Texas’ highest criminal court upholds murder of unborn twins

posted at 6:48 pm on February 13, 2008 by Bryan

Dwayne Horner has the story, and its implications.

With Texas now in focus on the Democrats side, perhaps someone will ask them about this case in their Texas Presidential Debate:

The Texas Court of upheld a second conviction for the homicide of an unborn child under Texas’ Prenatal Protection Act.The case, Flores v. Texas (Case No. PD-0265-07), involved the double murder of twin unborn baby boys.

According to court documents, Gerardo Flores stomped on the abdomen of his pregnant girlfriend at 20-21 weeks of gestation and caused the babies to be born dead two days later. Flores was convicted in district court in 2005 on two counts of capital murder and received a life sentence The baby boys were named, given a funeral, and buried with headstones by the mother’s family. Gerardo Flores appealed the conviction to the 9th Court of Appeals in Beaumont and finally to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Flores argued that he was merely trying to help his girlfriend abort the children at her request, that he should not be prosecuted for murder, and that the Prenatal Protection Act is unconstitutional. The Court disagreed.

Read the rest. This strikes me as an unambiguous victory for the cause of protecting the sanctity of life.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Unbelievably sickening crime, very glad about the court’s decision.

mattyj86 on February 13, 2008 at 6:53 PM

Whew. From the headline, I thought it went the other way.

mikeyboss on February 13, 2008 at 6:54 PM

Supremes will probably be hearing this very soon

Defector01 on February 13, 2008 at 6:54 PM

This strikes me as an unambiguous victory for the cause of protecting the sanctity of life.

It is, because the law against partial-birth procedures kicks in after 24 weeks. This ruling goes beyond that, and if upheld, would represent a step in the direction you seek. However, that pesky “define when life begins” argument remains regardless of the ruling.

ernesto on February 13, 2008 at 6:54 PM

Too bad murderers can’t be aborted just as easily.

.

GT on February 13, 2008 at 6:56 PM

May God rest their Souls. And May God Bless Texas!

Zorro on February 13, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Here in Texas, life is life, and we’ll punish those who hurt children, born or unborn.

madmonkphotog on February 13, 2008 at 6:58 PM

So, as a nation we haven’t completely flushed our moral foundation and common sense down the crapper just yet. That’s good news, I guess.

Yeah, I’d love to hear Obama’s take on this in a debate. As regards abortion rights, he’s way over on the left fringe. Will he speak his mind? Or bloviate a la Clinton?

I’m still not sure what to think re: Obama’s chances vs. McCain. Part of me thinks the electorate isn’t so stupid as to elect a guy that far left of center, no matter how flowery and hope-y and change-y his speeches are. But the more pragmatic side of me says “Yes they are.”

Splashman on February 13, 2008 at 7:00 PM

Poor babies. They didn’t stand a chance against the liberal mindset. I’m glad that the court ruled this way but my God what a sorry state we live in today when a COURT has to decide whether it’s OK or not to stomp babies to death.

Guardian on February 13, 2008 at 7:00 PM

I support this ruling and this law but there are some things which should probably change…

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_02_10-2008_02_16.shtml#1202919393

ninjapirate on February 13, 2008 at 7:00 PM

Good call Texas

LimeyGeek on February 13, 2008 at 7:02 PM

I love my state! We get the big things right.

SimplyKimberly on February 13, 2008 at 7:05 PM

Excellent.

Governor Rick Perry signed in to law, the Prenatal Protection Act. The Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion, the second to address this issue, upheld the constitutionality of the new law. The Texas Legislature passed the Prenatal Protection Act in 2003 (Senate Bill 319), with the strong support of TAL and other pro-life organizations in Texas and over the objections of abortion advocacy organizations including NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, the ACLU, and the Texas Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates.

Just amazing that Planned Parenthood, et. al., pretend to be about a woman’s choice, yet they show up to oppose the Prenatal Protection Act, protects unborn children in Texas against crimes of homicide and assault. Makes it crystal clear that representing womens’ choices is not their real agenda.

RushBaby on February 13, 2008 at 7:06 PM

What’s the big deal? Fetal homicide laws have been on the books in most states for decades. California, which has had one since 1970, doesn’t even require knowledge that the woman was pregnant. Those of you who think this is some sort of pro-life victory — forget it. The laws distinguish between fetal homicide and abortion.

