Nixon's Memoirs: A glorious precedent? Connor's legacy.

Friday, November 12, 2004

A glorious precedent? Connor's legacy.

I may be jumping the gun, totally off base, or woefully misinformed, it wouldn't be the first time, but I am quite hopeful about the recent verdict against Scott Peterson.

The jury found Scott GUILTY of 2nd Degree Murder of Connor Peterson, his unborn son. This, I can only hope, will end up being a precedent for other cases in which the unborn are brutally killed.

Yes, I personally would like late-term abortionists to be convicted, but a solid start towards the holding of the life of the unborn precious would be to start convicting abusive husbands/boyfriends, or other criminals, who kill unborn children either intentionally, or in the commission of another crime, such as carjacking, mugging, battery, etc.

I get so tired of the "Keep your laws off my body" mantra, because its not just the WOMAN'S body the law is intended to protect, but also the body of the CHILD. With great power, comes great responsibility (Hat Tip: Stan Lee) and there is no greater power than that to bring life into this world. I think mothers, and in turn, everyone, have the responsiblity to be a voice for the voiceless, the helpless unborn child. Connor Peterson had no way to defend himself from his father, but his death may lead to justice for many other victims like him.

As for Scott... May God have mercy on his soul.

Update: Guess I missed this before: President Bush signs the Unborn Victims of Violence Act! (Hat Tip: LaShawn Barber, Wizbang. )

3 Comments:

At 9:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but you're jumping the gun, totally off base, and woefully misinformed, but it wouldn't be the first time.

"I personally would like late-term abortionists to be convicted"

Well, technically in some cases they can be convicted, because in some cases it IS illegal. So it's partly a matter of applying the law.

Abortion is a polarizing issue. Few people I know think abortion is RIGHT. The question is whether government should be legislating this particular type of morality. It legislates certain types of morality and not others. OVERALL morality is not the responsibility of the government. It's the responsibility of the individual, unless you want to live in a theocratic state like the Taliban ran in Afghanistan. Everyone agrees that killing innocent people is wrong. Everyone agrees that killing babies is wrong. But not everyone agrees when a baby becomes a baby, and neither science nor religion can entirely answer that question.

When society has such great disagreement over a moral issue like this one, I think it's usually better to err on the side of freedom, and let churches and families handle morality. I don't know anyone personally who's gotten a back-alley abortion, but I know people who know people who have, and some of them died from the procedures. Making abortion illegal adversely affects minorities and the poor, who tend not to be able to afford to pay the premium for quality doctors under such a system. You think certain abortions are barbaric? Just check out someone who's died from a bungled clothes hanger abortion operation. You won't see too many images more gruesome than that.

The unborn should have SOME rights. But how many? Should mothers not be allowed to drink or smoke? I don't think they should be allowed to smoke crack, in a way, but where do you draw the line? What if a mom doesn't eat right during pregnancy, and the baby is stillborn or malnourished? What's the punishment? Mother's DO have certain rights over their unborn children. Unborn children are not ordinary human beings under the law. You can't rob $5 from an unborn child. An unborn child has no social security number. There are some pretty important differences between an unborn child and a child who's distinct from the mother. An unborn child cannot live and breathe on its own. From a biological standpoint, it is PART of the mother's anatomy for a time, attached via the umbilical cord.

I believe that certain late abortions ought to be illegal in most cases, but that this issue is not morally clear-cut enough for the government to interfere. The separation of church and state requires that issues that are so morally ambiguous be up to individuals, not up to the feds. In America, morality is not a matter for the government to determine. It's a matter for families to determine, and each of US to determine.

There's nothing in the Bible that says governments have to mandate whether or not a person can legally get an abortion, and I'm tired of the Christian right in particular implying that there is. Some of these guys are near-maniacal on the issue. Some people, like yourself, are more reasonable.

Still, you're jumping the gun, totally off base, and woefully misinformed; nah, but I do disagree.

 
At 12:55 PM, Blogger Nixon Casablanca said...

Anon- A well spoken, prolific argument, but please take into account that the government already "legislates morality" in the case of murder, rape, and a host of other crimes. If you take the simple premise that the unborn child is alive at the moment of conception, then by logical conclusion you MUST oppose all but the most necessary abortion procedures (that being where it must be performed to save the life of the mother, and the baby cannot be saved.)

