Where is the consistency? Why is it that when Scott Peterson killed his wife he was convicted of second degree murder of the fetus, yet when countless numbers of women choose to have an abortion, we don’t try them for murder. Is there a difference in the thing growing inside the murdered woman and that of the woman who has an abortion? Don’t both women contain a zygote undergoing meiosis and mitosis to eventually reach the end product of a human being? If women can have abortions, why do we charge murderers with multiple homicides?

Which set of rules do we follow? If its rules set out in the Peterson case, women should be charged with first degree murder because all intentional abortions are planned in advance. If we allow abortions, Peterson should have only been convicted of the murder of his wife.

Where is the line drawn?

As a side note, although I don’t support the death penalty, there is a huge difference between a convicted murder and an unborn child. If you say that people cannot be antiabortion and pro-capital punishment, you are saying that a convicted killer and unborn baby are the same. At least murders receive trials before they are killed.

Nathaniel Knock

Materials engineering sophomore

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.