Murder He Wrote

Seamax ^ | 4/20/2003 | Fr. Michael Reilly

[Hugenot]

"Peterson, who is to be arraigned on charges for the death of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, was arrested Friday morning ..." reports Sunday's New York Post.

We can all agree that Laci was murdered, but I thought that the unborn baby was just a fetus. How can Scott Peterson be arraigned on charges for murdering a non-person?

If Laci brought the child to a local abortionist, he could have killed the baby and the state would have paid for it! Actually, Scott probably was not as brutal as the local abortionist.

So let's get this straight. If the mother decides that the baby should die, there's no problem. The baby is declared a non-person and butchered. This is a protected constitutional right and a poor woman can get the state to pay for it.

Meanwhile, if the father harms the baby, he is brought up on charges for the murder of his "unborn son."

So each individual woman decides whether she's carrying a baby or a fetus. Such logic can never survive the judgement of history.

[sauropod]

Welcome to the status of men in today's society.

Witness child support laws and visitation...

Speaking from experience...

[Illbay]

This is simple to answer.

The woman alone has the choice.

I have already stated, that it will be relatively simple for Peterson's defense team to gain acquittal on the charge of murdering his unborn son.

They simply convince the jury that it was Laci Peterson's wish to have an abortion.

[Ethyl]

Excellent Point!!!!!!

[sauropod]

You presume too much...

[MIgramma]

Similar thoughts were swirling round my brain as I hear the various reports, newswise.
They really didn't know what to call it.
I noticed quite a dance.
I mean, It HAD to be a BABY, if he was going to be charged with killing it....but, it was a fetus??
It's may be interesting to watch this one play out, huh?

[Cicero]

I remember when killing a pregnant woman used to be thought a horrible crime. Everyone agreed that such a murderer should fry.

Now all the leftists insist that it's completely irrelevant that the woman was pregnant. It's a difficult position for them to defend, because everyone has a natural instinct to protect pregnant women. Even an ape colony would put a pregnant ape in the middle to protect it from harm.

[jlogajan]

It is unfortunate that pro-lifers are trying to use this in their cause. It may well backfire.

[MHGinTN]

The Priest has focused upon the most crucial portion of what may turn out to be the Scott Peterson appeal, if he's convicted of double homicide (but I wish the Priest had gone into greater depth on the issue):
So let's get this straight. If the mother decides that the baby should die, there's no problem. The baby is declared a non-person and butchered. This is a protected constitutional right(actually, as stated, it is not a constitutional right; it is a privacy right fabricated by judicial fiat that results on 1.2 million killings per year of babies waiting to be born; and therein lies the way to have Roe nullified, since it was the right to privacy the Roe decision established, not the right to kill an alive individual human being, and an alive individual human being is what is left unprotected by the judicial fiat) and a poor woman can get the state to pay for it.
Meanwhile, if the father harms the baby, he is brought up on charges for the murder of his "unborn son."

The 'right' to have a living unborn baby killed is unevenly applied since a father may not hire a serial killer to do it but a mother can. If convicted of double homicide, the appeal could go all the way to the SCOTUS based on the uneven application of a 'right to kill the unborn and avoid parenthood'. Little Connor would have an enormous vindication of his too short life and hateful death if that were the case. Bless him, Lord.

[MHGinTN]

You are a purposely mischaracterizing, trying to create a false impression ... the issue was raised by the pro-abortion crowd, by NOW and NARAL when the state asserted a double homicide would be offered for trial. You are, however, consistent in your methodology.

[Spunky]

I mean, It HAD to be a BABY, if he was going to be charged with killing it....but, it was a fetus??

No Flames please. I am just posting the California Law

The 1970 law applies only to third parties who kill a fetus, specifically excluding abortions and any action by the mother. California is one of at least 23 states that make it a crime for a third person to kill a fetus. It is infrequently used simply because it is unusual for a pregnant woman to be murdered.

Article

[Slip18]

My husband and I just talked about that not more than an hour ago.

Scott can be tried for a double murder; but a mother who aborts a child at eight months cannot be tried for murder.

I'm not siding with Scott. But something is wrong with society here.

[rebel85]

The states have been pushing these laws over the past few years; Abortion advocates are all for them despite defying the logic of legal abortion vs. murder (ie. fetus vs. child). this "logic" only holds for the mothers choice; in any other situation, true logic holds and the death of a fetus constitutes a double homicide.
As I recall, the push for these type laws is mostly associated with DUI related deaths, and firearm deaths of a pregnant lady; again, use what works most against the conservatives and the Constitution. Abortion is a choice and is ok; an "abortion" caused by a firearm or alcohol is murder.
Liberalism defies all logic!

[Khepera]

Scott did not have a liscense to kill. Abortionists have the liscense.

[rebel85]

I'm not siding with Scott. But something is wrong with society here.

There is something wrong with society but it is not charging this person with a double murder. It, of course, is not charging the aborting mother and her accomplice(s) with murder!

[PackerBoy]

I talked to one of Peterson's defense counsel.

His planned defense is simple and brilliant.

He will argue that Peterson was merely performing a late term abortion on his wife, Laci, at her request. Then, soon after the procedure was performed, Laci became depressed and asked Peterson to assist her in commiting suicide.

The most they can charge him with is practicing law without a license, improper disposal of medical waste (the fetus) and improper disposal of a corpse.

He'll do three-five years and then write a book and be on Oprah. </ sarcasm>

[PackerBoy]

I meant practicing medicine without a license ...

[Jhoffa_]

You're correct of course..

The child’s life hangs in the balance. The difference between a lawful abortion and going to jail rests solely on the whims of the mother.

That's not intellectually honest.. but thanks to people like NOW! that's exactly the way it is.

[CyberAnt]

California law states a "viable" fetus (meaning a baby which is within 2 months of birth), can be considered a separate murder.