Scott Peterson: Another 'Planned Parenthood'

TheConservativeVoice.com ^ | 01/01/05 | J. Matt Barber

[jimluke01]

SCOTT PETERSON: ANOTHER ‘PLANNED PARENTHOOD' Posted by master on 2005/1/1 17:37:53

By J. Matt Barber

The media latched on to the story like a pit-bull to a poodle – It’s been a perfect obsession. Coverage of the case has saturated the airwaves for over two years, with the Fox News Channel taking the lead…OK Greta, on the record – we get it – enough already!

As nearly everyone on the planet knows by now, former Modesto, California fertilizer salesman Scott Peterson was recently convicted of double murder for killing his 27-year-old wife Laci, and the couple’s unborn son Conner. It seems the jury concluded that Mark Geragos, Peterson’s illustrious, high-dollar defense attorney, was trying to sell them his own smooth line of fertilizer; but they weren’t buying – They recommended Peterson be put to death.

Although the mainstream media has fixated on the case ad nauseam, further discourse is warranted in light of its profound implications relative to the ongoing, and highly polarized abortion debate.

During the trial, for some inexplicable reason, the mainstream media generally abandoned its time-honored and typically unwavering “pro-choice” rhetoric, and began referring to baby Conner by such “egregious” terms as, “Scott and Laci’s unborn son,” “the unborn child,” and simply, “Conner.”

After recommending the death sentence, Juror Richelle Nice told reporters: “Scott Peterson was Laci’s Husband, Conner’s Daddy – the one person that should have protected them.”

But for Planned Parenthood, the National Organization for Women (NOW), and other militant abortion peddlers, the use of such language in reference to baby Conner has caused much gnashing of teeth – it’s left them seething – frothing at the mouth in a panicked frenzy.

They’ve struggled long and hard, and with much success, to dehumanize unborn children by placing upon them such euphemistic, innocuous, and clinical tags as “zygote,” “embryo,” “fetus,” and my personal favorite, “non-viable mass of tissue.”

Ironically, the word fetus is Latin for “young one,” and what really has the “pro-choicers” up in arms is the fact that this particular young one’s high profile murder was treated as just that…a murder. When Scott Peterson (apparently) killed Laci, his criminal actions additionally resulted in Conner’s death; or, euphemistically speaking – another “terminated pregnancy.”

Legal recognition that Scott Peterson murdered Conner, his unborn son, has unintentionally had the effect of bestowing upon Conner the precious, and heretofore judicially rationed status of “personhood.” You can’t murder a “non-viable mass of tissue.” But now, legally – and always, actually – you can murder an unborn person. Of course science, commonsense, and reality dictate that unborn children have always been persons.

Ultimately, the principles represented by this case pose a tremendous setback to the pro-abortion movement, and present a great step forward in protecting the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable of our citizenry. Those principles are further bolstered by ‘Laci and Conner’s Law’ (the Unborn Victims of Violence Act). President Bush signed the legislation last April. It mirrors existing laws in 29 states, and makes it a federal crime to harm an unborn child during an assault on the mother. It’s the first Federal law to give unborn children a status separate from their mothers. Additionally, it’s the first federal law to more accurately refer to the “fetus” as an unborn child.

Still, the battle that lies ahead is a daunting one. Obviously, the fight will continue, and only become more turbulent. There’s so much more that remains to be done in fostering a culture of life, and eliminating a culture of death. In her concise but cogent essay “Scott Peterson’s 'Choice',” Concerned Women for America Chief Council Jan LaRue points out the following:

“Simply put, the status of the unborn under the law and his right to life turns on whether the mother has him killed or someone else does so without her consent. It is the most egregious example of an incongruity in law that one can imagine.”

LaRue goes on to explain:

“There would have been no murder charge if Laci Peterson had ended Conner's life by abortion on Christmas Eve, and Scott Peterson would have been powerless to stop it.”

Consider for a moment – attempt to rationalize if you will, how it is that a father can kill his unborn child, be convicted of that child’s murder, and himself face the death penalty – while on the same day, a mother can elect to have her unborn child killed, spend time in a recovery room, go home to conceive again, and repeat the cycle as many times as she “chooses.”

Under the guise of a phantom “Constitutional right,” and with vigorous encouragement from Planned Parenthood, NOW, and their extremist ilk – millions of women per year do just that…have their unborn children killed. The “pro-choice” mantra: “It’s the woman’s right to choose!” – “get over your love affair with the fetus!” – “Keep your laws off my body!”

