At National Review's The Corner, Katherine Connell purports to clear up some of the alleged confusion that surrounds the implications of the Savita Halappanavar case for the abortion debate in the USA --
He [Ta-Nahesi Coates] is mistaken that a consistent pro-life position requires that abortions be viewed as “murders.” The law recognizes multiple types of homicide for a reason, and in the circumstances Coates is discussing there is clearly no malicious intent.
What doctor would want the words "homicide" and "malicious intent" following him or her around after a crisis abortion decision, even if the politicians decide that in such cases there would be homicide but not with intent? Note to pro-lifers: a system of OK, we'll take a look at these medical murders after the event and tell you which ones we'll let you away with is probably not going to be enough comfort to the doctors who have to decide these things on the spot.
He [Ta-Nahesi Coates] is mistaken that a consistent pro-life position requires that abortions be viewed as “murders.” The law recognizes multiple types of homicide for a reason, and in the circumstances Coates is discussing there is clearly no malicious intent.
What doctor would want the words "homicide" and "malicious intent" following him or her around after a crisis abortion decision, even if the politicians decide that in such cases there would be homicide but not with intent? Note to pro-lifers: a system of OK, we'll take a look at these medical murders after the event and tell you which ones we'll let you away with is probably not going to be enough comfort to the doctors who have to decide these things on the spot.