Is the Laci Peterson case a double murder? - Page 2

Because many people like yourself consider that to be the educated, enlighted position. However it has been frozen and refuses to consider any new science or other information by which to further refine its own view.

When you look at pro-life people and think of them as ignorant and backwater, you had been insure your own view does not fall prey to the same attributes. Pro-choice views have refused to consider how scientific advances have taught us more and more about late term pregnancies and not only the viability of the child outside the womb, but about their cognative state and development relative to a new born child with full rights.

People bring up late term abortions and science, pro-choice is bringing up shooting doctors. It is dust, a straw man.

If I were trying to convince you about first term abortions by calling upon only religion and no science, you would likely think my view unconvincing even if you happend to agree with it. When you call upon only the rights of the woman and can never acknowlege the development of the child it is an extreme view.

As for the views of the extreme pro-life folks, it is simply a matter of belief. They believe these folks are killing children. It is a profound disagreement as to whether they are children or not, but the actions related to the killing of children are not. We must all be pretty extreme because I can think of quite a large number of people on this board that might take action themselves if they lived in communities where a person was killing hundreds of thousands of "children" and the government did nothing.

So while I don't condone it, I can certainly understand it. You don't call the abortion a death of an innocent child. They do and if there were a place where we all agreed that they were a) children and b) killed for no reason while the government did nothing, I wonder what percentage here would take or at least speak for action.

If a killer murdered say 500 children at an elementary school and then fled across the border to Mexico where they wouldn't extradite him, I wonder how many here wouldn't favor just stepping across the border ourselves for a little justice. The view might be a lot less extreme than you imagine.

Scott Peterson should charged with double murder. The child was clearly wanted and anticipated. It was very late term and could have survived on his own.

Would you have us believe that if someone beat a woman so hard on her due date that the baby died that it is simply assault and she only suffered as if her own body was wounded?

Nick

Brussel is trying to play both sides. He parrots the language of the extreme view on pro-choice. He nuances it a bit though so he doesn't appear "extreme" even though he is parroting that view.

Groverat thinks, as probably many others do that it is an extreme view to only use the rights of the woman to determine everything regarding law and various acts that could occur during pregnancy (abortion, murder, etc.)

BRussel takes the view that only the woman determines what is right. He isn't malicious while explaining that view but it is a non-thinking/blind view, much as the extreme view of some pro-lifers will cause them to follow through with shooting and harassing someone with the justification that it is a means to an end.

BRussel makes it clear that while he supports this being called a double murder, he wouldn't lose any sleep if it weren't called that. It is more just being political than taking a firm position. His stated beliefs would dictate that there was nothing there to kill and since the mother is dead it doesn't really matter what her intent for the child was because it has no rights, except for what she cares to give it. Since she isn't here to give it any, then nothing can be done on behalf of it. (How convenient)

However the unwillingness of the extreme pro-choice movement to consider nothing beyond what the mother wants is just grounded in politics over ignorance. Science has moved us beyond that understanding. It has moved us to the point to where some determinations must be made on behalf of the fetus in the womb. It does need to begin to have rights. Even Roe v. Wade acknowleged this but again if you are more extreme then that decision, then only what the woman wants is considered.

Staking out an extreme view, empathizing with the other side and being indifferent to the outcome does show good people skills, but it is still an extreme view. If it were applied in other areas you would the first to call someone on it.

If I had the view that slavery should be legal, empathized with the abolishionist a bit about the plight of the blacks and were indifferent about the outcome of their treatment, you would still say that was an extremely racist view.

If I held the view that women shouldn't have the right to vote, empathized with suffarage groups a bit and then was indifferent to their outomce, you would still say I was extremely sexist.

This is a human rights issue and eventually something besides the mother must be considered in late term.

So if BRussel states that under no terms are the rights of the unborn child EVER to be considered, even while acknowleging that it is human, but that the mother's rights are the only one to be considered, it is an extreme view.

Some BRussel comments that I culled his understanding of this from...

I see you "acknowledge" the development, and then sweep it away because while you say it must be balanced, you have not give a single "balanced" instance where the fetus happens to have some rights.

So I guess I should have "acknowledged" the extreme pro-lifers instead of "understanding them. Boy the hypocracy is thick here.

I specifically said that I did not condone it. I just said while some make it out to be a political issue, others make it out to be a human rights issue. To say I understand the difference between human rights and how much should be spent on public transportation, social security, education, etc. is not attempting to justify terrorism. To say I seek to justify terrorism is just a cheap shot you're trying to take, since you obviously cannot work out the contradiction of your own statements. You lay it on thick about how how the unborn are human, are going to through the most profoundly important part of there development, oh and by the way all this means nothing.

You play it both ways because you say it should be more than assault, but you declare your own indifference as to what it should be. You are content to point fingers while "acknowledging" everyone. Gee the child is soo important... the mother is sooo important.... everyone is soo... important...oh but late term murder of this child could be murder, or not, I don't really care.

