Double WHAT ?

[TwistedCU]

RE: 74 CJ5 Heater

I find it bothersome that Scott Peterson got charged with 2 murders (one for his wife, and another for their unborn son to be named Connor)? So we consider an unborn baby a life that should be protected by law?

Seems to me that whatever the law is, there should be consistancy.

Don't get me wrong, I actually think they both should have been murder charges, but the conundrum is frustrating.

Why is it that life begins at birth in the eyes of the law when abortion is the issue, but life begins beforehand when someone else kills the baby?

I don't get it. No matter what you stance on the abortion/right to life/pro choice thing is, you have to admit that this is a ridiculous double standard
:?

 

[Tug-n-pull]

Agreed! tug

 

[Joopin]

Good point, VERY good point.

 

[mud4feet]

Re: RE: HowdyHo!

Agreed here, too. But, you get the lawyers involved and all logic goes out the window.


BTW - conundrum - very good word!!

 

[90Xjay]

My wife and me were talking about that over dinner.
We think that if Scott Peterson had worn a white lab coat and latex gloves he should not have gotten the second charge for the baby.



When it comes down to it, it was the the only difference for the end result for the child. If those of us who hunt deer, killed our prey in the manner that many of these babies lives are ended, they would call us brutal and end the practice of hunting deer.
And we are talking about a deer not a person.

 

[White]

RE: Need advice on installing Lift

If the man and women agree that its better not to bring a child into the world, Then its abortion.
The diffrence is She may of wanted the child.

As for the Trial-I dont watch TV - I dont even own one.

 

[mingez]

Yeah, I agree that at least let's get with some consistency. Either direction.

 

[90Xjay]

RE: Re: RE: HowdyHo!

at least let's get with some consistency

The child ending up dead in both cases listed above is "consistency"

No matter how you spin or rationalize the whys or hows, and this could go on forever, you cannont argue the fact that the end result is death to the child in both cases. Period.

 

[mingez]

Twitch-twitch... Not gonna do it...must...resist.... aaarrrgghh..

 

[bchcky]

Why is it that life begins at birth in the eyes of the law when abortion is the issue, but life begins beforehand when someone else kills the baby?

I don't get it. No matter what you stance on the abortion/right to life/pro choice thing is, you have to admit that this is a ridiculous double standard
:?

i believe pro lifers consider inception the beginning of the life, just like the law did in that case, which is why lifers plead against abortion, because the fetus is already a life. but for the pro choice people, they are the ones that believe that life starts at birth.

 

[Inspector-Gadget]

RE: Hey, Terry!

Bchbky wrote:

I believe pro lifers consider inception the beginning of the life, just like the law did in that case (Gadget’s emphasis), which is why lifers plead against abortion, because the fetus is already a life. but for the pro choice people, they are the ones that believe that life starts at birth.

If “that case” alludes to the Scott Peterson case, I believe the “threshold” of fetal life as defined in California criminal law as regards feticide is seven weeks – not conception, nor birth.

Abortion, under California law, with the usual restrictions, is legal.

Such is California law.

Such is life in California.

Beware of painting with an overly wide brush during this debate. There is significant variation among the individual state laws as regards feticide and abortion.

Regards,

Gadget

 

[TwistedCU]

Yeah, they are totally different :roll:

Difinitions of the two:

Main Entry: fe·ti·cide
Pronunciation: 'fE-t&-"sId
Function: noun
: the act of causing the death of a fetus

Main Entry: abor·tion
Pronunciation: &-'bor-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus

As mentioned earlier, both of the definitions use the term death.

As to the length of term, that varies from state to state with even less consistancy of the double standard I mentioned above. Partial Birth abortion takes it to an even worse double standard.


White wrote:

If the man and women agree that its better not to bring a child into the world, Then its abortion.
The diffrence is She may of wanted the child.

As for the Trial-I dont watch TV - I dont even own one.

Well I own a tv, but never even watched the news coverage. I have no interest in making a spectacle of someone else's tragedy.

the difference is she may have wanted the child? Well the Man did not (obviously). Many times with abortion the case is reversed. The difference is the laws in this country have given women to decide if they want to kill their unborn child. This is the double standard I speak of. Why is it it is legal for a woman to do it and no one else? I think you all know my point here is to say that it is wrong either way, and this murder trial illustrates how the exception to law made for the case of abortion is a double standard.

 

[Junkpile]

This whole case is BS. I think he did it and I'm all for stringing him up from the tallest tree we can find, but I think he has been cheated. Like others, I didn't really follow it very closely, but I have some problems with what I did see of it. Thw term "hung jury" was being used ALOT in the past few days.....suddenly two jurors are dismissed and a verdict is reached almost immediately? :? The whole case that the prosecution had made revolved around planned first degree murder......as soon as that case wears thin, the judge allows the jury to consider a second degree charge :? And then there is the topic at hand....a murder charge, because he killed the unborn baby? Ummmmmm, don't we allow doctors to do that EVERY day, and simply term it a "medical procedure"? Shouldn't the charge have been practicing medicine without a license? :roll:

 

[90Xjay]

xbox live

Mingez wrote:

Not gonna do it...must...resist.... aaarrrgghh

Ohh Please............. You want us to think that your could really unload here and do some damage, but out of compassion you are holding back.
Well Let it go and free yourself, I give you permission, argue the point, let's see where the moral compass ends up pointing.

 

[TwistedCU]

I really didn't want to get into the morality either. I feel strongly about my beliefs, and no one can convince me they are wrong. This thread was to point out the legal debacle that this case may bring about.

We could debate abortion's morality issues forever. Both sides seem eternally dealocked. I would like to think otherwise, but when you will not consider the other side's view as valid then there is no point in debate. I'll be the first to admit that. I would have to dismiss my moral beliefs or those for abortion, or the "pro choice" stance if you must :wink:, would have to consider my moral beliefs. This is where it stands and admittedly I will not budge.

The real debate is the basis and standard of morality. That my friend, is a tough nut to crack.

I appreciate your desire to bring it about, and I share that desire, but I think after the political debates this forum has endured over the last 6 months or so, it is probably very unwelcomed.

 

[mingez]

shackles question (spring over)

Not gonna do it...must...resist.... aaarrrgghh

Ohh Please............. You want us to think that your could really unload here and do some damage, but out of compassion you are holding back.
Well Let it go and free yourself, I give you permission, argue the point, let's see where the moral compass ends up pointing.

:roll: Get over yourself...nobody needs your permission to do Jack or shite. And Jack left town. This is the second time you've put words in my mouth. You continually infer things that aren't there:

You want us to think that your could really unload here and do some damage, but out of compassion you are holding back.

-- and this time... a mouthful. Really, you need to stop.

As I said recently on another thread, I'm swearing off debating for a while. And I intend on keeping that promise to myself. Here's the thread in question: http://www.jeepz.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=325045&start=15

So, as you can see, that's not the case. But thanks for going out of your way to call me out on every post I make.

I would like to say I agree with TC's last post. Very eloquently put. He can see both sides, and the futility of this debate. Out.

 

[TwistedCU]

RE: Re: RE: HowdyHo!

LOL
I'm gonna get you two some of those big old Hulk hands my son and his buddies knock each other around with.

 

[mingez]

Hulk Smash!! :lol:

 

[mud4feet]

RE: xbox live

Those things are great...........except when I trip over them in the middle of the night - scares the bejesus out of me (grandson)!! :lol:

 

[TwistedCU]

need tj flares

Tell your grandson that if he puts a roll of quarters in... oh nevermind :lol: