Well, maybe John pretended he had forgiven Mary to make her feel secure and that it was part of a plan. That he probably wanted to spare her until the baby had been born. He is not a man who would hand over his pregnant wife to Mycroft or the authorities or whoever. 
As for the question: a) John is acting on his own and therefore does not tell Sherlock or b) this is for the sake of the audience, i.e. we are to assume that Mary is forgiven/John will stay married/Sherlock only wants to save Mary. 
 

I can't see John killing Mary-- at least not the way they've set this up; but honestly, Mary could have had the baby in a highly secure, relatively luxurious correctional facillity-- full medical staff-- ( and it's probably safer for the baby, since she apparently scaled a building and beat people up and shot someone while pregnant!?!) 

But this line of thinking assumes that John is using her as an Incubator. Are we okay with that? 

Heavens, where did I say John was going to kill Mary? 

*waving*

I'm the one who wants John to kill Mary and thinks it would be an amazing character arch for both of them.  It is also why my ideal solution would be for the baby to be fake. 

Ah, okay. 

 

Swanpride wrote:

I beginn to thing that the Fandom really, really hates John. Hasn't he suffered enough? The worst you can do to him is making Mary evil after all (because that would not only shatter his heart but also his trust in Sherlock), or to make either him or Sherlock kill Mary. The possiblity that Mary doesn't survive her pregnancy is bad enough, or that she looses the child, or both.

Also, if Mary dies of anything than natural causes it would mean that Sherlock shooting Magnussen was for nothing and that he failed protecting her.

Just so you know-- *I* adore John, but I think he's an extremely complex character.  He's got wonderful qualities, and some not-so-good ones. And I think that often , many in the fandom are biased in his favor to the extent of misunderstanding observations, critique and discussion of John as "hate" or "dislike". Somehow, John's character became sacrosanct-- any criticism gets shut down with accusations of "Hate" for the character. Funny how that dynamic doesn't usually happen with Sherlock.... 

Here's another question: if John has been through enough, why don't we have a problem with John having to deal with even more trauma at Mary's hands? After all, she lied to a man with PTSD and Trust Issues about who she was, shot his best friend just after he got him back, etc, etc, ....ad nauseum...

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (September 9, 2015 7:41 pm)

SusiGo wrote:

But he did suffer horribly from Mary's betrayal as well. 

Indeed. So, why is that okay? Doesn't John's well-being matter when it's Mary doing the damage? 

This is something that I'm still not getting-

(1)  why do we assume that John CAN find happiness with Mary, taking into consideration all that's led up to this point?

(2) why does Mary deserve happiness, after all she's done? To JOHN?!?!

(3)  isn't John taking Mary back, in the end , kind of a betrayal of Sherlock? (Bonus for johnlock purposes) why should Sherlock be okay with being second best to the assassin who shot him?

Burning questions.....

@ Raven: I think if John gets more of that kind of happiness with Mary it might kill him.

SusiGo wrote:

(1) No idea. I never assumed that. 

(2) IMO, she does not. 

(3) It is at least problematic. IMO John cannot have both in the long run. 

 

 
I know YOU didn't make that assumption!!!