Laci Peterson case tied to Roe debate

Daily Reocrd/Drudge Report ^ | April 20, 2003 | Rob Jennings

[AnimalLover]

The head of the National Organization for Women's Morris County chapter is opposing a double-murder charge in the Laci Peterson case, saying it could provide ammunition to the pro-life lobby.

"If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder," Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark said on Saturday.

Prosecutors in California announced Friday their intention to charge Scott Peterson, 30, of Modesto, both with killing his wife and their unborn son. Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when she disappeared Dec. 24.

Both bodies were identified on Friday after washing up on the shore of San Francisco Bay.

More than two dozen states, including California, have adopted "fetal homicide" statutes, and prosecutors often will seek a double-murder charge when a pregnant woman is killed.

Marie Tasy, public and legislative affairs director for New Jersey Right To Life, countered that a double-murder charge against Scott Peterson is appropriate. She assailed pro-choice activists for opposing fetal homicide statutes.

"Obviously he was wanted by the mother," Tasy said.

"Clearly groups like NOW are doing a great injustice to women by opposing these laws. It just shows you how extreme, and to what lengths, these groups will go to protect the right to abortion."

[Caipirabob]

My son was at 7.5 months when HE arrived. I can hardly bring myself to conceive of the thought of him as anything other than my son. My wife fought for him from 5 months on when some idiot in a corvette rear-ended her.

NOW has gone beyond some bizzare lesbian love-fest to a genuine group of ghouls.

[Polycarp]

Amen! (Great tag line!)

[Sonny M]

"If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder,"

Well, sort of, except I call all abortions murder, but I have a special type of hatred for those commit it against not just the child but also the mother.

[SSN558]

"AND I will bet Scott is a democrat."

don't know about that but he did make his living selling fertilizer.

[friendly]

So Scott and NOW were true soulmates, firmly in agreement: That baby must die.

[friendly]

lol

[Amalie]

You got it....let's see if the media decides to be aiding and abetting of the NOW cause (despite a dead baby right there) or finally recognizes just what all this partial-birth stuff was all about.

[PennsylvaniaMom]

NOW, the and shrill womyn who claim to be its national members (all 80 of them), sees abortion as the very apex of its being. That they are so blind to the world around them (ie., the Rocha family!!!) that their representative could actually utter an opposition to the 'special circumstances' death penalty charges weighed against Scott Peterson is absolutely stunning in its sheer stupidity. Tomorrow, the family is scheduled to make a statement. They are, no doubt, planning to bury the remains. Their daughter and grandson have been violently taken from them, and their corpses ravaged by sea water. Yep...let's bring these folks into the abortion fray...little Connor isn't worth an extra murder charge? Tell that to Mrs. Rocha. Scott was just exercising HIS right to a late term abortion of a fetus he deemed unwanted..and Laci just got in the way? What is this idiot from NOW thinking? No doubt Jackie Peterson (Scottie's mom/enabler) must be rubbing her hands together w/glee...a whole new defense strategy.

[AnimalLover]

I could never figure that one out either. Maybe it
takes a special degree!
Interesting item - several months ago I had occasion to
E-Mail my State Representatives (all happen to be Democrats,
but that shouldn't make any difference).
Strangely, I started to receive mail from different
organizations, requesting donations, including petitions
to be signed. The organizations were NOW, NARAL and
Planned Parenthood. Question: From whom did they get my name and address?

Shame on me - on the donation form I wrote NO WAY and
sent it back in their prepaid envelope.
Pretty bad when one has to suspect that one's representatives sell their names and addresses on the
open market

[Conservative Me]

I suppose NOW wants men to have equal say in the life of the unborn now. It's not just 'her' choice anymore. If a man wants to murder his pregnant girlfriend/wife to end the pregnancy, it is no different than performing an abortion no matter how far along she is.

Also of interest is that most states have bans on late-term abortions unless there is a risk to the life of the mother. I am sure NOW opposes them too. Obviously us women are too feeble minded to make our 'choice' before the 8th month of pregnancy, let alone taking responsibility for our genitals as a whole.

Excuse me while I go vomit.

[jackd]

What more can be said concerning the depth of utter disgust I feel for "N.O.W." To paraphrase a currently circulated popular question, "If N.O.W. representatives asked a question, and there was no media around, would they still be wrong?"

[jackd]

I hope you had an enjoyable vomit. let me add to it. Yes, men should have an equal say in the murder of THEIR child. In case you missed elementary biology in school, two people create life, not one. As far as your genitals are concerned, if you leave the open . . .

[Jim Noble]

I suppose NOW wants men to have equal say in the life of the unborn now

Not at all.

The NOW position is very simple:

Whether you live or die, even more, whether you are real or not, is up to the woman.

If she wants you alive, you live.

If she wants you dead, you die, and you didn't even die because you weren't real to begin with.

Men and what they want have nothing to do with it at all.

[Jim Noble]

I don't see a difference in abortion murdering and the fetus dying when the mother is murdered.

Well, you are right, but many people, including many here who are posting on these threads are confused.

Many here have posted that Conner's murder should be punished because Laci "wanted" him.

This is dangerous subjectivism. Your right not to be murdered, or mine, or even poor little Conner's, MUST NOT turn on whether society, or the Party, or even your mother, "wants" you.

You have a right not to be murdered in our law because your Creator (not Congress, not NOW, not the Party, and not your mother) has endowed you with certain inalienable rights. Hence, you can prosecute Scott for murdering Conner OR you can have unlimited late-term abortion, but you can't have both.

[Conservative Me]

You missed the sarcasm. I know NOW wants the choice to be up to the woman, but thier stance in this case contradicts that.

[Jim Noble]

I also hope that the defense of Scott Peterson, if convicted, uses this as a argument against the death penalty in California. Then we will have the national debate that we need

Right-to-life organizations should be defending Scott on the grounds that our laws specifically allow killing Conner.

It is VITAL that the murder of Conner (an obvious crime) be identified in the public mind as the exact equivalent of late-term abortion-WHICH IT IS IN EVERY RESPECT.

[Conservative Me]

I thought my sarcasm would be obvious in this conservative forum.

YES men should have equal say in the life of their child. NO abortion should not be legal as a form of birth control. IF abortion is to remain legal as a form of birth control (which I hope does NOT happen), women should have made up their mind long before the third trimester whether they want the child or not, AND the father of the child should have an EQUAL voice in the decision.

Better?

[Thommas]

"If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder,"

A rose by any other name; a crime by any other name...

[Thommas]

NOW has gone beyond some bizzare lesbian love-fest to a genuine group of ghouls.

This has to be one of the pithiest statements I have come across in weeks. Succinct and to the point. I will incorporate it gleefully in office arguments to come.

[Conservative Me]

Most states have laws against late-term abortions except in cases where there is a critical complication in the pregnancy. I am not sure if California is one of those states. Roe v. Wade addresses this a little when it mentions "quickening" as the cut off time for abortion. This would place the cut off at 20-24 weeks gestation (also known as the viability date). At least, that is how I read it.

Originally, IMO, the Roe v. Wade decision never meant abortion to be used as a form of birth control. Instead, it was put in place to protect the health of the woman. In the decision, it leaves the final authority for the abortion up to the doctor if there is a medical reason for the abortion. Unfortunately, the medical reason was never defined and has since been interpreted to be ANY reason.