Fetal Rights
Christmas Eve, 2002, Laci Peterson and her unborn child (named Conner) disappeared
from their Modesto, CA, home and were later discovered washed up on a San Francisco
shore April, 2003.  The husband, Scott Peterson, has been charged with a double
homicide.  News services such as AP have freely spoken of Conner as Laci Peterson’s
unborn son.
This case has brought to the fore again a most crucial question regarding unborn life. 
Pro-abortionists insist human life does not exist until birth – carrying the implication that
unborn children have absolutely no worth and can be disposed of without a twinge of
conscience whatsoever a la Roe v Wade.  Pro-life advocates, on the other hand, have
always believed human life does not somehow miraculously appear at birth; but rather, an
unborn child has always been a human being.
The Peterson case has raised again a national debate regarding fetal rights.  Does an
unborn child have any rights against violence which may be perpetrated against it?  A
majority of states now have laws supporting such rights.  For example, the Nebraska
legislature voted 42-5 in favor.  Such laws point out a kind of legal schizophrenia.  While
Roe v Wade as the law of the land is used as a legal basis to eliminate unborn life for any
reason, fetal rights laws have now been passed to protect unborn life from harm.  We
can’t have it both ways.  Either unborn life is human or it isn’t.  If it is, then it must be
Congress will be taking up The Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 2004.  Several
Democrat lawmakers have already lined up against the bill since it would lend credence
to the validity of human life before birth.  These legislators have always been in the
pocket of pro-abortionist lobbyists and are therefore automatically opposed.  It will be
extremely interesting what the roll call looks like when this bill comes up for a vote.  We
will see which lawmakers value the lost life of little Conner – and which do not.
It is unconscionable that we the living deny that right to the unborn.