Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
Interests of the child trumps everything.
|
Then mention that as why and not the fact that there was
two victims. I understand the spirit of the judgement, but Captain's issue was going after the underlying moral question legal or not of whether the child's interests
should trump another 'innocent' party?
I'm sure I know where you'll justify that arguement on moral grounds. . . but I'd like to hear it anyway.