So far you have equated anyone who doesn't agree with you with terrorists, communist china, and murderers just for the record.

As for pregnancy being an "inconvenience" or not. This thread specifically asked if a wanted unborn child was killed along with it's mother is it a double murder. Your answer...maybe.

Yeah, that isn't extreme.

As for the inconvenience, pregnancy is a reaction, not an action. It took something to get to that point. The man gets no say and can even be ordered to jail for child support. That isn't in China btw, that is here in the U.S. Do you "acknowledge" that the man should be able to give up his paternal rights just like a mother can give up her maternal rights. A mother can do so even after child birth by giving the child up for adoption. It is awfully "inconvenient" to have to support the child for 18 years too. He can be ordered to do so with his body or have his body thrown in jail as well. Are you going to be consistant about this or just show your own true colors about how this is about no other human and no one elses rights than the mother.

The fact that you can't even be clear on something as easily defined as this Laci Peterson murder, shows your own views. NOW and their agenda above all else. Above father's rights, above a wanted child's rights, and above even the majority view of most women regarding their rights. It is an extreme position and pointing to communists/terrorists, and being picky about word selection doesn't change that fact.

It sickens most to think that a political agenda would be advanced this way, because it isn't about Laci's rights, since she would want to insure this guy was tried and convicted for the murder of her pre-born son. It isn't about the unborn child's rights since he has none. So who is left? The murderous husband? You would rather he suffer less to advance a political cause? Are we cuddling killers now to get what we want?

And you wonder why people are sickened by this view and NOW for advocating it.

Nick

Do you know what a strawman argument is?

There is nothing straw-ish (is that proper grammar? ) about comparing a newborn child and a child 8.5 month term child that was wanted. They had already found out the gender and given the boy a name.

Strawman would be staking out some extreme position like saying "imagine someone blew up the maternity ward, would you support that?"

You are off base with your assertion.

Nick

Right and BRussell in numerous statements also said that he believed the unborn child is human is well. So it is a strawman how again?

Asking BRussell to personalize the point isn't setting a seperate weaker point to knock down. It is asking him to bring his own experience into the equation. Asking if when his wife was 8.5 months pregnant and if she were killed, how would he want the criminal charged isn't setting up a weaker argument to knock down.

Nick

You can stand by any statement you want because if you think I wrote that I can understand why someone acts differently when the issue is human rights. People are willing to fight and die for their rights. The same cannot be said for how much the bus fare is going to be or what percentage of your Social Security is taxed. Also people act differently when they believe someone is being murdered versus say, when someone is being assigned extra points for being a particular race in college admissions.

The issue of abortion is not just politics. That is the strawman you are tossing up there. It isn't just a quibble about budget numbers or services. You treat at as such, and they say "Hey isn't it a little crazy to shoot someone over bus fare?"

That isn't the case. A certain group believes this is outright murder and all I said is that if they believed that a guilty party (not innocent people) were killing children. I can see a large segment of the population agreeing with their actions if they managed to hold the same view. (Understand = comprehend, not support)

You are the one Shawn should be accusing of strawmen because your exagerration of an "understand" does not equal support. Especially when I say little statements like "I don't condone what they do."

So just so we are clear again since you so enjoy harping on one word... understand.... I will give you a paragraph, again, that clarifies it.

I believe it is not extreme to think that many adults would take matters into their own hands if there was a man who had murdered and continued to murder large numbers of innocent children without government prosecution.

Does this mean I would take action or support their actions with abortion doctors? No, but this is the view of those extreme pro-lifers.

Perhaps the 9/11 terrorists did feel what they were doing is right and if it happened several more times with the terrorists each time being arabic young men. I would "understand" why people would start stereotyping arabics and perhaps wanting to act in a racist manner towards them. I would understand/comprehend their thinking, but not support it.

But it doesn't really matter because again it is just a strawman. At least two other people on this board made much harsher statements regarding the deaths of those doctors than I did. But they aren't pounding your arguments to pieces so you aren't trying to hit them with low blows.

You have to resort to trying to associate people with terrorists because you don't have the intellect to pull of doing it with discussion. Please remember that before I asserted this you have made multiple posts trying to associate me with terrorists. Don't be so intellectually lazy. Either admit that you are trying to have it both ways or just lay your views, extreme as they are out there in an honest fashion. Don't call names because you can't twist your logic enough to continue the facade of speaking out of both sides of your mouth.



It is right there, your own words. You try to have it both ways.

If I drove recklessly and hit a carriage would my ignorance about whether it was a doll carriage or a baby carriage cause me to not be charged with manslaughter? Ignorance of the law does not excuse breaking it nor does claiming that you do not fully understand the results of your actions excuse them.

