Abortion Foes Exploit a Murder to Kill Roe v. Wade

NY Newsday ^ | June 9, 2003 | Sheryl McCarthy

[presidio9]

When Scott Peterson goes on trial for the murder of his wife Laci last Christmas Eve, he won't be charged with killing just one person, but two: Laci and their unborn son, Conner. California, like about half of the states, not including New York, makes it a separate crime when a person committing a crime causes the death of an unborn child.

If Scott Peterson is convicted, it probably won't upset many people if he gets the death penalty or two consecutive life sentences for a double murder.

[Blueflag]

< / p >

please

[LiteKeeper]

You got that right!

[presidio9]

Auto exerpt failed. Try the link, or use your imagination :-)

[section9]

Paragraphs are our friends.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[11th Earl of Mar]

We are 'exploiting' the death of Connor Peterson?

Then what do you call the TV commercials bashing Bush for the racist, dragging death of James Byrd

[OldFriend]

Good G-D, these people are shameless........

[Darksheare]

What about the Abortion bots who exploit murders to promote abortion?

[Lady Eileen]

bump...for Laci and Conner

[Nonstatist]

But since bearing, delivering and raising a child affects a woman's health, mobility, freedom, standard of living and aspirations in a way that nothing else does, my view is if she doesn't want to have a baby, it should be her choice not to.

Well, we cant get in the way of an impaired "standard of living", or restrained "aspirations" can we?

[Redleg Duke]

Whatever it takes to stop the slaughter!

[ClearCase_guy]

What about the Abortion bots who exploit murders to promote abortion?

Oh. That? That's OK. Move along.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Slavery Foes Exploit a Murder to Kill Dredd Scott

Jun 9, 1853


When Peter Scottson goes on trial for the murder of his wife Laci last Christmas Eve, he won't be charged with killing just one person, but two: Laci and their servant, Conor.

North Carolina, like about half of the states, not including New York, makes it an additional crime when a person committing a crime causes the death of a slave. If Peter Scottson is convicted, it probably won't upset many people if he gets the death penalty or two consecutive life sentences for a double murder.

But there's a problem with how this crime is being exploited by anti-Slavery forces under the guise of wanting to punish those who commit especially heinous crimes. They're pushing for federal slave murder laws, including a law that would make it a federal crime to kill a slave during the commission of another federal crime. The federal bill has even been renamed "Laci and Conor's Law."

As the law now stands, a slaveowner clearly has the right to own or release her property. A third party who comes along and violently interferes with her ownership is another thing altogether. By supporting slave murder laws, anti-Slavery forces are hoping to make an end run around Dredd Scott. Giving the slave rights separate from the owner’s opens the door to making Slavery illegal.

The moral dilemma for those of us who support a state's right to choose is that Slavery involves choosing between two lives: the owners’ and the slave’s. But since slaveowning affects the state’s economic health, mobility, freedom, standard of living and aspirations in a way that nothing else does, my view is if the state doesn't want to have slaves it should be the state’s choice not to.

Laws and restrictions throughout history have purported to protect slaveowners of their unique role as property owners. In reality they locked Southerners into a subordinate status: banning free ownership of labor, free transfer of that property anywhere the owner deems prudent, or full exploitation of that property as she or he sees fit.

Dredd Scott struck the right balance, giving owners the right to keep slaves even if they were held in non slave states, and leaving it to the slaveowning states to govern after that. Giving slaves rights equal to those of the owner would allow the federal government to tell property owners what they can or can't do because they are slaveowners.

Lynn Paltrow, head of National Advocates for Slaveowners, a New York-based advocacy group, observes that slave murder laws are always turned on the slaveowners and used to convict and imprison them for murder or child abuse, on the grounds that they used drugs or alcohol or didn't get medical care for their slaves.

Instead of slave murder laws, slaveowners support laws increasing the criminal penalties when someone hurts the slave, laws that focus on the loss to the property owner when her property is interfered with.

The anti-Slavery forces achieved another victory last week. The House of Representatives passed the so-called DC Slavery ban, a bill that was vetoed by President Andrew Jackson. The bill, which would impose fines and prison sentences on slave sellers who sell Slaves in the District of Columbia, is in fact so broad that it could potentially outlaw almost all slavery in the Nation’s Capitol. An almost identical state bill was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court three years ago. But since both houses have passed it, and President Buchanan has promised to sign it, it will become law.

The abolitionists clearly hope that by the time the law is appealed to the Supreme Court, the court will have tilted far enough to the left to uphold it.

These developments show that the anti-Slavery forces are gaining.

"Their goal is to sensationalize this debate about a state’s right to choose by exploiting these tragedies," says Michael Kateman, head of the National Slavery Rights Action League-Pro- Choice America.

What all this proves, he says, is that it really does matter who gets elected.

[Darksheare]

Ah.
Okay.
*shuffles along while whistling. Wait.. I can't whistle..*

[presidio9]

What all this proves, he says, is that it really does matter who gets elected.

You bet it does. Good job.

[CyberAnt]

New poll - you may not have heard - 53% of American people are AGAINST ABORTION.

[r9etb]

But since bearing, delivering and raising a child affects a woman's health, mobility, freedom, standard of living and aspirations in a way that nothing else does, my view is if she doesn't want to have a baby, it should be her choice not to.

Other than health -- which is not an issue in the vast majority of pregnancies -- Ms. McCarthy's defense of abortion amounts to a list of "impacts to female convenience."

Of course, given that abortion has always been about convenience, we should not be surprised to see it here.

[passionfruit]

If you follow the prompt to reads the article, you can email the author. Here's my message to her.

"Neither the Lacy Peterson case nor the Unborn Victims of violence Act have any bearing on Roe v Wade. You have stretched the truth to push your pro abortion agenda, and have tried to vilify the prosecutors in the Peterson case, and the legislators in the Unborn Victims Act.

In the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, abortionists and the women who choose to abort are specifically excluded. I watched on CSPAN as your argument was made by the pro abortion democrats, and I watched as they were repeatedly told that abortion was specifically excluded in the Act.

As for Lacy Peterson. All accounts say that she was thrilled that she was pregnant. This baby was wanted and loved. Her right to choose was taken by the murderer who killed her, and her unborn son, Conner. Where is you outrage over that? Why does the left only care about a women's right to choose, when she chooses abortion?

Your story also implies that if a woman chooses to carry her baby, she must raise the child. This isn't true. She could give the baby up for adoption, and never have to worry about it again. I have given birth to my own two children, and would have adopted more if the children were available. Many people who can't have children wait for years on lists for available children, and they simply aren't there.

In short, if you have to lie to make your point, you won't win any converts. You have lied several times in this article, and with only a little knowledge and common sense, I can see through it. Other people will also see through it."

[gridlock]

The moral dilemma for those of us who support a woman's right to choose is that abortion involves choosing between two lives: the mother's and the unborn child's. But since bearing, delivering and raising a child affects a woman's health, mobility, freedom, standard of living and aspirations in a way that nothing else does, my view is if she doesn't want to have a baby, it should be her choice not to.

Here is a thought experiment for Ms. McCarthy. Suppose you are on a desert island with another person. There is enough food and water available for two, but assume you would have more food, water, shelter and a generally better quality of life if the other person were not there.

Should you have the right to kill the other person?