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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

William2006 on February 14, 2008 at 4:31 AM

Superb work sir.

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 :)

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.”

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

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

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.

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.

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’.

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.

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.”

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

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.

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.

What are you, some kind of a troublemaker?

Why yes. Yes I am…..

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.”

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!

So is abortion killing someone with forethought?

What are you, some kind of a troublemaker?