Blake on February 13, 2008 at 7:11 PM

I’m a Texan as well, and I would support a finding of murder in cases like this, where the mother is intent on having the child and has it ripped from her womb.

But I don’t know if I’d support the death penalty for capital murders involving children that haven’t been born yet. The guy here got a life sentence, but if it’s a capital murder charge, a death sentence is entirely possible.

Mark V. on February 13, 2008 at 7:11 PM

RushBaby on February 13, 2008 at 7:06 PM

What if the unborn child is female? What choices are they advocating that she has?

It’s so trivial to take these sociopathic goons, and their demented ‘arguments’, apart.

LimeyGeek on February 13, 2008 at 7:13 PM

Whew. From the headline, I thought it went the other way.

mikeyboss on February 13, 2008 at 6:54 PM

Yeah, I thought so too.

amerpundit on February 13, 2008 at 7:13 PM

Those of you who think this is some sort of pro-life victory — forget it. The laws distinguish between fetal homicide and abortion.

Blake on February 13, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Sure it’s a victory. These laws are under organized and relentless assault. This case also presents an opportunity to expose the Clinton/Obama viewpoints on the rights of unborn babies.

RushBaby on February 13, 2008 at 7:15 PM

But I don’t know if I’d support the death penalty for capital murders involving children that haven’t been born yet

Born or unborn, they are still living human beings.

The death penalty should be extended to rapists that impregnate their victim, should that victim choose to abort.

LimeyGeek on February 13, 2008 at 7:17 PM

To the pro-choice movement, it is no longer relevant if the mother actually chooses to abort her babies. The important thing is that they die. Any decision that affords any protection to the unborn at any stage of development is too much for them to take.
God bless Texas.

joewm315 on February 13, 2008 at 7:18 PM

The death penalty should be extended to rapists that impregnate their victim, should that victim choose to abort.

LimeyGeek on February 13, 2008 at 7:17 PM

I like it.

joewm315 on February 13, 2008 at 7:19 PM

the Clinton/Obama viewpoints on the rights of unborn babies

Depends on whether they believe that “inalienable” actually is synomymous with “alienable”.

LimeyGeek on February 13, 2008 at 7:20 PM

Whew. From the headline, I thought it went the other way.
mikeyboss on February 13, 2008 at 6:54 PM

Me too, and that’s because the headline was poorly written. Bryan, I know you’re trying for short ‘n sweet, but please try again. How about: “Texas court upholds conviction for murder of unborn twins

Splashman on February 13, 2008 at 7:22 PM

The death penalty should be extended to rapists that impregnate their victim, should that victim choose to abort.
LimeyGeek on February 13, 2008 at 7:17 PM

Uh . . .

Splashman on February 13, 2008 at 7:24 PM

Sure it’s a victory.

I disagree. As previously stated, similar laws have been on the books for decades in other states. Additionally, the feds have a law against fetal homicide,too, i.e., the Connor Law.
As to exposing McCain/Obama’s view — what do you think they are going to say? That they are for fetal homicide? It’s clear that McCain is pro life and Obama is pro choice. Neither, however, are pro fetal homicide. And no, this is not going to be challenged in the USSC. If it was challengable, it would have been done years ago.

As to whether it should be a capital offense, remember there has to be an aggravating factor. Peterson’s on death row because the killing of the fetus meant he was guilty of multiple murder which made him death eligible. That’s fine with me.

Blake on February 13, 2008 at 7:30 PM

God bless Texas.

joewm315 on February 13, 2008 at 7:18 PM

Why should God bless Texas or America for that matter? You can still kill the unborn (so long as you pay for it). i

TOPV on February 13, 2008 at 7:31 PM

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm

All but 13 states have these laws on the books. However, the website says the list may not be comprehensive, so more states may have enacted fetal homicide laws.

Blake on February 13, 2008 at 7:37 PM

Born or unborn, they are still living human beings.

Agreed, but there’s a heightened level of depravity that comes with killing a child you can see in front of you and whose screams you can actually hear. Obviously killing an unborn child under the current law would be a capital crime, since an unborn child is certainly under six years old. But I wouldn’t be averse to a piece of legislation carving out an exemption to the capital murder statute where the child is unborn.

And I should hasten to add that non-capital murder victims are human beings too. Should there be the death penalty for all murders?

