Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
Believe me you are helping. And we appreciate it.
Yes I do remember that case.
Please keep giving any ideas that you have.
My idea here is that if the woman had been holding the child in her arms
when the father attacked her and the child had been harmed, then he
would have been held liable.
The whole thing comes down to, IMO, that the civil law says that this
fetus was a child before birth, so therefore has all the considerations
of a child that the woman could have been holding in her arms.
We aren't getting into the abortion issue here, but you made a very good
point.
Sue
>
> >Ironically, the law does not specify the rights of a fetus who is NOT
> >"subsequently born" but dies as a result of the criminal action. Given
> >the legality of abortion, it seems a defense attorney could argue that
> >the fetus had no rights at the time of its death.
>
> Maybe someone can recall a case where a pregnant woman was shot in the
> stomach and the shooter was charged with murder for the death of the fetus
> despite the argument the fetus is not a full human being.
>
> The law can make sense if people use their heads. Abortion is legally
> reasonable because of the rights of the woman. That should in no way provide
> a shield to a killer. Theological arguments about life are beside the point.
>
> I wish I could help the case presented. The law can be read any way a
> lawyer cares to read it as in the above case.
> Best, Terry
>
> "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
