A new definition of "double standard."

This story caught my eye on the web this morning:

APPLETON, Wis. - Authorities charged a married man Thursday with slipping his girlfriend an abortion drug that caused her to miscarry twice. Manishkumar M. Patel, 34, of Appleton, was charged with seven felonies and two misdemeanors, including attempted first-degree murder of an unborn child, stalking, burglary and two counts of violating a restraining order. (emphasis added)


The drug Mr. Patel gave his girlfriend was "mifespristone, the abortion pill also known as RU-486." Currently, any woman can take that drug on her own, according to our present "pro-choice" abortion laws. But for Mr. Patel to "slip" it to her on the sly is considered "attempted first-degree murder of an unborn child." So, for the girlfriend to take the drug, that's a "choice." For someone else to make such a choice for her is not simply "coercion" or "extortion" or even "assault" in respect to the woman and her choices; it's "attempted murder of an unborn child."

How does a fetus remain mere "tissue" or "potential life" when under the control of the mother, but it becomes an "unborn child" if someone other than the mother makes the choice? Is there not some kind of illogical double standard at work here? Or is it something like, "If I take my life, it's suicide; if you do it, it's murder." That would be valid if it's my life you're talking about. But the "unborn child" is a third entity (dare we say "person"?).

Isn't this simply another instance of the double-talk of the judicial advocates of the "pro-choice" position , who are so eager to protect the prerogatives of an individual woman that they will abide such obvious flaws in their arguments? Either the fetus is a "child" or it's simply a "potential child." It can't be both, depending on who does the killing. It doesn't become less of a child when it's aborted by a mother than if it was unintentionally miscarried. If it's a "mass" subject to the mother's choice, then a miscarriage, even if caused by someone other than the mother, is perhaps some kind of crime against that mother, but not a "murder" of a person. You don't "murder" a non-person.

Maybe it's time to stop the double-talk and take God's word for it: Every "unborn child", at whatever stage of development, is still precious in God's sight, for each one is "fearfully and wonderfully made," and known already by the same God who knows the rest of us who were not aborted.