Mark V. on February 13, 2008 at 7:45 PM

So if she’d gotten the assistance of a “gynecologist” to kill her babies, all is okey-dokey. But her boyfriend does life for the same thing. Yeah. That’s intellectually honest.

HerrMorgenholz on February 13, 2008 at 7:55 PM

there’s a heightened level of depravity that comes with killing a child you can see in front of you

As a standard for assigning “capital murder” status, this is highly subjective. I can say the ‘depravity’ is maximal, regardless of whether one can see and hear the child. How do you determine which one of us is right? How do you argue that ‘depravity’ is even a legitimate standard for judging the severity of the crime?

Simply put, a living human being has an inalienable right to life. Ending that life is homicide. Whether or not we determine the homicide to be a murder hinges on justifiability & premeditation. Stomping on an infants head in the crib, or stomping a pregnant mother’s belly both result in unjustifiable homicide, arguably premeditated – hence murder.

Quite frankly, I find the distinction between capital and non-capital murder to be wholly artificial – a purely cynical legal ploy to fanagle some bastard out of a trip to ol’ sparky.

There is no compensation for a lost life. Murder should earn a death penalty. Every murder.

LimeyGeek on February 13, 2008 at 7:57 PM

And I should hasten to add that non-capital murder victims are human beings too. Should there be the death penalty for all murders?

Mark V. on February 13, 2008 at 7:45 PM

From my somewhat draconian view, the answer is yes. Manslaughter- accidentally causing death- is a different set of circumstances. But to kill someone with forethought or to further a criminal act? You bet your bippie on that.

BillH on February 13, 2008 at 7:58 PM

But to kill someone with forethought or to further a criminal act? You bet your bippie on that.

So is abortion killing someone with forethought?

HerrMorgenholz on February 13, 2008 at 8:05 PM

So, as a nation…

Sorry, no. As Texas.

I used to think other places were more conservative than they apparently are. Arizona keeps punishing the US with McCain, and Virginia seems to have been taking a leftward turn. Florida too elected Charlie Crist. Etc., etc. Texas IS America. It’s what all of America should be.

God bless Texas, indeed.

urbancenturion on February 13, 2008 at 8:18 PM

Texas’ highest criminal court upholds murder of unborn twins

You may want to reword that title… Something add the word “conviction” in there or something… Otherwise it sends a different message (at least it did to me when I clicked it on the home page). Anyone else?

RightWinged on February 13, 2008 at 8:29 PM

Considering that these sorts of laws have been on the books for some time, I’d posit that it’s actually more of a ‘pro-choice’ decision.

If a woman chooses to keep the child, that’s her right. If someone takes away her right to choose, then they must be prosecuted.

If a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy, that’s her right. If someone takes away her right to choose, then the law must intercede.

In the end, the issue is that the woman is the final arbiter. Neither man nor Man (government) has the right to intervene in her (now) Constitutionally protected right.

Asher on February 13, 2008 at 8:32 PM

May this perp fall into the prison’s industrial trash-
compactor and end up as the thinnest guest in Hell.

profitsbeard on February 13, 2008 at 8:35 PM

Though the girl testified that she wanted the boyfriend to induce a miscarriage, the state presented contradictory evidence that she had welcomed the pregnancy, was being physically abused by the boyfriend, and was suffering from domestic violence syndrome.

Blake on February 13, 2008 at 8:39 PM

So is abortion killing someone with forethought?

What are you, some kind of a troublemaker?

Mark V. on February 13, 2008 at 8:40 PM

I’m against abortion period.The third term abortion is
absolute murder,and terrorists who are tortured still have
more rights than this barbaric method I noted above!

Hillary,a Democrat quiped about the great state of Texas
having more hat and less cattle comment,thankfully in this case the prosecutor has more cattle!

The girlfriend can slice this any whichway to sunday,
however its still two murders of her precious children!

canopfor on February 13, 2008 at 9:25 PM

As to exposing McCain/Obama’s view — what do you think they are going to say? That they are for fetal homicide? It’s clear that McCain is pro life and Obama is pro choice. Neither, however, are pro fetal homicide.
Blake on February 13, 2008 at 7:30 PM

It is relevant, even if it is kind of a “gotcha” question. If Obama says he’s not “pro-fetal homicide”, then he’s siding against Naral, Planned Parenthood, et al…..all of which are liberal, VOTING, Democrats.

