Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TotalMILF
OK, this thread isn't what I wanted it to be, so let me try to get it back on track.
The new question is this: Should unborn babies (who are intended to be carried to term by the mother) have rights?
For example, should the man in the article be charged for assault against the fetus, if the mother had every intention of carrying said fetus to term?
Consider this hypothetical situation: A wealthy man dies leaves everything he owns to his issue (closest blood relative). He has a brother, and a pregnant wife. The the child is set to gain the entire inheritance. The brother does not want this so he kicks the mother in the stomach, causing her to miscarry. He serves a menial sentence for assault, but still inherits EVERYTHING from his dead brother. Do you think the brother should've been charged with something more than assault with a deadly weapon? Should he still get the inheritance? If not, then would that mean that the fetus had the RIGHT to inherit his/her father's estate? If so, then could that also mean that fetuses DO, in fact, have some rights?
Y'all know my opinion. Now I want to hear yours.
|
The reason he's not being charged with assault on the fetus is the same reason he's not being charged with attempted murder: At the current stage of gestation, under that state's law, *it* is not "alive". *It* doesn't exist as a life in the eye of the law.
So really, it's akin to wondering if a chair could retain property rights.
And for your example, no, I don't believe it would be at all appropriate to establish property rights on people that don't exist yet. Say what you want and believe what you want about "when life begins", it is not a PERSON until birth. Prior to birth, you may as well leave your belongings to a sofa cushion.