Comment: Response

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I would say that if (see in situ)


1. Ever heard of negligence? If killing an unborn child is a tort, then a person is liable for that tort if they took an action which they knew would cause the tort, or if they took an action which they should have known would cause the tort. Intent is irrelevant.

2. If killing the fetus is a crime, then holding the doctor liable but not the patient is a severe injustice, on par with holding a hitman responsible but not his employer, as, according to you, the mother paid the doctor to commit a murder.

...this is your problem. You can't have it both ways. If the unborn child is a person, and killing/harming it is a tort, then you have to follow this out to its logical conclusion and accept the consequences.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."