A convicted murderer's case is a huge stumbling block for pro-abortion arguments

There are not many individuals in this country who have not heard of him, but for the wrong reasons. He’s convicted of two counts of murder, and he may be getting a new trial. Although his trial does not directly address issues regarding abortion, it does bring to light a problem for the pro-choice movement. He may not be a famous serial killer, but one mention of his name across the country quickly raises opinions as to guilt or innocence. His name is Scott Peterson, but his conviction has a lot to say about the problems regarding pro-abortion arguments.

Once serving out his days on death row, Scott Peterson has experienced a few large victories that could place him back in the courtroom for a new trial. Peterson was found guilty of murdering his wife, Laci, and child, Connor, in 2004. He was sentenced to death but was successful at getting the death sentence overturned last year. He is now serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Now, because of a controversial juror during his trial, his defense team could score another victory and get Peterson an entirely new trial. If he is successful at receiving a new trial, attention will once again be given to the man who is accused of murdering his wife and unborn child on Christmas Eve 2002. Her body, as well as that of her unborn child, was found in the San Francisco Bay a few months after she went missing.

Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when she was murdered. Her murder also caused the death of her unborn child, Connor. Prosecutors argued during Peterson’s trial that he killed his wife and, as a result, his child, and them dumped Laci’s body into the San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve. Jurors agreed and Scott Peterson was convicted of two counts of murder. Most people who have followed the case, or even heard about it, have likely formed the opinion that Peterson is guilty. The question is: What is his guilty of? Most would argue he is guilty of murder. That, according to the current conviction, would be true. However, how is he guilty of two murders if Connor was not born at the time?

Pro-abortion advocates push for laws allowing late-term abortions, even up to the time of birth, and promote laws which would prevent doctors from being required to perform life-saving measures if an abortion goes wrong and the baby survives. Should Scott Peterson be convicted of only one count of murder? Was Laci’s life the only “viable” life expected to be protected? How is it that Scott Peterson can be convicted of murdering his unborn child at eight months of the pregnancy, but a mother who is eight months pregnant should be allowed to kill her child, according to abortion advocates? If the unborn child is not actually a child, as abortion advocates argue, even at eight months of pregnancy then how can Scott Peterson actually be held accountable for taking a life that isn’t “viable”? If a mother taking the life of her unborn child at eight months into the pregnancy is not murder, how could it be murder when another causes the death of the child at eight months?

According to the ACLU, “a pregnant woman and her fetus should never be regarded as separate, independent, and even adversarial, entities”. The ACLU argues that it is the pro-life organizations and advocates that cause the woman and the fetus to be separated. However, it is neither a pro-life organization nor advocates which caused Scott Peterson to be charged with two separate counts of murder. The charges put the pregnant woman (Laci) separate from the “fetus” (Connor) yet treats them as if they have the same rights to life – declaring Peterson took life from them both. Arguments, such as those from the ACLU, basically would argue it’s only murder if the father (Scott) caused the death but it’s “choice” and “healthcare” if the mother (Laci) would have chosen to cause the death of Connor.

A pro-choice advocate cannot agree that Connor was a “person” or something more than a “fetus” and yet believe Scott Peterson should be found guilty of his murder. Scott Peterson’s conviction reflects the serious inequality of the advocacy works of organizations such as Planned Parenthood. It also reveals a sort of discrimination when it comes to parents. Scott and Laci were married. Scott was the father of Connor. Scott is convicted of causing the death of Laci, but he is also convicted and sentenced for causing the death of Connor. However, if Laci would have chosen to do a late-term abortion and went to Colorado, Alaska, or another state which allows unrestricted late-term abortion, then she would have had the right to end Connor’s life. She would not have needed Scott’s permission. She would not have had to prove she was in any type of medical danger, but all she would have needed to do was make the “choice” to end his life.

One cannot say abortion is a choice and “a right” yet, at the same time, support Scott Peterson being convicted of murdering an unborn child. It’s either murder, or it’s not.