|
Grex > Agora46 > #172: Mississippi Supreme Court Expands Wrongful Death Law to Cover Unborn Fetuses | |
|
| Author |
Message |
sabre
|
|
Mississippi Supreme Court Expands Wrongful Death Law to Cover Unborn Fetuses
| 
Aug 22 13:57 UTC 2003 |
The Mississippi Supreme Court, in a decision criticized by one of its members
as an assault on Roe v. Wade (search), held Thursday that a fetus is a
"person" under state law and wrongful death claims can be filed on its behalf.
The justices upheld Tracy Tucker's right to pursue a wrongful death claim
(search) after she alleged emotional distress and a mistake by her doctors
caused her to have a miscarriage (search) in 1997. The fetus was 19 weeks old
at the time, according to doctors.
Attorneys for the defendants couldn't be reached or declined comment.
Presiding Justice Chuck McRae, in a written dissent, described the decision
as an assault on Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion in
America.
The 6-2 ruling expands the definition of a "person" in wrongful death statutes
to include an "unborn child."
Current law allows people to sue for the wrongful death of a newly born, or
prematurely born, fetus that would have been expected to live.
Presiding Justice Jim Smith, writing for the court, said Thursday's ruling
in the lawsuit brought by Tucker had nothing to do with abortion. He said
doctors performing abortions are still protected by Mississippi law.
"Tucker's interest is to protect and preserve the life of her unborn child,
not in the exercise of her right to terminate that life which has been
declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court," Smith wrote.
Pat Cartrette, executive director of Right to Life of Jackson, said while the
decision may not directly affect Roe vs. Wade, it gives a fetus some legal
protection when it develops reflexes, at some cases as early as 8 weeks.
Sondra Goldschein, state strategies attorney for the American Civil Liberties
Union said she was troubled by the court's definition of a fetus as a
"person."
"Anytime the fetus is recognizable as a person it chips away at the foundation
of Roe," she said.
It appears that these rednecks have more brains than most grexers.
|
| 116 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 1 of 116:
|
Aug 22 16:03 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 2 of 116:
|
Aug 22 16:51 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, right.
I don't see how this is that much different from criminal law where a perp
can be charged with murder of an unborn child (e.g. shooting pregnant woman
in abdomen).
|
tod
|
|
response 3 of 116:
|
Aug 22 17:08 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 4 of 116:
|
Aug 22 19:49 UTC 2003 |
That must have been reproduced without permission from "Analogies from Hell".
|
tod
|
|
response 5 of 116:
|
Aug 22 19:57 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 6 of 116:
|
Aug 22 20:18 UTC 2003 |
If a fetus is "an unfinished human being," what do you call those who
are born well before the end of the normal gestation period?
Cannot "all sorts of things go wrong" AFTER birth? Is it, therefore,
permissible to kill an sickly newborn after he has emerged from the
birth canal?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 7 of 116:
|
Aug 22 20:25 UTC 2003 |
It seems to me that the woman had grounds to sue for malpractice. She just
had bad legal advice to make it an issue of the fetus' rights.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 8 of 116:
|
Aug 22 22:23 UTC 2003 |
Re #2: I don't agree with either. If a perp shoots a pregnant woman in the
abdomen, it's attempted murder on the woman. That ought to be enough.
|
tod
|
|
response 9 of 116:
|
Aug 22 22:28 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 10 of 116:
|
Aug 22 22:31 UTC 2003 |
What an image.
|
tod
|
|
response 11 of 116:
|
Aug 22 22:32 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 12 of 116:
|
Aug 23 01:16 UTC 2003 |
*yawn* could you see the strings on the bush puppet being
tugged by cheney?
|
sabre
|
|
response 13 of 116:
|
Aug 23 11:18 UTC 2003 |
A child is an "unfinished" human being also klg.
Well tod maybe those rednecks don't know thier bible....I do.A "fetus"
is alive.
Show me a scripture where it is stated that life begins when the
first breath is taken. The only verse that even deals with this issue
is.
Ex 21:22
22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit
depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely
punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he
shall pay as the judges determine".
KJV
This verse in no way justifies calling a "fetus" a piece of tissue.
Can you point to another one?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 14 of 116:
|
Aug 23 12:47 UTC 2003 |
Genesis 2:7 says, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul"
(KJV).
|
tod
|
|
response 15 of 116:
|
Aug 23 13:26 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
sabre
|
|
response 16 of 116:
|
Aug 23 17:11 UTC 2003 |
What do any of your refrences have to do with the price of tea in China?
Your analogies are weak and your refrences are inaccurate. Post me a
verse SALIENT with the issue. I have read the entire bible many times.
I have found one verse that deals with an unborn baby. I have posted
it. You have said in prior posts that a baby doesn't have life until it
was BORN. gelinas posted gen 2:7 and you agreed that is pretty much
what you were talking about. That verse fortifies my position and not
yours. Adam was never BORN. This makes him a non-person by your
definition. He was created. The verse merely descibes the finishing
touch. Adam was never in the womb.You cannot compare his creation to an
unborn baby.As for the tree of life...well Adam never tasted it. He and
Eve chose the tree of knowledge and were cast out of the garden BEFORE
they had a chance to taste the tree of life.
|