Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (3554)	1/7/2003 8:11:41 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Since the child wasn't aborted as toenail clippings I'd say yes to all damages.

To: one_less who wrote (3554)	1/11/2003 7:03:41 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

The damage to the mother is the pain and suffering of lost opportunity and the costs of raising a disabled child. Her cost is even greater if she had difficulty conceiving. I don't consider the damage to the mother inconsequential just because her physical injury may be only a temporary bruise on her belly. As for when the injury occurs to the child, the kid won't be aware of having a disability until he's maybe six, assuming he survives sufficiently functional to recognize his disability. My philosophy about life and death and injury is very much along the lines of the tree falling in the forest. That's has a lot to do with why I don't get as exercised as many about the right to life of a fetus and get more exercised about the right of the woman to bear a healthy child unfettered by stomach punches.