Does Laci Peterson's baby count?
 

Does the fact that the baby didn't survive the mother's murder make it a double homicide?

There have been some legal difficulties on whether its possible to murder an unborn child.

In CA, it counts as a murder.

AF

Friends may come and go but sisters are FOREVER.

At what month do you know? Like if it were three months would it be murder?

James,

CA Penal Code, Section 187, simply defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

AF

Friends may come and go but sisters are FOREVER.

Bethany thank you.

Here is a little more about why Pro-Choicers are against fetal homicide laws.

04/20/03 - Posted 11:52:10 PM from the Daily Record newsroom
Laci Peterson case tied to Roe debate

By Rob Jennings, Daily Record

The head of the National Organization for Women's Morris County chapter is opposing a double-murder charge in the Laci Peterson case, saying it could provide ammunition to the pro-life lobby.

"If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder," Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark said on Saturday.

Prosecutors in California announced Friday their intention to charge Scott Peterson, 30, of Modesto, both with killing his wife and their unborn son. Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when she disappeared Dec. 24.

Both bodies were identified on Friday after washing up on the shore of San Francisco Bay.

More than two dozen states, including California, have adopted "fetal homicide" statutes, and prosecutors often will seek a double-murder charge when a pregnant woman is killed.

Marie Tasy, public and legislative affairs director for New Jersey Right To Life, countered that a double-murder charge against Scott Peterson is appropriate. She assailed pro-choice activists for opposing fetal homicide statutes.

"Obviously he was wanted by the mother," Tasy said.

"Clearly groups like NOW are doing a great injustice to women by opposing these laws. It just shows you how extreme, and to what lengths, these groups will go to protect the right to abortion."

Fetal homicide laws have been opposed by some pro-choice organizations that fear they will undermine a woman's right to choose an abortion, even though the statues exempt legal abortions.

After watching news reports of Peterson's arrest, Stark expressed concern with the tone of the coverage.

"There's something about this that bothers me a little bit," Stark said. "Was it born, or was it unborn? If it was unborn, then I can't see charging (Peterson) with a double-murder."

Some pro-lifers hope fetal homicide laws will establish a precedent that fetuses are human beings, thereby fueling efforts to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Laci Peterson's due date was Feb. 10, and she already had picked out a name -- Connor -- for her unborn son. Stark said that added to the tragedy of the case, but shouldn't result in an additional murder charge.

"He was wanted and expected, and (Laci Peterson) had a name for him, but if he wasn't born, he wasn't born. It sets a kind of precedent," Stark said, adding that the issue was "just something I've been ruminating on."

There is no fetal homicide statute in New Jersey, considered one of the nation's most pro-choice states. Under California law, murder charges can result if the fetus is older than seven weeks.

To convict Peterson of murdering his unborn son, prosecutors would have to prove either that he intended to kill the fetus or knew that it would die as a result of Laci Peterson's death.

"The argument that (fetal homicide statutes) would interfere with abortion rights is ridiculous," Tasy said. "These groups are so radical that they would deny recourse to a family for the loss of a wanted child."

The second murder charge against Peterson is crucial because he otherwise would not be eligible for the death penalty. The double-murder charge qualifies as a "special circumstance" for which capital punishment may be sought.

Prosecutors have not said whether they will seek the death penalty against Peterson, who will be arraigned on Monday. He is being held in the Stanislaus County Jail.

Stark said that despite her opposition to the double-murder charge, she is not sympathetic to Scott Peterson. "I'd like to see them string him up," Stark said, "any way they can."


Rob Jennings can be reached

In some states, if the fetus is old enough to live outside of the womb, it could be murder.

In others, it has to be determined whether the fetus took a breath or not.

If the child was considered a viable fetus, then yes, it is murder. A man was charged and convicted of murder here in Nashville when he hit a pregnant woman with his car and killed them both.

If the evidence shows that he murdered his wife, I definitely think he should be charged with the murder of his child.

But everyone does understand why the pro-choice people are concerned?

morally, i don't know which side i stand for. it's a tough decision.

technically, i don't think the fetus should be counted. why? mainly because a fetus that dies in the womb from a miscarriage does not get a death certificate and the mother isn't charged with it's death. it is a tragedy, but not murder. i would be scared of the ramifications of counting it as a person. what if the mother falls, and the fetus dies? should she be tried for murder? obviously not, but if people had a way to charge her, that would be awful. we have many crooked people who could work the laws in evil ways.

all i know is scott peterson should rot in hell.

