Laci and Connor Peterson and Schizophrenic Law

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capability of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and every one of us to government ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

- James Madison, Fourth President of the United States and Chief Architect of the Constitution

Scott Peterson has recently been booked on two counts of murder in the deaths of his wife and son, Laci and Connor Peterson. The double homicide charge has thrown the pro-abortion crowd into a state of panic. You see Connor was an unborn child in the womb of Laci at the time of his unfortunate demise. Pro-abortion groups, like the Morris County NOW organization are up in arms and voicing opposition to the double murder charge. Case in point is this quote by their President, Mavra Stark. Stark stated, “If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder.”

This particular murder case is troubling to those who support abortion on demand on two counts. It first reveals what the abortion industry and its advocates would prefer to remain hidden, the humanity of the baby in the womb. This is especially grievous to them when the media, the law of the land, and the state that enforces the law acknowledges this truth. It calls into question what has been purposely censored for over thirty years since the infamous Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court Decision. If the child in the womb is a human being, a person, like you and me, then the law of the land should protect its life, just like it does for us all.

This concept was even acknowledged by Harry Blackman, the Supreme Court Justice, who penned the tragic ruling in favor of abortion. He wrote, “The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.“ Based upon this premise, the abortion industry has a vested interest to remove the notion of personhood as far from the unborn as possible. If they fail, as they surely must, then the whole basis of Roe vs. Wade collapses about them like a house of cards.

History records in bloody detail what happens when certain people groups are denied personhood. Laws that once protected human life were removed by judicial fiat. As a result, the vulnerable and weak became a prey to injustice bent on their extinction or enslavement. This was true with Nazi Germany who denied the personhood of Jews in Hitler’s death camps. It is also true when it comes to American slavery that denied our black brothers and sisters were fully human in the Dred Scott Supreme Court Decision. Thankfully, we all now condemn that godless, unjust, ruthless, and merciless legacy. America stands united with one voice that declares, “They were wrong back then!” The problem is, can America say that we are wrong today? Prayerfully, the Scott Peterson case will be used to convict us all with indisputable evidence that abortion is a grave sin against God and a brutal crime against humanity.

The second problem the abortion industry and America must contend with in the Scott Peterson case is the glaring lack of a singular standard as the basis of law. It exposes the inconsistency, the hypocrisy, and the schizophrenia that has made a mockery to the concepts of law, justice, and civil government. Law in America has become a Rubik’s Cube that we twist and turn to further our political agendas. It is no longer a fixed standard that secures justice for all.

It was Blackstone, the inspiration behind the Declaration of Independence’s statement, "The law of nature and of nature’s God," that historically gave America her source for law. Blackstone stated, "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature (the eternal laws of good and evil) and the law of revelation (found only in the Scriptures), depend all human laws. That is to say, no human laws should be allowed to contradict these." Roe vs. Wade and its evil fruit of decriminalized murder and its assault against the very basis of law bears witness to what happens when we allow human law to contradict God’s law. It always ends in disaster. We simply cannot continue to violate the eternal laws of right and wrong and thrive as a people.

Martin Luther King Jr. gave this apologetic on law by stating, "...There are two types of law, just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One not only has a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that, ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, ‘An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.’"

According to these reputable men, the Holy Bible, and history, the law of God is the basis for all human law. It is binding upon all people, at all times, and in every nation. It is the law of God that reveals true reality in this universe and contains the righteous, holy character of the God of the Bible. The law of God defines for us the way the world should work and how man is to fit within its context to be blessed. The law of God ultimately reveals for man His desperate for a Savior, Jesus Christ, as mankind rejects and violates God’s commandments routinely.

America must relearn that neutrality is a myth and that someone is indeed legislating morality. The question is, whose premise of right and wrong, whose ideas of good and evil, and whose philosophy of morality under girds the laws of the land? As God alone is the only lawgiver, the choice before man is either to uphold or to break God’s law. If we continue to break God’s law, it will eventually break us. This is the hard lesson of history and is the present day battle that is raging for the souls of men, the lives of our children, and the future of our nation. America we must repent, end Roe vs. Wade, return to the God of our Fathers, and the Biblical principles that made us a great and mighty nation. For the truth is, apart from the law of God as the basis for all human law, there is no way for America to experience “liberty and justice for all.”

To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, ‘An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.’"

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion....Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The Case For and Against Natural Law That federal judges, Mr. Bork included, have not been learned in the natural law is one of the educational misfortunes of our age. When the time is out of joint, we can repair to the teachings of Cicero and Aquinas and Hooker about the law of nature, in the hope that we may diminish man's inhumanity unto man. The natural law lacking, we may become so many Cains, and every man's hand may be raised against every other man's.

Federalist No. 51 ...It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part...Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

And this very article is a perfect example of someone "twisting and turning to further their political agenda".

The author wails and gnashes his teeth and alleges "Schizophrenic Law", but you'll note that while he goes on and on about generalities, he doesn't actually cite any specifics about California law or quote Roe v Wade. And there's a good reason -- because that would reveal that he doesn't have a leg to stand on for his political rant.

Far from being "schizophrenic", the law in California (and in most states) is quite consistent, and quite clearly states that abortion of a viable fetus *is* illegal, and *is* murder:

187.  (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
   (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
   (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.

-- CALIFORNIA CODES: PENAL CODE 


123468.  The performance of an abortion is unauthorized if either of
the following is true:
   (a) The person performing or assisting in performing the abortion
is not a health care provider authorized to perform or assist in
performing an abortion pursuant to Section 2253 of the Business and
Professions Code.
   (b) The abortion is performed on a viable fetus, and both of the
following are established:
   (1) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician, the fetus
was viable.
   (2) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician,
continuation of the pregnancy posed no risk to life or health of the
pregnant woman.

