On behalf of the leftists on this forum, will you PLEASE stop using reason and
stick to emotions?

It's hard enough for them to grasp reality let alone anything that requires
thought.

Get a grip and FEEL the problems of the USA.

Ya know, I am the person who would have to live with the decision to beat my toddler to death with a cinder block. Why take the decision out of my hands?

I really do not see why it is so hard for them to see why their logic fails.

Until one side or the other can empirically demonstrate when life begins ALL of the other arguments for or against are in vain.

Doesn't the baby suffer the consequences of the decision as well?

Arguably, so that proves my point even more: WE'RE collectively the people that should make the decision. Have someone advocate for the child. Why artificially "take it out of hour hands"? That doesn't even make any sense to "take it out of our hands."

Ya know, I am the person who would have to live with the decision to beat my toddler to death with a cinder block. Why take the decision out of my hands?

I really do not see why it is so hard for them to see why their logic fails.

Until one side or the other can empirically demonstrate when life begins ALL of the other arguments for or against are in vain.

The conversation needs to be had, discussion needs to occur. It's not in vain.

Arguably, so that proves my point even more: WE'RE collectively the people that should make the decision. Have someone advocate for the child. Why artificially "take it out of hour hands"? That doesn't even make any sense to "take it out of our hands."

OK. Here, I am advocating for the children. As minors they are incapable of making such a consequential decision until they are 18. Once these fetuses reach the age of 18 years they can decide whether or not they should be aborted.

The conversation needs to be had, discussion needs to occur. It's not in vain.

OK, lets have the conversation under the assumption that life begins at conception. At the point of conception each fetus is fully human and has the same rights as the rest of us. Go ahead, make your case for allowing abortion.

So the guy in Guthrie that's being brought up on charges of shooting his six year-old daughter. Let's suppose for the sake of argument he did it and it wasn't an accident. Why is that a crime but if he and the mother chose to end her life before the baby girl was born it is not? Maybe him shooting her in the head the other day saved a drain on society. It's the same end result.

Life is life. Why should it be more sacred outside the womb than it is in the womb. It's still life.

All the arguments being made for abortion could be made for a 3 year old. or a six month old. What's the difference?

So the guy in Guthrie that's being brought up on charges of shooting his six year-old daughter. Let's suppose for the sake of argument he did it and it wasn't an accident. Why is that a crime but if he and the mother chose to end her life before the baby girl was born it is not? Maybe him shooting her in the head the other day saved a drain on society. It's the same end result.

Life is life. Why should it be more sacred outside the womb than it is in the womb. It's still life.

All the arguments being made for abortion could be made for a 3 year old. or a six month old. What's the difference?

Or a 30 year old, for that matter. There are 30 year olds who are a drain on society. Why not just shoot them in the head? We are the ones that have to live with the consequences of that decision so why take that decision out of our hands? The government really has no business telling us who we can and cant kill. Right?

OK, lets have the conversation under the assumption that life begins at conception. At the point of conception each fetus is fully human and has the same rights as the rest of us. Go ahead, make your case for allowing abortion.

Well, when you set up parameters like that, obviously it would be considered unlawful to terminate a pregnancy.

Doesn't mean there still aren't arguments, e.g.- the woman that had octopulets when she couldn't afford to support her other 6 kids. Society has a colorable, arguable interest in aborting some, if not all of the fetuses. However, given your parameters, we wouldn't because you artificially established that the embryos/fetuses are all afforded the same rights as a living, breathing out-of-the-womb human.

Well, when you set up parameters like that, obviously it would be considered unlawful to terminate a pregnancy.

Doesn't mean there still aren't arguments, e.g.- the woman that had octopulets when she couldn't afford to support her other 6 kids. Society has a colorable, arguable interest in aborting some, if not all of the fetuses. However, given your parameters, we wouldn't because you artificially established that the embryos/fetuses are all afforded the same rights as a living, breathing out-of-the-womb human.

No, there wouldnt be any other arguments. It is illegal to murder people. Period.

As for my parameters being "artificially established", well so are yours. So either tell us how to empirically determine when life begins (and thus when human rights begin) then we can continue the conversation. Until then understand that your artificially established parameters don't work any better for me than mine do for you.

All the arguments being made for abortion could be made for a 3 year old. or a six month old. What's the difference?

