Abortion and Connor Peterson?

Why is scott peterson charged with murder of an unborn child? Isnt that what abortion is?

Published on November 24, 2004 By Dysmas In Blogging

I find it quite interesting that Scott Peterson was convicted of 2nd degree murder of his unborn child Connor.
Thats what abortion is, the death of an unborn child. Is the difference that its mother didnt chose to kill the child and so there for it was murder. If so, then it is a logical conclusion that if Scott Peterson is guilty of the murder of his unborn child, then the killing of ANY unborn child is murder. Oh wait, I guess its NOT murder if it is premeditatied, and only by the mother.
Perhaps if Scott Peterson said that he wanted to abort his baby but didnt want to pay for it, that he took matter into his own hands so the child would die and Lacy's death was the way to do it, if so, he is guilty of second degree murder of his wife and the "legal" termination of his child?
I dunno, it seems odd to me that no one, apparently in the media, has commented on this.

Comments

Dr Guy

on Nov 24, 2004

Your title said it all. That is why NARAL was so against the double murder indictment.

NARAL would like to think of things in black and white. But the truth is not much is. And now NOW and NARAL are at odds.

Build a house on sand, and it will not survive the tides of time.

Texas Wahine

on Nov 24, 2004

I think the distinction is that it is the woman's choice. When someone murders a pregnant woman and kills the baby, or when they injure her and she survives, but her baby dies, the assailant has killed a child that she chose to keep. You may disagree with this morally, but that is the difference.

Dysmas

on Nov 24, 2004

Ok, I do disagree with that morality, actually I would call it immoral but, for better or worse, I agree that it is indeed the disticntion.
But it really is premedetatied murder vs........well premedatited murder dont you think?
Wether you chose to kill or not, unless its in self defense, its some type of murder.

Robert Allan Clayton

on Dec 07, 2004

I agree with you 100 percent.

Dysmas

on Dec 07, 2004

Thanks, assuming that is you are referring to me. Thats just the way I view it. We are all entitled to our own opinions but I just feel that in this case its a "common sense" type opinion.

shadesofgrey

on Dec 07, 2004

Actually, the distinction is that Connor Peterson was past the "age" of viability.

That is why NARAL was so against the double murder indictment.

I find this hard to believe, since NARAL stance on post-viability abortions is as follows:

NARAL Pro-Choice America supports the legal framework established in Roe v. Wade and does not oppose restrictions on post-viability abortions so long as they contain adequate exceptions to protect the life and health of the woman.

[www.prochoiceamerica.org]

So, NARAL's not nearly as black and white as you'd like to believe, either.

BigDreamer415

on Dec 07, 2004

Good article. That's the first thing I thought when I heard he was charged with double murder.

~Sarah

Dysmas

on Dec 07, 2004

Thanks, I knew that I could not be the ONLY one who figured something was wrong in that situation.
As far as the "age of viablity" issue. Well for me there is no age. I am, obviously Pro-Life, and to that end it seems a pretty nasty double standard that if a woman chooses an abortion (killing) of her child, it is ok. But if someone else chooses the death, inadvertant or not, of the child, it is all of a sudden murder. No where in this situation does the child have any choice or say, nor do the primary murder victiams, but when its a "chosen" termination, the child still has no choice but to die, and die in what is supposed to be the safest place in the world.

Dysmas

on Dec 07, 2004

oleteach

on Jan 03, 2005

Dysmas, You have made some valid points. In my opinion, abortion is murder. Our nation will pay in some way for all the thousands of lives that have been taken away. It is just a natural consequence of evil done. It is not God coming out with his whip to punish...it is a natural consequence of human choices. I pity those who thought they had to abort a child. Unless they are completely without morals, they will suffer many forms of depression, anger, hatred of self...etc and this will spread more evil in the lives of people around them...and on and on goes the spiral of evil we humans create everyday. We need to stop and ask for forgiveness, turn our hearts around and build communities of love and concern for all.

Dysmas

on Jan 03, 2005

oleteach;
Yes, that is a true Christian view and I agree. I do try to bear in mind though that I am not a woman and ultimatly to abort or not is simply not my choice (I wish it were). I just feel that any alternative to abortion is good.
Now some may argue that "ok abortion is normally wrong, but what about women who were raped and "can't live" with a child which was created through one of the most heinous crimes one can do.
I understand that point of view and I really empathise with it however, when it is all said and done it simply is not the child's fault how it was created. And if the mother "cant live" with that child then what is the problem with giving to an adoption agency?
Again others may say that that is all fine and good but what if the mother, who was raped, didn't want to carry the child to term?
Well again I argue that it's not the child's fault and just because a woman dosent "want to" that is no reason for a child to be killed. Really the whole reason for any abortion is that a woman dosent want to carry or have the child so what is the difference.
abortion is abortion. Premeditated murder is premeditated murder. Just because its a voiceless and defensless child who is supposed to be in the safest place a child can be, it makes no difference and is all the worse if the baby's own mother makes that descision.

Dysmas

on Jan 03, 2005

On another note I think it is VERY important not to judge a woman for her choices. We may feel it is wrong but at the end of the day not a single person answers to us. Those who chose abortion are not "lesser" women. Misguided in my view yes, but people learn from their mistakes and those who dont...well it takes all kinds. I dont judge in an overt way. I make a personal moral judgment but not a general judgement in which I would treat the woman any different than any other.

KarmaGirl

on Jan 03, 2005

An opinion that all abortion is murder doesn't change why he was charged with double murder. The baby was viable- meaning that the baby would have lived (or had a great chance of living) if the baby was born at that time. I am not able to find a case where somebody was charged with double murder when the child was not either viable or was within the legal abortion term. Morality and legality are not the same.

Dysmas

on Jan 04, 2005

Very good point! I understand better or more clearly now why the double murder charge was applied, thanks.
However I think that anyone who, premedativly, kills a pregnant woman, regardless of the child's age/ devolpment, should be charged. As for a mother who terminates a child I would argue murder 2nd or perhaps manslaughter. But, since abortion is, at this time, legal it is not the case. This is, obviously, my own personal opinion and I do not mean, in any way, to insult those who are "pro-choice", we all have a right to believe what we want, which makes us a great people and nation.
" Morality and legality are not the same" Yes that is true. It is unfortunate in my view that it is not the case. But if morality and legality WERE the same, the question rises that who would determine what is moral, and hence legal, and what is not. That would open a whole can of worms.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!