I'm glad that everyone finds it interesting!
Sets a very dangerous precedent. There's a vast, vast amount of dangers and risks when it comes to pregnancy and if this type of legal recourse becomes acceptable, it would further diminish a females reproductive rights.
I'm not sure I understand how this would impact their reproductive rights?
Wow, interesting case! Gosh, I mean, if you're born disabled because of the (avoidable) actions of your mom, that's gotta be tough. I definitely understand the want to be compensated for a lifetime of hardship that is essentially because of the actions of someone else. Would probably be one of the hardest things to police though.
I feel like a child should be able to sue if the direct actions of the mother or father during pregnancy had a significant adverse effect on the child's life, but I think it would have be very clear cut. Like, ongoing negative impacts, such as drinking or drug use that continues over a period of time. I don't think you could ever have enough evidence for something as spontaneous as a car crash.
I'm glad you found it interesting!!
So she was guilty of causing the car crash. That was already established. I'm not sure if that changes your opinion but I thought I would throw that out there?
I think this is an interesting case, and is an example of how the stance "fetus's aren't people" can be gray.
I think for me it's more like 'fetus's aren't people but if you intend for them to be one day, then don't harm them'?
Indeed an interesting case. You said that she was recklessly driving, with that I think that the woman is 100% liable. It is kind of similar to a driver under the influence injuring its passengers in an accident. If it was not her fault, I don't think she should be held liable.
It was her fault, that's the point of the case. The court expresses that no other relationship on this earth can boast having the same immunity that a pregnant woman does with her unborn child. Every single person has a duty and standard of care to meet with every single other person and can be find liable for injuring other people. But not a pregnant woman with her unborn child. It's interesting.
If you decide to keep the kid then I believe you should be held accountable for any possible problem a child might have from your drinking. Now, you might say "I'M AN ADULT, MUH RIGHTS!!!" Well, you have the right to own and shoot a firearm, but you can't use your weapon against another person. "BUT FETUSES AREN'T PEOPLE!!!!" While I agree with that, they have decided to keep the parasite and they are actively doing something that damages the fetus.
I basically agree. Except I probably would have worded it a bit more gently.
The only issue that I would have is the floodgate effect. Which I basically think is the reason why the courts threw this case out (/tinfoil hat). Because there are a lot of shitty parents out there and a lot of kids would be entitled to seek compensation if allowed.
This is a tough subject, thanks for bringing it up @cara!
Well, as much as I would like to say that parents should be held liable for avoidable consequences (FAS and drugs use), 95% of the time, it is not entirely clear if drugs (for instance) were the actual cause of your child's birth defects. Yes, they can cause a billion problems on the baby, but the majority of those problems can happen for no apparent reason as well (albeit much more rarely). It is really a sticky situation and I am not sure yet about my stance on the topic. Also, a lady came and talked to my med school class my first year about FAS (her son has it) and it really changed my outlook on the moms--it isn't always just a negligent mother who knows she is pregnant but doesnt give a shit. There are extenuating circumstances (like how her abusive partner made her drink tons of hard liquor every day, and even though she stopped when she found out she was pregnant, the damage was done).
So... it is tough. idk.
I'm glad you like the case.
So ... you're right. You can't 100% know whether or not the drugs used by the mother (in your instance) were the actual case of the child's birth defects. But in civil law, you don't need to. You just need to prove on a balance of probabilities, it was probably caused by that. Literally if it is 50.1% likely that the defects were a result of the mother's actions then the court would find against her.
Also, I don't .. really know what to say to that. I don't feel as though there is any acceptable justification for hurting an unborn child in that way. IMO, that lady is careless and if the courts allowed it, her son should go after her for damages (money) in unintentional tort. The law has long since decided that saying 'oops, I didn't know' is NOT a defense to causing harm.