Murder: 2 for 1? (Was The Laci Peterson Double Homicide?) my title

Scott Peterson, husband of Laci Peterson, is being arraigned today in a California court on two counts of murder: One for Laci, the other for their unborn child.

Pro-choice organizations are understandably uncomfortable about the latter, exposing as it does the convenient lie that abortion isn't somehow murder.

"There's something about this that bothers me a little bit," said Mavra Stark, president of the local NOW office in Morris County, N.J., about the second count. "Was it born, or was it unborn? If it was unborn, then I can't see charging [Peterson] with a double-murder."

Her logic: "If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder."

Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding! We have a winner! For a straight-dealing answer with no BS, the first prize goes to Ms. Mavra Stark!

The killer of little baby Peterson can't be held accountable for murder because then so would a slew of abortion doctors. It's a perfect example of politics being more important than justice. Justice for the child is irrelevant – the political agenda is all that matters.

A year ago, a similar case arose in Utah. Roger Martin MacGuire was charged with murdering both his ex-wife and their in-utero child.

According to a Jan. 8, 2002, Deseret News story, "2nd District Judge Michael Allphin determined that the Legislature intended the term 'unborn child' in a state's criminal homicide statute to refer to 'a viable and non-viable fetus.'"

"As for the issue of whether the word 'person' in Utah's aggravated murder statute includes unborn children," Allphin decided, "the state correctly argues that unborn children are specifically included within the meaning of 'human being' for the purposes of criminal homicide statutes."

By his "plain reading" of the state's law, Allphin said the court was led "to conclude that, at least in the narrow context of the Utah criminal homicide statutes, the Legislature intended to protect unborn children 'from the outset of the pregnancy.'"

Obviously, California law and Utah law are not interchangeable, but both of these cases point to a puzzling question: What if the women were scheduled to have abortions the day following their murders?

Let's say a woman is shot on Tuesday and lives, only her fetus dies from the wounds. In the most ultimate sense, isn't that the same outcome as if she had visited the scissors-and-vacuum man on Wednesday? So, why is the shooter liable for the baby's death but not the abortionist? And, if shooting a baby in-utero is murder, why doesn't showing up for the abortion procedure make one accomplice to the same crime?

As far as the baby is concerned, the result is identical. Stark saw this clearly enough to sense a threat to her position if Peterson got hit with the second rap.

Substantively, abortion and in-utero murder are the same thing. The only difference is the intent of the mother. If the mother deems the baby worthless, then – voila! – it is.

To maintain this legal fiction, both abortionists and defense attorneys try to confine this justification to the womb.

MacGuire's attorneys, for instance, argued that only one murder count applied because the "16-week-old fetus carried by Susan MacGuire was not a person under Utah law because it could not survive outside the womb."

Maybe, but neither can infants without help. Getting nourishment through a breast instead of an umbilical cord is only a small question of space and time. So why shouldn't parents who deem their children worthless up to, say, 24 months be able to knock them off? Or maybe up to age 4?

And then skip ahead 80 years or so – plenty of old folks have a hard time without constant care and assistance. Why not knock them off while we're at it also?

The answer to the question should be the same one that eventually curbs abortion entirely. The legal protection of life is more than a dubious proposition if it hinges on the fancy of those to whom it is entrusted. It is an absurd proposition.

I'm not certain about the guilt of Scott Peterson. That's for the court to decide. What I am certain about is the can of worms this opens for the abortion lobby. As tragic as the Peterson case may be, I find it sickeningly enjoyable to see abortionists thrust into the unenviable and highly deserved position of defending their actions side by side with suspected murders.

NOW's argument will bury them. They can't rewrite Calif. law as much as they would like to, which has a fetal homicide act going back to 1970. It says if the baby that is murdered is considered "viable" outside the womb, then it is murder, plain and simple. I'd like to see NOW argue that an 8 1/2 month unborn baby isn't "viable."

One other question: NOW's whole premise has been about needing abortion to be legal for "unwanted" pregnancies. Well that is NOT the case with Laci and her baby - who had a name - Connor. The best thing they could have done for themselves would have been to shut up and not comment.

Thankfully, they opened their mouths and are hopefully opening more women's eyes about just how evil they really are. I'm thrilled they made a public statement and questioned why Scott is being charged with murdering his own BABY. As far as I remember - this has always been about women's rights to NOW, not men's rights. If men had rights according to NOW, many abortions would have been stopped by fathers who wanted their babies BORN.

The outrage at the murder of Laci and Connor will spread to even more people with their disgusting slant.

Beyond Contempt
Geoff Metcalf
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/
Sunday, April 20, 2003

What happens in marriages is private. It is presumptuous for any of us non-professionals (and often likewise for degreed referees) to counsel any couple on what goes on in their marriage. Most, if not all, married couples suffer challenges. Usually it is a function of ‘not enough’… not enough money or not enough sex. However, those challenges are part of life and frankly none of our business. Also, a basic tenet of our flawed legal system remains “innocent until proven guilty.” Okay, so much for the caveats.

The arrest of Scott Peterson for investigation of murdering his pregnant wife, Laci, will no doubt dominate the next news cycle now that things are quieter in Iraq.

Prosecutors announced Scott’s arrest in the wake of confirmation that the bodies of Laci Peterson and her baby had washed ashore in Northern California.

Scott has been charged with capital murder with the special circumstance of double homicide, which could carry the death penalty upon conviction. Prosecutors claim they haven’t decided whether to seek the death penalty. Huh!?!?

Notwithstanding the opening caveats, if or when Peterson is convicted, his fate (or the fate of anyone convicted of such a crime) should be a no-brainer. IF Scott killed or arranged for the killing of his pregnant wife, death by lethal injection is waaaaay too modest a result.

As previously noted, you and I don’t know the intimate details of the Peterson marriage. Either or both Petersons might have been bad people. Laci could have been a shrew or had her own fling as payback for her husband’s admitted infidelity. Unlikely, but possible. And even if true, it doesn’t mean ‘Jack’. I can think of no justification for what has been alleged. Even if some wacko attorney tried to manufacture some courtroom fiction, there is NOTHING to mitigate the murder of an unborn child. This tragedy also should raise some interesting moral questions for those myopic pro-choice sycophants defending the indefensible partial-birth abortion.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said: “There is no question in our mind that the unidentified female is Laci Peterson. We are scientifically convinced that the match is one in BILLIONS.”

Children are precious. The Christmas season is a special family time. How any sane person could ever premeditate the murder of his unborn son on Christmas Eve is an abomination.

Reportedly, Laci’s father, Dennis Rocha, told the family, “Well, they finally arrested the son of a bitch.”

The horrendous special circumstance of double homicide reportedly “would make Peterson eligible for the death penalty.” “Eligible”? “ELIGIBLE”?? HellFireAndDamnation – if ANYONE ever deserved to be removed from the gene pool, skinned alive, eviscerated and fed to maggots for a long torturous death, it has to be the “son of a bitch” who would kill his wife and unborn son on Christmas Eve.

Scott had already told police he last saw his pregnant wife as she was preparing to walk their dog. He told police he then left for the Berkeley Marina for a fishing trip. About two miles north of that same Marina the remains of a baby boy were washed ashore. The next day, the body of a woman was found nearby.

Prosecutors traditionally struggle to place a suspect in the vicinity of a crime scene. Getting such an admission from a suspect is often difficult. Not this time.

The medical marvels of DNA biological profiles match both bodies to those of Laci Peterson’s family.

If Scott Peterson isn’t the victim of some elaborate frame-up, he may not only win the prize for being the most callous, reprehensible murderer since Hannibal Lechter, but also qualify for a Darwin Award.

IF (and I’m bending over backward to maintain the illusion of “innocent until proven guilty”) Scott is responsible for the death of his wife and son, why would he remain in the country when he was so close to Mexico (they arrested him in San Diego) and in fact had already visited Mexico subsequent to Laci’s disappearance and prior to his arrest?

Laci’s family spokeswoman said, “I don’t know if relief is the right word. … The waiting has been horrific … but now they have answers.”

Answers no one really wanted. Frankly, it would have been better if Laci had turned up alive with her baby anywhere – alone, with a guy, or even in a cult waiting for the spaceship to arrive … but alive.

The trial will probably take place in Stanislaus County given the impossibility of finding any venue where a jury pool hasn’t been exposed to the nationally reported details.

IF Scott Peterson is found guilty, no penalty is too harsh. Saddam Hussein tortured thousands during his reign. Perhaps the archives of Hussein atrocities include some outrageously evil example that could serve as what should be done with the murderer of Laci and her son … whoever that son of a bitch might be.

No matter how strongly we agree with Mr. Miller's logic, we must in the next breath acknowledge that it's nothing new. This line of reasoning has been out there for a long, loooonnnngg time.

You can be sure that even the pro-aborts fully understand the logic, but they are not swayed by it. Why?

For the oldest reason in the Book: because they want something different. Human beings have demonstrated the ability to rationalize every horrible thing you can imagine. This is just another example: in almost all cases, abortion boils down to a trade between the life of an unborn, and personal convenience.

We have to be clear on the grounds of this debate: what's really at issue here is the sanctity of life. Pro-aborts are required to deny this fundamental concept, in order to trade it off against convenience.

I've found this "argument from convenience" to be the single most effective tactic in debating pro-aborts. The dirty secret is, they cannot acknowledge the true basis of their proposed trade-off: it's too stark.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.