And I lose.

Today in torts we dealt with issues of liability and duty owed in civil cases to unborn fetuses. For example, if X injures Y and she is pregnant with a fetus, later born and named Z - is X liable to Z if Z was injured?

I made the argument that it was logically acceptable to hold people responsible for injuries caused to viable fetuses and not to those fetuses who were previable. Mistake. BIG mistake. It was called a legal fallacy, a logical inconsistency only argued so that aboriton would be legal, completely incosistent and arbitrary, etc. In fact, it was argued that b/c the viability argument I put forth was based on whether the baby was capable of independent funcitoning or was completely dependent on the mother for life that I would then take away the legal rights of disabled or handicapped people.

I was the only one who made the argument. The other liberals who I know exist somewhere in that class of 100 are just a bunch of spineless jellyfish. Jason, to console me after class, promised to update me as soon as the "megan hamilton is a baby killer" facebook group goes up.