In no instance on earth is a person required to provide his/her body to save the life of "an innocent human being", or even required to provide a non-essential part of his/her body. No one is ever required to provide blood, an extra kidney, bone marrow, so why should a woman be required to provide her uterus?

__________________
" All of women's aspirations, whether for education, work or any form of self-determination, ultimately rest on their ability to decide whether and when to bear children." Susan Faludi author of "Backlush"

Because her actions brought that human being into being. The child itself is a direct result of her actions. That is why! Never in any other situation is that the case!

__________________
If trees could scream would we be so cavalier about cutting them down?.........

We would if they screamed all the time and for no good reason! - Jack Handy

In any other situation, when a person's actions cause a reaction, the person has every right, even an obligation, to set the situation right, to undo the reaction. A person "owns" the result of his/her actions. To force a woman to a certain course of action that is opposed to her own well-being can only be considered a punishment for wrongful actions.

__________________
" All of women's aspirations, whether for education, work or any form of self-determination, ultimately rest on their ability to decide whether and when to bear children." Susan Faludi author of "Backlush"

That is irrelevant. If I hit you with my car by accident and one of your organs fails, I am not obliged in any way to provide you with the function of any of my organs even if you die as a result of the accident. I am not even required to give you a pint of blood.

__________________

************************************************** *************************
The harder I work, the luckier I get.

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...

__________________
Farewell my beautiful Gracie Baby:
15th Jan 1997- 18 Jul 2009

Mak's Blog - Updated 12/3/10

But this does not force her to do something that is against her well being.

__________________
If trees could scream would we be so cavalier about cutting them down?.........

We would if they screamed all the time and for no good reason! - Jack Handy

That is a ridiculous argument and my comments were relevant!!!! When you run your car into someone you are not creating that person's very being. When you become pregnant with someone you have created that person.

__________________
If trees could scream would we be so cavalier about cutting them down?.........

We would if they screamed all the time and for no good reason! - Jack Handy

SO what. Do you have a point to make?

__________________
If trees could scream would we be so cavalier about cutting them down?.........

We would if they screamed all the time and for no good reason! - Jack Handy

re read the OP - its pretty obvious.

there is an inconsistency in the law WRT the fact the child's death was counted in the road toll, but the driver was not charged with "dangerous driving causing death."


The woman was 34 weeks pregnant and the baby was viable outside the womb.

This thread is about the inconsistency in the law.

Not the point. You are still responsible for any injuries that person has suffered. It matters not whether you created them, what matters is that you are responsible for their injury, or death.

Yes, I do. Stay the hell on topic or stay out of the thread.

Read the OP. This is about an inconsistancy in the law, as Cassie says. This is not about whether abortion should be legal or not. If you want to debate that, find another thread.

__________________
Farewell my beautiful Gracie Baby:
15th Jan 1997- 18 Jul 2009

Mak's Blog - Updated 12/3/10