VOICE OF THE PEOPLE (LETTER)

Peterson case focuses on
humanity of the unborn

Daniel John Sobieski

April 25, 2003

Chicago -- The arraignment of Scott Peterson on two counts of capital murder resulting from the deaths of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son has once again exposed the fraudulent arguments of the pro-abortion lobby and the schizophrenia in the law that results. Pro-abortionists prattle on about "unwanted" children, but clearly Laci's child was wanted. She had even named her son. Her "choice" would have been to give birth to this child and love it through infancy, childhood and adulthood.

But was it a child or not?

To maintain the fiction that it is not a child, the pro-abortion lobby talks about "viability" outside the womb. Infants cannot survive outside the womb without help. Getting nourishment through a breast instead of an umbilical cord is a distinction without a difference.

There is no question that if Laci Peterson had gone into labor the day before she was murdered, her baby would have survived.

California law defines a fetus as human after eight weeks' gestation if you kill its mother, a law similar to other states; but if the mother kills the fetus, then California law says it is not a human being.

It either is or it isn't. It can't be both.

Indeed, if this case is a double homicide, then abortion must be a single homicide.

Those who disagree that human life begins at conception have a moral obligation to explain when human life does begin or by what mysterious process merely passing through the birth canal bestows us with humanity and human rights.

Human life begins at conception. Establishing the start of human life at any later point along the seamless continuum of human development is patently arbitrary and irrational.

If the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn child helps to codify into law the humanity of the unborn, then her death, and that of her child, will not have been in vain.

His name was Connor.


Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune

IRLC Home Page