Some of us don't believe that a globule of cells constitutes a human life that deserves rights equal to a mother's right to choose what happens to and in her own body as far as the government goes. As far as morally, you can be pro-choice as a political view point and still choose life. I'm not some crazy abortion-monger. I just don't think the government should have the right to choose for us as citizens.

Another 5 month old baby just got killed today at the hands of her father, beaten and shaken to death. She just died a few minutes ago.

No one can determine unequivocally when life officially begins.

I truly believe that it in some situations it is ethical to prevent the future growth of a mass of cells. Therefore the murder argument doesn't influence my decision.

How can you 'murder' something that isn't even something yet? You are terminating the concept of a baby.

And for all the religious people who argue that God doesn't want women to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, tell me, why would God allow an unwanted baby to be born only to suffer and be abused? It's all b.s.

For the record, I'm not some crazy abortion monger either. I don't like it anymore than anyone else does... but I don't want the government involved in forcing a woman to have an unwanted child either.

No, there wouldnt be any other arguments. It is illegal to murder people. Period.

As for my parameters being "artificially established", well so are yours. So either tell us how to empirically determine when life begins (and thus when human rights begin) then we can continue the conversation. Until then understand that your artificially established parameters don't work any better for me than mine do for you.

You don't seem to understand what I mean by "arguments" in a broader context of the law. There are arguments as to why the government shouldn't be able to enforce seatbelt laws...that doesn't make those laws ineffective. Laws and arguments for and against are basically weighted judgments, which based on Judeo-Christian ethics, philosophical arguments on how society is best run, and simple pragmatics. (Read- lots of gray wiggle-room)

You don't seem to understand what I mean by "arguments" in a broader context of the law. There are arguments as to why the government shouldn't be able to enforce seatbelt laws...that doesn't make those laws ineffective. Laws and arguments for and against are basically weighted judgments, which based on Judeo-Christian ethics, philosophical arguments on how society is best run, and simple pragmatics.

OK so then construct a pragmatic argument as to why we should allow innocent fully human babies be murdered by having their brains sucked out and then be thrown in the dumpster as medical waste.

fully human babies be murdered

1) "Fully human babies" = an extremely conclusory packed statement offered without any qualification whatsoever. I'm just going to have to assume that since you didn't explain why this is or what it even is that you're just stating an opinion.

2) "Murdered": Murder is the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought. If the killing is lawful, it ain't murder.

And for all the religious people who argue that God doesn't want women to
terminate an unwanted pregnancy, tell me, why would God allow an unwanted
baby to be born only to suffer and be abused? It's all b.s.

God doesn't allow an unwanted baby to born only to suffer. It's the
consequences of the man and woman that cause the problem in the first place.

It's their selfish "me first" nature that creates an unwanted child. That is no
reason to murder the baby via abortion.

Fla. doctor investigated in badly botched abortion : 24 Hour Breaking News : The Buffalo News (http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html)

This is the story of the baby, at 23 weeks gestation, murdered at the Florida abortion clinic. Five minutes before, she could have been legally aborted. She came early. They killed her. It is murder. What is the logic or morality of any of that?

Fla. doctor investigated in badly botched abortion : 24 Hour Breaking News : The Buffalo News (http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html)

This is the story of the baby, at 23 weeks gestation, murdered at the Florida abortion clinic. Five minutes before, she could have been legally aborted. She came early. They killed her. It is murder. What is the logic or morality of any of that?

I just now was getting ready to post this very article. I would like to believe that even the pro-abortionists here would agree that this was not only wrong, but criminal. Anyone disagree?

I don't think anyone is 'Pro Abortion' here.

And, yes, it was wrong.....

Once again I find my self reading a thread about abortion and getting the same sick feeling in my stomach...

I should probably avoid this type of thread from now on.

God doesn't allow an unwanted baby to born only to suffer. It's the
consequences of the man and woman that cause the problem in the first place.

It's their selfish "me first" nature that creates an unwanted child. That is no
reason to murder the baby via abortion.

Go ahead and ban it when the "me first" right wingers decide to open their pocketbooks and pay higher taxes to help with these millions of babies. Then I won't mind one bit.

Every one already knows who will end up bearing the burden of these babies. That is not really changing anyone's positions. This is not a money issue for most.

