Abortion and.. - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

eazyduzzit · 12-13-2006, 07:13 PM

Scott Peterson.

I brought this up elsewhere and got some real good replys but am i the only one who sees the irony in this?

It's legal to abort a baby in the States(and else where) yet Peterson got charged with 2 murders, one for his wife, and one for their unborn child. If "Abortion is not murder" then why was Scott Peterson charged with the killing of their unborn child...sort of dosen't make ANY sense at all.

A little bit of irony to discuss

kipperfan · 12-13-2006, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Scott Peterson.

I brought this up elsewhere and got some real good replys but am i the only one who sees the irony in this?

It's legal to abort a baby in the States(and else where) yet Peterson got charged with 2 murders, one for his wife, and one for their unborn child. If "Abortion is not murder" then why was Scott Peterson charged with the killing of their unborn child...sort of dosen't make ANY sense at all.

A little bit of irony to discuss

Well when an abortion occurs the mother makes a clear and decisive decision to the end potential life of the child SHE is carrying. When Scott Peterson decides to kill a mother to be along with her fetus that is clearly not a choice the mother made.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

rubecube · 12-13-2006, 07:35 PM

Wasn't Lacy something like 8 months pregnant? Aren't third-trimester abortions illegal in most states?

EDIT: I might be wrong about which trimester it is.

eazyduzzit · 12-13-2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Well when an abortion occurs the mother makes a clear and decisive decision to the end potential life of the child SHE is carrying. When Scott Peterson decides to kill a mother to be along with her fetus that is clearly not a choice the mother made.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

But murder is murder, last time i checked the definition dosen't change in relation to different circumstances. Whether the baby is killed by abortion, or other means, the final result is still the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubecube

Wasn't Lacy something like 8 months pregnant? Aren't third-trimester abortions illegal in most states?

I think it was around 7 months yes.

Nevertheless, i've heard of plenty of abortions around the 5-6 month range. Seems a little strange for politicians to draw the line on when it becomes a living thing and when it's just a useless piece of garbage.

Not to mention, lots of people who are "Pro-Choice" tend to favour science over religion. Well in science, a fetus is a living thing whether it's 1 hour old or 8 months.

Hypocrisy 101

Nicole · 12-13-2006, 07:47 PM

Personally I believe abortion IS murder but that's a whole other debate.

I would think that he was charged with murder with the death of his unborn, almost full term child b/c he intentionally murdered his wife which in turn resulted in the death of his child, which he knew full well it would do. It was not his wifes choice for the child to die and with abortion it is legally the mothers choice (which is sometimes brought on by the urging of the father but she still has the choice to do it or not).

Also, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that in most places (if not all) abortion is illegal after the second trimester, unless medically necessary. Laci Peterson was almost 8 months pregnant and technically that child would have most likely survived if born on or around the time that she died as he was fully developed.

rubecube · 12-13-2006, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Nevertheless, i've heard of plenty of abortions around the 5-6 month range. Seems a little strange for politicians to draw the line on when it becomes a living thing and when it's just a useless piece of garbage.

I'm pretty sure the reason late abortions are illegal is because they're considered hazardous to the mother. I don't know why we're using California as a benchmark either. This is the same state that says "You kill one person, no death penalty. Two people and it's lethal injection for you."

metallicat · 12-13-2006, 07:49 PM

Michael White in Edmonton should have been charged with double murder as well, alas you can't be charged for killing an unborn baby in Canada.

There is a huge, common sense difference between a planned abortion and a malicious murder.

Edit- And for the record, I agree with Nicole.

kipperfan · 12-13-2006, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

But murder is murder, last time i checked the definition dosen't change in relation to different circumstances. Whether the baby is killed by abortion, or other means, the final result is still the same.

You complety missed the point.

Circumstances aside the definition of an abortion is a mother to be, giving permission to a medical professional to end the potential life of a fetus.

None of the above is pertenent to the Peterson case.

Winsor_Pilates · 12-13-2006, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

But murder is murder, last time i checked the definition dosen't change in relation to different circumstances.

Check again. 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter
murder is not just murder (atleast according to the leagal sysytem)

rubecube · 12-13-2006, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Not to mention, lots of people who are "Pro-Choice" tend to favour science over religion. Well in science, a fetus is a living thing whether it's 1 hour old or 8 months.

Hypocrisy 101

And here I thought being Pro-Choice just meant believing in having the freedom to choose as opposed to having other's beliefs pushed on you. Guess I'm off my rocker again.

