Re: L&I Any ideas or help would be appreciated

[Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D.]

"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


You don't seem confused to me, Sue, you seem modest. But HERE is
confused: in the Ward criminal case they seem to rely on Civil Code,
that is Family Law code, do they not? I am not familiar with California
Law, but hereabouts Family Law is  considered civil code -- and it can
be used in conjunction with penal code, which conjoining, however, does
not change its character. So THAT's confused. :) :) L.

-----------------------Sue Hartigan wrote:------------------------------
> 
> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> Hi Bill:
> 
> You said it exactly the way that it is probably ment to be taken,
> however in the Supreme Court decision it says:
> While there is no statutory definition of "child," the Legislature has
> defined "minor" to mean "an individual who is under 18 years of age.
> The period of minority is calculated from the first minute of the day on
> which the individual is born to the same minute of the corresponding day
> completing the period of minority."  (Fam. Code, § 6500.)  A fetus,
> therefore, is not a "minor."  In determining the meaning of "child" as
> used in section 273d, which proscribes the willful infliction "upon a
> child [of] any cruel or inhuman corporal punishment or injury resulting
> in a traumatic condition," "child" and "minor" have been held to be
> synonymous.  (People v. Thomas (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 854, 858.)
> 
> And in the civil code it says that a fetus is deemed to be a child.
> 
> I'm all confused now.  <BG>
> 
> Sue
> > HI Terry,
> >
> > Laws define legality regardless of whether they are reasonable or not.
> > If a fetus had legal standing as a person with all rights included then
> > abortion could never be legal.  In that case a woman's "choice" to
> > terminate the fetus, and a doctor's "choice" to perform the procedure
> > would be no different than a killer's "choice" to kill a person
> >
> > It is not significant as to how a lawyer reads or interprets a law.  It
> > is significant how the Supreme Court interprets a law, whether we see
> > their interpretation as correct and reasonable.
> >
> > Of course, it IS always possible for a skilled lawyer to convince a jury
> > to return a guilty verdict against a defendant in these cases.  And there
> > could very well be states that have laws that enable murder charges be
> > brought against perps who kill a pregnant woman and thereby kill the
> > fetus.
> >
> > My comment was simply that the paragraph in the California law that Sue
> > posted did not seem to be referring to this and was meant to define the
> > rights of a fetus that was "subsequently born."
> >
> > Bill
> --
> Two rules in life:
> 
> 1.  Don't tell people everything you know.
> 2.
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues


Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues