

Well because Laci wanted her child, or so we think. If you are wanted and killed it is murder but if you aren’t wanted it is a woman’s choice.

OK, using that logic, why is it murder if a mother kills her child when it is 6 hours, 6 days, 6 weeks, 6 months etc old? Would it not still be the womans, choice since the child is totally dependant on her?

 

[arso347]

I posted this in the politics forum as well, but it speaks to exactly what we are talking about. The prosecutor just flat out says, you are only worthy of the protection of the law if you are wanted by your parents. Twisted logic like this will lead us down a path we do not want to go.

From Teen convicted of shooting pregnant girlfriend

INDIO, California (AP) – A teenager was convicted of attempted murder for shooting his pregnant girlfriend at the clinic where she went to get an abortion.

Jeffrey Cameron Fitzhenry, 17, was convicted Wednesday. The shooting April 29 left the 16-year-old girl a quadriplegic, and the fetus was declared dead three days afterward.

The victim, identified only as Sara S., testified Fitzhenry repeatedly threatened her, saying that she was “depriving him of his unborn child.” When she entered the clinic, Fitzhenry followed her, argued with her, and shot her in the neck, she said.

Defense attorney Robert Dunn argued that only a lesser charge of attempted voluntary manslaughter should be considered. He said Fitzhenry shot the girl after a “continuous escalation” of anger and he did not plan to kill her.

The jury also found Fitzhenry guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and enhancements that make him subject to a sentence of life in prison. A sentencing hearing is set for January 6.

Prosecutors did not seek a separate murder charge for the fetus because of the girl’s decision to have an abortion, according to Robert Blythe, an attorney handling the girl’s lawsuit against Fitzhenry. (emphasis added)

Prosecutor Traci Carrillo told the jury that Fitzhenry had questioned who the father was, and the case was about his attempt to control the girl, not her decision to get an abortion.

 

[TheresaP]

AmyS:

The papers are the worst place to get a good idea on a case… they only print bits and pieces…

Perhaps newspapers are the worst place to get information re a trial. What do you recommend?

 

[AmyS]

TheresaP:

Perhaps newspapers are the worst place to get information re a trial. What do you recommend?

Trusting the jury, and judge… It isn’t a perfect system. But, having a career where I spend a lot of time in court rooms, I would never base anything on what a paper says.

 

[CARose]

Rather than getting wrapped up in anger at what you perceive to be a sexist inequity, why not rejoice that we’re beginning to see the secular world acknowledge that the fetus is life.

Certainly this is progress! If I hadn’t read (and fully believed you meant it) your pro-life disclaimer, I’d be certain that the redress you intended was that men shouldn’t be prosecuted for the killing of innocent babies because their mothers wouldn’t have been convicted of any equally heinous crime. That the fathers desire the lives of these innocents when the mothers don’t isn’t the crime, although it is a tragedy. The crime is that the child is deprived of the opportunity to live.
Let’s be careful not to allow this to degrade into a Men vs. Women hatefest. Hate, in any form, is destructive. Seeking to end evil, on the other hand, is constructive. Let’s use constructive means to attain that end.

And to any Fathers who were never given the opportunity to see their children born, I am so sorry for your pain. I can’t begin to imagine how difficult it must be to live in a society that doesn’t value the life you started.

I hope we can all learn that the gift of creating life belongs in the sacred union called marriage and that we can all work with our spouses to understand the special opportunity we have to participate in God’s plan for salvation.

God Bless,

CARose