“The Texas Legislature passed the Prenatal Protection Act in 2003 (Senate Bill 319)…..and over the objections of abortion advocacy organizations including NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, the ACLU, and the Texas Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates.”

Cheesestick on February 13, 2008 at 9:32 PM

So is abortion killing someone with forethought?

What are you, some kind of a troublemaker?

Mark V. on February 13, 2008 at 8:40 PM

Sounds like someone thinking logically to me.

dominigan on February 13, 2008 at 9:35 PM

What are you, some kind of a troublemaker?

Why yes. Yes I am…..

HerrMorgenholz on February 13, 2008 at 9:35 PM

As to exposing McCain/Obama’s view — what do you think they are going to say? That they are for fetal homicide? It’s clear that McCain is pro life and Obama is pro choice. Neither, however, are pro fetal homicide.
Blake on February 13, 2008 at 7:30 PM

Actually, Obama is for partial birth abortion which is fetal homicide, so you are wrong there.

Dhornertx on February 13, 2008 at 9:54 PM

So is abortion killing someone with forethought?

What are you, some kind of a troublemaker?

Mark V. on February 13, 2008 at 8:40 PM

Uuuhhhh….yes, and yes

samuelrylander on February 13, 2008 at 10:10 PM

This whole abortion mess really revolves around one simple issue: When is the fetus a citizen? It is only at that point at which the law can legally protect it. What we need is a simple ruling based on the fetus’ development stage. At such and such term abortion is murder. Before that it is removing tissue from the woman. Simple, elegant, and hopefully would help to frame the debate in easily-understood and less-charged terms.

Viscount_Bolingbroke on February 13, 2008 at 10:49 PM

HerrMorgenholz, to answer your honest question honestly- I don’t know. I’m loathe to abortion, but I’m not sure it should be illegal. Then again, I’m not some lowlife skidmark spreading my seed at every opportunity. My emphasis was towards people walking the earth performing obvious wrong. I will say this much with some certainty: I would guess the primary victim- the mother- was going to carry the pregnancy to term. As far as I can guess, that would have made the sack-of-sh** boyfriend a murderer, at least from what tiny bit I understand of this Texan law. Which, from my P.O.V., my opinion, makes him liable for the death penalty.

BillH on February 13, 2008 at 10:50 PM

I just have to throw this in here, but…

God already blessed Texas.

This is the greatest place in the world, and, thankfully, 99% of the people outside of Austin, El Paso, Dallas, and downtown Houston understand that THEY are the type of people that still get what America was founded for.

As the saying goes, “I wasn’t born here, but I got here as soon as I could.”

prolix on February 13, 2008 at 11:22 PM

There’s a new book out titled: Embryo: A Defense of Human Life

The authors, Robert P. George & Christopher Tollefsen, just wrote a column Monday for NRO that was a reply to William Saletan’s review.

Modern embryology and human developmental biology establish beyond any doubt that human embryos are wholes and not mere parts, that they are indeed determinate individuals; and that they are organisms that endure throughout the developmental process, that is, both during gestation and after birth.

Consider any adult human being—William Saletan, for example. He is the same whole living individual human organism—i.e., the same human being—that was at an earlier stage of his life an adolescent. And the adolescent Will was the same whole living individual human organism that was at earlier developmental stages a child, an infant, a fetus, and an embryo. By contrast, he was never an ovum or a sperm cell. The gametes whose felicitous union brought the embryonic Will Saletan into existence were parts of other organisms, his mother and father. But Will was once an embryo, just as he was once a fetus, an infant, a child, and an adolescent. From the embryonic stage forward, Will was a complete (though in the beginning developmentally immature) and distinct (both genetically and functionally) organism. He developed by an internally directed and gapless process from the embryonic into and through the infant, child, and adolescent stages and ultimately into adulthood with his organismic determinateness, distinctness, and unity intact.

The argument against our view being advanced by the adult Will Saletan is confounded by the fact that Will Saletan, like the rest of us, really was once an embryo.

INC on February 13, 2008 at 11:48 PM

If a woman chooses to keep the child, that’s her right. If someone takes away her right to choose, then they must be prosecuted.

If a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy, that’s her right. If someone takes away her right to choose, then the law must intercede.

In the end, the issue is that the woman is the final arbiter. Neither man nor Man (government) has the right to intervene in her (now) Constitutionally protected right.

