KSig RC, I had made a response by response list to your post, but am scrapping it only because this is a topic to which there will always be division, and I do not want to be the cause of further animosity.

However, since you did impune my honesty on a few points, I'm going to answer those, as shortly as possible.

Prior to writing my originial post, I did a web search to see what was the earliest point of viability. The majority of the responses said 20-weeks, which is why I went with that. Since you seem to doubt it, try it yourself. I can PM you the last address for the family I know in Atlanta; we have fallen out for other reasons, so the address is 2 years old, but you are welcome to it.

We obviously disagree to the meaning of the word "moral"; it's not worth arguing. I do thank you for calling me "lovely", though.

Yes, I do know know at least one woman who was "almost aborted". She is my foster aunt. At the age of 50, she still suffers from the side effects from the numerous times & ways her mother tried to abort her - up until the sixth month. She does NOT want her name given out; it isn't easy to daily remember how much your own mother must have hated you. There is also a gospel singer whose name I could not find, but whose entire testimony is based on the fact that she was aborted, but a nurse noticed her struggling for breath in the trash can, and saved her life.

The rest of your argument is again based on our disagreement with the word "moral", so I'll bow out here.

I just saw this:

One nurse described an aborted baby who was left to die on a counter in a hospital utility room. The baby was accidentally thrown in the garbage and later found by hospital personnel. Another nurse described a 23-week infant born alive after an abortion and placed in a specimen dish to be taken to the lab, even though the baby was gasping for air. The nurse named the child Baby Hope and held her for three hours until she died.

From http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL10/..._survive_a.htm

Honestly, I don't know that I'd ever heard of it before, nor had I thought about it, but it's interesting.

I can see where people are coming from with their opposition to abortion; but really, is this enough to make a law that takes away the choice? Again, as I said in my first post, I think that what this case meant goes beyond abortion rights, and reversing that decision would be dangerously close (if not equal to) legislating morality.

As much as some of us would want to, this is not an argument we could make based on knowing someone or some people who had abortions.

Whether it's interesting or not, it's not a reason to make laws prohibiting abortion.