[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Linda,
Yes, it seems to me that the civil statute is designed to enable suits to
be brought against a person who causes damage to a fetus that is
subsequently born with defects that affect the quality of that person's
life. For example, if som
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Linda,
Again, I think one has to read the word "child" in its full context. A
fetus is considered a child conceived but not yet born is considered a
person ONLY for the purpose of protecting the child's interest in the
event of the subsequent
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Linda,
Yes, it seems to me that the civil statute is designed to enable suits to
be brought against a person who causes damage to a fetus that is
subsequently born with defects that affect the quality of that person's
life. For example, if som
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Linda,
Again, I think one has to read the word "child" in its full context. A
fetus is considered a child conceived but not yet born is considered a
person ONLY for the purpose of protecting the child's interest in the
event of the subsequent
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi Terry - yes. Yes. In attenuated fashion I just posted related
>thoughts to Bill; I hope you get a chance to see it, it should arrive
>just a minute before this post. But I think you have said *mo
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Linda :)
>From looking at this, in reality the child is not considered a person
unless it's born. I would assume alive. Thus if it's injured during a
beating of the mother and born DOA I would think there is nothing they
could do about it, unless they can
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry - yes. Yes. In attenuated fashion I just posted related
thoughts to Bill; I hope you get a chance to see it, it should arrive
just a minute before this post. But I think you have said *more*, and
this would be quite impor
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Oh I see Bill, I can buy that, you're quite clear. It's like in the
Civil Code the rights vest at conception but they don't accrue til birth
(is that a valid extrapolation of your position? Hope you'll comment).
Something like tha
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
You have it exactly the way that I see it.
And the thing I can't understand is how can they say in the civil law
that the fetus is a child, and then the Supreme Court say it isn't.
Can't have it both ways, IMO. Either it is, or it isn't.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seems rather clear to me, Linda. The most extreme case is when a fetus is
killed which is not covered by 43.1. That has been found to be murder
when it is done without the mother's consent. But if a fetus is to be
"deemed an existing person, so far as necessary for t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Linda,
I still think that the way the statute reads the fetus must be
"subsequently born" before he/she can have legal standing with respect to
any rights. Yes, the large interest in the mother's protection and
survival is paramount with respe
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
H Bill - I am having a bit of trouble finding Susan's post of the civil
statute. Here are two relevant paragraphs I had clipped out, suggesting
that an unborn offspring is a child and thus a person, with life and
liberty rights. T
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Linda,
It seems to be a type of Catch 22 situation. I have heard of cases (wish
I could remember the reference names) where the state has waited until
the birth of a baby to determine if damage had been done to the fetus
when the mother was as
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill - agreed, in the civil case the fetus would simply have
prospective standing, it seems: future access to relief, once being born
But the criminal code wouldn't even give *that* much. Based on argments
from "majority" supp
14 matches
Mail list logo
