Capital murder conviction for causing miscarriage

[bobrek]

Interesting case. The 17 year old woman regretted not getting an abortion so she tried to force a miscarriage of her twins at 4+ months (the story doesn't give the exact number of weeks). She asked her boyfriend for help. She punched herself in the stomach and did other things. He stepped on her belly. Although there was no determination as to who actually caused the miscarriage, the boyfriend was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life (prosecutors chose not to pursue the death penalty). The girl could not be prosecuted due to her "legal right to abortion".

What do you think?

Article from today's Houston Chronicle:

Associated Press

LUFKIN - An East Texas man accused of causing his teenage girlfriend to miscarry twins by stepping on her belly was convicted Monday of two counts of capital murder.

Gerardo Flores, 19, who was prosecuted under the state's new fetal protection law, received an automatic life sentence.

Erica Basoria acknowledged asking Flores to help end her pregnancy, but the 17-year-old can't be prosecuted because of her legal right to abortion.

The defense contended that Basoria punched herself while Flores was stepping on her, making it impossible to tell who killed the twins.

The jury reached a verdict after deliberating four hours. Since prosecutors declined to seek the death penalty in the case, Flores received the automatic life sentence, Assistant District Attorney Art Bauereiss said. The facts were unusual, but the evidence supported a guilty finding, Bauereiss told The Lufkin Daily News.

He said Basoria's family was pleased with the jury's decision, but Basoria, who sobbed as she left the Angelina County Courthouse, had stood by Flores. "It's just tragedy all around," Flores' attorney Ryan Deaton told The Associated Press. "It's a tragedy my client's convicted, I've got nothing good to say about it."

Basoria told authorities that, after about four months of pregnancy, she regretted not getting an abortion and started jogging, skipping prenatal vitamins and hitting her own belly to induce a miscarriage. When her efforts failed, she said she asked her boyfriend to help.

Flores admitted in a taped statement to police that he stepped on Basoria's belly several times the week before she miscarried two boys. He said he punched her during a fight hours before the delivery.

Link:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3214035

[Rocket River]

So . . . The Fetus *IS* NOW considered alive?
The Pro-Abortion Lobby should be all on this. . . they should
be screaming that it is simple assualt

Rocket River

[rhadamanthus]

Apparently, this is a better alternative to Planned Parenthood in some people's minds...

[RocketMan Tex]

19 years old and sentenced to life.....

[MR. MEOWGI]

I'm sure pro-lifers are upset that he didn't get the death penalty.

So we compound violence with more violence. Great Solution. I look forward to more.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Rocket River
So . . . The Fetus *IS* NOW considered alive?
The Pro-Abortion Lobby should be all on this. . . they should
be screaming that it is simple assualt

Rocket River

where have you been? that's been the state of the law for quite some time now. remember the jackass who killed his pregnant wife in Calif? he was convicted of killing her AND the unborn life inside her.

[bobrek]

I am not sure what this new "fetal protection law" entails, but, depending on the language, could produce some interesting defenses.

For example, some women have been charged with endangering a fetus if they intake drugs or large amounts of alcohol. Could they use the "I was trying to induce a miscarriage" defense?

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by bobrek
Flores admitted in a taped statement to police that he stepped on Basoria's belly several times the week before she miscarried two boys. He said he punched her during a fight hours before the delivery.
So you guys are OK with this dude stepping on his pregnant girlfriends belly and/or punching her in the stomach? Are you just saying he's a victim of circumstance? What do you think should happen to him?

[halfbreed]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
So you guys are OK with this dude stepping on his pregnant girlfriends belly and/or punching her in the stomach? Are you just saying he's a victim of circumstance? What do you think should happen to him?

Not saying he's OK but his girlfriend asked him to do it. In my opinion she's just as guilty as he is. However she was protected because as a woman she has a right to an abortion and I think that's just a travesty.

If a fetus isn't a human in her case, why is it one in his? I would completely understand if they were BOTH let off because of the abortion factor. I wouldn't agree but at least someone could defend that decision. I could also understand if the BOTH were convicted of capital murder. But the whole double standard present in this case is just sickening.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by halfbreed


If a fetus isn't a human in her case, why is it one in his? I would completely understand if they were BOTH let off because of the abortion factor. I wouldn't agree but at least someone could defend that decision. I could also understand if the BOTH were convicted of capital murder. But the whole double standard present in this case is just sickening.

exactly. i'm not saying either should be doing life in prison i don't know what the sentencing outcome should be. but this clearly highlights our problems to define what is and what is not a protected life.

[bobrek]

Here is a more complete story from The Lufkin Daily News, which includes the fact that she was 5 months pregnant when the miscarriage occurred and that the law defines a "person" as "existing from the moment of conception".

