I have a can of worms sitting on my desk that I thought I would open. In today's Denver Post there is a story by Paul Nowell from the Associated Press. The story concerns a former CU football player and former NFL player, Rae Carruth, who, in Charlotte, N.C., is accused of shooting his pregnant girlfriend 4 times. The girlfriend died one month later, but they delivered her unborn child by c-section and the baby now lives with the girlfriend's mother. Here's the kicker. Mr. Carruth is charged with, get this, conspiracy to commit murder, firing into an occupied vehicle and using an instrument to destroy an unborn child. The last charge is the one that gets me. Every day, all across this country there are hundreds of cases where someone is guilty of "using an instrument to destroy an unborn child". Why aren't these people charged of this crime? Is it because the mother of the "unborn child" was a willing participant to them being "destroyed"? Do they define "destroy" differently in these cases? Is it because it is not an "unborn child" but rather a "thing" deserving being destroyed in the cases? _______ To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://rangernet.org/subscribe.htm http://rangernet.org Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
