In 2005, Scott Peterson was sentenced to death for the double murder of his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn child, Connor. Should Connor, the unborn, have been considered human? After all, many pro-choice advocates would say that Connor was unborn, and therefore was not human, so he should not have been recognized as human and received human rights, such as the right to life.

In my viewpoint, pro-life is not the opposite of pro-choice, but rather the counterpart of pro-death.

From 1973 to the present day, there have been a total of 50 million victims of abortion, and sadly, this number keeps growing.

I do not want to point fingers at someone or judge anyone. I simply want to show my perspective on such a controversial issue throughout.

Now, I ask of you to please reconsider your stance on abortion, if you are pro-choice.

The decision is ultimately up to you to make, and your conscience. What I can do is purely try to defend my position as to why I am pro-life, and will continue to do so until abortion is no longer an option in this country.

Going back to the Peterson case and to what seems to be the core question of the abortion debate: When are the unborn considered a living human being?

Scientifically, the unborn are living human beings. Any embryology book will confirm this. If the unborn baby is growing, then it must be living, then it is certainly alive. Then we look at the fact that the unborn baby has parents that are human, so it must be human. Two human parents must make a human. We need to recognize that the unborn within the woman’s womb is a unique, whole organism. It is inside the woman, but it is not a part of the woman.

And now we move on to the philosophical aspect of why the unborn are living human beings.

Philosophically, we can securely state that embryos (the unborn) are obviously not as developed as newborns.

Many will try to argue four main points that connect to the abortion debate; those points being size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency.

Yes, the unborn are smaller than newborns and adults, but what does this have anything to do with why someone should have the right to life? Women are generally smaller than men, but we don’t believe that men should have more rights. Size should not equal how a living human being is valued.

Then, we look at the level of development of the unborn to that of the born. It is true that the unborn is less developed than say you or I, but so is a 3-year-old girl compared to a 23-year-old woman. Should we give the 23-year-old more rights because she is more developed, and take away the right of life from the 3-year-old, and the handicapped, people in a coma, or even those with Alzheimer’s disease? I mean, they are not as developed as a “normal” human being.

Now, let’s look at your environment. Does your value change when you are in a building or simply in your kitchen? So why should a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the unborn from not being human being to becoming a human being? Why does their location make them valuable? It doesn’t, they are human beings before they are born, period.

And lastly, why is the unborn looked upon as less because they are dependent on the woman? In that case, people dependent on certain medication should also not be valued and killed off. Dependency does not make one’s value as a human-being.

The reason for this is not to have a debate between pro-life and pro-choice, but rather to ask you to give these children an opportunity to live life.

Was Connor Peterson human?

Stop the genocide of America’s unborn!

Oscar Perez is a sophomore Mass Communications and Journalism major and contributing writer who was recently elected as Associated Students, Inc. senator at-large.