As we all now know, the Scott Peterson trial is now decided & the defendant has been found not only guilty, but worthy of death in the taking of TWO lives.
What I have found most interesting is the fact that Scott Peterson is now being prepared to die for taking not only the life of his wife, but that of the unborn fetus. My statement has to do with pulling the chair out from under abortion advocates.
The basis of abortion is that the fetus is not a human being while in the womb. If this were factual in the Scientific sense or even in the instincts of the human heart, then why did 12 jurors just convict a man to die for killing what amounts to a blob of tissues and forming cells? Killing Mr. Peterson for the death of his wife would suffice.
I find an interesting discussion on the matter of what constitutes life and when it starts. While it is tragic on a very personal level for those involved, this case may serve to be greater in creating awareness for pro-life activists who point to conception as the beginning of life. The courts have through this case declared to my satisfaction that life in fact begins at conception.

You are right to note the debate over abortion. I think it will be interesting to see if this plays out in the news or with some of the new legislation (Laci and Conners' Law) whether or not Roe v. Wade will be overturned. One possibility for the double murder is because the boy was so close to being born and could have possibly survived outside the womb. I can attest to that being born 4 months early. Great topic. Hope it sparks some lively chatter.

I agree with Daniel and Michelle's points. The real interesting side is this. To what extent does Scott Peterson personify the moral relativism which allows abortion to flourish? I propose that if we get to subjectively define when a life is a life for ourselves, if we get to veto the Giver of Life, if we get to freely decide when our vows have become burdensome, then Scott Peterson is a natural outgrowth. If lives and marriages are disposable, then what indeed did Scott do wrong? Natural law, however, prevailed. I must wonder, however, if Scott and Lacy lived in a trailer, she was 300 lbs, and he had just slipped her an overdose of Oxycontin, what verdict the jury would have returned.

I've heard political pundits predicting that there could be two or three new appointees to the Supreme Court during Bush's second adminstration. I realize that Rheinquist will certainly be replaced. However, I'm not hopeful that any of the Libs will be stepping down. Do you think they will? I think it's being hyped by the media. If they don't, then for right to life proponents like myself, the 2008 election is going to be even more crucial to electing a President that is opposed to abortion. Thus, Rudy Giuliani will not get the nomination and we may be depending upon John McCain to defeat Hillary. These two dynamics working within the Republican Party worry me. I don't think conservatives will nominate Rudy and I don't think McCain can beat Hillary. Dick Morris' analysis is that Condi Rice is the only candidate that can beat Hillary in 2008. If no liberal Supreme Court Justices step down this term, and either a moderate like Rudy or liberal like Hillary wins, then overturning Roe v Wade will be arduous. I doubt seriously whether Rudy would appoint a nominee that would work decide to overturn Roe v Wade, if the case comes before the Supreme Court. I wish the picture looked more hopeful.

I think that despite recent efforts to "center her", Hillary is known to be just too far left. The best thing that can happen for the conservative movement in this country is for Hillary to run in 2008.