Laci and Connor Peterson and Schizophrenic Law

Missionaries to the UNBORN ^ | April 23, 2003 | Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas

[cpforlife.org]

“The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.” C. S. Lewis

1973 United States Supreme Court

[cpforlife.org]

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List

[nickcarraway]

“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.“\

But he was willing to chance it.

[Jeff Head]

“If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder.”

... and it would be just as true as calling Connor's death the murder it was.

I pray the day will come, and come soon, when it will be reognized as just that. I address this issue heavily in the thrid volume of my Dragon's Fury Series of Novels, where in the midst of a devastating world war and great calamity, America comes to its senses about this.

[Remedy]

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.

[Remedy]

where in the midst of a devastating world war and great calamity, America comes to its senses about this.

It took that to break Hitler's will to power. Probably take that to break America's will to murder.

[Jeff Head]

Sadly, I fer you may be right ... but we must continue to work and pray ... and then work some more.

In my Novel Series, I build up to this as one of the principle secondary climaxes (along with the 2nd amendment, immigration issues and off-shore outsourcing) in a series of novels that is principally about World War III where an unholy alliance of Red China, N Korea and the fundamental Islamic world and their allies wages war on the west.

Fregards.

[Search4Truth]

America can not be a beacon of life and liberty to the world, while this atrocity at home continues.

[buffyt]

TRUE! Until we restore the sanctity to all human life!

It is not a choice.
It is a CHILD!

[jimkress]

Abortion, the most selfish 'choice' any human can make.

[Doomonyou]

I address this issue heavily in the thrid volume of my Dragon's Fury Series of Novels...

I can't wait to read it. (My copy finally shipped for amazon)

[Jeff Head]

If you get a chance ... get or borrow those books ... as they illustrate just this point in an umistakable way in volume III.

[Jeff Head]

Outstanding! I know you are going to like it and look forward to your comments regarding volume III.

[MHGinTN]

Bppkmarking this keeper!

[Ichneumon]

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.

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.

[cpforlife.org]

In straightforward terms, what is YOUR position on abortion?

[Coleus]

`

[fatima]

Bump for read later.

[maica]

While your points may all be 100% accurate, the practice of the law has gone way beyond the contentions you state.

The interpretation the definitions of 'life' 'health' and 'viability' is pretty close to 'whatever the mother wants until the baby takes a breath unaided.'

Maybe 'schizophrenic' does not define this kind of behavior, but no one can call it sane.

[Remedy]

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.