Posted on 11/22/2004 4:34:23 PM PST by cpforlife.org
Scott Peterson has been found guilty on two counts of murder in the deaths of his wife, Laci and unborn son, Conner.
Because of California's fetal homicide law, Scott Peterson was convicted of a double Homicide. This is driving Planned Parenthood, NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League and NOW (National Organization of Women) absolutely batty.
How could this be possible, they lament, since it is lawful to kill unborn children right up to term?
I certainly can understand their plight, but I must say that I am relishing in it. They were told by the Supreme Court that since no one knows when human life begins, that killing a child in the womb would be perfectly legal right up to term.
So, how could Scott Peterson be charged with a double homicide, if the unborn child was not a human being?
Well, it seems that the only way a person could kill an unborn child and get off scott (pardon the pun) free is if the killing is done by licensed physician, as long as the woman gives her permission.
In trying to figure this thing out, the only conclusion that I can arrive at, is that the unborn child is not a human being if the mother wants her child dead, BUT if third party kills the child without permission from the mother, then and only then is the child a human being.
Now, let me see if I have this right. An unborn child is a human being and entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if killed, the perpetrator should have the book thrown at him, as in the Peterson case.
But if the mother has her unborn child killed because the child would be an inconvenience to her, then that child is no longer a human being.
Wow! This is news, a transfiguration right before our very eyes. Now a child -- Now not a child -- just nothing.
As anyone can plainly see, the Supreme Court in 1973 opened up a can of worms because their decision was not based on the Constitution and not based on science. It was based on the warped minds of seven justices and from what I have read, a few of their wives.
In the majority opinion it was stated (the vote was 7 to 2) that no one knows when human life begins, thus justifying their conclusion.
Could it be the reason they did not know when human life begins was because no "human" embryologist was called in to testify. No reputable human embryologist would dare to deny that human life begins at conception. Hmm, could this be the reason, one was not called to testify?
Now that we have DNA which gives the ultimate proof that human life begins at conception, one has to wonder why these justices are not now reversing that horrendous decision in 1973, the same way the Dred Scott decision of 1857 was reversed.
This decision declared that black people were not full human beings and therefore could be held as slaves. Sound familiar?
Let me give you another example why the 1973 decision was ridiculous and not given much thought as to all of its ramifications, besides not being based on science or anything that's in the Constitution.
Picture this: A woman has a husband who is a licensed physician. She told him to kill her unborn child, which is perfectly legal, as the child is not a human being because she gave permission.
Her doctor husband also wants to get rid of her because he has met someone else. So instead of doing the abortion in his office or hospital, he takes her to the seashore, where he stabs her in the abdomen. The child dies within minutes. As she is bleeding profusely, to take her out of her misery, he shoots her and then dumps her body with the child still in her womb into the ocean so the sharks and other fish could have a feast.
Now, the difference between this hypothetical case and the Scott Peterson case is that the woman gave permission to her doctor husband to kill her child, whereas Laci Peterson did not. So, the doctor according to the law in California and other states which have a similar law, could only be charged with ONE murder. Right?
This is what happens when justices on the Supreme Court put their ideology before science and common sense. You wind up with a legal mess.
The unborn child in all situations MUST be declared a human being, and not just a human being when killed by an irate husband, such as Scott Peterson. Especially since science with its DNA tells us that human life is created at conception and I also might add the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Notice -- it does NOT say that all men are "born equal." It says, "all men are CREATED EQUAL (quite a difference) and since it's a scientific fact the human life is created at conception, then unborn children are protected, so says the Declaration of Independence.
So, what's the problem -- it's right there in black and white?
Maybe the Declaration of Independence should be required reading for all attorneys and judges.
If only our judiciary would rely on science and not make up things as they go along, the double homicide under the fetal law would not be open to interpretation.