I hope you’re merely stating fact and not taking a pro-abortion position. Otherwise, I’m gonna have to tear this logic to shreds. Just sayin’.

fourstringfuror on February 14, 2008 at 12:10 AM

I hope you’re merely stating fact and not taking a pro-abortion position. Otherwise, I’m gonna have to tear this logic to shreds. Just sayin’.

You want to attack someone, attack Allahpundit. He shares the same views, as does Ace, Blogger of the Year.

Blake on February 14, 2008 at 1:20 AM

This strikes me as an unambiguous victory for the cause of protecting the sanctity of life.

It is, because the law against partial-birth procedures kicks in after 24 weeks. This ruling goes beyond that, and if upheld, would represent a step in the direction you seek. However, that pesky “define when life begins” argument remains regardless of the ruling.

ernesto on February 13, 2008 at 6:54 PM

ernesto,

Your statement “However, that pesky “define when life begins” argument remains regardless of the ruling.” is not the question, for that wording is not what people claim is not resolved.

“When does life begin” is answered by, life already exists before anyone, or anything comes into being. That means that life exists with us or without us, and precedes each of our individual beginning.

The accurate question related to the human embryo, the human fetus, the human infant, the human child, teenager, adult, and so on, is not “When does life begin,” but “When does a human being begin his or her life?”

This question “When does a human being begin his or her life?” or “When do human beings begin?” is answered, and has been answered more than 100 years ago.

Under normal sexual reproduction, which means, under the process by which a male’s sperm fertilizes a woman’s oocyte, when their sex cells meet at fertilization, in vivo, resulting in a new, genetically unique, single celled human embryonic zygote, a new human embryo, which is how we all begin, a new human being’s life begins. From that point onward they will continue a continuum of overlapping developmental stages that continue even after the leave the womb at birth.

Human beings also begin their lives asexually, without sperm and egg, in vivo. This takes place when, during cell division in the early stages of human embryonic development, in vivo, if some cells separate from the others, if they still have the potential, they can also become another human embryo. This results in monozygotic twins. This is called “asexual reproduction” because it does not require fertilization, or contact of male sperm with female oocyte. Asexual reproduction in this manner takes place in nature among mammals, and among human beings fairly often. This results in twinning, and also triplets, etc. This form of twinning results in identical twins, identical triplets, etc. In this case, their lives start just a few hours, to a few days after their sister or brother’s life began after conception-fertilization. At times two different sperm fertilize two different oocytes, resulting in fraternal twins, not monozygotic twins. Those cases are not asexual reproduction, but sexual reproduction because fraternal twins are the result of sexual reproduction, of sperm fertilizing oocyte.

With modern reproductive technology there is also other methods of reproduction which result in the beginning of a new human being, a new human embryo. This is also asexual twinning, but by artificial means.

IVF therapies, such as blastomere splitting, blastocyst splitting, etc., are a few examples of artificial reproduction and/or asexual reproduction. Also, Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) and Germ Line Cell Nuclear Transfer (GLCNT) forms of cloning, and other processes, also result in a a new human embryo, a new human organism, a new human being. In these cases, the new human being’s life begins ex vivo – outside of the womb as a new, living human embryo, and development continues inside the womb.

Nevertheless, there is one thing that is clear, a human being’s life begins via sexual reproduction at conception-fertilization, asexually during twinning, and artificially via asexual reproduction as explained.

So, there is really no question about when a human being’s life begins, or when human beings begin. It is merely a problem with people who don’t know or understand the fact.

This has been known by Human Embryologists for more than 100 years, and it is a fact, not an opinion. It is about time that people stop pretending that “Science doesn’t tell us, or cannot tell us when human beings begin” because that is just plain nonsense!

So, bottom line, there is no mystery as to when human beings begin, and we should put an end to that myth once and for all and acknowledge the truth and the facts once and for all and respect their lives once and for all.

William2006 on February 14, 2008 at 4:09 AM

Correction:

Im my previous post contribution addressing “When do human beings begin?” above (William2006 on February 14, 2008 at 4:09 AM) I accidently repeated a word.

In the following statement:

IVF therapies, such as blastomere splitting, blastocyst splitting, etc., are a few examples of artificial reproduction and/or asexual reproduction.

That should be “blastomere separation and blastocyst splitting” not “blastomere splitting and blastocyst splitting.”

In IVF – in vitro fertilization, fertility treatments-therapies, blastomeres are teased apart mechanically, hence blastomere speparation.