As for "me first" right wingers, what are you refering to? How about the "me first" lagabouts who bring more babies into the world than they can afford and who don't pay taxes sufficient to cover the benefits they receive. Where is the logic or fairness of accusing the ones who foot the bill for others with being selfish while giving a pass to the ones who are getting more than they give?

1) "Fully human babies" = an extremely conclusory packed statement offered without any qualification whatsoever. I'm just going to have to assume that since you didn't explain why this is or what it even is that you're just stating an opinion.

2) "Murdered": Murder is the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought. If the killing is lawful, it ain't murder.

I believe my point may have been too subtle.

I just now was getting ready to post this very article. I would like to believe that even the pro-abortionists here would agree that this was not only wrong, but criminal. Anyone disagree?

Like Karried said, I don't think anyone in here is "pro-abortion." Of course that's a hideous thing that occurred.

I don't think anyone is 'Pro Abortion' here. And, yes, it was wrong...

Anybody who believes or accepts abortion as a viable option for whatever reason
is pro-abortion.

Go ahead and ban it when the "me first" right wingers decide to open their
pocketbooks and pay higher taxes to help with these millions of babies. Then I
won't mind one bit.

First of all, it doesn't take higher taxes. All it takes is allowing these children to be
born then putting them up for adoption. The demand is higher than the product.
Another viable option is when the mother has the baby, she'll come to her senses
and keep it.

Anybody who believes or accepts abortion as a viable option for whatever reason
is pro-abortion.

Well, that sounds like that describes me (shrugging shoulders).

If nothing else, this discussion, sometimes argument, sometimes heated argument, points out the breadth of the divide between individual beliefs on this issue. At the same time, I don't think that anyone here views anyone else here as uncaring and not valuing life. Some approach this issue strictly from a religious standpoint, some from an intellectual position. What we all can surely agree on is that there is plenty of pain and suffering to go around in this world and as individuals, each of us can make a small difference in the lives of a few others though our donations of time and other resources. We can volunteer at a community shelter, in our churches or the food pantry . . . we can donate to worthy causes that provide food, clothing and services to the hundreds of millions of our fellow human beings here in our own nation and around this globe that are not as fortunate as many of us are.

Michael

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

Anybody who believes or accepts abortion as a viable option for whatever reason
is pro-abortion.

That's neither myopic nor narrowminded. :ohno:


Actually, I jsut think the government should have nothing to do with making this decision for people. As an adopted individual, in my life, I would lean heavily pro-life. I jsut think I should be afforded the option. I'm not "pro-abortion." I don't think abortions are a wonderful and good thing that people should actively pursue.

All it takes is allowing these children to be
born then putting them up for adoption.


ahhh.. so easy! Problem solved.

How many kids have you adopted recently?


she'll come to her senses
and keep it.

just like a cute puppy at the pet store...

check out Craig's List sometime... see how many people outgrow the cute baby puppy phase and either don't want to or can no longer, feed, care for or afford medical care.

Just like some of these moms who 'came to their senses'.

Except they can't give them away now can they?

Not many people want to adopt older children.... So, now you've got a poverty stricken single mom taking out her stress and frustrations on an easy target .. all is well. Except the vicious cycle of poverty and ignorance is continued and it all starts over again and again.

I've been a foster parent for years to 'throw away kids'. I haven't had any experience with 'pro lifers' coming to the rescue of these poor abused children - they are too busy telling other people how they should live, picketing Planned Parenthood or bombing abortion clinics to take care of these unwanted children.

Go put your money where your mouth is:

Nonprofit organization for single mothers in Oklahoma City, OK (http://www.bethelfoundationusa.com/)

Last time I talked to Lynda, they were in desperate need of beds so the babies could get off of the cold floor. Give them a call.

Okay, I'm done here.

If it's not a human life, what is it?

All it takes is allowing these children to be
born then putting them up for adoption. The demand is higher than the product.

That's only partially true, Pruney. True, the demand for "white, healthy" babies is higher than demand. Unfortunately, that's not what we have a surplus of.

. . .
Go put your money where your mouth is:

Nonprofit organization for single mothers in Oklahoma City, OK (http://www.bethelfoundationusa.com/)

Last time I talked to Lynda, they were in desperate need of beds so the babies could get off of the cold floor. Give them a call.

Okay, I'm done here.

