Reply
Fri 7 Nov, 2003 07:47 pm
How can Scott Peterson be charged with killing both his wife Laci and his unborn baby?
After all,to the pro abortion crowd,the fetus she was carrying was just a "parasite" with
no rights.It was just a lump of flesh and cells that was not a person,so how did he murder
it.
After all,using the "logic" of the pro abortion crowd,all he did was kill his wife and
cause a partial birth abortion.
I agree,murdering his wife was wrong,but I thought a partial birth abortion was ok.After
all,isnt it the pro abortion crowd that demands the right to kill the fetus that way?
So,while I admit that IMHO he killed his wife,there is not one single pro abortion person
that can reasonably argue that he killed that UNBORN fetus.
Well, the crowd you are refering to refers to itself as pro-choice. If a woman is 1 minute pregnant and chooses to look at it as a child, then it's a child. If she sees herself as a mother, then she's a mother. If someone takes that away from her against her will then it's wrong. That would be like forcing some one to have an abortion against their will.
So it doesn't matter whether a pro-choice or pro-abortion doesn't see it as a child, Lacy did and that's what counts. I think any "pro-abortion" or "pro-choice person" would agree with that.
This is a slippery slope that the 'pro-abortion' warned of. By charging that crime as a double murder the 'pro-life' camp would seek to extract leverage for their agenda.
Right, Craven, but that would take the choice out of "choice" wouldn't it?-- and that doesn't make sense to me. I remember when this just came out some people spoke of that and I thought it was foolish on their part.
I guess the point I was trying to make is that to call it ok to use the partial birth method of abortion,and then to condemn Scott Peterson makes no sense.All the arguments the pro abortion crowd uses can be used to defend Peterson in the death of the baby Connor.
After all,if those arguments are good enough to allow babies to be so brutally killed,then you have to allow them to be used in defense of anyone charged with killing any unborn child.
For the record...I believe Peterson IS GUILTY. I am NOT trying to defend him in any way.I am trying to get people to look at the silliness of the pro abortion stance regarding partial birth abortion.
mysteryman wrote:I guess the point I was trying to make is that to call it ok to use the partial birth method of abortion,and then to condemn Scott Peterson makes no sense.All the arguments the pro abortion crowd uses can be used to defend Peterson in the death of the baby Connor.
I disagree, in fact I think that's like comparing rape to consensual sex.
Quote:After all,if those arguments are good enough to allow babies to be so brutally killed,then you have to allow them to be used in defense of anyone charged with killing any unborn child.
That is a faulty syllogism. Let me construct a few.
Person A was condemned for killing someone and sentenced to death. Therefore all soldiers who have killed should be executed.
Quote: I am trying to get people to look at the silliness of the pro abortion stance regarding partial birth abortion.
That much was self-evident from the start. :wink: I don't think this is the way to go about it.
Heh, that's like asking whether he killed both her and her left arm. I guess the answer would be yes, but it's just pretty pointless to ask and it's not significant to anything.
i have to bow to feololas logic. After all, it is the choice in pro-choice thats important. Mysteryman has forgotten that.
also, does anyone have an understanding of the pro-forma of california law in this case? Does the state law prescribe that a murder of a pregnant woman be considered a double homicide. this may already have a precedent.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace