Laci Peterson Case Poses Problems for Pro-Choicers

NewsMax ^ | April 22, 2003 | Fr. Mike Reilly

[Hugenot]

NewsMax.com's religion editor Fr. Mike Reilly argues that the Laci Peterson case poses a problem for America's abortion advocates.

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

We can all agree that Laci Peterson 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 Lacihad 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 probably less brutal then the local abortionist would have been.

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.

But if the father harms the baby, he's charged with the murder of his "unborn son." Apparently, it's up to the individual mother to determine whether she's carrying a "fetus" or a baby.

[jcperson]

I don't agree that post-first trimester abortions should be done...I do however believe that it is murder to 'off' a fetus...perhaps after this case is done, the state adn supreme court will need to re-evaluate it's abortions laws.

[InvisibleChurch]

why don't the pro-choicers actually exercise a choice and choose life once in a while?

[Jay D. Dyson]

why don't the pro-choicers actually exercise a choice and choose life once in a while?

Oh, they will...when the day comes for Scott Peterson to die by lethal injection. Then these same talking heads that insist that a fetus has no real right to life will insist that Scott Peterson's life should be spared "because killing is just wrong!"

Mark my words.

-Jay

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

Lets don't let the prochoice freaks off the hook, this should prove very interesting as to how the courts and the NAG's handle it.

[RockBassCreek]

It seems this is an issue of logic, religion, and biology.

The article clearly highlights the illogic of what is happening. I believe even the Roe/Wade decision made the issue of "viability" a benchmark against which the humanity of the baby should be measured. They were wrong, but at least there was an effort to avoid the situation where the humanity of a baby is determined by whim.

Religion and biology are hand in hand on this case. Both see the baby as a baby.

[Ferret Fawcet]

BTT

[rimmont]

PRO-CHOICE? MORE LIKE PRO-ABORTION OR PRO-DEATH.

[Slyfox]

The one thing worse than an abortionist who kills a baby is an abortionist who kills the mother after killing the baby.

[Bellflower]

According to the logic of the day a womb baby can be killed because of the right to privacy. Why not a wife and baby as long as it is done in privacy? After all doesn't the right to privacy supersede the right to life?

[Pikachu_Dad]

So what will Scott's defense be?

That he was conducting an abortion on his child and the mom accidentally died as a result?

[Bellflower]

You ask, "So what will Scott's defense be?
That he was conducting an abortion on his child and the mom accidentally died as a result?"


What I am conveying is that Roe vs. Wade was won on an argument of a women's right to privacy. This is taken out of decision in that case.....

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life- saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy........

What I am suggesting is that if a women's right to privacy is more important than a baby in the womb's right to life why cannot Scott simply say what he does in the privacy of his own home including taking his wife's and unborn child's lives is nobody's business but his own. His right to the protection from scrutiny of whatever he does in privacy superceeds their rights to live. In our society the right to privacy is paramount. In the Fourteenth Amendment privacy includes your home as well as your body.

[trussell]

Ping

[SarahW]

Because his body, his physical person, is not at stake.