Thanks for the link Karried. The work supported by the Bethel Foundation is a good example of the difficult struggle that many deal with every day. Donating only took a minute and will make the rest of my day go a little better.

Michael

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

That's neither myopic nor narrowminded. :ohno:


Actually, I jsut think the government should have nothing to do with making this decision for people. As an adopted individual, in my life, I would lean heavily pro-life. I jsut think I should be afforded the option. I'm not "pro-abortion." I don't think abortions are a wonderful and good thing that people should actively pursue.

But that opinion is based totally on the premise that a fetus is not a human life. Until you can prove that premise then your argument is neither pragmatic or logical, no matter how good it sounds.

Until we have a way of determining when life begins ALL other arguments, for or against, are irrelevant because they are all based on one of two unproven premises.

. . . I've been a foster parent for years to 'throw away kids'. . .

Quite admirable Kerried, thanks for letting us know. I have two adopted grandsons and it is a real joy to see these young men grow up in a healthy, loving home.

Michael

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

Well, that sounds like that describes me (shrugging shoulders).

You either support abortion or you don't. Whether or not it's for birth control or
any other reason, including personal reasons, is beside the point including and
not limited to, "I personally am against abortion but...".

I understand the horrible stigma that besets someone who supports abortion
as a viable option. After all poor child is burned to death be saline or
dismembered or any other number of ghastly ways. However, if you support
abortion for any reason then you are pro-abortion.

Another thought, anyone who protests at a right to life or pro-life rally is
pro-abortion or they'd want it not to be legal.

ahhh... so easy! Problem solved. How many kids have you adopted recently?

I'm glad you see the light.

Whether or not I've adopted children is irrelevant. There are so many parents
that want to adopt and there aren't enough children. The adoptable children have
been slaughtered in abortion mills.



just like a cute puppy at the pet store...

How can anybody equate children to puppies?

If it's not a human life, what is it?

Maybe they want to believe it's a tomato or a fire hydrant.

That's only partially true, Pruney. True, the demand for "white, healthy" babies is
higher than demand. Unfortunately, that's not what we have a surplus of.

There are parents who adopt black, Asian, Mexican, Down Syndrome, etc... There
are many who take whatever is available.

There are parents who adopt black, Asian, Mexican, Down Syndrome, etc... There
are many who take whatever is available.

All that is very true. Unfortunately, there's not enough of those folks to handle the number of kids available.

But that opinion is based totally on the premise that a fetus is not a human life. Until you can prove that premise then your argument is neither pragmatic or logical, no matter how good it sounds.

Until we have a way of determining when life begins ALL other arguments, for or against, are irrelevant because they are all based on one of two unproven premises.

Actually, the discussion and points made ARE pragmatic, logical and relevant. I don't think you are using these words correctly. Because we can't figure out precisely when life should be defined as "beginning", the arguments and discussions are even MORE relevant. What you mean is that, since we can't agree on a foundational principle, the argument can't be logically concluded. That doesn't mean that relevance, pragmatics, and logic are thrown out the window. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.


(I'm going to hell for that one...)

Well, that sounds like that describes me (shrugging shoulders).

I respect your honesty. Why should anyone try to sugarcoat it? You either support murder of pre-born babies or you don't.

That's only partially true, Pruney. True, the demand for "white, healthy" babies is higher than demand. Unfortunately, that's not what we have a surplus of.

Who's fault is that? The white people? I think not. I have seen far more white people with adopted babies of color than the other way around.

Who's fault is that? The white people? I think not. I have seen far more white people with adopted babies of color than the other way around.


I never said it was anybody's fault. I just said that this is the way it is.

At the same time, I don't think that anyone here views anyone else here as uncaring and not valuing life.

I would have to say if someone is viewing a baby in the womb as a glob of cells that sounds pretty uncaring to me.


Some approach this issue strictly from a religious standpoint, some from an intellectual position.

Read dumb, religious people vs. enlightened, intellectual people. That's a rather pointed statement.

I keep reading these posts that say there are not enough people to adopt the unwanted babies. How do we know that? Where are these statistics coming from? I don't think we do know that for a fact because we haven't been given the opportunity.

And to say that people only want healthy, white babies is just a statement pulled out of the air with nothing to back it up. For instance: Some of my inlaws adopted the baby of a drug addict while full knowing what problems could arise. They already had four children of their own. They did this out of compassion not because they thought it'd be neat to have a cute little puppy to list on Craigslist later. And they love this boy who's grown into a nearly self sufficient young man. I think we're underestimating the compassion of people.

I'm with Mallen, I think we need less government in our lives and especially less of the government telling us how to live our lives. I want to be able to do what I want with my hard earned money instead of throwing it away in Social Security as well as many other things. But when it comes to human life, I think the government has a right and a duty to protect those who can't protect themselves.

I read articles saying that scientist have found life on Mars. I read further and find that the life they found is a single celled organism but it's still considered life. So if that's considered life, then how can we not consider a baby life from conception. Not only is it life but it is human life since it is the offspring of two humans.

I often hear of the decision to keep the baby or abort the baby. But the decision has already been made when the man and the women decided to have sex. The idea to abort is an after decision CYA. If you don't want children remove the factors that cause pregnancy.

I would have to say if someone is viewing a baby in the womb as a glob of cells that sounds pretty uncaring to me.



You do realize that a "baby in the womb" is, indeed, a glob of cells for a period of time?

OK, what if a woman recklessly causes herself to miscarry. What if she intentionally causes a miscarriage? Does the government put her in jail at that point? Under your scheme, it sounds like you'd say yes.

I asked this before as well... if a technician drops a test tube or a petri dish on the floor, with a fertilized egg in it, causing it to spill and be rendered useless .... did he just murder a baby?

Actually, the discussion and points made ARE pragmatic, logical and relevant. I don't think you are using these words correctly. Because we can't figure out precisely when life should be defined as "beginning", the arguments and discussions are even MORE relevant. What you mean is that, since we can't agree on a foundational principle, the argument can't be logically concluded. That doesn't mean that relevance, pragmatics, and logic are thrown out the window. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.


(I'm going to hell for that one...)


No, I am using the words exactly correctly.

Look. You are making arguments A, B, and C. The only way these arguments make any kind of sense at all is if you ASSUME that statement 1 is correct.

Some other guy is making arguments X, Y, and Z. The only way those arguments make any kind of sense at all is if you ASSUME statement 2 is correct.

Statement 1 and Statement 2 directly contradict each other and neither is supported by anything other than emotion and whim.

So until you either find a way to prove either Statement 1 or Statement 2... or come up with a Statement 3 that supersedes them, then ALL arguments based on the Statement 1 or Statement 2 being true are illogical and are not pragmatic. They are in fact a waste of time, because no matter how eloquently you argue points A, B, and C, (or X,Y, and z) I know that the premise that they are founded upon is just a wild damn guess.

Thats why no one has EVER changed their mind after these conversations. You are going to continue to believe Statement 1 for no good reason out of pure faith or emotional whim and the other side is going to continue believing Statement 2 for the same bad reasons.

I surmised correctly, I see. You're not entirely wrong. You're mostly right there, actually. But, still, a bit wrong. You don't toss logic out the window for the fun of it. It's not magically irrelevant. These are the only things we have to work with in the very concrete discussion.

If "WE" cannot "prove" conclusively when life begins, then it is incumbant upon individuals faceing the problem to make their decisions on what they believe to be true. If you believe that a fetus is a human being and you abort one, then you have to live with the guilt. If you do not believe it is human then you will just possibly live with a mild anxiety wondering what it may have been. I think a lot of religious people are just frustrated that there is no punishment where THEY see SIN. It gets under their skin and eats at them and they end up wanting to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Sin should be punished so by damn if God won't do it then let's have the gov't do it. I don't think we should be playing God.

All of the great religions have strictures for murder, theft and cruelty, etc. That is part of being civilized. Granted sometimes the rules are different if the murder was of "one of them." But basically it is what makes us civilized. All cultures have had and do have abortions and usually without consequence, as it is considered best for the family or the whole group.

