Murder or Abortion ?

[lizzyhermit]

Do any of you know the technicalities in the Scott Petersen trial so that they were able to have him prosecuted for the murder of an unborn fetus?



Which of course engenders the question, "Why is abortion in fact not murder also" in the eyes of the law?

 

[Headshot zod]

I'm thinking since the the fetus was so close to being born it was considered "viable" and therefore a "person". But being that he meant to kill his wife its was "1st Degree" on the wife and since the child was collateral damage they could only score a "2nd degree" on it. Just my opinion w/o any political or religious interjections.

 

[Jeff Clark]

That was the whole stink behind trying for for double murder. If he was (and since has been) found quilty of double murder, it opens it up for interpretation of the law in the case of abortion. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some cases where a woman has an abortion and gets charged with murder.

 

[lizzyhermit]

headshot, when you say "viable" does that term mean "able to sustain life outside the womb"? I am not trying to get a flame going about pro life, right to life, or scriptural interpretation. I'm just curious as to the "logic" involved... .

 

[justinp20012500]

I am sure that being as far along as she was the unborn child would be able to sustain life outside the womb.

Jeff,

You bring up a good point.

 

[Headshot zod]

No problem... ... I've seen how the some of the political/religious threads go. "Viable" meaning can live outside the womb. I think she was due in a week or so. I believe if she was in her first trimester they might not have gotten the second conviction. But that is just a guess on my part. Actually I was happy they took the unborn into consideration to nail this guy especially in California. I also think if this had happened in a more conservative area of the country they might have gotten a second "1st Degree" conviction. The jury might have said "its obvious" he meant to kill them both if not he would have waited a week. You can really put a spin on the second conviction politically and religiously. I'm starting to think this might have been more of a landmark case.



Without starting a flaming thread here... .



Lets look at a few cases, I thinks its quite interesting and a sad commentary.....



if a women decides to terminate its a "medical procedure" before birth even if its viable. After birth its murder, but if the mother murders her young and then blames it on post partem (sp?) depression, it gets knocked down to manslaughter or "she's not mentally competent" case dismissed. We had two cases like that already.



Forgive me for rambling but I just been thinking about this more recently since they interviewed the new first lady of NJ "who wanted to drown her child..... and even measured him up to fit him in the microwave oven". But "took comfort in knowing that she would kill herself before harming him". I'm feeling better already... ... ugh!

 

[ndurbin]

I must be from one of those "more conservative" areas. If he meant to just kill his wife then he would have waited until the child was born. But since he killed them before the child was born he meant to kill them both.



JMHO

Nathan

 

[NVR FNSH]

Depends on who is doing the operation. A doctor can perform an abortion, Scott Peterson (or any other person w/o MD) gets tried for murder.



Brian