Laci's unborn baby in abortion debate

WND ^ | April 20, 2003 | Staff

[Nachum]

The California deaths of Laci Peterson and her unborn son are sending shock waves across America as the issue of when human life begins has been reignited.

Laci's husband Scott was arrested last week following the discovery of what prosecutors say is Laci's body and that of their "biological child."

Scott Peterson, who was booked on two counts of murder hours after his arrest in San Diego, is scheduled for an arraignment hearing tomorrow. If charged and convicted of double homicide, he could face the death penalty.

Already, some pro-choice groups including the National Organization for Women are voicing their opposition to the double-murder charge, saying it could become part of the pro-life lobby's arsenal.

"If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder," Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark told the Daily Record of Parsippany, N.J.

"There's something about this that bothers me a little bit," Stark said. "Was it born, or was it unborn? If it was unborn, then I can't see charging [Peterson] with a double-murder."

"[The boy] was wanted and expected," Stark added, "and [Laci] had a name for him, but if he wasn't born, he wasn't born. It sets a kind of precedent."

But pro-life groups are defending the two murder charges.

"Obviously, [the child] was wanted by the mother," Marie Tasy of New Jersey Right To Life told the Record. "Clearly, groups like NOW are doing a great injustice to women by opposing these laws. It just shows you how extreme, and to what lengths, these groups will go to protect the right to abortion."

More than two dozen states have fetal homicide laws on the books, but they vary widely.

According to Court TV, "In some states, such as Missouri and Minnesota, a fetus is considered a living thing at conception. In others, like Georgia and Michigan, a fetus is only protected after "quickening" – when movement is first felt in the womb – occurs. In Pennsylvania, where a woman was convicted [last month] of murder for causing a romantic rival to miscarry her 15-week-old fetus, the 1999 law applies to any stage of pregnancy."

The lack of a singular standard in the law has weighed heavily on the minds of many.

In a letter to the editor of the Modesto Bee published March 29, weeks before Laci's body was discovered, Father Joseph Illo of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Modesto wrote:

"California law defines a fetus as human after eight weeks' gestation if you kill his or her mother. If the mother kills the fetus, then California law changes its mind to say, in that case, the fetus is no longer human. Is a human fetus human or not? If the Laci Peterson case is a 'double' homicide, then any abortion after eight weeks in this state is a 'single' homicide. That is why I've been praying at abortion clinics these last 10 years – that we will come back to our senses."

[SpyGuy]

One other thing to consider: Scott is being indicted for murder with special circumstances (which means it's a death penalty case). I haven't seen the actual indictment, but the only special circumstances that I can think of is the fact that this was a double homicide with a baby as one of the victims.

If NOW has its way, and the indictment for murder against the baby is dropped, then it "simply" becomes a single murder of an adult woman (Scott's spouse, Laci). That would probably mean that the "special circumstances" gets dropped and that Scott is no loger eligible for the death penalty.

I can clearly see the radically liberal anti-death penalty crowd teaming up with the radically liberal feminist crowd to oppose the murder indictment for the baby.

[SpyGuy]

NOW has been twisting itself in knots over this issue for some time.

For example, if an abusive man kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach and kills her unborn baby, most rational people would call that murder. (And most states--including California--have a law that declares such an act one of murder. In fact, I believe it is that very California law that Scott is being charged with in this case.)

The predicament for NOW has been: whose side do they take? Should it be the pregnant woman? After all, NOW claims to be the champion of women's rights. Or should it be the abusive man? Because killing an unborn child can not ever be considered murder (according to NOW's doctrine). It is my understanding that, like this case with Scott Peterson, NOW has been siding with the murderers (who are almost always abusive or violent men).

Oh the tangled--and hypocritical--webs the liberals weave.

[Tax Government]

Abortion is murder.

NOW and the abortion industry are organized, for-profit murderers.

[over3Owithabrain]

Yep, I think the term is "hoist by their own pitard".
Don't ask me what that means, but it sure fits.

[snickeroon]

Now we know that NOW is NOT the National Organzation of Women....it is the Nasty Organization of Warfare against women who believe in the beauty and joy of choosing LIFE.... well-lived and Biblically sound.

These monsters are NOT women, they are demons. Darkly disturbed and disturbing demons who we must reveal to all who can "see" and "hear." There truly could not be a REAL woman who would side against the smiling, beautifully radiant visage of a glowing and expectant Laci Peterson....killed on the very day that we celebrate the birth of another son, Jesus Christ!

Judges that would allow this crime to reflect only the death of the mother, when the baby's perfectly formed, full-term body was also found....are shaking a fist in the face of God, and such indolence will NEVER be tolerated by our Divine Creator.

