[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 *more*, and
>this would be quite important, have you here posited a way the Civil
>Code can hold sway, and the criminal case (Ward) could have been so
>reasoned? Stellar. :) LDMF.
>
>PS: from what is derived your first sentences on murder? Particular
>law, or are you drawing that from the conditional in the statute ("in
>the event of the child's subsequent birth")?
It was held by at least one court that a fetus killed by the mother being
shot was murder. I have no idea whether the decision was upheld through
appeals. Even doctors have been charged with murder for aborting viable
fetuses though I don't know if any convictions survived appeal. That seems
a much stronger case than even the wording of 4.3.1.
I saw the court decision later that said that other decisions had denied the
applicability of the statute and that plain language itself as well as the
intent of the legislature argued against a pregnant woman being a mother. I
cannot really speak to that except that lawyers obviously don't speak plain
English.
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:----------------------------
>> 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 the child's interests in
>> the event of the child's subsequent birth" the child's interests are
>> certainly harmed by an attack on the mother. The interests of the mother
>> and fetus are nearly identical in this case.
>>
>> >"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. The crim case, though, goes to the mothers rights. Do
>> >you think if the civil statute were to govern in the criminal context,
>> >the child would have a large interest in the mother'sa interests (in
>> >being protected)? That could IMO be a bridge between the two, and
>> >perhaps the legslative intent of both sets of laws comingle here. Sue?
>> >Terry? Streve? Others? :)
>> >LDMF.
>> >--------------------------- Code:
>> >---------------------------------------
>> >
>> >CALIFORNIA CODES
>> >CIVIL CODE
>> >SECTION 43-53
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >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, from defamation, and from
>> >injury to his personal relations.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >43.1. A child conceived, but not yet born, is deemed an existing
>> >person, so far as necessary for the child's interests in the event of
>> >the child's subsequent birth.
>> >
>> >
>> >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
