I said I'd try to stay away from real political debates..but this is an issue I can't stay away from. http://www.dailyrecord.com/news/03/04/20/news3-laci.htm Laci Peterson case tied to Roe debate By Rob Jennings, Daily Record The head of the National Organization for Women's Morris County chapter is opposing a double-murder charge in the Laci Peterson case, saying it could provide ammunition to the pro-life lobby. "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 said on Saturday. Prosecutors in California announced Friday their intention to charge Scott Peterson, 30, of Modesto, both with killing his wife and their unborn son. Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when she disappeared Dec. 24. Both bodies were identified on Friday after washing up on the shore of San Francisco Bay. More than two dozen states, including California, have adopted "fetal homicide" statutes, and prosecutors often will seek a double-murder charge when a pregnant woman is killed. Marie Tasy, public and legislative affairs director for New Jersey Right To Life, countered that a double-murder charge against Scott Peterson is appropriate. She assailed pro-choice activists for opposing fetal homicide statutes. "Obviously he was wanted by the mother," Tasy said. "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." Fetal homicide laws have been opposed by some pro-choice organizations that fear they will undermine a woman's right to choose an abortion, even though the statues exempt legal abortions. After watching news reports of Peterson's arrest, Stark expressed concern with the tone of the coverage. "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." Some pro-lifers hope fetal homicide laws will establish a precedent that fetuses are human beings, thereby fueling efforts to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. Laci Peterson's due date was Feb. 10, and she already had picked out a name -- Connor -- for her unborn son. Stark said that added to the tragedy of the case, but shouldn't result in an additional murder charge. "He was wanted and expected, and (Laci Peterson) had a name for him, but if he wasn't born, he wasn't born. It sets a kind of precedent," Stark said, adding that the issue was "just something I've been ruminating on." There is no fetal homicide statute in New Jersey, considered one of the nation's most pro-choice states. Under California law, murder charges can result if the fetus is older than seven weeks. To convict Peterson of murdering his unborn son, prosecutors would have to prove either that he intended to kill the fetus or knew that it would die as a result of Laci Peterson's death. "The argument that (fetal homicide statutes) would interfere with abortion rights is ridiculous," Tasy said. "These groups are so radical that they would deny recourse to a family for the loss of a wanted child." The second murder charge against Peterson is crucial because he otherwise would not be eligible for the death penalty. The double-murder charge qualifies as a "special circumstance" for which capital punishment may be sought. Prosecutors have not said whether they will seek the death penalty against Peterson, who will be arraigned on Monday. He is being held in the Stanislaus County Jail. Stark said that despite her opposition to the double-murder charge, she is not sympathetic to Scott Peterson. "I'd like to see them string him up," Stark said, "any way they can."
Stark is right. If you're for abortion, you can't charge this guy with murder, because you'd be admitting that women who get abortions (or the doctors) are murderers as well.
Even though I'm pro-life, I really wish BOTH sides of this issue would stay away from this case and not use it to further their respective agendas. That goes for talk radio too, they're all over it today (predictably) This is a murder case, not a political issue! BTW, MadMax I like your sig. I'm still depressed about those boys breaking up.
I agree...it is a murder case, and I don't want to see anyone furthering their own agenda. But I have a hard time saying that a man shouldn't be held responsible for murder if he kills an unborn child. Let's say Laci was beat up by her husband...that he had every intent of killing the child inside her. Is there no crime beyond the mere assault on his wife? Is he not still a murderer if he kills the child she has living inside her? Do you (not you specifically, ima) really want to be on the side of the argument that says he's not? Seems pretty cold and callous to me.
IMO, its simple. Its about a woman's right to CHOOSE. If Laci Peterson CHOSE to have her baby aborted, then that is HER right. Not anyone else's. And that is not a crime. Her husband did not have a right to ABORT/KILL that baby. Therefore, IMHO, it should indeed be considered murder. I really do not understand how someone can compare Mr. Peterson to an abortion doctor.
So what you are saying is that a person can *choose* to commit murder, when the circumstances are convenient to them?
I was kinda thinking the same thing....is life dependent on the desire of another to keep it around? is that really how we want this to read? So if she wants the baby, it's murder -- an unlawful taking of a human life. But if she doesn't want the baby, it's not murder. That doesn't compute.
No, I am saying a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion because thats what the law says. I am not going to get into a debate about whether that law is right or wrong, although I consider myself pro-choice. Thats not what this is about.
I kind of equate this to the difference between murder in cold blood and killing someone in self-defense. Just because someone is dead doesn't mean that the punishment should be the same no matter how they died. That probably doesn't make any sense.
I agree. Even though I'm pro-life, this is more about the law. The law says it's legal to have an abortion but illegal to murder. Whether you agree with the law or not (I don't, for the record), it is the law.
but it creates a legal impossiblity to murder something that isn't alive. if i were defending this guy, I'd ask the court to take judicial notice of laws upholding a woman's right to abortion in his defense. rm95 - the self-defense analogy works where abortion is performed to save the life of the mother...but i don't see how it's applicable otherwise.
MadMax, I just used self-defense as an example where killing someone does not necessarily equal a charge of murder. The same result does not always equal the same punishment. For some reason, I'm having a really hard time articulating this.
I would hope that the defense team wouldn't go down that road. What am I thinking, of course they will. It IS California...
She was over 8 months pregnant when she disappeared. That baby was at a point that it could have survived outside the womb. The baby was beyond being a fetus at that point. If Scott is indeed guilty, then he is guilty for killing 2 people.
If I took raw meat out of your refrigerator, would it be stealing? Or would it just be stealing if I took it when it was cooked and ready to eat?
I think the obvious difference is that it's <B>you</B> doing both things, not me doing one thing, and you doing the other. If I chose to take raw meat out of my refrigerator, it wouldn't be stealing. If you did it, it would be.
