Posted on 12/22/2011 4:18:37 PM PST by wagglebee
SALT LAKE CITY, December 22, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Utah’s high court has ruled that the “plain language” of the legal term “minor child” includes children in the womb.
The ruling was issued in the case of a Utah couple who was suing their doctor after their child was stillborn in 2006, saying that the doctor refused to induce labor in time.
Although the justices were divided on the case, four agreed that unborn children should be classified as minor children.
“In my view, a plain language reading reveals that the term ‘minor child,’ as used in this statute, includes an unborn child,” wrote Chief Justice Christine Durham, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. “The statute does not itself define the term ‘minor child,’ but in general usage the term ‘child’ may refer to a young person, a baby or a fetus. The term ‘minor’ then, may refer to the period from conception to the age of majority, thereby encompassing an unborn child.”
Justice Ronald Nehring disagreed, stating that “the plain meaning of ‘minor child’ does not include a fetus” and that such an interpretation “creates absurd results under our laws.”
Which means that the judge has acknowledged personhood of the unborn.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
bump
Only in the twisted minds of The Left.
In natural law, a child is a child. Get over yourself, you Black-Robed Priest.
Anyone think the Federal government will step in?
WOW!!! THAT IS STUPENDOUS NEWS IN TIME FOR CHRISTMAS!!!
Now, will this be challenged in the Supreme Court and sent back to square one? Or is this strictly a states rights matter? Anyone know?
Praise God
This has nothing to do with abortion. This was a ruling that plaintiffs in a medical malpractice case can sue their doctor for (allegedly) causing a miscarriage. So there is no federal issue.
But does this not set precedent? Declaring a fetus a minor child? Wouldn’t the next logical conclusion be that abortion is the murder of a minor child?
The decision defined the word "minor child" as used in a particular statute. It is unlikely to be cited as precedent in an abortion case, but if it is, it will run up against Roe v. Wade.
The FReepers who are getting all excited about this decision don't realize that it has nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with helping plaintiffs' trial lawyers sue doctors.
Yep.
I don’t see how once it is established in one case that a fetus is a minor child, it doesn’t set precedent for ALL fetuses. It’s the foot in the door and we should push it to the limit.
Leave it to Utah to lead the way!
Although a fetus is a minor child, said fetus/child is NOT a person. Person is a status conferred upon entities at the pleasure of big government. The right to life applies only to persons; all other human entities exist at the pleasure of big government. God creates His children, but under American Constitutional law, only big government confers upon them the status of person. It now suits big government to declare most children “persons” at birth. (Some birth situations do not confer status of person, but children in the wombs of illegal alien mothers can receive the status of person even when yet unborn.)
Yeah, "my mind's made up; don't confuse me with the facts."
.
Eventually, yes. Trials such as DUI where expectant mothers are killed, and the person is charged with manslaughter or whatever for both mother and unborn baby can do the same.
Once enough case law like this is reached, then it gives the pro life advocates more ammunition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.