# Legacy of the Peterson trial: Renewed abortion debate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2004, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legacy-of-the-peterson-trial-renewed-abortion-debate/274496 "2004-11-13T00:57:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Kythereia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e8c25b/32.png) [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2004, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legacy-of-the-peterson-trial-renewed-abortion-debate/274496/1 "2004-11-13T00:57:42Z")
Scott Peterson was recently found guilty of the first-degree murder of his wife Laci and the second-degree murder of his unborn son, Connor. [Wikipedia has the following definition:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder) > [@](#): > > **First-degree murder (or murder in the first degree, or colloquially, murder one)** refers to premeditated murder, or murder which occurs after some degree of reflection by the murderer. This reflection can be years or less than a second. > \*\*Second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter \*\* refers to murder done without thought in the heat of the moment, or in some states after “adequate provocation”… This seems to imply (at least, IMHO) that Connor–an unborn fetus–was, by legal terms and definitions, a person, and that he was murdered by his father… a pretty definitive statement, as far as legal matters go. What do you all think of the charge? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2004, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legacy-of-the-peterson-trial-renewed-abortion-debate/274496/2 "2004-11-13T01:06:17Z")
> [@Kythereia](#): > > This seems to imply (at least, IMHO) that Connor–an unborn fetus–was, by legal terms and definitions, a person, and that he was murdered by his father… a pretty definitive statement, as far as legal matters go. > > What do you all think of the charge? Consistant with my pro-choice beliefs is my belief that a fetus is not a person and should not be considered such by the law. Even if in this case the definition is used for a good purpose (to nail a brutal murderer), in the future the anti-abortion folks will seize upon things like this as precedent to outlaw abortion. I could, however, accept a law that penalizes the murder of pregnant women as a more severe offense. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2004, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legacy-of-the-peterson-trial-renewed-abortion-debate/274496/3 "2004-11-13T01:41:09Z")
Since legal definitions vary by state, wouldn’t the appropriate California statute be a better reference then Wikipedia? ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2004, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legacy-of-the-peterson-trial-renewed-abortion-debate/274496/4 "2004-11-13T02:30:06Z")
Be interesting if he appeals the convictions seperately. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2004, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legacy-of-the-peterson-trial-renewed-abortion-debate/274496/5 "2004-11-13T02:55:50Z")
I don’t think this will fuel the debate that much. The Peterson baby was nearly viable- in my opinion much different than the typical first trimester abortion. What this should call attention to is support for the death penalty among many pro-lifers. ---
**Author:** ![NotWithoutRage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NotWithoutRage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotWithoutRage)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2004, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legacy-of-the-peterson-trial-renewed-abortion-debate/274496/6 "2004-11-13T04:06:05Z")
It certainly renewed the debate in my office this afternoon. Not many people paid attention to the [Unborn Child Victims of Violence Act](http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/BushsignsUVVA.html) signed by President Bush that says: \*The new law recognizes as a legal victim any “child in utero” who is injured or killed during the commission of a federal crime of violence. The bill defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” \* Although Peterson wasn’t tried under this new law (as it wasn’t in effect when Laci and Conner were murdered), it DOES post fuel for the upcoming renewed debate, I think. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2004, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legacy-of-the-peterson-trial-renewed-abortion-debate/274496/7 "2004-11-13T04:36:12Z")
Scott Peterson was not charged with a _federal_ crime. As to the OP, do you really think there are a lot of pro-choice folks out there who think that the unnecessary killing of an 8-month-old fetus is perfectly fine? Sure, to save the life or health of the mother, but where are the people who think that killing Mrs. Peterson was bad, but no big deal with the baby? ---
**Author:** ![NotWithoutRage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NotWithoutRage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotWithoutRage)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2004, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legacy-of-the-peterson-trial-renewed-abortion-debate/274496/8 "2004-11-13T04:41:05Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Scott Peterson was not charged with a _federal_ crime. True. Sorry if I’d implied differently. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2004, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legacy-of-the-peterson-trial-renewed-abortion-debate/274496/9 "2004-11-13T04:44:14Z")
Not at all. It’s just that a lot of folks think that such federal laws override state law, when in reality they apply to hardly any crimes at all. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2004, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legacy-of-the-peterson-trial-renewed-abortion-debate/274496/10 "2004-11-13T04:46:38Z")
The text of California Penal Code Section 187: > [@](#): > > [187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a > fetus, with malice aforethought. > (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act > that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: > (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 > (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division > 106 of the Health and Safety Code. > (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician’s and surgeon’ > s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a > case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be > death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, > although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or > more likely than not. > \*\* (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the > mother of the fetus.\*\* > © Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the > prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199) emphasis added. So, no. The verdict in this case will not renew the abortion debate except among those people who are not pro-choice but rather pro-abortion, a tiny number of people. The conviction could not have occurred if there were evidence that the woman (Mrs. Peterson, in this case) had chosen not to bring her child to term.