Entry: The Scott Peterson Effect Saturday, November 13, 2004



The verdict is in. Scott Peterson, a fertiliser salesman and part-time philanderer from California, killed his wife, who was eight months pregnant. He tied her body to an anchor made of concrete and dumped it in San Francisco Bay, covering his actions with a story about a fishing trip for which he didn't even have the proper equipment. Despite the twistings and turnings of attorney Mark Geragos (who first gained media attention with his defense of Susan McDougal during the Clinton Whitewater scandal), the jury convicted Peterson of murder.

Why is this significant? Murders happen every day. Peterson was convicted not of one crime, but two. He was convicted of murder in the first degree (premeditated) of his wife, Laci. He was also convicted of murder in the second degree (intentional) of his son, Conner. It turns out that this may be very significant, after all.

  • Conner was not yet born.
  • You can only murder a human being.
  • Conner was murdered, therefore he was a human being.
  • A human being has rights.
  • Therefore, an unborn child is a human being with rights that should be protected.

I don't look at abortion from a religious standpoint. I've never seen a soul, and -- chances are -- neither have you. I have, however, seen the faces of the unborn as they smile, cry and play, thanks to the "miracle" of modern technology. The main Liberal argument seems to be that it's just a lump of "fetal tissue" right up until that magical moment when it breathes air and is transformed into a child. Not even the most fanatical Liberal will claim that it's not alive before that, just that it's not human life. Well, I was once a lump of tissue just like that. So were you. The DNA of an unborn child is fully human DNA. No one has yet documented any important changes that take place exactly at birth, except that suddenly the child's lungs are filled with air. And that's a pretty poor definition of humanity.

What defines us as human, if not our genetic code? At the moment of conception, a totally unique human genetic identity is created, one that has never existed before and will never exist again. There is no sudden, magical change detectable in the DNA between the moment of conception and the moment of birth. Therefore, a baby is a human life from the moment it's conceived until the moment it dies. And if it's human, it has to have some rights. One of those rights ought to be "not dying for someone else's convenience."

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, "49% of the 6.3 million pregnancies that occur each year are unplanned; 47% of these occur among the 7% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy who do not practice contraception." The three main reasons for choosing abortion are that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities (75%), the women cannot afford a child (66%) and they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (50%). Overlapping reasons aside, three quarters of abortions are performed for reasons of convenience? The introduction of post-coital drugs like Preven (no longer manufactured) and Plan B caused a 43% drop in abortion rates between 1994 and 2000. I'd say that's a good start, and a lot more convenient. Plan B, which prevents fertilisation altogether, is unlike the French "morning after" pill RU-486, which prevents a fertilised egg -- a life -- from implantation. Besides, RU-486 seems to come with its own side effectssome of which involve death.

Of course, there is only one absolutely certain contraception method, but few words cause Liberals to roll their eyes and groan as much as "abstinence." God forbid -- to make a weak joke -- that people should have self-control. The idea that people should consider the implications before voluntarily having sex is generally met with scorn by Liberals and characterised as "medieval" by the media. It's easier to pretend that there are no consequences to one's actions.

Sometimes those consequences have faces and names, however. And sometimes they never get the chance to have them. We can hope that the conviction of Scott Peterson, along with the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (Laci and Conner's Law, signed in April 2004), will go a long way towards ensuring some real protection for the youngest and most vulnerable members of the human race.

   26 comments

Florence
November 13, 2004   07:33 AM PST
 
Hi,
This is an excellent article that was well written especially about the rights of the unborn child..I have 4 sons and could never think of aborting a child...all your articles are of excellent writing..keep up the good work.

A reader of Blog.
Florence
Name Heidi
November 15, 2004   12:00 PM PST
 
Thank you so much for such a well written article. You express what so many of us feel, but are never heard because of the liberal media. You make wonderful argument, and hopefully this case will go a long way in helping to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Thanks again.
Carol
November 15, 2004   05:25 PM PST
 
Your post is wonderful and makes a convincing case against abortion. However, your legal logic is unfounded, since the California homicide/murder scheme classifies murder as the killing of a human being (defined as a human that has been born alive) and feticide, the 2d degree murder charge, is the killing of a person (defined as a human being either born alive or, in this case, not yet born alive). Finding a legal loop-hole requires digging a bit deeper since state legislatures have already circumvented your argument; the US Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade invalidated many of the state's murder schemes - thus the "birth" of the feticide statute in California and many other states.
JM
November 15, 2004   08:55 PM PST
 
Thanks, Carol (and Heidi, and Florence!) The fact is that Peterson was convicted of murder in the second degree, and the victim was an unborn child. That will be used as a precedent to argue the personhood of a fetus. And if personhood is established... well, the Roe v. Wade decision actually addressed this in section IX part A:
"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."
http://www.roevswade.org/Decision.html
The Psychic Ferret
November 16, 2004   02:17 PM PST
 
Scott Peterson was found guilty, now all that remains to do is find a handy length of rope and a tall tree and justice will indeed be served.
Sarah
November 17, 2004   12:56 AM PST
 
Cavalier:
This article is excellent! Thank you for writing it.

