Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
You have it exactly the way that I see it.
And the thing I can't understand is how can they say in the civil law
that the fetus is a child, and then the Supreme Court say it isn't.
Can't have it both ways, IMO. Either it is, or it isn't.
Sue
>
> Seems rather clear to me, Linda. The most extreme case is when a fetus is
> killed which is not covered by 43.1. That has been found to be murder
> when it is done without the mother's consent. But if a fetus is to be
> "deemed an existing person, so far as necessary for the child's interests in
> the event of the child's subsequent birth" the child's interests are
> certainly harmed by an attack on the mother. The interests of the mother
> and fetus are nearly identical in this case.
--
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
