Lacy's baby, and interesting thoughts...

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Lacy's baby, and interesting thoughts...
8
Thu, 11-13-2003 - 1:17am
Just a thought...

(I hope I'm not bringing up an already debated subject)

In the Lacy Peterson case, I'm not sure about all of the details, but am I not correct in stating that her husband (or whoever the suspect is) is accused of murder of the mother AND the child? I believe that she was only 8 months pregnant. If I'm right about this info, I think it says something interesting.

If Lacy's unborn child were a "part of her body", wouldn't that put the baby's life and body in the category of Lacy's life and body. Therefore, he should only be accused of murder to one person, not two separate entities.

Are we saying that the baby has rights only IF the mother intends on keeping it? If plans are to keep the child, we might as well consider it alive, it's own entity, even though its not out of the woman's womb?

Are we saying that its only murder if the mother wants to keep it? How can the rights of a child change according to how external people view it. If Lacy planned to abort it, would it still be murder?

These are just thoughts I've been playing with in my head for the last few days. The only thing I can state for sure is that you have to admit that it has to challange (at least a little) how we view abortion... Well, in my opinion at least.

Any thoughts, of any sort?!

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2003
Thu, 11-13-2003 - 8:47am
You bring up a valid point; here's some interesting news.

http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/alert/?alertid=1985751

This is on a push to pass the bill, opposition by PP who believes we shouldn't be classifying the fetus as anything that is valuable. A woman's baby was killed and told by PC groups that her baby wasn't worth anything, even though she was an assault victim (and her child was killed by assault). PC groups are trying to block the passage of this bill and others that define when life begins. Afraid this might takeaway a right to choose, even though the ban stresses it doesn't cover babies killed by abortion.

Babies don't have rights, even if the mother wants it. As this article I posted demonstrates. It's only when they're born breathing, and die later that there death is worth something.

You can't look at both sides of abortion and feel that its murder in some ways. That's why a lot of PCer's don't read the articles we post if its by organizations that are pro-life. Yet we read NOW, NARAL, and PP opinion based articles without a problem, stressing the factor that we can expose ourself to the PC view and still not be swayed from our own, since it offers no argument to begin with.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-11-2003
Thu, 11-13-2003 - 9:42am
my thoughts are this. first, that Lacy and Connor should not be brought up on any debate boards. it is still to horribly fresh and new in many people's minds. but also. hadConnor been born at 8 months he had an extrememly likelihood of survival. He could have survived outside his mother's womb. that is why this has been treated as a double homicide.

again, I feel that it is a dishonor to Lacy and Connor to use them in the debate board format. just my opinion.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 11-13-2003 - 1:59pm
Good point. I get so used to stories in the media, that I become desensitized to them. I think its really gross how the media (and we the viewers) eat it up like its some kind of movie. And I wish they would let that poor little Ramsey girl's name be at peace. That makes me sick. I'm not one to follow those stories, that is why I really don't know any of the details.

Let's just draw upon the situation, and not personalize it to their particular case. They are not the only ones who have gone through this type of situation.

So here's another question: What if a mother were 7 months pregnant? Would a suspect still be charged with criminal acts on the mother and the child? 6 months? When is the cut off date that would change this? In past legal cases, is there some sort of trend? I doubt they would charge the suspect for both victims if the mother just found out she was pregnant.

-LernersPetite

Avatar for munchies
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-12-2003
Thu, 11-13-2003 - 2:24pm
But what if this woman just found out she was pg after 4 years of trying and going through fertility treatments to become pg?

Kim mom to Brad, Matt, Emma, Sarah, and Meagan

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 11-13-2003 - 2:26pm
Thanks for offering that aritcle. Like you had your post, I find this part of the article very interesting:

"The Senate never took up the issue, however, because of strong opposition from pro-abortion groups such as NARAL, the ACLU, and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which insist that the law must never recognize unborn children as crime victims. They oppose the bill even though it explicitly does not apply to abortion or to acts of the woman herself."

These groups mentioned above seem to be very actively involved in this issue which they may think might "shed false light" on the abortion issue, but in essense really has nothing directly to do with the matters they handle, and the rights they believe they protect.

Gosh. That picture in the article almost made me cry. Anyone, no matter where they stand on the subject, has to admit that seeing that woman, who had no intention of losing her baby due to a horrific crime against her by some criminal, standing there with it in her arms is sad. The baby looks like it was just one minute away from life.

-LernersPetite

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 11-14-2003 - 12:24am

Very valid point and I read quite a few articles and past legal cases on this subject after this case hit the airwaves.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-2003
Fri, 11-14-2003 - 4:08pm
Disrespecting the fact that a woman WANTED the fetus that was killed doesn't very PC to me. Sounds like individuals just want to secure their economic gain from abortion and preserving the rights of females who want abortions.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-16-2003
Thu, 11-20-2003 - 2:25pm
From what I understand out of all of the evidence that has been cropping up is that when Laci was murdered Connor was for want of a better term "expelled" from her body, since she was not alive at the time one can not ASSume that labor ensued. From what I have heard t is beleive by those in authority that when he was born (Thousands of babies are born at 8 months of gestation every day and are healthy) he WAS alive however there was no one there to remove him from his watery grave and there fore he suffocated under water still attached at the umbilical cord to his mother. There is no proof however that were she alive she would have gone full term...she could very well have gone into labor at 8 months. So I would have to say that yes indeed Scott Peterson is responsible for two deaths.