Also, blastocysts are split in half, hence blastocyst splitting (twinning).

Again, that should be “blastomere separation and blastocyst splitting.”

I apologize for the error.

Thank you.

William

William2006 on February 14, 2008 at 4:31 AM

Even though the link I posted was correct, when clicked, it converts into something else. Try this:

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm

Blake on February 14, 2008 at 8:42 AM

Bryan,

Are you sure that

This strikes me as an unambiguous victory for the cause of protecting the sanctity of life.

PER this article: http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/02/14/0214flores.html

In his appeal, Flores challenged the constitutionality of the fetal protection law, claiming that its exemption for women seeking an abortion led to an absurd and unfair result: that even though both actively sought to terminate the pregnancy, Flores could be prosecuted, but his co-conspirator, Basoria, could not.

It was an intriguing question for legal professionals, but the Court of Criminal Appeals’ unanimous ruling did not directly address that issue. Instead, the court ruled that Flores waived the right to appeal because his lawyers did not properly raise the issue at trial.

It seems to me he lost on procedural grounds, hardly any “unambiguous victory for the cause of protecting the sanctity of life.”

mycowardice on February 14, 2008 at 9:48 AM

As the saying goes, “I wasn’t born here, but I got here as soon as I could.”

prolix on February 13, 2008 at 11:22 PM

Love it. My sentiments exactly :)

LimeyGeek on February 14, 2008 at 9:56 AM

William2006 on February 14, 2008 at 4:31 AM

Superb work sir.

LimeyGeek on February 14, 2008 at 9:57 AM

I’m an American by birth, and Texan by God’s grace. =]

As a native Texan, hoping to live the rest of my life and die here, I’m glad the Supreme Court upheld this conviction. I wish this were always the case, but unfortunately we have liberals to contend with in this state just like the rest of the nation.

[he was] merely trying to help his girlfriend abort the children at her request…

What the- The fact that this idiot wasn’t already sizzling in the hot seat is evidence of our liberal pest problem here.

Lone Star on February 14, 2008 at 9:59 AM

What the- The fact that this idiot wasn’t already sizzling in the hot seat is evidence of our liberal pest problem here.

Lone Star on February 14, 2008 at 9:59 AM

It seems that she also tried to hit herself to provoke the death of the foetuses.

You don’t think there is something fundamentally unfair here? He can go to jail, but she can’t face charges? Even if they both wanted that to happen?

mycowardice on February 14, 2008 at 10:23 AM

mycowardice on February 14, 2008 at 10:23 AM

If there really is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that she participated in the crime, she should receive the death penalty also.

LimeyGeek on February 14, 2008 at 10:45 AM

Oh, jesus, why don’t you guys read the actual opinion before spouting off.

You may disagree with the law, but abortion is legal in this country. Making statements like she deserves the death penalty is both wrong legally and nuts. Also, if you had read the opinions, you would see that the prosecution introduced evidence to refute her claim that she wanted to abort and that she instead was being physically abused by the boyfriend. They also introduced expert testimony about battered women’s syndrome, i.e., why a woman, or in this case a girl, would stay with her abuser and would lie under oath for him. The jury obviously believed the prosecution and not the defense.

Blake on February 14, 2008 at 10:53 AM

You don’t think there is something fundamentally unfair here? He can go to jail, but she can’t face charges? Even if they both wanted that to happen?

mycowardice on February 14, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Unfair? It depends on the context in which you use that word: legally or morally?

Legally speaking, currently in our nation a woman may murder her own unborn child (abortion) without fear of legal prosecution. The law is in error recognizing the life of an unborn child only when murdered by someone other than the mother. This man attacked this woman and murdered the children in her womb. The woman’s facilitation or encouragement of such a crime is irrelevant with regards to his actions, except as a mitigating circumstance – not a justifying one, if the court so chooses to make it so under the law. Even if someone asks you to beat them to a bloody pulp, you still don’t have the legal right to do so.

Morally speaking, anyone doing harm to another person should receive the just punishment equivalent to the degree of their crime. The mother’s body stops where the placenta (umbilical cord) does, as does her rights. This is part of the burden known as motherhood.

Lone Star on February 14, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Well, you guys aren’t beyond making up your own facts, so I don’t know why I would think you were beyond making up your own laws and legal definitions. lol!

Blake on February 14, 2008 at 11:08 AM