[craig_eddy]

Regardless of what the National Organization of Witches thinks, there is fetal homicide in the state of California. Snotty Scotty is gonna get the needle, assuming his cell mates don't get him first.

[Maurice Tift]

I'm just waiting to see a NOW activist with a KEEP MURDER LEGAL sign.

[Jim Noble]

This BABY had a name, a sex, and was WANTED

"I didn't WANT him" is not a defense to murder.

[Jim Noble]

if the mother didnt choose to abort the baby than why wouldnt it be murder under the law?

Because the essence of the law is that it treats equals equally.

If it would not have been a crime for Laci to kill Conner (or, more likely, to pay another to kill him) then it CANNOT be a crime for Scott to kill him.

If your wife wants you dead and hires someone to kill you, the murderer's defense CANNOT be, "Well, she wanted him dead so I killed him". Both parties are guilty of capital murder, it does not turn on the mental or emotional state of the woman who pays for the crime.

Just so here, whether Conner was wanted or not wanted, whether Laci loved him and prayed nightly for his arrival or hated him and wanted him dead, has nothing to do with the act of killing him.

It was murder, or it was not.

[Alouette]

Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark

Hey Mavra, aren't there any exclusive no-gurrlz country clubs in Morris County for you to picket?

[DAPFE8900]

This is the reason people are getting sick of the left...They are clueless to the way normal mainstream americans are thinking... It is a sad day when people even contemplate about calling it abortion or calling it murder.
If the baby was born it would live...Period!

[Remember Ruby Ridge]

You took the words right out of my mouth.

"If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder," Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark told the Daily Record of Parsippany, N.J.M

Of course late-term abortion is murder! DUH!

[Lorianne]

Exactly. Give them enough rope to hang themselves.

[Lorianne]

Too bad he didn't research CA law on fetal homicide as carefully as he did tides and currents.

[HIDEK6]

So killing a 8 month old in the womb who the mother wanted is ok?

That's the problem with the pro-abortion argument. If you say that only the mother has the right to "terminate the pregnancy," then you are saying that anyone else is destroying a life. But if it is a life, why does the mother have a right to take it?

Don't you love how truth has a way of prevailing?

[Lady Eileen]

Is it not amazing what Scott, if he is the murderer, meant for evil God can use for good, exposing the obvious lies and inherent contradictions of the Left including NOW.

[lonestarlassie]

Lacy AND her child were both murdered. They are in Gods hands. We should all pray for them. If her husband committed the murders, he'll be brought up on two separate murder charges. Good grief! And also, I was just thinkin' how very helpful it is in changing the abortion laws to angrily name call those known as "pro choice advocates". My favorite of course is "Abortion Lovers"...cause' gosh!...That's just bound to accurately describe them. Yeh...Ya know?.. "Lovers of abortion"... that's what they are...They just can't get enough of that abortion. Yeh, I hear that all the time when I'm in a debate with those "abortion lovers"....How they won't rest until "every human baby is ripped from the womb of it's mother"...Yeh, they all say that, those "abortion lovers"! And "PP Nazi Cows"... Now, that's a winner too! Yep....These toxic, antagonistic spewings go a long way in helping us gain credibility with the undecided. So by all means, let's keep shooting ourselves in the foot OVER and OVER again, and keep that creative name calling energy flowing in the name of getting abortion stopped....And DEFINITELY let's make sure that we exhibit this productive behavior in public forums. Sarcasm aside...Know that it causes those of us that are serious about changing the law a lot of grief, in that we are constantly having to separate ourselves from those that use thoughtless, hate-filled ramblings in a misguided attempt to inspire support. "Toddler-like" tantrums...That's what it appears to be. And that behavior has sure not worked for too many children in getting "candy in the the grocery store line". It hasn't worked in the past and will not ever work for us in the fight to change the law. I cringe at the thought of all the potential support lost because of what I've been forced to have to refer to as crazed, pro-life "rebels without a clue" spewing forth filthy, hateful, threatening garbage that makes us all look like ignorant thugs. I've been so ashamed of "these types" in the fight. I wish they'd figure it out. I ask God to give them a calm spirit and wisdom-filled mind so they may use their passions to "actually help" us get something done. In the mean time, the rest of us will get things done inspite of them. Because it's the right thing to do... and God helps the righteous "right" what isn't. The Lord won't assist hateful people mascarading as righteous. He can't hear their vile mouths or look upon their vile deeds. And personally, my heart is sick because of them. They might as well be "pro-choicers" for all they contribute to furthering support against abortion.

[votelife]

Here is a recent email I sent to W.

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.