Life at 12 weeks
I was shocked to read this article about John Andrew Weldon who has been charged this week with first degree murder for allegedly tricking his girlfriend into taking an abortive pill when he found out that she was pregnant.
I am shocked not so much by what he did (which is truly horrifying) but by the blatant inconsistency between what is classified as ‘pre-meditated murder’ and what is classified as ‘abortive removal of embryonic tissue.’
When a woman becomes pregnant and wants to keep it, it becomes, in the eyes of the law, a human being who has the protection of the law against any third party who would do it any harm.
When a woman becomes pregnant and doesn’t want to keep it, it is merely a collection of cells that can be disposed of by a common and legal ‘procedure.’
Since when does the definition of life or humanity depend on whether the woman carrying it wants it to be there or not?
sarsrose 
it also apparently depends on if the baby shows signs of a disability or irregularity.
also in the US, a case was just concluded for an abortionist who would sometimes deliver the baby live and then kill it. The big question was, “is it only ethical if the baby is still in the womb?” Another clinic is being looked into now, too, for post-natal abotions. the conclusion has been so far that it is ok in the womb, but 30 seconds later it’s a baby and not so ok.
Yes. It’s such a shame when things become based purely on emotional arguments rather than obvious truth. Not that I’m callous towards emotional arguments. I’m empathetic towards them, but I can’t let them to stand in the way of what is right.
wow, I am just absolutely gobsmacked at the inconsistency. not that I am going to start a debate pro or against abortion, but how is it possible that in one sense it is totally legal to actively and brutally kill an unborn fetus, yet unknowingly giving someone the morning after pill without consent equate to pre meditated murder? I mean, you think that essentially drugging someone without their consent would be considered assault (it is if you do something to the patient without their consent in the medical field) I am just so confused. I don’t understand how one which actively eliminates a life is perfectly acceptable in society, yet giving someone a tablet (that one way or another) stops the egg from being fertilized and becoming an embryo, can be considered pre meditated manslaughter. I just don’t know what to think. I think it is wrong what the male did, however the charge should be much lesser. I am just so surprised that the charges for such could even be laid.
*shakes head and shrugs shoulders*
*murder not manslaughter sorry
I agree with you. When the ethical foundations of our reasoning are constantly changing, as it seems in the case of the protection of the unborn child, we cannot execute true justice and the fabric of society is bound to crumble.
Powerful. I agree.