Mississippi Supreme Court: Fetus a person

[SlowwHand]

Abortion, except in a case of rape or incest, or a threat to the health of the mother, is murder.
I wouldn't burn down clinics or shoot doctors, but the fact remains.

[Al B. Sure!]

Sloww:

how about adding severe birth defects for the child onto that list...?

[TCO]

What if you just don't like the way it looks?

[Sprayber]

warning*** personal opinion follows


Usually I stay out of this topic. I guess I just don't feel like getting into an argument with people, But when my fiance died she was pregnant with our child. It is my belief that I lost two people that day. I know many here would disagree or try to explain it in scientific terms why that belief was wrong. Before it happened I didnt really know where I stood on the subject of when life begins. I guess I could be accused of thinking of it in emotional terms and not technical terms. I just know how it has shaped my views on the topic...

[The Templar]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Abortion, except in a case of rape or incest, or a threat to the health of the mother, is murder.
I wouldn't burn down clinics or shoot doctors, but the fact remains.

This is what always confuses me about pro-lifers/anti-choicers - why is there an exception for rape and incest. If a fetus is a person, and therefore abortion is murder - why does the origin of a fetus matter? After all, if a three year-old is the product of rape we would condemn a mother who killed the three year-old.

Is a fetus a person? If you answer yes, I don't see how you may then consistently condone the abortion of a fetus that is the product of rape. After all, the fetus is not at fault for the rape, right? He/she/it had no hand in the rape. Why the inconsistency? Do you need a few minutes to get your story straight?

That sound you hear is the cognitive dissonace in your head.

[Al B. Sure!]

GP:

i dont think any of us looked at all the same as we do now like we did at 2 years old... people's look changes very dramatically.

[notyoueither]

Why not shoot them after birth, in the case of severe handicap?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The Templar


This is what always confuses me about pro-lifers/anti-choicers - why is there an exception for rape and incest. If a fetus is a person, and therefore abortion is murder - why does the origin of a fetus matter? After all, if a three year-old is the product of rape we would condemn a mother who killed the three year-old.

Is a fetus a person? If you answer yes, I don't see how you may then consistently condone the abortion of a fetus that is the product of rape. After all, the fetus is not at fault for the rape, right? He/she/it had no hand in the rape. Why the inconsistency? Do you need a few minutes to get your story straight?

That sound you hear is the cognitive dissonace in your head.

pragmatism. I have no doubt that many xtians would not want a child aborted irregardless. but since they are at present losing the battle for choice extending all the way out to rape isn't likely.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by monkspider
Just wait till this gets to a real court.

Actually, it's only a very limited extension of law, in that (a) it only (as an issue of fact) addresses a 19 week or later fetus; (b) the tort action for "wrongful life" is well established, so if the result was severe disability, and not miscarriage, there would be a cause of action; and (c) Roe v. Wade does establish as a matter of law that the state has and may assert an independent interest in the fetus prior to birth.

[Al B. Sure!]

Templar:

polls seem to show that the majority of americans do not want roe vs wade to be struck down but are against abortion on demand... the majority of americans are also in favour of tax dollars going towards funding abortion clinics to give free abortions to poor women... nevertheless, abortion on demand is very much disliked by americans...

the whole abortion issue is thus very inconsistant... its not just extreme pro-lifers... the majority of americans are very inconsistant in this issue... its the result of the tug of war between compassion for the woman who doesn't want or can't afford a child right now and compassion for the unborn life...

[SlowwHand]

I accidently left that one off the list, Albert.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Actually, it's only a very limited extension of law, in that (a) it only (as an issue of fact) addresses a 19 week or later fetus; (b) the tort action for "wrongful life" is well established, so if the result was severe disability, and not miscarriage, there would be a cause of action; and (c) Roe v. Wade does establish as a matter of law that the state has and may assert an independent interest in the fetus prior to birth.

Thanks. I didn't know if McRae was talking crap or not.

[TCO]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why not shoot them after birth, in the case of severe handicap?

Just have the doctor kill it.

[Al B. Sure!]

kill it...

for shame...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Thanks. I didn't know if McRae was talking crap or not.

He may or may not be. Wrongful death of a fetus is certainly an odd cause of action to pursue, since wrongful death as a matter of law is an economic issue, not one for punitive or consequential damages. Normally, it's a nice tort when you've got some guy about 40-50 with a useful economic life ahead of him, and a provable income history behind him, so you get relatively less BS when it comes down to proving an expected future lifetime earning.

With an fetus or infant, you get into a big issue of whether junior would have grown up to be the future CEO of Intel, or if he would have spent his days bagging groceries at the local Piggly-Wiggly. Things like whether you use nationwide average earnings stats, or Mississippi only, are another argument and another avenue of appeal if you think the jury came back with the wrong number.

Whether the plaintiff has an agenda with seeking a ruling on fetal status, or whether the plaintiff's lawyer figured there was more of a potential award on that theory than on a normal negligent/intentional infliction of emotional distress pair of torts depends on Mississippi's jury instructions on infliction of emotional distress, and whether Mississippi has any caps on non-economic damages. Without that info, or some clear statement of intent, it's hard to know what the plaintiff and her lawyer was up to.