• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Court rules parents not able to sue

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,910
Reaction score
6,026
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Source:Yahoo News

In a case being watched by abortion rights advocates and foes, the Texas Supreme Court on Friday declined to allow a River Oaks family to sue Fort Worth Osteopathic Hospital for the death of their unborn son.

In a decision showing some of the justices' frustration, the court voted 7-1 to stand by legal precedent that allows only infants who are born -- if just for one breath -- the right to be considered as individuals who can sue or have a suit carried out on their behalf.
Trying to find more info about this case....
 

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
Do we have any Aggies out there?

If an unborn colt is killed due to malpractice by the vet, are reperations paid?
 

Tasmin

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
58
Reaction score
1
Location
Odessa, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yet another case of de-valuing human life. How much would the vet have to shell out for the colt? Yet a growing, developing human life is worthless because it hasn't taken a single breath? Pathetic. The Texas Supreme Court apparently has no cajones. This debate would not even be taking place if the couple had intended to have the pregnancy aborted.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,910
Reaction score
6,026
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I think I know where Liberal FINGER was heading.
If folks can sue a vet over a damned animal - why can they not sue over human life?
 

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
Yet another case of de-valuing human life. How much would the vet have to shell out for the colt? Yet a growing, developing human life is worthless because it hasn't taken a single breath? Pathetic. The Texas Supreme Court apparently has no cajones.
Nice.

I think Tasmin understood EXACTLY what I was trying to say.

Now, I don't know about reparations for unborn horses, but I will say that I have seen examples where cattle have been destroyed and the rancher was compensated for lost potential generations of livestock.

One could argue that the livestock is a lost commodity while the other has no real economic value.

While it may be true that human offspring are more of a fiscal liability than they are a tradeable commodity, I would argue that their value is apparently abundant when it comes to matters such as continuance of family line, an issue taken seriously by the Federal Government. (see military draft regs)
 
Top Bottom