Now If She Had Had An Abortion Instead. . . .

then the father would have had no legal standing at all. This story, & how it was written shows not only what is wrong with our legal system, it also shows how they are trying to avoid admitting what they really are admitting in this ruling. & that is that a person was killed in the accident & the father of that child has certain legal rights.

Like I said, if the woman had opted to have an abortion there is nothing the father could have done to stop it, the law says he has no rights. On the other hand, the same law that says he has no right to stop an abortion also says that he has the responsibility to pay child support after birth. While I agree that he should pay to support the child, logically, with the way things are, why should he have any responsibilities after birth when our system says he has no right to stop or force an abortion before birth?

But here the court is saying the father of the unborn child does have rights. & that the mother had a responsibility to protect the life of that child. Having an abortion & killing the child is OK however. Our current law says the child is protected only under certain circumstances.

I would like to know if the term "would-be child" was actually used in the lawsuit or if it is how the pro-abort press describes the child to avoid admiting it is a child & thus undermining the "culture of death" this is just a "piece of tissue" claim. I suspect the use of the term is the media's phrase of choice. I say that because of an article I found on the JustLaw website uses the term "unborn child" as well as "fetus" & doesn't use the "would-be child" term.

Even the use of the term fetus, while technically correct, serves to dehumanize the unborn child to some extent.

It is interesting that the article uses the term "slippery slope" to describe concerns about where this case could lead. That term has usually been used by the Pro-life movement to talk about where abortion would lead. I find it ironic that now the other side is using it. It also talks about viability which was also supposed to be a factor in regulating abortion that was proven to be a myth as well. I found the use of the phrase "invasive expansion of the law into a mother's womb" ironic as well since it is another favorite of the pro-abort crowd.

The fact that the father does have some rights here means that those same rights should extend to his being able to protect that same child from being murdered via abortion. The fact that he would also have had some responsibility to support that child after birth says he should have rights before birth.

This schizophrenic approach to an unborn child will only disppear when we finally admit the fact that the child is a human being with the same right to life as any other human being. & that neither the father or mother has the right to kill that child via abortion. There are no circumstances that justify let alone allow that child to be killed.

Wisconsin: Court: Father can sue over death of fetus
Wisconsin man claims a former girlfriend's negligence led to his unborn child's death.
BY RYAN J. FOLEY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

MADISON, Wis. -- A Wisconsin man can sue a former girlfriend's insurer for the wrongful death of their fetus, which was stillborn after the woman was in a car accident, a court ruled Thursday.
Shannon Tesar, the father of the fetus, claims the woman's negligent driving was partly to blame for the 2003 accident in Wisconsin Rapids. He has filed a lawsuit seeking damages for his pain and suffering for the loss of his would-be child against the woman's auto insurer, American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
An American Family spokesman said the company was reviewing its options, which include asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review the decision.
The company's lawyers had warned that allowing the lawsuit would let fathers sue mothers for a range of acts that harm fetuses during pregnancy, like eating poorly, smoking and failing to exercise. In one legal brief, they warned of "an unprecedented and invasive expansion of the law into a mother's womb."
District 4 Court of Appeals' Judge Charles Dykman disagreed.
He wrote that it is routine for insurance companies to be held liable when a driver's negligence injures or kills a family member, and the death of a fetus should be treated the same way. Dykman added the opinion should be seen as limited to the facts of the specific case.
"We emphasize that no reader of this opinion should surmise that we are weighing in on whether women should be held liable for other negligent acts that harm fetuses," he wrote.