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


Hi Ron:
Sue found a California criminal case (People v. Ward) in which it's said
that injury to a parent by the other parent of the injured persons'
child beceame a felony. It was dealing, BTW with the mother. At issue is
the existence of a not as yet brtn fetus. The court rule that a fetus is
not a minor (dated from birth) and therefore not a child (person), so in
application to the facts involving an unborn fetus, the fetus was not a
person, and the felony did not attach. This statute could be a deterrent
against violence where one went to assault the parent of the assaulter's
child, because this scenario ecxists in homes, and it could deter
domestic violence -- but it was found not to apply to a pregnant worman
with a fetus not construed as a child.

But ... Sue then and thereafter found a Civil statute that said as far
as interests in safety from bodily harm and other basic human rights,
the fetus qualifies as a person.

>From that apparent conflict of laws, the topic broadened, but there is
still the question: for the criminal case cited, why isn't the fetus a
child, since the Civil code covers all Calif. residents and mirrors U.S.
Constitution rights.

The above is a summary which Sue or others can correct if they wish; I
am typing spontaneously to give you the background.

Hoping you will share some views, it's nice to see you. :) LDMF.
> 
> "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> The Subject of the thread caught my eye, as you might have guessed, but
> nothing in the post related to the thread.  I obviously have some strong
> feelings on this subject.  Ron
> 
> Women have their faults. Men have only two.
> Everything they say. Everything they do.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 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

Reply via email to