Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JSDude1
I think the legal motive would look for malicious intent, not “risk” or knowing risk unless that activity pretty close to 100% of the time causes harm such as illicit drug use or alcholism.

What about legitimiate drugs that harm the fetus but help the mother? What if the mother has cancer and needs chemotherapy or she'll die. Chemo kills a fetus. But wait, under this law, the fetus is a person so killing the fetus would be murder. Under the law, you can't take one person's life to save another, so sorry, mom, you'll have to die of cancer (and probably your fetus with you).

It's a ridiculious example, but that's because this is a ridicuious proposal. Colorado would have to spend decades amending its statutes and changing case law to conform to this new definition and they'd still never get it right. Better just fight the fight head on and get Roe repealed. Like I said above, tricks like this just don't work.

28 posted on 11/14/2007 2:54:57 PM PST by mngran2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: mngran2

I think (as I have stated in my previous post): The intent is what matters; if the mother (and doctor’s intent) isnt to kill the baby, but to save the life of the mother (and there is no way around it; it’s a hard choice, but..) it isn’t the same as a mother intentionally abortiong her healthy baby and having him murdered by a shameful abortion doctor!~..see my point?


29 posted on 11/14/2007 6:19:45 PM PST by JSDude1 (When a liberal represents the Presidential Nominee for the Republicans; THEY'RE TOAST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson