![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() not according to this law or the law of the land. I think its quite easy to see, even if the wording might be a small bit confusing. They are clearly protecting a pregnant woman or her relative from prosecution if they kill someone who is attacking her womb illegally.
__________________
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
It doesn't limit in any way who that person could be. The point is indeed that the intended consequences of a law are not presumed to be the only possible consequences, dependent upon the wording. In other words, you write a law to do one thing, but there is very frequently unintended (or indeed intended) consequences that are permitted by the wording. Again - why is this change being added to the current law? Hum?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
and i believe it is added to the current law to protect a woman from prosecution if someone beats or harms her womb in an illegal manner. currently the law does not protect someone who kills because they fear for the life of their unborn child. if abortion was Illegal, than I can see people thinking "okay we can justify killing an abortion doctor". than again, if abortion was illegal, in theory, there would not be abortion doctors.
__________________
|