The law in CA specifically excludes abortion... the pro abortion crowd has nothing to worry about.

If we find out some things, like...
...how much time elapsed between her disappearance and death, the mode of death for both the fetus and mother, or whether or not Scott Peterson did something horrible like remove the fetus from her body and kill it separately, then it could be considered murder. If the fetus's death was simply a result of her death, then it cannot. That's my concern.

Being a virulently pro-choicer who will fight and die for the preservation of Roe v. Wade, I can understand what the pro-choicers are concerned about. It all depends on the individual circumstances of this case, like cause of death. When more things are found out, I can say definitively.

And that's why I think he should get the double murder charge: so he can do so sooner rather than later. He knew that when he killed Laci that their baby was going to die as well. He was well aware of her pregnancy, seeing as how he presumably was the father and had seen her tummy. He knew that there were 2 lives at risk. If he had done it after the birth of the baby (still a heinous crime), at least he would only have a single charge against him. But regardless, if indeed he is the culprit, he's one sick bastard. At 8 months a baby can easily live out of the uterus. Anything after 6 months is possible, the closer to 9 months, the more likely. He knew what he was doing.

i am sure that there have been other cases where pregnant women were killed and the murderers were charged with 2 counts. honestly, he (presumably) decapitated her and cut off her legs. the baby was found seperate from the mother's body (ummm, how would that have happened if someone didn't help him out of the womb) and they have been floating in the ocean for months. i think it would be fair if he could be charged with more bc let's face it, he has messed up a lot more than 2 lives!!
i really don't think the pro-choice people need to get their panties in a ruffle over this one!!!! if someone killed your pregnant sister/ wife/ etc., would you still support the idea of a fetus being exempt from this....ummm, that'd be a NO. i am sure that there are some other causes they could be taking up......like lobbying the health care companies to decrease the costs for birth control. i bet you could save a lot of babies from being aborted if birth control didn't cost $25 or more per month!

i heard a rumor that this guy had a gf in college that disappeared and was never found. supposedly, people he went to college with called police after laci disappeared. anyone else hear this?

In PA, Scott Peterson would be charged with double homicide, too. One case of fetal homicide has already been decided against the perpetrator.

When I was married, my ex pushed me down the stairs when I was 16 weeks pregnant. I lost the baby, who looked complete in every way. I feel to this day that he killed our child. Laci Peterson was 32+ weeks pregnant - Connor had a right to live.

It continually amazes me that, if a baby is wanted, all sorts of in utero surgery is permitted, but if that same baby is unwanted, he or she can be used for tissue parts. Where's the justice in this? If abortion is to be completely legal throughout a pregnancy, then no in utero surgery should be permitted, since it's not viable. You can't have it both ways.

honeychile

Re: Does Laci Peterson's baby count?
 

James,
I once watched an interview with a Roman Catholic Priest who gave a statement about abortion. He stated that while he was against abortion, it is not "murder" as murder is killing which is done with malice.

In Lacey Peterson's case, I would consider it murder as she was killed with malice and that malice was "transferred" onto her unborn child, if you will.

Thanks.

Obviously, you aren't familiar with the platforms of groups like PP and the Center for Reproductive Rights. Right up there with preserving Roe v. Wade is lowering contraceptive costs and having more insurance companies cover them on a larger scale. It would behoove you to do some research before making a statement like that.

But, yes...at 32 weeks the baby is viable. But, like I said earlier, until we can pinpoint the cause of both maternal and fetal death, it might be hard to judge this one. If she drowned while pregnant, I'd feel a lot differently than if she was vivisected and the baby removed from her womb.

It should be a double homicide. Laci was visibly pregnant and almost certainly wanted the baby.

I can sort of see why some pro-choice orgs oppose the concept that destroying a fetus is murder even if the baby was wanted. Saying "destroying a fetus is wrong except for abortions" is pretty close to "destroying a fetus is wrong including abortions."

But as long as you have that exception for abortion, I'm ok with it. I am pro-choice (with qualifications; you should have a legitimate reason for seeking abortion, not "I'm pregnant with a boy and I want a girl"). But if a woman is pregnant and wanted the baby, and the fetus is deliberately destroyed, it's murder in my book.