CaramonLS · 12-13-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Check again. 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter
murder is not just murder (atleast according to the leagal sysytem)

Not to mention self defense, which can include justified legal murder of another human being.

Circumstances are everything.

eazyduzzit · 12-13-2006, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kipperfan

You complety missed the point.

Circumstances aside the definition of an abortion is a mother to be, giving permission to a medical professional to end the potential life of a fetus.

None of the above is pertenent to the Peterson case.

I recieved the point loud and clear.

It makes no sense abortion is legal and not considered murder, when a person can get charged with murder for doing the exact same thing abortion does - kill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Check again. 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter
murder is not just murder (atleast according to the leagal sysytem)

Are you kidding me? I'm quite aware of that.

My point is how can killing a baby be deemed legal in 1 instance, and murder in another?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubecube

And here I thought being Pro-Choice just meant believing in having the freedom to choose as opposed to having other's beliefs pushed on you. Guess I'm off my rocker again.

Gotta love the sarcasm when you can't come up with an adequate reply.

My point was, in this day and age, it seems more people are refusing religion, turning to atheism and putting there money behind science and not whats said in the Quran, Bible etc. Since in science - which seems to be the weapon of choice in a lot of right vs left debates - a baby is a baby, 8 months or 8 hours. So it seems a little strange how someone can have there guns completely behind the science option on some issues, while taking the complete opposite rout when it comes to Abortion.

As for "Pro-Choice", the woman made that choice when she chose to be sexually active, rape and circumstances like that aside.

rubecube · 12-13-2006, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fotze

Also I am going to get my nephew this t-shirt.

I want one that says "I was only supposed to be a blowjob"

rubecube · 12-13-2006, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Gotta love the sarcasm when you can't come up with an adequate reply.

My point was, in this day and age, it seems more people are refusing religion, turning to atheism and putting there money behind science and not whats said in the Quran, Bible etc. Since in science - which seems to be the weapon of choice in a lot of right vs left debates - a baby is a baby, 8 months or 8 hours. So it seems a little strange how someone can have there guns completely behind the science option on some issues, while taking the complete opposite rout when it comes to Abortion.

Again, the debate is about when is it human. People who are against euthanasia still euthanize their dogs because "They're not human, so it's okay." I think the same excuse is being made for a fetus.

Quote:

As for "Pro-Choice", the woman made that choice when she chose to be sexually active.

Not if she was raped.

eazyduzzit · 12-13-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubecube

Not if she was raped.

Quote:

As for "Pro-Choice", the woman made that choice when she chose to be sexually active, rape and circumstances like that aside.

^^

It would be all fine and dandy if the only abortions that occured where those as a result of rape victims etc, but this is cleary not the case.

Table 5 · 12-13-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Not to mention, lots of people who are "Pro-Choice" tend to favour science over religion. Well in science, a fetus is a living thing whether it's 1 hour old or 8 months.

and most pro-lifers who preach the beauty of preserving a life are people who also support the death penalty. what's your point?

eazyduzzit · 12-13-2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Table 5

and most pro-lifers who preach the beauty of preserving a life are people who also support the death penalty. what's your point?

Thankyou!!!

Finally someone who speaks logic instead of shying away from the points i make.

I agree with you there, that is just as messed up as my point is.

I do not support the death penalty.

rubecube · 12-13-2006, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

^^

It would be all fine and dandy if the only abortions that occured where those as a result of rape victims etc, but this is cleary not the case.

Ummm...you changed your quote after I had already responded, that's not my fault. I'd agree with you but making abortions illegal will not stop it from happening. Many a quack doctor out there would be willing to perform it discreetly for desperate teens. At least now we can monitor and set standards for where these are taking place.

rubecube · 12-13-2006, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Thankyou!!!

Finally someone who speaks logic instead of shying away from the points i make.

I agree with you there, that is just as messed up as my point is.

I do not support the death penalty.

I support the death penalty and abortion. Maybe I'm just pro-death.

Superflyer · 12-13-2006, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Well when an abortion occurs the mother makes a clear and decisive decision to the end potential life of the child SHE is carrying. When Scott Peterson decides to kill a mother to be along with her fetus that is clearly not a choice the mother made.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

To me this does make sense, it seems that you are saying if the woman decides to kill the baby then it is OK, but if the man decides to kill the baby then it is murder.