[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 remember specific cases where a defendant was tried for
the murder of an unborn fetus, so perhaps there are specific states where
the law allows for this. I haven't seen any actual cites of cases
however.
Bill
On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:22:24 -0800 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>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
>
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