AN UNBORN CHILD IS A HUMAN BEING REGARDLESS IF THE CHILD IS WANTED OR NOT, OR WANTED DEAD OR NOT AND REGARDLESS WHO KILLS THE CHILD, A PHYSICIAN OR AN IRATE HUSBAND.
Then and only then will the conjecture be taken out of the equation, but since we are a society where killing comes easy and we are a self-indulgent country without pity for children who are brutally killed, with many suffering excruciating pain, this common sense and scientific reasoning will never happen unless our country repents this great sin of the American holocaust.
If not, there will be standing room only in hell and satan will have a feast day.
Oh, I forgot, the hereafter should not be mentioned. Keep it secular and scientific. OK, forget the last sentence.
Frank Joseph MD
DFjosephMD@aol.com
http://www.hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortion.html
This is were we find ourselves in the Woe v Wade dilemma. The ruling only looked at the walls and the Court deliberately ignored the foundation on which is sits.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Special PING V!
Any other circumstance, to me, does not justify ending the baby's life. Perhaps in the case of rape or incest resulting in pregnancy there may be consideration as well, but I'm still undecided there. I suppose I'm not really qualified to say, since I have never been and probably never will be in that situation.
</$0.02 worth>
You can't have it both ways. Either taking the life of an unborn child is murder or it isn't. If it is murder, then abortion is also murder. I'm surprised the liberals haven't been all up in arms about the Peterson verdict. Maybe their logically reasoning skills haven't figured this out yet.
read later
<< i must admit i like this 2 murders from the peterson case.
as soon as this sinks in, you're going to hear a lotta screaming from the radical feminists! >>
Gunna be tough -- given that their were-gunna-be progeny are all gunna be dead -- for that strain of anti-creationist moron to evolve, too!
Poor Charly Darwin must be spinning in his grave with the FRustration of it all.
BUMPping
bttt
It's a sobering thought to look around and know that every other person believes that it should be legal to turn unborn babies into hamburger.
"For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. ..."
I've never known a baby to attack its mother or an abortionist.
Dr. Joseph is wrong about that. Roe v. Wade was a very weak case, and decided incorrectly, but science had nothing to do with the argument. I believe the Supremes were simply following their leftist agenda when they made this evil decision.
Also, don't forget; in order for any "revised" decision to come out of the Supreme Court, there would have to be another "case" upon which to base a different decision. If there are major changes in the court, look for a landmark "test case" to come up.
Furthermore, if Congress would reach down and grab some cajones, they could withhold jurisdiction on matters of abortion (and marriage, etc.) from the federal courts. Simple, but not easy, based on the fact that we have to rely on politicians, and not all of them will agree to do that.
Taking the life of a deadly assailant in self-defense is not murder, but taking the life a fleeing suspect usually is. Taking the life of a person who jumps out in front of your car at the last minute is not murder, but driving on the sidewalk to run him down usually is.
Like it or not, there is a similar distinction in the law for unborn children - hiring a doctor to kill him with your consent is not murder, but a non-doctor killing him without your consent usually is.
Legal to hire a serial killer to 'cure' pregnancy? Yes, but it is schizophrenic in the main since the unborn child is not an accident threatening the woman nor is the alive unborn child in any way guilty of a crime. That the subpreme court made this serial killing legal is not in question ... whether that is correct to exist 'as is' IS the question. The ONLY rationale upon which the right to hire an alive unborn child slaughtered in the womb is the notion of a woman's right to defend her LIFE, not her liberty or her pursuit of happiness, her LIFE. And if that be true then the right to LIFE for the alive unborn ought enter the equation immediately also.
Hence the title of this thread.
Excellent piece. I am e-mailing it to many.
Thank you for keeping the responsibility between both partners. Many do not value human life, but would expect themselves to be protected. So many people desire children and cannot have them. Why can't we protect the innocent lives that need and depend on us the most?
Considering that killing a child is not only a legal issue, but also a moral issue, your argument has no standing. My children had detectable heartbeats at 8 weeks. Does that mean they are not human beings? What's your definition?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.