Continued . . .
(1) We are satisfied that the unborn child is entitled to the law's protection and that an appropriate order should be made to unsure such transfusions to the mother in the event that they are necessary in the opinion of the physician in charge at the time. Raleight Fitkin-Paul Memorial Hospital v. Anderson (1964)
(2) How can the law distinguish the day to day development of life? If there is human life, provided by subsequent birth, then that human life has the same rights at conception as it has at any time thereafter. There cannot be absolutes in the minute to minute progress of life from the sperm and ovum to cell, to embryo, to foetus, to child. Zepada v. Zepada, 41 Ill. App. 2d 240, 249-250, 190 N. E. 2d, 849 853 (1963) Court ruling.
(3) . . . the unborn child in the path of an automobile is as much a person in the street as the mother.
(Does such a child become less a person when, instead of an automobile a physicians' forceps, curettage or suction machine is directed to his destruction?) Prosser on Torts, 3d Edition, 1964, Sec. 56
[to be continued . . .]