A baby step in the right direction.

This news story is, to me, an example of both progress and inconsistency. Here are some excerpts:

Suspects accused of causing a fetus to die or injuring one inside the womb at any stage of development would face separate criminal charges under a law [North Carolina] Gov. Beverly Perdue has signed.The measure Perdue signed on Friday doesn't apply to legal abortions but does convey legal status upon fetuses unable to survive outside their mother's womb.

The Democratic governor said... she strongly supports abortion rights, but "I do support punishing any person who would attack or kill a pregnant woman. I sign this bill today to show that support...I have children of my own, and grandchildren," Perdue said. "I know the powerful instinct of a mother to protect her children, and I know how I would feel if anyone had harmed my daughters-in-law or me when we were pregnant."

I am unashamedly pro-life, and I commend the governor for signing this bill into law. It only makes sense to me that a crime resulting in the injury or death of an unborn child is an additional criminal offense. Where I get lost, however, is how, then, we can close our eyes to the deliberate killing of a child simply because the "mother" expresses her agreement by seeking an abortion. It's truly not logical to me.

Nor does Perdue's last sentence in the quote above seem to be in harmony with support of abortion rights. If a "mother" has a strong instinct to protect her children, how can she deliberately seek their death? Such a woman can't be called a "mother" of the child she plans to kill.

Are we we saying that an unborn child is worthy of legal protection only if the pregnant woman chooses not to kill it? Is she the only parent who gets a say in this matter? What if the father wants to kill the child? Is that OK? And what if he wants the child to live? Which parent has the right to decide?

Although this law is a step in the right direction, it still reeks of inconsistency in my eyes. The stance of the government of Chile is far less contradictory, in my view. Abortion has been prohibited since 1874 when the Chilean Criminal Code was amended to criminalize abortion. And the government of Chile makes this clear in this pro-life commercial: