[Jeff Gordon]

a father can kill his unborn child, be convicted of that child’s murder, and himself face the death penalty – while on the same day, a mother can elect to have her unborn child killed

That sums it up quite nicely.

Our current laws allow a female to choose to kill or have killed her unborn child. No one else has this right to murder an unborn child except its female parent (I refuse to call it a mother).

[Askel5]

That DOES sum it up nicely ... and we can thank "conservative" justices appointed by GOP Presidents for the "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" right of the government to have its "unborn children" AND eat its fetuses and embryos too.

Exhibit "A" being the Brave New World our Pro-Life President introduced when, dripping with Scripture from his Favorite Moral Relativist, Jesus of Nazareth, he explained the "humanitarian" bent of using Excess Manufacture unborn as mulch for science experiments ... so long as they were branded with the proper "Killed By" date to merit a bite out of the NIH's budget (which he already had DOUBLED in one year).

President Bush signed the legislation last April. It mirrors existing laws in 29 states, and makes it a federal crime to harm an unborn child during an assault on the mother. It’s the first Federal law to give unborn children a status separate from their mothers. Additionally, it’s the first federal law to more accurately refer to the “fetus” as an unborn child.

This simply is an example of how critical it is to them always to frame the debate properly. I don't recall President Bush referring to the excess manufacture "potential people" as unborn in his first televised address to the nation. Somehow this use of "unborn" tailored exclusively to cranking the damages trial attorneys may claim doesn't impress me at all.

[jonnybailey]

But what of the doctor who performs the abortion: is he/she not, in that case, guilty of murder as was found Scott Peterson?