Why Scott Peterson is a Double Murderer

I've been meaning to write about this for a few days, but have been too busy nursing my swollen gums through a vicodin haze. Hearing about Scott Peterson's double murder charge brought this to mind, and this article in Salon (you'll have to click through the ad, you know the drill) really brought it to the forefront of my mind.

Is abortion morally wrong? What makes the choice of, say, a teenage girl with her life ahead of her, to have an abortion any different from the the "choice" Scott Peterson made when he killed his wife and unborn child? To me the answer is obvious. To compare the free choice of one person with the robbing of one expectant mother of the choice to have a child is disgusting to me. I'm going to attempt to spell out why to those who find the answer a little less clear.

Why would it be wrong to have an abortion? Is it because you're killing something that's alive? We kill living things all the time with no guilt. There must be something inherently different about human life that makes it sacred. Is a developing embryo a human being? What would make it so? It lacks most of the anatomy of a human being. In some stages of development it's more like an amphibian or reptile in its structure and anatomy. But frog-killing is certianly not murder.

It ceritanly has the possiblility of becoming a fully developed human being, though. But every living cell in my body carries the blueprint to make an entire copy me, especially in this age of cloning. Not to mention the fact that once a month a woman's body expels a cell that is specifically designed to become another human being. Is every woman guilty of murder because she didn't get pregnant and allow the potential life to happen?

So it's not the fact that it's alive, and it's not the fact that it has the potential for human life. Is it because an embryo looks like a tiny little person? We kill and cause immense suffering to other animals that are very similar to us in appearance. Perhaps it's because developing human embryos are more intelligent than animals. Yet the parts of the brain that house human intelligence do not develop until very, very late in pregnancy. And again, we have no problem hunting, experimenting on, or killing other intelligent animals like whales, dolphins, primates, cats, dogs, pigs...I could go on and on. Besides, if we base our right to life on our intelligence alot of people would have to die right freaking now.

From these arguments I'm able to come to the opinion that it is wrong to oppose a woman's right to choose abortion. I don't know what choice I would make in a similar situation. I know it would be a hard decision for me. I find it completely misogynist for some of the right-wing to assume that is a choice that would be made friviolously, because, you know, it would be so annoying to have to have a baby.

So why did Scott Peterson kill two people and not just one? Because Laci Peterson made a choice. She chose to give birth, and that's as sacred as the choice not to give birth. And both choices should be equally as respected. The fact that there are men out there who want to force either choice on any woman is sickening to me.

I'm sure I've offended someone with this rant. I don't care. It's my blog. Nanny nanny boo boo.

**UPDATE*** I had wanted to add, but totally forgot, that the above arguments are something I mostly got from reading Carl Sagan. Go read a book and get off the internet.

**Post-Update Addendum** Silvan adds:

It should also be mentioned that many of these self-proclaimed "Right-To-Lifers" only extend their mighty logic to embryos and not to adult humans. For example, all those humans on death row or those humans dying in wars, all at the command of many of the same people that tell us to keep our mitts off of those precious tadpoles.

Good point. It seems often that "Right-to-Lifers" stop caring about the life as soon as its born!