3 ms·
The difference is that you are suing for direct harm caused. The abortion law was all about anyone suing without any direct harm caused. Very different.
by Justsignedup 5y ago
The difference is that you are suing for direct harm caused. The abortion law was all about anyone suing without any direct harm caused.
Very different.
- juniordevv 5y agoPlease read the guidelines and don’t post such obvious flame bait. > Eschew flamebait.
- juniordevv 5y ago
- nix23 5y ago>The abortion law was all about anyone suing without any direct harm caused. Are you sure about that? Because not even Doctors are sure about it, but most accept it as a ~acceptable Trade-off. In the end you kill a future-human, being not against abortion, i would also not take it lightly, and the potentially harmed individual cannot speak for itself.
- xdennis 5y ago> The abortion law was all about anyone suing without any direct harm caused. Some would say that the fetus losing its life is a bit harmful.
- nonameiguess 5y agoI'm going to clarify since other replies so far seem to be missing this, but the claim is not that no harmable being is harmed by an abortion. The creature being aborted certainly gets harmed, though case law up until now has said its right to not be harmed does not supersede the right of its host to not host it. The novel thing about this law is that, normally, the person bringing a suit has to have been harmed by the person they're suing. If someone burns down your house, you can sue them. I can't, even though a person was harmed by the act. The abortion law allows anyone at all to sue on behalf of an aborted fetus, even though the person bringing the suit was not harmed.