Absolutely, there are hundreds of years of precedence in British law for inheriting a peerage when your father died before your birth. U.S. law is fairly heavily derived from British law, it would shock me if that weren’t the case.
But the peerage is held for you - it isn’t granted to you until after your birth.
So far you are claiming that in the US parents are entirely free to decide which ones of their conjoined twin children live an which die. Unless you can somehow back that up, I doubt it.
I have not been able to find an example that confirms or contradicts your claim in the US. What I have been able to find was an example from the UK. Interestingly the court there ruled that a separation was to take place even against the wishes of the parents. Had the decision been made as you say medical decisions SHOULD be made, both twins would have died.
Well, sure, titles and property (and everything, really) wouldn’t be considered belonging to the fetus - those transfers can and should only happen after a successful birth.
What’s a fetus gonna spend money on, anyway? Window treatments?
And my position is that the court had no business in the decision. There isn’t a law specific to conjoined twins (or I would be shocked if there were), the court can, in the U.S. intervene even in absence of a law if someone argues on behalf of the rights of the child.
And my further position is that when it comes to my body, no one should have legal standing before the court except me, with the exception my husband, should I become incapacitated. Therefore, it isn’t the courts business.
Of course, in the case of conjoinment, the parents had to assemble (or arrange for the assembly of) a team of highly-skilled medical professionals, who would have to come to a consensus of precisely how (or even if) the surgery would proceed, the goal being the best possible outcome. If a particular doctor thought the plan was going in an unsafe or unethical direction, his or her colleagues can try to explain their reasoning and if that doesn’t help, he or she can walk away.
In this very specific instance, I’d gladly put more trust in the doctors who will perform the procedure than a group of judges analyzing the issue in theory.
Cite a case, please, where the heir was granted his title before he was actually born.
I don’t think that’s what Dangerosa was suggesting. Rather, that the passing of the title is paused until the pregnancy is resolved (ending with a live birth or not). It doesn’t just skip the fetus and move to the next in line.
Yeah, that was the whole “it isn’t granted to you until you are actually born” part of the post.
Okay, my apologies, that wasn’t clear to me.
I’m actually astonished that they would do this for a pregnancy. Like, Daddums has popped off, I’m the eldest daughter, and am next to inherit, except that mumsie is in the family way, and if she drops a boy, then he is next to inherit… By Basingstoke, I’d be cheesed!
Just lie back and think of England, dearie.
Imagine its stepmumsie (although unless you are Scottish, women generally couldn’t inherit peerages in Britain even if they are the only issue - it passes to an uncle, cousin, stepcousin - whomever is next in line with a penis), and you have the plot of many a poorly written romance novel.
Heh! Makings of a convoluted murder mystery, too!
Please explain the difference between personality and potential/magic.
I am about ready to leave this thread, because it starts to become repetitive. But I suppose there is always time to answer one last question (courtesy of Merriam-Webster):
Personality describes something that *is *real. Potential does not.
In case of your temporary coma example the personality of the patient exists. It is there in his brain. That is why I would not destroy it. In a fertilized egg no such thing exists.