Green Room

Man forces girlfriend to have an unwanted abortion; charged with murder

posted at 9:48 am on April 7, 2010 by

I came across an absolutely awful story today, courtesy of Liberty Pundits, about a man who forced his girlfriend to unknowingly have an abortion.

Sayre police on Wednesday charged Orbin Eeli Tercero, 38, with criminal homicide of an unborn child, first-degree murder of an unborn child, aggra vated assault of an unborn child, aggravated assault, hindering apprehension or prosecution, and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.

Tercero, of Williamson Terrace, was arrested Thursday by state police in Bath as a fugitive from justice.

He was arraigned in Bath Village Court and remanded to Steuben County Jail, pending a hearing on extradition to Pennsylvania.

The charges are based on the following events, according to police:

The victim, a 36-year-old woman from Sayre and a pharmacist at a Wegmans Market, said she had a two-year physical relationship with Tercero, also a Wegmans pharmacist.

Tercero was engaged to another woman at the time.

The victim, whose name is being withheld by this newspaper, told Tercero she was pregnant in mid-January.

Tercero told the woman he could use the drug misoprostol to induce a miscarriage. The victim told Tercero she would get an abortion instead.

The victim, however, made a Feb. 24 appointment for an abortion but changed her mind. She called Tercero to tell him she would keep the baby.

In late February, on the victim’s birthday, Tercero visited her at home and used misoprostol he allegedly stole from Wegmans pharmacy to cause the miscarriage.

Without her knowing it, Tercero put one pill in her vagina, one in her juice and one in her water. She was 13 weeks pregnant at the time.

When the victim began to miscarry, she found a partially dissolved misoprostol tablet among the discharge.

Tercero drove the victim to Robert Packer Hospital in Sayre, where she miscarried.

My heart just goes out to that poor woman. What a horrible, horrible thing to have to go through. Who knows what made her change her mind — viewing an ultrasound, perhaps — but something made her change her mind and her child was still cruelly taken from her.

I can’t help but think that she might have had a clue that this guy was a creep considering that all of this happened while he was engaged to another woman. So he cheats on his fiancee steadily for two years with another woman, gets her pregnant, and forces her to have an abortion. Man, what a winner. He succeeded in killing his own child. This man must literally have no conscience, no soul.

What’s interesting about this case is that he was charged with murder. This implies that the fetus is being considered to be… a person. This must have the feminazis hopping mad. Whenever cases like this come up, they always have a problem with it. Consider Laci and Connor’s Law. Feminists and pro-abortion advocates went nuts over it. They don’t want unborn children to be considered human. They’re only supposed to be considered fetuses. Feminists and the pro-abortion advocates worry that considering an unborn child a human would give unborn children a constitutional right to life — and how could abortion, therefore, be legal? It doesn’t matter to them whether or not the mother wanted the baby when the violence was enacted against them. And it won’t matter to them in this case that she wanted to keep her child. Their number one priority, now and always, is not fighting for women, but fighting to keep abortion legal and common.

And here’s a curious question for the feminists. They advocate, strongly and consistently, for women to be able to abort their babies without the consent of the father. The child is half his, after all, so why should he not have a say? But if the feminist position is that women should be allowed to abort without the father’s consent, then really, what’s so different about this case? Isn’t it the exact same thing that feminists advocate, except with the father performing the abortion? Feminists say they’re all about equality, after all, and that they don’t want women to be superior to men, just equal. So what’s the issue here? If a woman can have an abortion without the consent of the father, then why can’t the father do the same thing to her? If killing your baby is an absolute right and feminists are fighting for equality, then why should only mothers have that right? Why can’t fathers as well?

I won’t expect to get an answer from any feminists anytime soon. They’ve been quiet about this case so far (no surprise there). This is a sticky situation for them.

In the meantime, I’m glad to hear that Pennsylvania authorities are doing the right thing and charging this heartless man with murder. I hope the woman gets at least some peace knowing that the killer of her child is being brought to justice.

Just remember, if feminists had their way, he’d be getting off scot-free.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Recently in the Green Room:

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

But… but… but… it’s just a clump of cells…

Daggett on April 7, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Just remember, if feminists had their way, he’d be getting off scot-free.

That’s going too far, IMHO. They wouldn’t want him scot free, but just charged with something less than murder — probably a misdemeanor battery charge or something like that.

