Several years ago, the state of California convicted Scott Peterson of murdering his pregnant wife. Most of us remember the case. It was splashed all over the news, drenching the media with the grisly details of how and in what condition her body was found. They pulled poor Lacey Peterson’s remains from the San Francisco Bay, and given all the evidence, the sentence came as no real surprise.
But not only surprising, but absolutely shocking, was the other conviction he received. He was charged and convicted of killing his unborn child, the child that was inside the womb of his pregnant wife.
Here’s why it’s so shocking.
The state of California convicted Scott Peterson of murdering a baby, yet his wife could have had the very same baby killed in an abortion clinic just down the street from where he received his sentence, with no penalty at all.
So, let me get this straight. In the state of California, if someone kills an unborn baby, they will be indicted for murder. However, if someone kills an unborn baby, they will not be indicted for murder. What am I missing, here?
“But there’s a difference,” says the pro-choice advocate. “In both situations, a baby was killed, sure. But that’s not what matters. Why the baby was killed is what matters.”
So, because Scott Peterson didn’t want his baby it’s murder?
Well, I had a friend that did the same thing as Scott Peterson. She had an abortion because she didn’t want her baby.
“Yes, but that was her baby.”
Well, wasn’t Scott Peterson’s baby his baby?
“Yes, but Scott Peterson didn’t have his wife’s permission to abort the baby.”
Well, my friend didn’t have her boyfriend’s permission to abort her boyfriend’s baby.
“But . . . that was her choice.”
Yes, and Scott Peterson aborting his baby was his choice.”
“But it was only his baby in the sense that he fathered it. It was her baby in sense that she had sole proprietorship of it.”
So, the baby was her property?
“Uh . . . well, yes, it was her property.”
So, Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering property?
You know, two centuries ago, we outlawed designating people as ‘property.’
“. . .”
Do you think we should re-instate the idea of designating certain people as property?
“Of course not, what’s wrong with you?”
I’m just saying that if Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering an unborn child, why aren’t all the abortion doctors on trial right now?
“Because those doctors aren’t murdering an unborn child, they are carrying out the wishes of the mother.”
So, if Scott Peterson could have produced a legal, notarized, document from his wife stating that she didn’t want the baby and was planning to have an abortion, instead of a conviction of murder, the sentence would simply have been practicing medicine without a license?
Okay, I think I understand. If the mother wants it to be a baby, then it’s a baby. If she wants it to be a ‘bulb of flesh’ then it’s a bulb of flesh.
“No, you don’t understand. You’re just trying to confuse the issue. It’s the woman’s right, her choice, her decision, her health is the most important thing we need to think about.”
Alright, I think I got it. What you’re saying is that the mother’s health is what should be of the utmost consideration. Is that right?
“Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.”
Thank you for the clarification.
“The health of the mother – considered from all angles – is the decisive factor.”
Nazi Germany, 1933, Chamber of Physicians regarding abortion.