Any other offense towards the unborn, which would include smoking, drinking, taking of pills, etc., would have to fall under the realm of child abuse, and also be punishable.

I was only doubtful of my post in the fact that the government would use the Peterson case as a precedent, and it turns out in my update that it has. I had forgotten that the Laci and Conner's law had already been signed.

Therefore, prayerfully, it is only a matter of time before the rights of the unborn begin being held up in more cases. I agree that some who sough "back-alley" abortions died in the process, but 100% of the unborn ALSO died in that illegal and brutal activity. Just because the murder is done in a clean facility by trained killers doesn't make it any less of a crime in my eyes.

All I'm saying is, if you look at abortion as murder as I do, then there is no way you can sit idly by and let it occur. That is why I'm praying every day that God will intervene. An unborn child who is unwanted, to be born into poverty, or is to be born with an illness has as much right to live as those already escaped from the womb who are in the same conditions.

Otherwise, one could make the case for rounding up all the poor, abused, and handicapped children, or adults for that matter, and just hacking them up and discarding them in a dumpster as well.

 
At 10:06 PM, Blogger Julie said...

I happen to think that abortion is very wrong. I think that if the pregnancy can or will cause maternal death, then that is another issue and only a physician and the parents can make that choice but to use abortion for birth control purposes is wrong. There are a ton of infertile couples who would love that baby and raise him/her with more love than they could imagine. Give the kids a chance. I know some conservatives who think it's OK to legalize abortion and I don't see how in the world they can call themselves conservatives b/c that is not conservatism if you ask me. Yes, the baby is attached to the mother's umbilical cord but God also let's us know that "I knew you before you were born." Ok, well, does that mean that the child already has a soul? I believe so..it's all in your personal beliefs. I think abortion is murder..no if's, ands or butts and as far as harming the maternal body during pregnancy..well, try, anonymous, try working in an ER where you end up delivering a baby who's mother has had NO prenatal care, has drank alcohol the entire time and God knows what else. What would happen if that mother caused harm to a 2 yr old? It would be no different..it's neglect and abuse in my book..Abortion is such a sensitive issue and it will be argued until the end of time but these are my feelings and they stem from the religious beliefs I have. I think that Scott Peterson is a cruel and evil man. He had NO right to take his wife's life nor his child. He killed them both intentially and premediated whether the courts want to think he killed his child like that or not. Life is wonderful and precious and not to be taken lightly.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home




Laura Ingraham Show

Michelle Malkin




THIS WEEK'S SERMON FROM CHURCH @ ROCK CREEK



Lileks.com



Michael Eubanks
Click



My blog is worth $95,971.80.
How much is your blog worth?



BLOGS FOR NIXON:
  • Travelerocity
  • g Sides
  • Middle America
  • Busy Busy Mommy
  • Laurie's 'Stupid Mouth'
  • Jewelsie
  • Who reads this crap?
  • Samantha Burns
  • Marcvs The Bard
  • Penquin's Ponderings
  • Musical Musings
  • Mister Mom
  • The Blogfather
  • Words by Nikki
  • Baseball Crank
  • Techno Stan
  • Michelle Malkin
  • Powerline
  • Arkansas Blog Index
  • Spatula City BBS
  • Dustbury, Oklahoma
  • Stephie's Thoughts
  • Republican Jen
  • Infinite Monkeys
  • Ivy Slush
  • Circa Bellum
  • Nehring The Edge
  • Annika's Journal
  • Passing Thoughts
  • Rite Turn Only
  • Six Meat Buffet


  • Who Links Here
    FUN ZONE
  • Wrassle.Net
  • I Sketch

  • My Yahoo!Launchcast Station

  • Acro Challenge

  • WWLS Radio

  • OTHER LINKS


  • Matt Dusk

  • BEER FOR SOLDIERS!
    eXTReMe Tracker
    Site 

Meter
    Glenn Reynolds Says

    The Alliance

    Listed on BlogShares

    The WeatherPixie
    Little Rock Weather