Choice of Abortion or Conviction of Murder?
To the Editor:
An interesting paradox has just occurred within our nation’s legal system, yet very few seem to be aware of it, or the significance it may one day play in our courts of law. Scott Peterson was recently convicted of murdering not only his wife Laci, but also their unborn son, Connor. This may seem somewhat mundane to many, as we are accustomed to murder trials, no matter how heinous the crime. This particular verdict, however, should cause us to reflect upon how our nation views murder.
Connor Peterson had not yet made his entrance into the world, had committed no crime, nor had he the chance to take his first breath. Yet, he was determined by the court to have been 1) a human being and 2)murdered. The question I pose is this: what is the difference between what Scott Peterson did and the millions of mothers who kill their babies because of the inconvenience that child will create in their life? Was Connor Peterson “more” of a person because of the close proximity of his due date to the murder? Is a 10 week old baby “less” of a person because of their size? Should women be “exempt” from the label of “murderer” because of their gender?
As a nation we have self righteously agreed with the jury’s decision about Scott Peterson’s guilt, and at the same time continued to legally support a woman’s right to murder her own child. We have been headed down a slippery slope of justifying murder for 30 years, and now we must take a hard look at where we have landed and where we are heading.
There are those who believe that politics should not be concerned with the abortion issue, yet one of the biggest factors of this past presidential election was how voters perceived the morality of the candidates. If the law of our nation is not changed to protect the unborn, it is only a matter of time before the inconvenience of caring for the elderly and the disabled become ample reason for the politically correct version of murder know as euthanasia. It happened all over Europe 50 years ago in concentration camps and small villages alike. To scoff at the possibility here, is to not only live in a vacuum, but to encourage it to take root here as it has already in the Netherlands.
We must be aware that the Peterson case has done more than make headlines. Our own legal system has shown that an unborn child is a person, and that there are legal consequences for terminating a life. As the life of Justice Rehnquist hangs in the balance and many members of the Supreme Court advance in years, there is the probability that new justices will be named by President Bush. If our nation does nothing to correct the blatant disregard we have shown for the life of the unborn, then we will have no one to blame but ourselves when it is our turn to be discarded upon the trash heap because we became an inconvenience ourselves.
Joyce A. Meyers 12-03-04