Abortion On Trial

This week I was reading about the Pennsylvania battle over whether John Stachokus could legally override his ex-girlfriend Tanya Meyers' decision to have an abortion that has launched a thousand overheated conversations, the most striking element of which is this: People, even sensitive, feminist, pro-choice people, empathize with the father. Perhaps they don't empathize with this father specifically—John Stachokus is allegedly a pretty controlling, and maybe even abusive, man. But this case reminds us of the truth at the heart of reproductive rights law in this country: Women have all the power, and men have none at all. That makes most fair-minded people very uneasy, but there's not much we can do about it.
On the other hand, I am the Prosecuting Attorney for Clark County and I may be able to help weaken Ms. Meyers' case through precedent. I thought about it all day at work and than it hit me, why not charge my sister with the murder of my unborn niece. The idea of charging my sister with premeditated Murder in the first degree may seem harsh but think about it, all of the necessary elements are there. The woman would have to drive or find her way to the abortion clinic, all of the time thinking about her decision to sign the order of intend of Assassinate her unborn child. So the defense can't claim that the woman killed her child in a range of insanity. The woman can't claim that she was not there or had never been there do to her having to sign in at the front desk. Also she has to fill out all kinds of paper work for insurance purposes. This along with the fact that she has to pay to have the child killed, shows conspiracy to commit murder. So if I can get my boss to go along with this, I can prove at lease two counts of murder and conspiracy to commit, for remember that the doctor would also have to be charged with the crime, as well as any one who can be linked to the crime. Keeping in mind that there is no statutes of limitations on murder in a America, the restitution income for the countless numbers of women who have committed this crime to cover up other sins, may pay off the national deficit.
After talking to my boss, he felt that this would be political suicide for both me and him, but he gave me the go ahead. So I served a subpoena for the transcripts of My sister's custody battle for her son, and used the in formation to acquire the records of her abortion. At which point I interviewed each name on the records and a few people to be used as expert witnesses. Now it was time to file with the courts.
Finally the day came for my opening argument and I have never been more nervous. But after fighting back the butterflies I said: Laddies and gentlemen of the Jury, in 1973 only 9 year after the Equal Rights Amendments was passed into law, the Supreme Court ruled favorably to infanticide or more popularly called abortion. This landmark case would become the downward spiral of American morality. The unfortunate truth is the Interpretations of our law is always subject to outside cultural and political influences. Therefore, no matter what oath may have been taken, human nature still may pressure the individual to brake his or her oath to up hold the Constitution. You see the Federal Supreme Court's involvement in the landmark case known as Row verses Wade, is in fact in valuation of the First Amendment's separation of Church and State, do to the extreme religious implications of the case.
Furthermore, the Interpretation of what defines a person is truly what the abortion debate is really about. The “Independent Women,” trapped in WELFARE, wants to say that they have a right to do what they will with their own bodies. But even our Founding Fathers admitted that, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (The Declaration of Independence). The only true way to look at this issue, is to examine how you can own anything that you did not create. Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict, once told the press, “You came here to hear what the church has to say on the abortion issue, I well tell there is no issue, for the woman's body is not her own, it is on loan to her by God.”
One irony that emerges when studding the pro-choices movement is that the people who believe in the woman's right to choose use the same irrational argument to justify the termination of life as the Slave Traders did against the African American's, as Andrew Jackson did against the Native American's, as well as Hitler against the Jews. The justification that the mother and sometimes even the father uses is that, “the thing growing inside me is not alive (or are not yet human).” Sorry Laddies and I use that term loosely, science has never agreed with you or the Supreme Court. But on a more personal note, any one who can kill a child is not yet human: so does that make you fair game?
You see both scientist and philosopher a like, agree on the basic defining properties of life. Does the entity have the potential for growth? Does the entity consume nutrition to sustain its self? Because even the hoist (mother) must admit that the unborn American is growing and consuming food from with in her body, the Supreme Court should have said, “the termination of said life is murder.” Although the life inside the mother at this point is nothing more than a parasite, not even the fools on the Supreme Court can oppose that even a tape worm has life and this tapeworm has the potential of becoming human, unlike a lot of Democrats. So why would the Supreme Court rule otherwise? Could it be once again to pacify some of the loudest special interest groups in America? That is one more strike against Democracy.
But over the course of this trial, I will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused Tamarran Antolic-Bender, had meticulously planed and even conspired with her Husband and their Physician to assassinate her unborn child.

The first time I have seen my sister in years, was in this courtroom today and for the good of mankind she will become an example. As is tradition in American courts the prosecution had the option of the first wittiness, so I called Ardith Antolic to the stand. “Miss Antolic, how old was your daughter when she stopped sleeping in your bed.” Admittedly the defense objected to the the question as a posturing quester to make his client think he is doing his job. “Your honor I will prove relevance, he has not even let me get my first question in.” The judge instructed my mother to answer the question and she admitted that my sister was sleeping in her bed until the age of 22. “Your wittiness. But I reserve the right to recall.”

Hello Anthony,
Welcome to Christian Creative Writers. I am so glad you joined us.

I think you have a pretty interesting, attention getting rough draft here. You've got a pretty great imagination. I admit, I was stopped in my tracks when the protagonist was a prosecuting attorney, and he planned to put his sister on trial for murder! Due to time constraints, I will give you only a few suggestions for now, and I will add to it later.

First, you might think about adding some dialog to your story. Dialog helps the reader connect to the story better. You might want to start by having the protagonist talk with his boss in the third paragraph. Also, you may want to start adding some descriptive words in here. Describe what the people look like, their surroundings, how they feel, etc. For example, in the first paragraph, you might want to describe where the protagonist was when he read about the Pennsylvania court case. That's all for now, but I will post more later if you wish to continue?
God Bless.