Keep up the good work and I will keep checking in.
Sinister Ninja
November 17, 2004   01:11 AM PST
 
So, do you think abortion should be illegal in every instance? Say, a twelve year old is raped and impregnated by her father? Just an example.
JM
November 17, 2004   08:26 AM PST
 
There are extenuating circumstances where it might be necessary, on a case-by-case basis. What I object to is abortion being used as a contraceptive.
old salt
November 18, 2004   11:32 AM PST
 
Well Said
Sarah
November 19, 2004   06:24 AM PST
 
It is a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a abortion and your stupid arguement of contraception or authoritarian case by case rubbish is thankful not an issue.

It is about a woman's right to have freedom over her body!
JM
November 19, 2004   07:16 AM PST
 
>It is a woman's right to choose
>whether or not to have a abortion

Maybe it has more to do with a person's responsibility to choose whether to have sex in the first place. But "responsibility" is not a word Liberals are familiar with, unless it's applied to others.
Sarah
November 19, 2004   07:28 AM PST
 
You might not choose to have sex because you have some hang up, but I choose to have sex and enjoy it.

It is called freedom, we live in the 21st Century not the 19th Century.
JM
November 19, 2004   08:23 AM PST
 
>I choose to have sex and enjoy it

And if you get "caught," as they used to say, you'll just commit a tiny murder and be off the hook. Life means nothing, after all, right? What's the life of a child compared to your personal freedom to do what you like without responsibility or care?
sarah
November 19, 2004   09:06 AM PST
 
JM can't you handle a woman who has had an abortion and doesn't feel it was a mistake and doesn't feel guilty?

JM
November 19, 2004   09:08 AM PST
 
I feel very sorry for you, Sarah.
sarah
November 19, 2004   09:14 AM PST
 
> i feel sorry for you

Don't give me the 'sorry' guilt rubbish.

Who asked you to feel sorry, I certainly didn't.

I don't feel sorry i feel fine.
JM
November 19, 2004   09:17 AM PST
 
Who are you trying so hard to convince? I'm glad you feel fine. Neverthless, I feel sorry for you.
Sarah
November 19, 2004   09:27 AM PST
 
Oh forgive me father (or is that JM)for I have sinned.

Are you going to offer to bless me next for having an abortion?
JM
November 19, 2004   09:32 AM PST
 
I never mentioned sin; you did. Again, who are you trying so hard to convince?
Sarah
November 19, 2004   09:39 AM PST
 
It is a quote - dummy

>convince

I think you are the one trying to convince everyone with your mixed up, repressed, quasi-religious, moralistic mumbo jumbo.

I happily had a legal safe abortion- period.

It is a simply fact I am not trying to convince anyone.
JM
November 19, 2004   09:43 AM PST
 
You're working very hard to convince me that you're happy about it and have no regrets. And you keep bringing up religion, though I never mentioned it. I'm sure you're very happy. I'm sure you never gave it a second thought.
sarah
November 19, 2004   09:54 AM PST
 
> quasi-religious

Not even half a second.
JM
November 19, 2004   10:18 AM PST
 
Why are you quoting and responding to your own posts? Not even half a second what? Why do you keep bringing up religion? That's the third time you've done so.
Sarah
November 19, 2004   10:52 AM PST
 
> quasi-religious

That is the 4th time

So what!

Am I supposed to apologise?

Or are you going to say you feel sorry for me again.
JM
November 19, 2004   11:00 AM PST
 
Why do you keep bringing up religion, unless it's on your mind somehow? Who are you trying so hard to convince that you're happy, when you're being so belligerent about it? And yes, I do feel very badly for you.
HB in va
November 19, 2004   04:37 PM PST
 
This is a very well written article. Thanks so much for posting this. I lost a baby and I know I personally could never go through with an abortion. I do not believe in abortions as a contraceptive method I feel it depends on the circumstance and should be looked at on a case by case circumstance. I have 4 healthy children and I feel blessed to have them and could never have aborted any of them. I know alot of woman who regret having their abortion and feel very guilty and have to live with that for the rest of their lives. There are alot of woman out there who cannot have children at all and would give anything to be able to have a child. Thanks for posting this JM. This article is very much appreciated by many I am sure.

Missing my angel Alyssa Rose lost 1/9/2000.

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments