Well, one of the jurors has been dismissed for doing her own research on the case. THe judge has instructed the jury to start over again in deliberating the double murder trial of Scott Peterson....
I'm sure I'm not the first person to bring this up, but....double murder? Peterson's not only being tried for his wife's murder but also of the murder of her unborn child. That's as it should be. He robbed the child of a life it could have had.
So, where do we draw the line between murder and abortion? If a woman says, "it's my body," and aborts the baby, it's okay. If a man takes the baby's life, it's Murder I. Seriously, people, what's the difference? A dead fetus is a dead fetus! Why the double standard?
Does a mother rob her baby of life any less than a father does? All I ask for is a little consistency. Either start charging mothers for Murder when they rob a child of its life, or drop a charge against Peterson to only one count of Murder. And remember, it might be the woman's body, but its God's child. His own creation into which he alone breathes life.
Oops. I'm talking politics again...and religion.
2 comments:
Ah...if only the law were that open and shut.
The "Partial Birth Abortion" ban (also called late-term abortion ban) was not made federal law until November 2003. "Common Interpretation" of the Roe V. Wade ruling would make an abortion in the third trimester illegal, but not the letter of the law itself. "Late term abortion" usually referred to abortions in the 4th to 6th month, however, depending on the state, they could be performed much later if, for instance, the mother was ill or otherwise in danger. I confess, I do not know the law in California and don't feel like staying up to do the research. I have heard stories (these may be someone's rhetoric) of late term abortions being performed as late as the 8th month.
The point, however, is that Laci and her child were killed December 24, 2002. Almost a year before a federal ban on late term abortions took affect. But probably you're right in saying that an abortion would not have been legal considering Laci was healthy, or atleast, as far as the public knows.
Here's another thorn in the side. The Unborn Victims of Violence act was not passed until 2004 and being federal law, it wouldn't apply in the Peterson case anyway (by wording of the law, it id not mandated on the states and only applies to Federal juristiction). Again here, whether or not there is a specific law addressing the case in California, I do not know, but the judge is willing to accept that the child is a victim.
Also, the federal law is not so varied as to divide into trimesters. In fact Sec 1841D(d) states "in utero, at any stage of development."
However, the Roe V. Wade decision is upheld by the law because it explicitly states that it does not apply to accidental death, death while attempting to treat the child or the mother, or (here it is folks) the Mother causes the death to the child. (this is also in sec 1841).
So there you go. It is legal because statute carved out an exception for the mother. Accourding to federal statute, it is legal for a mother to kill an unborn baby as long as a father doesn't.
Of coarse, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (if adopted by the states) wasn't passed until 2004, so it is irrelevant to the Peterson case. So this is really a discussion of how it is now.
What bugs me is that Scott Peterson was only convicted of second degree murder in Connor's death. I mean, he killed Connor just as surely as he killed Laci. He knew what would happen and he carried out his intent. How is the murder of the child any less horrendous than the murder of it's mother?
John-Boy
Post a Comment