Well, sweetheart, it’s not your body we’re talking about – Conner Peterson, like so many millions of unborn children, had his own body, his own blood type, his own brainwaves, and his own heartbeat. Conner Peterson, like so many millions of unborn children, sucked his thumb, got the hiccups, cried, and smiled in his mother’s womb. Conner Peterson, like so many millions of unborn children, had his own life, his own dreams, and his own future to look forward to. But tragically…Conner Peterson, like so many millions of unborn children, was an inconvenient reality – an “unwanted pregnancy” to a selfish parent. And so, tragically…like so many millions of unborn children – Conner Peterson was murdered.

Copyright © 2004 by J. Matt Barber

J. Matt Barber is a non-practicing attorney, an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer (Matt “Bam Bam” Barber), and a jazz drummer in Chicago, IL. In addition to his Law Degree, Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University. Matt is a Contributing Editor for TheConservativeVoice.com, and a Contributor to the Washington Times “Insight Magazine,” as well as a number of other top conservative publications.

E-mail your comments to Matt, at jmattbarber@comcast.net

[Soul Seeker]

Legal recognition that Scott Peterson murdered Conner, his unborn son, has unintentionally had the effect of bestowing upon Conner the precious, and heretofore judicially rationed status of “personhood.” You can’t murder a “non-viable mass of tissue.” But now, legally – and always, actually – you can murder an unborn person.

Generally I dislike never ending trial coverage, this is why this case was relevent above the usual celeb trial.

[woodb01]

And Abortion is simply the murdering of a human. It's not a dog, cat, pig, cow, or some other animal...

A human being...

Re-Designed ANTI-DNC Web Portal at --->
http://www.noDNC.com

[andie74]

What is so interesting about the juxtaposition of this article is that on the forum, it comes right before an article about a man and his pregnant wife. In the midst of the tsunami, he saved his wife. He is missing.

The legal precedent here will be great to use in establishing personhood for the unborn. The people have spoken! (Unless, of course, some idiot liberal decides to only give personhood to those unborn babies who are wanted by the mother and/or father).

[OneLoyalAmerican]

You've been pinged baby.

[sevry]

this case was relevent above the usual celeb trial.

He was only a celebrity for the media coverage. The trial initially was news because of the abortion angle. Soon covering the trial became an end in itself, and just perhaps because Peterson took on the sort of indifference to his victims seen in the Nightstalker down in LA, years before. But the underlying issues remained.

But the lib will continue to hold logically contradictory notions - the dual Peterson murders AND permissive abortion. That willingness to be so inconsistent leads some to simply characterize socialism/liberalism as feminine notions.

[Jeff Gordon]

a father can kill his unborn child, be convicted of that child’s murder, and himself face the death penalty – while on the same day, a mother can elect to have her unborn child killed

That sums it up quite nicely.

Our current laws allow a female to choose to kill or have killed her unborn child. No one else has this right to murder an unborn child except its female parent (I refuse to call it a mother).

[cpforlife.org]

Excellent article. Much food for thought.

IIRC, Justice O'Conner stated that Roe v Wade is on a collision course with itself because it defies all logic.

“Blackmun invented a right to abortion....Roe had nothing whatever to do with constitutional interpretation. The utter emptiness of the opinion has been demonstrated time and again, but that, too, is irrelevant. The decision and its later reaffirmations simply enforce the cultural prejudices of a particular class in American society, nothing more and nothing less. For that reason, Roe is impervious to logical or historical argument; it is what some people, including a majority of the Justices, want, and that is that. Roe should be overruled and the issue of abortion returned to the moral sense and the democratic choice of the American people. Abortions are killings by private persons. Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception. Scalia is quite right that the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion.

Robert H. Bork
Constitutional Persons: An Exchange on Abortion
Robert H. Bork is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

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

[Jaysun]

Our task is to convince mothers not to rip their own infants from the womb to discard them like garbage. Is anyone else astonished that we'll have a hard time making such a case? What a miserable lot we are.

If we don't fight the whores and win we needn't bother praying for forgiveness. Our time would be better spent praying for a more favorable position in the flames.

[PokerGod]

The only reason this trial made the news was because of the double murder issue.

I have a problem with calling it two murders as long as abortion is still legal. How can we say that Scott Peterson is guilty of the baby's murder? A woman who aborts her baby is not guilty of murder. There is a real problem here, and it has to be resolved somehow. It just seems hypocritical.

[jazzlite]

"It just seems hypocritical."

It is hypocracy but as conservatives know, liberals have no problem with hypocracy. To them, the end always justifies the means.

[topher]

Excerpt from the article:

The “pro-choice” mantra: “It’s the woman’s right to choose!” – “get over your love affair with the fetus!” – “Keep your laws off my body!” [end excerpt]

Of course, Planned Parenthood/NARAL/NOW must have their cake and eat it too. They must force people to use the word CHOICE for baby killing, but those against it are anti-abortion, not pro-life.

If the Pro-Lifers are anti-abortion, then the Pro-Choicers are pro-abortion. Either one set of terms or the other.