Without question this guy’s conduct is utterly reprehensible and I’m glad to see that the PA authorities are throwing the book at him (at least so far). It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court. I just hope the MSM actually covers this case although I suspect they will give it a low profile at most.

jwolf on April 7, 2010 at 10:09 AM

I’m trying to think of a suitable post to make, but I’m really just coming up empty.

Nihilistic. Void of conscience. The man should never see daylight again except from behind bars. (It’s a miracle that they charged him with murder – death penalty will not happen, no chance at all.)

I am attempting to wrap my mind around the idea of a man pulling a two-year affair on his fiancee, and then murdering his unborn child to cover his tracks. The mind reels.

Less than worthless. Inhuman. I think the feminists might throw something halfhearted out before long, seeing as how she was violated – but it will be nothing more than a gesture. Infant killed, man under murder charges – doesn’t play well into the abortion paradise of the Left.

I feel sick now and it’s only nine in the morning.

KinleyArdal on April 7, 2010 at 10:10 AM

BTW, Cassy, I just saw on your blog that you just got engaged! Many congratulations and I hope and pray your sweetheart stays OK while on duty in Afghanistan.

jwolf on April 7, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Thank you! We are very excited and happy. Gotta figure out now how to plan a wedding around a deployment LOL. If only the Marine Corps would not change the deployment dates so often!! ;)

Cassy Fiano on April 7, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Without her knowing it, Tercero put one pill in her vagina…

WTF ?

Jeff2161 on April 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM

I quoted from the article and now the quote is awaiting moderation ?

Jeff2161 on April 7, 2010 at 11:19 AM

I’m not sure I’d be surprised to hear a feminist respond that it’s murder because the mother-to-be wanted the child to be born. That’s sort of standard fare by now, no?

DrSteve on April 7, 2010 at 11:56 AM

How did he put a pill in her vagina without her knowing it?

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 12:06 PM

I’m not sure I’d be surprised to hear a feminist respond that it’s murder because the mother-to-be wanted the child to be born. That’s sort of standard fare by now, no?

DrSteve on April 7, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Yes because liberalism places the self-actualisation of individual desires higher than anything else.

aengus on April 7, 2010 at 12:14 PM

I’m not sure I’d be surprised to hear a feminist respond that it’s murder because the mother-to-be wanted the child to be born. That’s sort of standard fare by now, no?

DrSteve on April 7, 2010 at 11:56 AM

No, it’s murder because a state legislature or Congress passed a law stating it is murder. And most statutes frame it as the mother did not give consent.

Unfortunately, no one linked the Pa statute for this. These laws are nothing new. California has had theirs on the books for 40 years now.

Blake on April 7, 2010 at 12:53 PM

In California, the law came about as the result of recognizing that having your boyfriend kick the cr*p out of you and causing the death of the fetus is more egregious than just having your boyfriend kick the cr*p out of you. So, the focus was more on the harm it did to the woman.

Blake on April 7, 2010 at 12:57 PM

The really hardcore feminists might even congratulate this killer for his sensitivity and humanity. After all, under broadly similar circumstances many men have killed or attempted to kill not just the baby but the mother as well. See, for example, Rae Carruth, former NFL player.

jwolf on April 7, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Just remember, if feminists had their way, he’d be getting off scot-free.

Not if she was my daughter.

Robert17 on April 7, 2010 at 3:48 PM

If a woman can have an abortion without the consent of the father, then why can’t the father do the same thing to her?

I have thought about this and it is a puzzler regardless your feelings on abortion. This will be an interesting case to watch.

bopbottle on April 7, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Bop, it isn’t puzzling at all. If you accept that abortion is legal, she is making a logical argument.

Doesn’t mean she agrees with it, just that the law should be consistent.

BlameAmericaLast on April 8, 2010 at 3:53 AM

Congratulations on your engagement.

I like your posts and hope you’ll continue with them.

beachgirlusa on April 8, 2010 at 11:33 AM

I keep seeing posts complaining about feminists.

When you use the enemy’s own preferred nomenclature to refer to them, you only undermine your own position.

Leftists love to assign themselves names that are antonyms of their true character. Why do you think they call themselves “progressives” and “liberals?”

Instead of calling these people “feminists,” how about calling them what they really are: misandristic head cases

leereyno on April 9, 2010 at 3:56 AM