-- CALIFORNIA CODES: HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE

And this will probably come as a big surprise to those who rant against Roe v Wade without ever having actually read it, but even Roe v Wade clearly states an agreement with the concept of protecting the life of the viable unborn:

"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications."
[snip]
"For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [p165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."
-- Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)

There is absolutely nothing "schizophrenic" about the law in this case, and even Roe v Wade agrees on that point.

So what, exactly, is Rev. Thomas crying about? Nothing but his own "the sky is falling" political agenda, apparently.

He has a point that NOW is being irrational, but he's way off base when he starts calling the relevant laws (or even court decisions) "schizophrenic", when in fact there's nothing in them either inconsistent, nor in disagreement with how Rev. Thomas wishes them to be.

But I guess he doesn't want to let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Are unborn children human beings? Are they persons? No doubt about it. The following essays argue the pro-life case...

When Do Human Beings Begin? -- by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. In this essay, former NIH bench research biochemist Dianne Irving demonstrates the scientific fact that the lives of human beings--and human persons--begin at conception.
Personhood Begins At Conception -- by Peter Kreeft, Ph.D. Professor Kreeft explains what exactly a "person" is and why the various philosophical positions which deny that the unborn child is a person are themselves inadequate.
Is the Unborn Less Than Human? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Dr. Beckwith lays out the scientific facts surrounding human development and explains why it does not make sense to argue that a human being is created at implantation, quickening, or birth.
When Does a Human Become a Person? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. Continuing the previous essay, Dr. Beckwith demonstrates why other functional criteria given for personhood--such as sentience, brain development, and viability--are inadequate. He then refutes the "gradualist" position, which incorrectly asserts that the unborn becomes more and more human as the pregnancy progresses. Finally, he discusses the positions of various abortion and infanticide advocates like James Rachels, Mary Wollenkott, and Michael Tooley.
Does Life Begin At Implantation? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Dr. Beckwith addresses the phenomena of monozygotic twinning, hydatiform moles, choriocarcinoma, blighted ova, cloning, and fertilization wastage. He then shows how these phenomena fail to disprove the position that human life begins at conception.
Scientific and Philosophical Expertise: An Evaluation of the Arguments on Personhood -- by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. In this essay, biochemist Dianne Irving argues that positions which assert that early human embryos are not persons are based on inadequate philosophical principles and faulty scientific data.
The Human Rational Soul in the Early Embryo -- by Stephen Heaney, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Heaney discusses the various theories of "ensoulment" that permeate philosophical (and theological) discussions on abortion.
A Survey of Arguments for Immediate versus Delayed Animation -- by Scott Sullivan. In this essay, Thomist Philosopher Scott Sullivan critically analyzes the theory of mediate animation.
The Tiniest Humans -- an interview with the renowned geneticist Jerome Lejeune and the father of modern embryology, Sir Albert William Liley

Some abortion advocates are willing to concede that unborn children are human beings. Surprisingly enough, they claim that they would still be able to justify abortion. According to their argument, no person-no unborn child-has a right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling host. Unborn children may have a right to life, but that right to life ends where it encroaches upon a mother's right to bodily autonomy. The argument is called the bodyright argument, and it is refuted in the following essays...

The Bodyright Argument: A Pro-life Response -- By Brian D. Parks. In this essay, your webmaster gives a comprehensive analysis of the bodyright argument, including a discussion of the various pro-abortion analogies to pregnancy, and a refutation of the positions of Philosophers Judith Thomson, Susan Mattingly, Patricia Jung, Frances Kamm, Margaret Little and others.
The Changing Pro-Life Argument: Does the Humanity of the Unborn Matter Anymore? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Beckwith introduces and refutes the famous argument from "bodily rights".
A Woman's Right Over Her Body? -- by Stephen Schwarz, Ph.D. In an excerpt from his book The Moral Question of Abortion, Dr. Schwarz addresses arguments in defense of abortion that are based on a woman's "right" to control her own body.
Unplugging a Bad Analogy -- by Doris Gordon. In this essay, Doris Gordon, the National Director of Libertarians For Life, refutes a famous argument put forth by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson.
Abortionists, Violinists and Burglars -- by Christopher Kaczor, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Kaczor addresses Thomson's arguments from a different angle.
A Fetus is NOT a Parasite -- by Thomas L. Johnson, Ph.D. In this piece, chordate embryologist Dr. Thomas L. Johnson attacks the popular misconception that a human fetus is the equivalent of a biological parasite.
Begging the Question -- by Edwin Viera. In this brief essay, Dr. Viera explains why the statement "a woman has a right to control her own body" begs the basic question in the abortion debate--is she only affecting her own body when she aborts?

Why would it be wrong to kill an adult? Why would it be wrong to kill a baby after it has been born? Questions like these seems trivial, but their answers are extremely important to the abortion debate. What many people fail to realize is that most of the arguments used to justify killing unborn children could be used with just as much force to justify killing newborn children and, in some cases, even full-grown adults. The wrongness of killing is discussed in the following essays...

I Was Once a Fetus -- By Alexander Pruss. In this essay, mathematician and philosopher Dr. Alexander Pruss offers an identity based argument against abortion.
The Real Problem with Abortion -- by Mark McNeil. In this essay, Mark McNeil examines two competing positions on the issue--the position of moderate pro-life advocate Don Marquis and the position of liberal abortion advocate Mary Anne Warren. McNeil concludes that neither position sufficiently explains why it is wrong to kill human beings, and introduces his own viewpoint.

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.