But then Margaret Sanger, who authored The Negro Project and with ABCL had very strong ties to Nazi-Germany & the Super-Race effort, gets her own way and so does the organization that she founded.

[theconservativerepublican]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1312130/posts


This article was posted on Saturday.

Thanks

[MHGinTN]

"Conner Peterson, like so many millions of unborn children, had his own body, his own blood type, his own brainwaves, and his own heartbeat. Conner Peterson, like so many millions of unborn children, sucked his thumb, got the hiccups, cried, and smiled in his mother’s womb. Conner Peterson, like so many millions of unborn children, had his own life, his own dreams, and his own future to look forward to. But tragically…Conner Peterson, like so many millions of unborn children, was an inconvenient reality – an “unwanted pregnancy” to a selfish parent. And so, tragically…like so many millions of unborn children – Conner Peterson was murdered." Oh that this truth were favored by the BM (big media) ... abortion would become rare and something to abhor again! [The author appears to have been reading along at FR for sometime, judging by the phrases and position so well presented.]

[Askel5]

That DOES sum it up nicely ... and we can thank "conservative" justices appointed by GOP Presidents for the "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" right of the government to have its "unborn children" AND eat its fetuses and embryos too.

Exhibit "A" being the Brave New World our Pro-Life President introduced when, dripping with Scripture from his Favorite Moral Relativist, Jesus of Nazareth, he explained the "humanitarian" bent of using Excess Manufacture unborn as mulch for science experiments ... so long as they were branded with the proper "Killed By" date to merit a bite out of the NIH's budget (which he already had DOUBLED in one year).

President Bush signed the legislation last April. It mirrors existing laws in 29 states, and makes it a federal crime to harm an unborn child during an assault on the mother. It’s the first Federal law to give unborn children a status separate from their mothers. Additionally, it’s the first federal law to more accurately refer to the “fetus” as an unborn child.

This simply is an example of how critical it is to them always to frame the debate properly. I don't recall President Bush referring to the excess manufacture "potential people" as unborn in his first televised address to the nation. Somehow this use of "unborn" tailored exclusively to cranking the damages trial attorneys may claim doesn't impress me at all.

[woodb01]

“Blackmun invented a right to abortion....Roe had nothing whatever to do with constitutional interpretation. The utter emptiness of the opinion has been demonstrated time and again, but that, too, is irrelevant. The decision and its later reaffirmations simply enforce the cultural prejudices of a particular class in American society, nothing more and nothing less. For that reason, Roe is impervious to logical or historical argument; it is what some people, including a majority of the Justices, want, and that is that. Roe should be overruled and the issue of abortion returned to the moral sense and the democratic choice of the American people. Abortions are killings by private persons. Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception. Scalia is quite right that the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fact is, all over the entire country, anti-Judicial groups are popping up EVERYWHERE because of the sheer arrogance and deranged logic of all of those lawyers in black dresses.

The people of this country are getting more and more fed up with the corrupt legal system. And it's long past time that the American public found out the truth about the complete and utter arrogance and megalomania of the out of control lawyers in black dresses.

They have created for themselves "independence" which is just another excuse for "Lordship" or "Supremacy"... They believe they are the supreme rulers over America and the out of control judiciary MUST be stopped.

They believe they are not accountable to the people of this country and have invented their own "law" called "judicial immunity" so that they can break the law at will and not be subject to oversight or correction...

America's legal system has become the most perverted and corrupt branch of government by virtue of it hiding it perverted and nefarious actions from the people of this country... And by virtue of them believing that they are Lords over America and their edicts must be worshipped.

It's no wonder they want all vestiges of God or of any competing religions removed from their workplace, where you have rules that say "don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat, and dont' have any other Gods before me," that creates a hostile work environment for all those lawyers and the lawyers in black dresses.

Re-Designed ANTI-DNC Web Portal at --->
http://www.noDNC.com

[Smartass]

The very heart of the article goes to bad judgment by bad judges.
Read an article by Chief Justice W. Rehnquist
demanding more protection for judges. I disagree.
I believe that all judges must be held accountable for
their acts. If you and I, and every elected official
are held accountable...so must our judges. They can't
be allowed to be just left to do as they please.
It's not just about Roe vs. Wade, but about the rewriting
of our Constitution by a few unelected activist men
and women in black robes. Enough is enough.

Click on the link to read Justice Rehnquist's latest
diatribe about "judicial independence." I say baloney.

Rehnquist article

[Ed Current]

FACT IS, YOU ARE 100% CORRECT !!!!!!!!

[Ed Current]

http://cpforlife.blogspot.com/ PRO-LIFE AND PRO-ARTICLE 3

[jonnybailey]

But what of the doctor who performs the abortion: is he/she not, in that case, guilty of murder as was found Scott Peterson?