Only if Mom says so? A debate against abortion.

In Wisconsin, a man attempted to spike his girlfriends smoothie with a chemical known in the abortion industry as RU-486. The girlfriend was only made aware of it after growing suspicious of her boyfriend when she noticed him stirring her smoothie. After the libation was handed to her, she noticed a powdery residue on the rim of her cup.

To confirm her suspicions, she took the drink to a laboratory for chemical analysis, which determined that mifepristone was mixed in to her drink.

The defendant, Patel, has been charged with seven felonies and two misdemeanors, including attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child.

So here is the underlying question, and indeed, the moral of the debate: Why is murder only contingent upon the mother's say-so to terminate a pregnancy? Why does a mother become the arbiter of homicide; of who is human and who is not?

My detractor will say that what made it murder, and immoral, is that he did not gain her consent -- since consent seems to be the grand arbiter these days.

But here's the clincher that makes consent specious: Why the charge of murder? You can only murder a human, right? But a fetus is not human, nor does it retain any rights as such, say pro-abortion activists.

If that's the case, then why was Patel not charged with aggravated assault and battery? Why the charge of murder?

To address the topic from another point, her boyfriend mixed a drug into her drink. Mixing any drug into a drink could lead to any situation such as rape or murder of the person themself.

It is true that pro-abortion activists feel the fetus is not ahuman and does not have rights. However, the fetus has the DNA used to develop a human body and organs. The boyfriend's attempt in this was to kill the fetus and stop the growth of a human body. Thus, we have murder.

Calling for assault in this case would change the foundations of just what a crime is in our country. The drug could have very well had effects on the mother's body as well, her boyfriend was putting her in danger as well. It is almost a given that the mother's consent should be given before ANY drug enters her body or any abortion occurs. How can one argue such a point?

Thank you for your response, FiredUpRepublican. As best I can tell, you aren't the right person to be debating because you and I are actually in agreement. My post was designed to lead pro-abortionists in to an inescapable conclusion -- namely, that abortion is indeed the homicide of a human being, or at the least, to concede that their position is illogical.

So I certainly agree with the charge given to Patel. Patel was also charged with battery and assault of his girlfriend, as well as a plethora of other charges.He had done this to her numerous times, in fact! She has lost, I believe, 4 children because of this man.

But specifically, I wanted to ask the question why it only becomes murder when the mother wants the child. That is completely illogical from a lawful standpoint.

If a fetus is not a human being, then how can double-homicide be a legitimate charge? And why is that charge only predicated on the wishes of the prosepctive mother? Why and how is she the arbiter of such things?