(I hope this makes sense; I haven't had my morning coffee yet...)

honeychile, I'm so sorry to hear about what happened to you. :(

this is all baffling to me. . .:(

just gonna re-state what others have already said just to put my sought-after .02 in.......

double homicide, no doubt. 8 months along, she wanted this baby, whoever killed her (just b/c i'm all about some innocent until proven guilty...even though, well.....) could SO tell she was pregnant. whether this baby was born before or after laci died is irrelevant in deciding if his death was also murder.......hello? mom is murdered with baby inside, baby will die, too. is this a hard concept? i don't think so.....whoever killed her wanted to get rid of her......all of her....including her baby growing inside. 2 innocent lives were taken, and the murderer should be charged for both deaths. period. not understanding why some pro-choicers are taking their stance so far. partial birth abortions are not legal.....after so long, you can't have one. i'm pretty sure 8 months along is past that point. am i wrong in that????

As Mmunchkin03 was pointing out it comes down both to the definiton of when fetus becomes a person (therefore murderable) and the way laws can be applied.

I think pro-choicers want to avoid being backed into a corner in the future.

Imagine a time where fetuses are univerally recognized as people and therefore laws such as murder and manslaughter apply to all fetuse EXCEPT in the case of abortion.

Especially when abortion is an issue that comes up for periodic review.

ITs a half step towards declaring abortion ilegal.

I can see the legal argument now: "So what you are saying Mr. Pro-choicer, is that in every case where a fetus dies by another's hand its murder or manslaughter. When its planned its premeditated murder. But when the mother does it, its all good.

We put person in jail for 20 years for causing the death of a fetus but the mom can kill her fetuses all day? Is that what you are telling us?



LOL :D

The law in California is a result of a 1969 case.

A guy and his girlfriend broke up. The girlfriend started dating another man and she eventually got pregnant. During the pregnancy the ex boyfriend saw her and was furious that she was pregnant. He beat the crap out of her and intentionally hit her in the area of the baby. The baby died but the man was found not guilty because the baby had not yet been born. The CA. law was changed because of this case.

I have heard this argument before...BUT there are alternatives. If the cost of the birth control were really the issue here, the women complaining about the cost of birth control should look into planned parenthood or go to the clinic if money was REALLY a factor...

As far as whether or not Peterson should be tried for double homicide...He knew his wife was pregnant and obviously if he killed her, his child would have no chance without the proper care, hospitilization etc.

This reminds me of the ONLY sex ed I received from my mother:

Rule #1: If you're man enough to make it, you're man enough to raise it.

Rule #2: Conception begins at the moment the first article of clothing is removed.

Rule #3: Confused? See Rule #1.

uhm, as far as I know third trimester abortions are still illegal unless the mother's life is in danger.. abortions are not performed any time after the fetus could feasibly survive outside the womb.

there is a huge difference between killing a woman who is visibly pregnant and the fetus is far enough along in gestation to survive outside the womb and aborting what could not sustain outside the uterus.

i am pro-choice..but i do see the murder of connor peterson as that, murder. perhaps if "whoever" :rolleyes: killed her had done so in the first month or two of pregnancy, i would not consider the fetus murdered, but thats not the case. its pretty obvious that the murderer's intent was to kill not only laci, but the baby as well.

The specifics of the Peterson case is not really the point of the Pro-Choicers . . . maybe we are doing a bad job explaining this.

Pro-Choicers are worried that any definition of fetus that allows them to be murdered could cause complications down the road for the legality of abortion.

Actually they're not, although most doctors will not perform one so late in the game unless there is danger to the mother's life or health.

The specifics of the Peterson case impact how I personally feel about it, but I am very wary of sweeping new legislation that could open the door for the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

The availability of birth control and contraceptives, like Eirene_DGP said, will not lower the incidence or need for abortion. Dude, nothing is 100% effective. :rolleyes:

According to the Associated Press:

No, honestly, I don't. The fetus/baby was 8 months along...it'd be a different story if it were around 3 months.

This is why (many, I won't speak for all) pro-choicers are concerned: Roe v. Wade is in a perilous position. It will probably never be repealed in actuality, but there will be more and more assaults on it until the letter of the law has so many stipulations, that it means nothing. There is a considerable amount of concern that such a high-profile case will trigger a lot of people to call for a law that considers ALL fetal deaths of unnatural causes murder. This knee-jerk reaction could lead to a serious assault on the 1973 decision--which is what makes us worry. Add to the fact that we have an anti-choice President and Congress, and it's not hard to see why we're fighting mad about anything that could weaken the law. Some of the laws similar to this are so vague that some states and legislators can use them to outlaw abortion.

