Laci Peterson's baby / murder charges

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I'm sure most if not all of you have heard the horrible angle brewing on this tragic story.

It seems one of NOW's mouthpieces, a woman named Mavra Stark, is flapping her reconstructed jowls about how the death of Laci Peterson's unborn son should NOT result in a second murder charge against Scott Peterson. Ms. Stark happens to live just a few miles from me. I only pray that if God sends fire & brimstone, He confines it to her town.

So now the feminists are going to bat for a guy accused of killing his wife, just to try & prevent the rest of the world from thinking of his decapitated wife's unborn child as a human being with rights under the law.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 27, 2003

Answers

I hadn't heard that aspect of the case Jake.

I shall certainly pray that whoever is found to be responsible for killing Laci Peterson is also charged with and found guilty of murdering her son Connor.

An interesting precedent could be set here, if the person charged was found guilty, could abortionists also be charged with murder? Perhaps this is what has this Ms Stark in a flap!

May they rest in peace.

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), April 27, 2003.


This is allowed under CA law. It is not the same for all the states, sad to say, and even CA law would not apply had she been murdered a few months earlier in her pregnancy.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 28, 2003.

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known..........

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

If it is not a person, what is it? By law it can be named as a person in someone's will.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

This same bizarre situation has arisen in a number of different legal cases over the years. Someone kills a pregnant woman and is charged with double murder, or someone assaults a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry, and is charged with murder. Yet, the very same court which tries the aggressor for murder would uphold the "right" of the mother to HIRE someone to kill that same child any time she chooses to do so. This utterly irrational and indefensible double standard is not based on anything relative to the unborn child and his/her degree of development. It is not based on anything medical or biological. Neither is it based on the insubstantial and unprovable concept of "personhood". In fact, it is not based on any rational argument whatsoever, for there cannot be a rational argument in support of such an irrational disparity in the application of justice. The "rationale" here consists of nothing more than "this is how we want it to be, so this is how we are going to do it". Period. End of discussion. This is what our court system tries to pass off as justice. Any rational person might say "You can't have it both ways. Either the pre-born human is a person with a right to life, or he/she isn't". But the courts reply, "Yes we can have it both ways. Don't confuse the issue with rational thinking. So there!"

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 28, 2003.


Jmj

Paul, I think that the irrational double standard is based on the following idea, which I first recall being proposed by some radical feminists in the '80s and which seems to have been accepted by some judges and legislators:

"An unborn fetus can achieve 'personhood' through the conferral of that status by the woman who makes the 'choice' to carry that fetus to term."

In other words, the baby girl has no inherent rights from God, but only those that may or may not be given by her mother.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 29, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