e person explain how if that mother walked into an abortion clinic five hours earlier, it would have been perfectly legitimate and legal to destroy that young child? Those in favor of the "women's right to choose" would say that fetus could have been destroyed five hours prior because "it is not human until the moment of birth". To some extent, that may be a fair argument because one can never really know when the moment of ensoulment occurs, but allow me to counter that claim. Many of those fine people claiming life begins at birth show their true hypocritical sides in another area completely unrelated to abortion.
             In cases regarding the murder of pregnant women, almost all result in guilty verdicts on the charge of double murder. The charge is double murder, and they go on record as being double homicides. I ask, if the fetus is not a child until birth, where is the second murder in the case? Granted pregnant women gain substantial weight during pregnancy, but surely the fact that they are a little "husky" during such time does not mean the courts count them as two people does it? Naturally, it does not; the judicial system in the nation considers that living being within the mother's womb to be human life and therefore its destruction is murder! Yet, those same judicial leaders claim that it is legitimate to medically destroy that life on a surgical table. Where is the consistency in that? That is correct, there is none. Does that mean that the murderer is guilty of only one murder, or does that mean that the innocent child within the mother is a living human being? For the pro-life cause, the answer is obviously the latter option. The child is a living, human being.
             Thousands and millions of abortions are performed each year in the United States. 75% of all abortions are performed on women over 20 years of age. With this fact in mind, why is it that many pro-choice advocates se...