Maybe not the time but...

Sometime's it's hard to tackle a political (moral) issue, when a tragedy happens. I caught myself criticizing a radio host today for crucifying Bush and supporting Saddam Hussein for political reason. However, I have had an interesting dilemma here and I hope you understand my point. Recently there have been multiple cases of men killing and murdering a female companion (not always a spouse) who is pregnant. They are being charged with 2 counts of murder. I find this very interesting that the life of an unborn child is defined as a life in this situation, but not in an abortion situation. To me, the way our laws are written, an unborn child is not a human, but the definition of murder is, "unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." Can we step back and look at this. If Scott Peterson or Bobby Cutts ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286698,00.html ) are going to be tried for murder, then according to this definition, they took another human life. This then defines an unborn child as a human life. Why is it ok then for a mother to choose to take the same life and it is not murder? Is it not a life anymore? Now it's just a possession of the mother, and she has the right to choose if it is a life? The mother gets to "play god" and decide whether the child gets to live, but she has no consequences because it's not murder if she kills it, but if someone else does, then it's murder. This just doesn't add up to me. It's either one or the other. For the record, I strongly believe that they are BOTH murder. Unfortunately, according to our precedence, Cutts and Peterson should only be charged with single counts of murder because the unborn children don't matter. Why is that so hard to swallow? Isn't it interesting how people want it both ways. They want it to be a life when it's convenient and they don't want it to be a life it's not convenient.