If you really wanted to support what you say and be consistant, you would be arguing for manslaughter minimum for someone who kills an unborn child without knowledge of the pregnancy. That is definately above assault and it is what you are charged with when you kill someone without clear premeditated intent.

Do you support manslaughter charges for someone who kills a baby in the third trimester without knowledge of the pregnancy? You stated that you support double murder charges for Laci Peterson, but of course that is "politcally expedient" to do. What about the rest of the poor women who don't get TV time, what do you support for them?

Please see if you can answer that question without associating me with terrorists. Thanks.

Nick

You are high, do you know that? You have the world's biggest strawman by claiming that understand = support.

I have never said I supported their actions. Likewise I have never been asked to condemn them either but will gladly do so. The killing of doctors and abortion providers is wrong and does not solve the problem of abortion.

There are you happy now? Ask and you shall receive.

So for the last time, understanding a position does not = supporting it. Thanks for all the strawmen though, I could build several scarecrows with the numerous ways you have restated my intentions.

What is even more ironic about this, is that I repeatedly said I do not condone what they do.

Condone is defined as

1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal or objectionalble)
2. to give tacit approval to
3. to pardon or forgive

I said repeatedly that I do not do any of these actions with regard to the pro-life people who have killed doctors. You said that this equals support. Well I guess you have a little trouble with reading comprehension.

Understand is defined as

1. to perceive the meaning of; comprehend
2. to be familiar withl have a thorough knowledge of
3. to interpret or comprehend in a specified way
4. to grasp the significance or importance of
5. to learn

etc....

Do you see the word support in there? I see exactly what I claimed which is that I could grasp the difference between human rights, and political agendas.

Condemn is defined as

1. to express express an unfavorable or adverse judgement on
2. to sentence to punishment
3. to pronounce to be guilty
4. to force into a specific (usually unhappy) state
5. to give grounds for convicting or censuring

I suppose you wanted number 1 right? Well I thought I had done that . I thought I had done that repeatedly by saying I didn't condone what they did. I said I do not give approval to, forgive, or pardon their actions. You wanted something stronger and I when you expressed this, I am more than glad to give it because I can comprehend that understanding a position doesn't equal supporting it.

However for you to declare that I support terrorism is again, just off the mark. I simply said that the number of people that view an action as extreme is lower when that action is considered to be advancing human rights.

The classic example of this is you ask someone if it is okay to be dishonest. Most people say no and then of course you ask them about someone coming into a room to kill a person hidden in a closet. They ask you if the person is in the closet. Suddenly dishonestly is okay in that instance.

I stated that most people don't view killing murderers as extreme. As you move closer and closer to the end of term more and more people would believe that this baby deserves rights and the person that ends his life should be treated accordingly (murderer). If you move this back to the first trimester the number that support that view would likely go down. (people would argue as to whether it was murder) If you move it to when the child is 5 years old then you have a whole lot of people supporting a severe punishment (life imprisonment or death) for a murderer.

I just pointed out that I understand the reasoning, but I don't draw my line where they do. I would easily draw it at 8.5 months pregnant and you stated you would too.

So just so we are clear supporting calling someone a murderer still doesn't support vigilante justice. However I did say that the number of people that would support vigilante justice would go up again along that sliding scale of people agreeing about "person" and rights included with being one.

Here are my own words on it... (again)

So while I don't condone it, I can certainly understand it. You don't call the abortion a death of an innocent child. They do and if there were a place where we all agreed that they were a) children and b) killed for no reason while the government did nothing, I wonder what percentage here would take or at least speak for action.

If a killer murdered say 500 children at an elementary school and then fled across the border to Mexico where they wouldn't extradite him, I wonder how many here wouldn't favor just stepping across the border ourselves for a little justice. The view might be a lot less extreme than you imagine.

_____________________

As you can see I am thinking out loud about what sort of percentages or numbers would support killing a child murder when 100% of the population agrees it is a child. I don't name a number but I state that the number that would pop up, I likely wouldn't call extreme.

What is so hard to understand about saying the number of people that support a position would grow if the context were changed?

You said you had no idea what I was talking about regarding this statement.

Perhaps the 9/11 terrorists did feel what they were doing is right and if it happened several more times with the terrorists each time being arabic young men. I would "understand" why people would start stereotyping arabics and perhaps wanting to act in a racist manner towards them. I would understand/comprehend their thinking, but not support it.

It is again demonstrating that the same reasoning will be embraced by a larger number of people as the context changes.

What percentage would act racist after one attack, two attacks, 10 attacks?

Do you have any doubts that the numbers would go up?

I then say I can understand why the numbers would go up , but I do not support racism and would not change my own position that racism is bad.

As for discussing intricacies, that is what I have been doing and discussing all along. It is what I have been trying to get you to see. It is what I live for as well and would be glad to discuss further. I have been trying to discuss context and you see only support for an extreme action when discussing the intricacies and context of the people dealing with these actions along the entire range..

Nick