Right to Life - Environment
The Fallacy of Roe Vs Wade
Case in Point: Scott Peterson
Frank Joseph, M.D.
Right to Life | Cultural | Hot Topics | Home | Books | CDs | Search | Contact Us | Donate
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 it. They were told by the Supreme Court that since no one knows when human life begins, then 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?
Scott Peterson, above center, after hearing the guilty verdict for both the murder of his wife Laci, below, and their unborn child.
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 a 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 judgments 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 that 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, none 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 reversing that horrendous decision in 1973, the same way the Dred Scott decision of 1857 was reversed. The latter decision declared that black people were not full human beings, and therefore could be held as slaves. Sound familiar?
Let me give you another reason - besides not being based on science or anything in the Constitution - why the 1973 decision was ridiculous, made without much thought given to all of its ramifications.
Picture this: A woman has a husband who is a licensed physician. She tells him to kill her unborn child, which is perfectly legal, as the child is not a human being because she gave permission. But 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, he shoots her to take her out of her misery, 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.
A pregnancy scan reveals a baby in the womb at 20 weeks - The Tablet, July 10, 2004
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 evidence tells us that human life is created at conception.
I also might add this excerpt from 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 that 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 whether 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 conjecture be taken out of the equation. Unfortunately, we are a society where killing comes easy and a self-indulgent country without pity for children who are brutally killed - with many suffering excruciating pain in the inhuman process. Common sense and scientific reasoning will never prevail until our country repents of 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.
Posted November 18, 2004
© 2002- Tradition in Action, Inc. All Rights Reserved