This week Scott Peterson was found guilty in the first-degree murder of his pregnant wife and the second-degree murder of her fetus. The crime also merited “special circumstance” status – he killed another person (the fetus) during the commission of a premeditated felony (his wife) – which makes him eligible for the death penalty.

This is the latest salvo in the battle by anti-woman – whoops; I meant “pro-life” – forces in their attempt to repeal a woman’s right to control her own body and reproductive future.

Let me first say that I care little about the Peterson case but I trust the judgment of the jury. However, the charges and verdicts in this case leave me bewildered. There is no justification for Peterson’s second murder charge, but even if there were, how could he be guilty of first-degree murder in one instance and second-degree murder in the other?

First-degree murder is an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated. That Peterson consciously planned to kill his wife is not in doubt. Second-degree murder is an intentional killing that is not premeditated. So then, are we to assume that the death of Laci’s fetus was an unforeseeable consequence of Laci’s murder? Look, if you plan to kill your pregnant wife, you can rely on the fact that the fetus will die, too. A first-degree conviction on both counts or a second-degree conviction on both counts would at least be logically consistent.

Nevertheless, the fact that there was a second murder charge at all belies the real agenda, which is to ascribe to fetuses the rights given to living breathing human beings. For if Scott Peterson is guilty of murder, it is only a short jump to convicting abortion doctors of murder.

Of course, that’s the goal, isn’t it? The pro-life lobby cannot get past the fallacy that embryos are babies. This Peterson case has used the emotional issue of the death of a pregnant woman to create two murder charges, leading the jury toward the idea that fetuses are people, too. What was the jury to do? They couldn’t find Peterson innocent of killing that fetus if they found him guilty of killing the mother.

I completely support the first-degree murder conviction and I agree with the “special circumstance” (she was pregnant) that makes the case a capital offense. However, creating a second crime out of the death of her fetus does nothing to serve the cause of justice and everything to serve the cause of anti-woman politics. The second conviction isn’t going to make his death penalty any deadlier or his life imprisonment any longer, but it does lead us down a slippery slope where we begin to define fetuses as human beings and women as brood mares for the state.

A fetus is a potential human being completely dependent on the life and health of the mother for its survival. Until birth, it is a part of a woman’s body, and a woman deserves complete sovereignty over it. Until it breathes a breath outside of the womb, it is not a baby. Any other stance is tantamount to state control of women’s bodies and compulsory procreation.

Let’s take the pro-life position for a moment and assume that the moment of conception is where individual human rights begin. When sperm meets egg that couple of cells deserves the same legal protection as an infant. Pro-life means that any person that terminates a fetus is guilty of first-degree murder. The circumstances of the pregnancy would not matter. It is not the fetus’s fault if it was conceived through rape or incest, nor can it be denied its right to life just because its birth may kill the mother.

Of course that means that abortion will have to be illegal. However, as history has shown, even when it’s illegal, women will still abort their pregnancies. These do-it-yourself operations often lead to the death of the mother or permanent damage and infertility. I guess the death or maiming of women is a small price to pay to save the fetuses. Those women chose to murder their fetus so I guess they deserve what happens next.

In addition, not all terminated pregnancies are the result of abortions. Some women miscarry through no fault of their own. How are we to determine the guilt or innocence of the woman who was pregnant one day and not pregnant the next? We would have to have investigations and trials for every miscarriage to determine whether it was an intentional termination of pregnancy.

If the pregnant woman did miscarry, we must then determine if it she was at fault for the miscarriage. Did she smoke or drink during her pregnancy? Was she lifting heavy objects or working too hard? These actions may not be enough to prove premeditated murder but certainly enough to prove involuntary manslaughter. Imagine that trial – a woman who has just lost her potential child, already an emotional wreck, having to defend herself against a prosecutor determined to imprison her for that sip of Champagne she had on New Year’s Eve.

Even if the woman doesn’t miscarry, we’ve established that fetus is a human and deserves the protection of law. That would include child abuse laws. Therefore, we’d have to make sure that pregnant women don’t smoke, drink, eat too much fresh fish, etc. These are already good ideas and valid reasons for social disapproval, but now they will have to be law. Any pregnant woman caught in these actions would be subject to arrest, prosecution, and incarceration for child abuse. Furthermore, anyone who sold cigarettes, alcohol, or mercury-laden tuna fish to a pregnant woman could be an accessory to the crime and subject to prosecution.

Now remember, we’ve established that conception is the basis for the protection of the law, but a woman’s pregnancy really doesn’t become obvious until she’s a few months along. Before she starts to show a woman could perform her own abortion, miscarry, or commit unhealthy behaviors that could cause a miscarriage. Fetuses could be harmed without anyone’s knowledge! How would the server at the restaurant know whether the beer he’s bringing to that svelte lady is not leading to the killing of a fetus?

Since the state now has a compelling interest in protecting its unborn citizens, there is only one solution. Mandatory monthly federal pregnancy tests for all women from the onset of menses to the onset of menopause, excluding women proven to be infertile. We’ll also have to ban the over-the-counter pregnancy tests, otherwise a woman might discover she’s pregnant sometime after passing her monthly test and self-abort before the next monthly test. Once a woman is pregnant, we’ll have to issue her some sort of mandatory ID, maybe a badge or armband she must always wear in public, so everyone can know she’s harboring a fetus and should be given special consideration.

But wait, there’s more! Most forms of female birth control do not prevent conception; rather they make the womb too inhospitable for a fetus. It prevents a conceived baby from attaching to the wall of the womb. Therefore, the pill, the patch, the shot, and IUD’s must be banned. (Presumably, the condom, the sponge, and spermicide will still be legal, for they prevent conception.) The hormonal alteration the womb to make it an impossible place for a fetus to live is as much manslaughter as the chemical gassing of a playpen to make it an impossible place for a baby to live, right? In the interest of protecting the fetuses, we should add a mandatory blood test along with the mandatory pregnancy test, to insure that women aren’t surreptitiously using these controlled substances to deny conceived babies a safe place to live.

Just so we’re clear, let me restate the logical extension of Scott Peterson’s second-degree murder conviction. He was found guilty of murder. His victim was a fetus. Therefore, fetuses must be people. Killing of any person is murder. Miscarriages should be investigated as potential homicide or manslaughter. The government should then ban most birth control, test for pregnancy and use of illegal birth control, and prosecute anyone who creates an unhealthy environment for the helpless fetus. Pregnant women should be publicly identified, forced to carry fetuses to term, and imprisoned if they do anything that could jeopardize a birth.

Sorry, that’s not the kind of America I want our women to endure. A woman has the right to privacy regarding her medical decisions and their effect on her body. Until that fetus takes a breath outside the womb, it is not a baby, it is her body. (Anti-woman Christians: don’t believe me, believe your God. Genesis 2:7 — And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. No breath, no living soul, no murder.) Scott Peterson did kill his wife and he did terminate her pregnancy against her will, but he did not kill two people.

    ____________________________________________________________________

   |                                                                    

_  | "RADICAL" RUSS BELVILLE | Read More at http://radicalruss.net/blog/  

  | Portland, Oregon U.S.A. | Permission is granted for reprint of this      

  | © 2004 by Russ Belville | post, as long as this footer is included.