I think that Lacy's pregnancy with Conner was the motive for their murder. She's pregnant, he's cheating, she finds out and is leaving. He can't afford or doesn't want to pay child support for the next 18 years so he, well you know the rest. I think that it was a double homicide. I can understand the concern of the pro-choice advocates. I think that they ought to be more concerned about a society where a man thinks that he can get away with the murder of his pregnant wife, a society where women are disposable and expendable. This whole situation is so horrible and sad. This should have been the most joyful time of Lacy Peterson's life, and it went so terribly wrong.

For those who are thinking about Roe v. Wade, and a woman's right to choose:

Don't you think that Laci Peterson would have chosen to let her son Connor live?

A woman who is 8 months pregnant thinks first about her child - she probably begged for the life of Connor, just as Sharon Tate begged for the life of her son. I just don't see any way that this particular case can be ruled as anything BUT a double homicide. Whoever killed Laci knew that she was pregnant. Whoever killed Laci killed Connor.

Cream, your post above says it all, so eloquently.

honeychile

Amen!

Thanks :)

actually, i am familiar with these groups and their positions. what i am trying to get across is that there plenty of other ways to promote a women's right to choose rather than opposing a murder conviction for an unborn baby. i am not saying that you have to agree with me, but honestly, with a huge lobby like that there are plenty of good things for them to do! looking at murder from a legal point of view involves malice. abortion does not. if the pope can even understand that difference, then i hope other people could too! this is sort of like the legal defination of insane. personally, i think anyone who kills another human being is insane. unfortunately, the legal defination is much different! i pay $25 dollars per month for my birth control. my other friends pay $30. i got off "cheap." i have health insurance and so do my friends...we would never qualify for reduced rates from planned parenthood. actually, i once got pills from them and it cost me $60, so i think i will stick with cvs! yep, these groups have helped to get more insurance cos to pay for bc, but now most insurances have a tier method. when reviewing my new health plan in sept, there was not ONE birth control pill on the tiers less than $25. my last insurance plan had all of the birth control meds on the second tier ($15) until last spring which all of the bc pills jumped up to $20 on tier 3. i guess my point is that they are obviously not doing that great of a job at lobbying for a decrease in cost!

Sorry, this is a gross answer to an earlier question...
 

I was listening to the radio yesterday morning and they were talking to a forensics expert, who said that when someone dies, the bacteria in his or her body builds up gases that are eventually released. In this case, the gases that built up helped to eventually expel the baby. That's why the baby's body is in much better shape than Laci's body (her body was exposed to the elements much longer than the baby's body was). The forensics expert also said that her head and legs weren't necessarily cut off, but that they could have had weights tied to them to keep her down, and the ropes that tied the weights down could have sliced through her neck and legs.

Re: Sorry, this is a gross answer to an earlier question...
 

Pleasant let me grab lunch now . . .

Re: Re: Sorry, this is a gross answer to an earlier question...
 

Sorry, I tried to warn ya!

I personally think they've done a wonderful job. I know that I have haggled with my insurance company for a few months about increasing coverage, and lo and behold, it was done! I believe that a big influence on MAJOR insurance companies (BCBS/Aetna/etc) to cover BC for nonmedical reasons has been because of groups like PP, not to mention major lawsuits. I'm not saying they're perfect. But for good insurance carriers, they've done a damned good job.

---------

Back to the topic at hand:
If the forensic pathologist's suggestion that her body expelled the fetus holds true, like in the same way the body expels or liquefies its own organs, then the circumstances regarding cause of death for the baby would be different from the cause of death of Sharon Tate's baby. So, someone doesn't have to "help" the fetus out of the womb in order for it to be expelled from the body. After three months of decomposition, especially underwater, no help was needed.

I imagine that he will be charged for a double murder, which, depending on the circumstances of death, may be an accurate charge. I am very concerned, however, about the ramifications of such a charge, and what the extreme pro-life faction could do with such a conviction.

I am very concerned about Roe v. Wade as well but I don't think the California pro-life faction will do anything. This law is a result of the 1969 case mentioned by madmax (was added to the statute in 1970) and SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES abortion.

I copied the text of CA Penal Code Section 187:
It is important to note that viability is NO LONGER an element of fetal homicide in California. In the case of People v. Davis (1994) 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 50, 7 Cal.4th 797, 872 P.2d 591, the court stated, "'Viable' fetus, under prior California case law required a showing of viability as prerequisite to convicting defendant of fetal murder, is fetus which has attained such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of living outside the uterus. Viability is not an element of crime of fetal homicide; third-party killing of fetus with malice aforethought is "murder" under statute, as long as state can show that fetus has progressed beyond embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks." People v. Davis (1994) 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 50, 7 Cal.4th 797, 872 P.2d 591.