reply to post by stumason
No. Most of your examples are not deliberate exposure to a known poison.
I never said they were, although 6 out of 10 of them do actually feature ingesting a known "poison", it is simply a logical extension of making
mothers legally liable for the foetus - if anything should happen while it was in the womb and could be proven to have been the result of something
the mother did, be it deliberate or not, she could end up in court.
If a mother can be hauled in on charges for having a drink and harming the baby (and there is no law saying she cannot), by default anything else she
does that may harm the baby she is also liable for.
This is the way this sort of thing always goes - take driving for example. Back in the day, one could be obeying the speed limit and other rules, hit
someone and it would be chalked down to an accident.
These days, you can obey the speed limit and if the Plod can find anything
to indicate you may
be liable, they'll try to pin a careless
or dangerous driving charge on you. There is a guy undergoing a trial right now for running down a cyclist, but it was at a time of day when the sun
was low and the road was wet, meaning there was extreme glare, confirmed by witnesses, leading to him clipping the cyclist with his wing mirror. He
even stopped, but Plod are still pinning charges on him.
Feature creep, that's what that is. An over application of the Law. We've already been down the road in the UK for jailing mothers for the deaths of
their babies, usually based on "expert" evidence which later turned out to be utter bollocks. I and many others certainly don't wish to go down that
Stop trying to muddy the waters. It wont work and it sound like apologist BS.
I wasn't and there is no need to be so bloody rude about it, you miserable git. I was just playing devils advocate for the sake of debate and
performing a mental exercise.
edit on 3/2/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/2/14 by stumason because: (no