I'm not being inconsistent. Pro-lifers don't believe that a sperm or an egg SEPARATELY are a life. I don't think anyone does, really. It's when they join they make a life.

I've met a few who actually do think that. It's rather disturbing.

So you're saying they believe that when a woman menstruates they are killing a child?

The recognize that's it's only potential life and say that it's god's choice.

And there's where the argument of "potential life" is inconsistent. But anyways.

You want to know what's inconsistent? The law stating that a fetus is not a life but charging people with double murder if they kill a pregnant woman (even if its manslaughter. Another inconsistency: Why does an accidental murder get the name manslaughter. It's a gruesome word and should only be used to describe massacres.

Charging double murder in cases of someone killing the mom and baby isn't inconsistent. It's recognizing the value of the mother's choice. The mother chose to keep the child and someone took it from her. The mother choosing to have an abortion is not murder (legally)

So a fetus only has human rights if the mother wants it? The mother decides if the child lives or dies and she is the only one authorized to legally kill it? It just seems strange to me, but I understand why it's the mother's choice. Still, you have to admit that a fetus is life once you charge a drunk driver with double manslaughter.

I never said it's not life. It is life. It's just not a person and doesn't have rights. The double murder charge is a recognition of the mothers right to choose whether to keep her child, not of the fetus' right to live (it doesn't have one until it's born).

That's cold. That's cold. What if the mother doesn't want the baby after it's born? Can she have it put to sleep? Is it anti-woman to charge a woman with murder if she kills her baby, in the case that it is very young and she didn't want it? Not all mothers have access to abortion, you know.

How's that for inconsistency?