Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill:
OK I see where you are coming from. I still have a problem though.
According to the Supreme Court a fetus is not considered a child, but
according to the Civil statute a fetus is considered a child.
They can't have it both ways, IMO. Either it is or it isn't.
Sue
> Hi Sue,
>
> You're exactly right with respect to the rights of the woman and she
> should be able to sue the person who killed her fetus for a large
> judgment. But this does not relate to the rights of the fetus. It seems
> that the law says the fetus has not rights as a person until he/she is
> born. But once the fetus is born, those rights apply to any damages that
> was done to him/her at any time after conception. If the fetus dies
> before birth, then no rights would be in effect. But the rights of the
> mother are clearly defined by law.
>
> Again the issue of abortion seems to invite comparison here. IF a fetus
> had the same rights as a person that we all have, then included in this
> is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But if a
> fetus is given those rights under the law, then how can the law allow
> abortion?
>
> Bill
--
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
