Scott Peterson's Verdict
Originally Posted by VoIPA,Nov 17 2004, 03:59 PM
Well, it is an interesting subject, (and a valid question IMHO) but probably not for the off-topic forum. Things tend to go bad quickly in here.
Like I said, this has already been discussed in the Politics forum (much more appropriate), so I suggest that anyone who wants to discuss this particular aspect become a member if you're not already so you can view that forum.
Like I said, this has already been discussed in the Politics forum (much more appropriate), so I suggest that anyone who wants to discuss this particular aspect become a member if you're not already so you can view that forum.

the issue to me is not whether connor was born or not. it is that there was no actual physical evidence linking scott.
this case was entirely decided on circumstantial evidence and the nation's hatred for Scott. Justice was NOT served.
*I do believe he did it, but I still think he should have been acquitted.
this case was entirely decided on circumstantial evidence and the nation's hatred for Scott. Justice was NOT served.
*I do believe he did it, but I still think he should have been acquitted.
Originally Posted by s2000raj,Nov 17 2004, 04:57 PM
VoIPA, you are probably right. WHat I don't see is why JonBoy feels he needs to get on his soapbox and start talking about abortion.
No soapbox here, just a question. If you're so sensitive, perhaps you need to take a nap.
Get over it - if you agree with abortion, that's fine. That's not my point. My point is, what's the difference in what Scott (allegedly) did and what a doctor does? Permission? If so, I think it's ridiculous. I see no continuity of law here...
One last thing - "ultra religious" really doesn't make sense. You believe what you believe. I believe what I believe. Religion is "a belief". You're just as "ultra religious" as I am - you just may not believe in a deity the way I do. Regardless, you're severely biased and way off target.
Originally Posted by JonBoy,Nov 18 2004, 09:41 AM
but have they now decided what time frame does/does not constitute a fetus becoming a "child" or "person", that is, someone with legal rights?
Originally Posted by tritium_pie,Nov 18 2004, 10:08 AM
- man brutally murders his 8-month pregnant wife, likely so he can build a life with his mistress... 
- woman voluntarily chooses to abort a fetus, likely a few weeks after discovering she is pregnant...
I see no continuity of logic and common sensibility here... I do see someone tripping over their SOAPBOX though...
you may think raj needs to take a nap... but dude... you need to WAKE UP. no really. snap out of it.
"just a question" my ass. how about, "just an agenda". better yet... how about we get back ON TOPIC and not discuss such wholly unrelated issues.


- woman voluntarily chooses to abort a fetus, likely a few weeks after discovering she is pregnant...

I see no continuity of logic and common sensibility here... I do see someone tripping over their SOAPBOX though...
you may think raj needs to take a nap... but dude... you need to WAKE UP. no really. snap out of it.
"just a question" my ass. how about, "just an agenda". better yet... how about we get back ON TOPIC and not discuss such wholly unrelated issues.

I honestly did not/do not have an agenda - I was throwing out what I consider to be a thought-provoking question. I can shut up right now and not give a hoot - this isn't where I wanted this topic to go, at all.
Just because you don't see it that way doesn't make you right (nor does it make me right), nor does it mean that there's nothing to be seen.
Not sure what your ass has to do with anything.

Seriously, I had/have no agenda - I don't think I've ever discussed abortion on here (or anywhere online) until this point and I didn't even want to do it here. You'll note that I still haven't really delved into it.







