Legal Inconsistencies
(from October 2005)
Yes, I know it's Saturday, but I thought I'd be a little unpredictable and post something today. I was doing a little research yesterday as I'm working on getting our wills together, and came across this little part of Kentucky's Intestate Succession Law (the rules on who gets your stuff in what order if you don't leave a will or all your named beneficiaries are dead) that caught my attention:
"A child of a decedent, born within 10 months after the decedent's death, is still eligible to inherit from the decedent. For intestate succession purposes, the child is considered to have been alive at the time of the decedent's death."
Did you catch that? If a guy gets his wife pregnant and is killed in a car crash that very night (the child then being born 9 months after his death, within the 10 month limitation), estate law says the child was alive and his heir at the time of his death (read: at the time of the child's conception). Hmmm... sounds like that newly conceived embryo is human after all. How then do we go about making a law that it's fine to murder said human? Do I sense a little inconsistency here? (And if any pro-abortion person found out they had been the child in such circumstances, wouldn't they want to collect that inheritance?)
No comments:
Post a Comment