There was an rh factor problem in our family. Each birth my mom gave was harder. Our doctor was Dr Curtis Berry of Norman (after whom Berry Rd was name). In the early forties your doc was nearly a member of the family. When my little brother (the 3rd child) was born, Dr Berry told mom and dad that there was nothing that could be done to save the lives of mom or the baby and he sent them home to die with those who love them. A neighbor lady had just given birth 4 days earlier and she asked to see if her nursing the baby would save its life. It did and mom suffered greatly but survived also. Dr Berry pled with them to NOT have another baby or it would surely kill mom and probably the baby that time, too. The rhythm method let them down and mom got pregnant again. Mom was a devout Southern Baptist and considered aborting a sin, but she prayed long and hard about it and finally decided that her three existing children and her very loving husband would suffer greatly if she died. She went to the clinic and Dr Berry did it then and there. Mom died 4 months ago just before turning 94. She was a huge influence on hundreds of people in her life. She was a pilar in her church and welcomed needy people into our home many times. She was a saint like person until she died.

I would like for some of you who enjoy sitting in judgement to tell me what you think should have happened to my mom or Dr Berry (who is still a legend in Norman) legally. Mom suffered emotionally and physically for her "sin" but was able to rise above it and fulfill her destiny as a wonderful mom, wife, citizen and Christian.

Jump right in.

I asked this before as well... if a technician drops a test tube or a petri dish on the
floor, with a fertilized egg in it, causing it to spill and be rendered useless... did
he just murder a baby?

No more than someone accidentally killing a pregnant woman's baby in a wreck.

If "WE" cannot "prove" conclusively when life begins, then it is incumbant upon individuals facing the problem to make their decisions on what they believe to be true. If you believe that a fetus is a human being and you abort one, then you have to live with the guilt. If you do not believe it is human then you will just possibly live with a mild anxiety wondering what it may have been. I think a lot of religious people are just frustrated that there is no punishment where THEY see SIN. It gets under their skin and eats at them and they end up wanting to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Sin should be punished so by damn if God won't do it then let's have the gov't do it. I don't think we should be playing God.


Amen

Very nice story (well, not "nice" but you get my drift, I'm sure) USG. I think it is very easy for those who have never had to experience such a life event to point fingers and judge.

There was a song I was listening to this morning, and the whole thing is about why you shouldn't judge others because you don't know what they've been through. It's not a new song, but I think the theme is one we can all learn a lesson from.

All that is very true. Unfortunately, there's not enough of those folks to handle the number of kids available.

This is simply not true.

This is simply not true.

Really? Every kid up for adoption has found a home?

You do realize that a "baby in the womb" is, indeed, a glob of cells for a period of time?

OK, what if a woman recklessly causes herself to miscarry. What if she intentionally causes a miscarriage? Does the government put her in jail at that point? Under your scheme, it sounds like you'd say yes.

We're all a glob of cells right now if you want to get technical about it.

Interesting how you call it my scheme. As if I'm scheming something and not being completely honest or forthcoming.

It's just like the guy in the paper today who is being brought up on charges of murdering a 5 month old baby due to shaken baby syndrome. Let's suppose for argument's sake that he's guilty. He didn't put a gun to its head but he was reckless and careless with the child, intentionally. It's the same outcome. It's just that the baby in the womb is given less rights because it's not breathing air but instead breathing amniotic fluid.

Another thing. Those that are against abortion on here are not judging. We just want the same justice and protection for a child in the womb that is afforded for a child out of the womb.

I think it is very easy for those who have never had to experience such a life
event to point fingers and judge.

One does not need to walk in someone's shoes to know the difference between
right or wrong.

It's a great feel good adage but it doesn't hold water

... We're all a glob of cells right now if you want to get technical about it...

I'm curious. Have these cells become anything but a human being? Have any
become tomatoes or fire hydrants?

Another thing. Those that are against abortion on here are not judging. We just
want the same justice and protection for a child in the womb that is afforded for a
child out of the womb.

As I mentioned in an earlier thread, all pre-born children should have a trial by
jury and if found guilty and deserving of the death penalty they should have every
opportunity to have an appeal.

Just like real criminals have.

Prune, just so I can understand more clearly, would you please, tell me how you think such a trial would have gone in the case of my would-have-been sibling.

Prune, just so I can understand more clearly, would you please, tell me how you
think such a trial would have gone in the case of my would-have-been sibling.


It would go to court like any other trial and the woman seeking the abortion
would hire a lawyer and try prove that the life of the child needs terminated. Of
course there'd have to be a court date set. Then the evidence would have to be
gathered. If the baby is found worthy of being sentenced to death the the baby's
lawyer would naturally file for an appeal. Another court date would be set...