Conner Peterson was on the threshold of viewing a new day's horizon but his journey was thwarted by his father's blatant disdain for human life. The conviction of Scott Peterson last Friday illustrates that American law is a system that safeguards the rights of the dead but disregards the rights of the living. In the Peterson case, the jury found the defendant guilty of first degree murder for the death of his wife and second degree murder for the death of his unborn son. Second degree murder entails killing another human being with malice aforethought. The legal code defines malice aforethought as killing deliberately and intentionally with extreme disregard for human life. Why is Conner's death considered to be an act of murder, but the millions of infants who suffer under the blades of abortionists are merely incidents of personal preference? Is not abortion the outcome of malice aforethought and egotism?
In the American judicial system, an unborn child is only considered to be human and granted civil rights if the mother is killed. If the mother is breathing, the baby is labeled as "potential life" thereby granting the mother with the legal "right" to kill her baby. If a pregnant woman perceives her child as a hindrance, she can allow death to enter her womb. Is this not the exact situation for which Scott Peterson was convicted? The jury viewed Scott Peterson as a man who deemed his wife and unborn child as barriers that prevented him from fulfilling his egocentric agenda, so he deliberately killed his family without regard for the sanctity of his victims' lives. Is this not the same egotism and malice aforethought that impels a mother to abort her child?
There is an element that differentiates abortion from the murder of Conner Peterson. The court did not regard Conner's death as his father's primary objective; so therefore, the jury found Scott Peterson guilty of second degree murder in the case of his unborn son. When a woman has an abortion, her primary objective is to terminate the life that abides in her womb. Does this not compel one to conclude that abortion is nothing less than premeditated murder?
A woman who undergoes an abortion is only partially responsible for the murder of her child. In the end, the mother typically suffers from a vast amount of remorse and psychological trauma for her decision that most likely was made in a state of haste and despair. The abortionist is not driven by fear but is inflamed by his lust for material wealth. He exploits women in desperate situations in order to obtain a perishable end. The mother does not witness the limbs of her child being discarded as if they were byproducts of an assembly line, but the abortionist witnesses the brutal outcome that was caused by his own blood-stained hands. This goes beyond the definition of malice aforethought. Saint John Chrysostom, whose elegant rhetoric often rendered many listeners speechless, could not apply a name to those who destroy unborn life but deemed the abortionist as "even worse than a murderer." By gaining material wealth at the cost of destroying God's image, the abortionist is transformed into nothing more than an instrument of hell.
As of now, death is prevailing in its conquest to remove any resemblance of the justice that at one time ruled America's courts. Secular society is blind to the fact that death has been trampled down and defeated through Christ's resurrection. By continuing to preserve death, America is walking into a cobweb of defeat that will result in the demise of this country. America, the time has arrived to decide between life or death, victory or defeat.
Zechariah Winter is a college student from Nashville,Tennessee. He attends St. John the Wonderworker Bulgarian Orthodox Church.