[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Sue,
It seems that the legislators were careless in their use of terminology
in the various statutes. But I think the meaning of this particular
statute is quite clear and does not cover a fetus that is not
subsequently born.
Terry seems to r
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Dr. L.:
I think what we have here is a legal defination, and a medical
defination. The medical defination of a child is ..an individual who
has not reached the age of puberty. An individual between the toddling
stage and adolescence. I don't know wh
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Sue, your re-post of both the Ward (criminal) material, and the civil
material, is very timely. Dr. Ron gave a distinction between
fetus/neonate/infant/and child which seems very explanatory, but I don't
see it as compatible wi
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Everyone:
>
> Dr. L. and I have been working on something and would appreciate any
> help or ideas anyone might have.
>
> First off I will repost the orginal story so you will know what I am
> talking about :)
>
> A law that makes it a felony for
[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
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sue - did I miss this - does the criminal Ward case cite to
(awknowledge) the civil law allowing a "person" reading to an unborn
child? My impression was that you had found inapposite law', that is
they are not compatible laws, bu
[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
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Dr. L.:
Now I am dizzy. LOL
On the California Law Page, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html ,
there are 29 different sections each dealing with different aspects of
the law. Family, Civil, Penal, Vehicle, etc.
I did find out that it didn't m
"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 Fami
"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 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
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:
On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:43:22 -0500 (EST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes [in part]:
>
>>Ironically, the law does not specify the rights of a fetus who is NOT
>>"subsequently
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Sue,
I don't thnk the law said that the fetus was a child before birth. As I
said, I think the key element here is that the fetus is subsequently
born. The implication is that if the fetus is not subsequently born then
no rights are conveyed
[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
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
Believe me you are helping. And we appreciate it.
Yes I do remember that case.
Please keep giving any ideas that you have.
My idea here is that if the woman had been holding the child in her arms
when the father attacked her and the child
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes [in part]:
>Ironically, the law does not specify the rights of a fetus who is NOT
>"subsequently born" but dies as a result of the criminal action. Given
>the legality of abortion, it seems a defense attorney could argue
"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
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >43. Besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the
> >Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and
> >restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily
> >restraint or harm, from personal insult, fro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
>
>
>43. Besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the
>Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and
>restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily
>restraint or harm, from personal insult,
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Everyone:
Dr. L. and I have been working on something and would appreciate any
help or ideas anyone might have.
First off I will repost the orginal story so you will know what I am
talking about :)
A law that makes it a felony for one parent to b
29 matches
Mail list logo