Teen guilty of fetal murder

By ASHLEY COOK

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Nineteen-year-old Gerardo Flores of Lufkin was sentenced to life in prison Monday in a landmark test case of a state fetal protection law. An Angelina County jury deliberated just under four hours, finding him guilty on two counts of capital murder for his part in killing his unborn twins.

The case will be appealed, possibly all the way to the Supreme Court, defense attorney Ryan Deaton said after the verdict.

Most fetal murder cases involve attacks by strangers, said Assistant District Attorney Art Bauereiss, who prosecuted the case. The facts in Flores' case were a bit unusual, but the evidence supported a guilty finding, he said.

"Most of the family is very pleased with the verdict," Bauereiss said.

Flores' girlfriend, Erica Basoria, 17, was led sobbing from the Angelina County Courthouse by her mother and older sister. While her family testified against Flores, Basoria stood by his side, maintaining she was involved in causing the at-home miscarriage.

Flores' mother, Norma Flores, stood in stunned silence, surrounded by family members for several minutes after her son was led away by Sheriff Kent Henson.

Under state law, a woman cannot be charged for causing the deaths of her own fetuses for any reason. A similar federal law went into effect in April 2004, a month before Flores was charged.

Bauereiss told jurors he was focused on Flores. He couldn't help that Basoria was outside the reach of the law, he said. If the babies had been killed after being born, it wouldn't have been so controversial, he said.

"Think what a horrible crime this would be,” he said. “We wouldn't hesitate to label it for what it is.”

The law includes the definition of a person — with full rights to legal protection — as existing from the moment of conception. Prosecutors chose not to pursue the death penalty against Flores, meaning he received an automatic life sentence with parole possible after 40 years.

Basoria, then 16, was five months pregnant when Flores stepped on her bulging belly more than once the week before she gave birth prematurely in a bathroom at Flores' house the night of May 6, 2004. The defense said she hit herself at the same time, making it impossible to tell who killed the babies. Testimony alleged both may have wanted a miscarriage so the babies wouldn't infringe on college and social plans.

His girlfriend coerced him into it, Flores said in a taped police interview played at trial in which he demonstrated stepping on her. Bauereiss repeated the clip for jurors during his emotional closing statement.

No one would ever know the potential those unborn lives could have held, he said. Family would never get to see the boys' first steps, teach them to tie their shoes or take prom pictures.

Worst of all, he said, Flores' own children could not save themselves.

"Those babies could not raise their hands in self-defense to say, ‘No, Daddy, no, Daddy!'” Bauereiss said, emotion nearly choking his words. Basoria's family members sat a few rows behind him, tears rolling down their cheeks.

"Hold him fully accountable for this most unholiest of crimes," he finished.

Deaton begged jurors in his closing statement to give Flores something besides capital murder, choosing instead among injury to a child or manslaughter, with a wider punishment range. State District Judge David Wilson on Monday morning denied Deaton's motions to include jury instruction on several other choices, including criminally-negligent homicide.

The case was tragic, just two kids in love making mistakes, Deaton said. But it was Basoria's fault for egging Flores on, he said.

"She invited violence into their relationship," he told jurors.

Flores has 30 days to file an appeal.



Link:

http://www.lufkindailynews.com/news/content/news/stories/2005/06/07/20050607LDNflores.html

[ima_drummer2k]

I don't know, I'm just trying not to look at it with my pro-life/pro-choice glasses on, which is why I usually avoid abortion threads.

I don't think anyone can deny that what this guy (and girl) did was despicable. RMTex and Meowgi seem to think they were forced to do it.

I mean seriously, if your pregnant girlfriend asked you to kick her in the stomach, would you do it?

[PhiSlammaJamma]

Another interesting situation is brewing in the military behind closed doors. Apparently about 8 men who served in Iraq together came back and all of their wives had still borns. The Military is refusing to pay bills under the reason that they are not responsible for someone who is not yet born. However, when the baby came out, the hospital acknowledges the birth and death officially on paper. So make of that what you will. It's gonna get interesting. The Military personell are refusing/afraid to talk for fear of the military code. I know all of this because I know one of the mothers indirectly.

[MR. MEOWGI]

Originally posted by MadMax
exactly. i'm not saying either should be doing life in prison i don't know what the sentencing outcome should be.

Yeah, pro-lifers seem to dodge this a lot.



I never said he was forced to do anything. I just dont see how throwing him in prison for life makes the situation better.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k


I don't think anyone can deny that what this guy (and girl) did was despicable. RMTex and Meowgi seem to think they were forced to do it.



That's not at all what I think. I think the only thing that "forced" this guy to kick his girlfriend like that was a lack of education. I feel sorry for the both of them more than anything else.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by MR. MEOWGI
Yeah, pro-lifers seem to dodge this a lot.



I never said he was forced to do anything. I just dont see how throwing him in prison for life makes the situation better.

stop making generalizations. stop demonizing. we're having a discussion. the sentencing here is beyond me. whether the behavior is or is not criminal is more of my concern. the bigger issue is whether or not the life growing inside is worthy of the same protections that you and i are entitled to.

[MR. MEOWGI]

Originally posted by MadMax
stop making generalizations. stop demonizing. we're having a discussion. the sentencing here is beyond me. whether the behavior is or is not criminal is more of my concern. the bigger issue is whether or not the life growing inside is worthy of the same protections that you and i are entitled to.

How is it a gernalization when he is going to spend the rest of his life in prison, and the pro-lifers are upset that the same thing is not happening to her? I would think those are the ones demonizing.

[bobrek]

Originally posted by MR. MEOWGI
How is it a gernalization when he is going to spend the rest of his life in prison, and the pro-lifers are upset that the same thing is not happening to her? I would think those are the ones demonizing.

Where are these "pro-lifers" that are upset the same thing didn't happen to the girl? There has only been one response in this thread indicating the girl was just as guilty and there is nothing regarding "pro-lifers" in either of the 2 articles.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by MR. MEOWGI
How is it a gernalization when he is going to spend the rest of his life in prison, and the pro-lifers are upset that the same thing is not happening to her? I would think those are the ones demonizing.

here's how it's a generalization:

1. i'm a pro-lifer;

2. i'm not upset....i'm noting the inherent problem we have in determining when a life is worthy of protection.


there's your generalization.

[bobrek]

Originally posted by MadMax
here's how it's a generalization:

1. i'm a pro-lifer;

2. i'm not upset....i'm noting the inherent problem we have in determining when a life is worthy of protection.


there's your generalization.

The reason I posted this was not to discuss the abortion issue. We have discussed that to death and no one will probably change their minds anyway.

ALthough this is a truly tragic occurrance for all involved, I mainly posted this because the law is interesting.

- It actually defines life as beginning at conception. I would assume then if a 1 week pregnant woman is murdered then the perpetrator could be charged with 2 counts.

- It seemingly gives free rein to a girl/woman to purposely cause a miscarriage with no ramifications.

- There is also a federal law with respect to this type of situation.

- It is a CAPITAL offense. This fellow could have received the death penalty.

- This may turn out to be a HUGE Supreme Court decision. If they decide it's a state's rights issue, then you would think that could establish a precedence for Roe v Wade to get "overturned" back to a state's rights issue.

[MadMax]

bobrek --

exactly. the policy in these laws helps show the inherent contradictions and ironies in how we determine whether or not an unborn life is worthy of protection under the law.

[MR. MEOWGI]

Originally posted by MadMax
here's how it's a generalization:

1. i'm a pro-lifer;

2. i'm not upset....i'm noting the inherent problem we have in determining when a life is worthy of protection.


there's your generalization.

I have asked many pro-lifers about sentencing for women who have abortions. I do not get much response (I have gotten a few death penalty answers). They are so focused on the law and do not think of it's ultimate consequences, or they just don't care. To me is not a generalization to say many dodge that question or look to building prisons to stop abortions.

There is no beginning to life, btw. It is all a continuation. Legislate that.

[Fatty FatBastard]

I read this in the Houston Press. It disgusts me, on another level.

This once again shows how extremely skewed our justice is these days towards women over men.

Rip up every law, and start over. The government is imposing far too much on our society, and it needs to stop. Our founding father's created this country to specifically stop this kind of crap.

Ah, people. I hate them all.

[langal]

Originally posted by MR. MEOWGI
I have asked many pro-lifers about sentencing for women who have abortions. I do not get much response (I have gotten a few death penalty answers). They are so focused on the law and do not think of it's ultimate consequences, or they just don't care. To me is not a generalization to say many dodge that question or look to building prisons to stop abortions.

There is no beginning to life, btw. It is all a continuation. Legislate that.

A lot of pro-choicers dodge the Scott Peterson double-murder charge when I ask them about it.

This board is just a bunch of monkeys flinging poo at each other sometimes. Guess that's why it's fun.

Seriously though - this is a difficult question. I think we can all (or mostly agree) that Scott Peterson did kill two people. I think most of us would agree that a 1 week old fetus is not a viable life form yet. The answer most of us would be satisfied with is probably between those two extreme cases. The pro-choicers can fling the one-week old argument at the pro-lifers and the pro-lifers can throw the Peterson example back. I think most people here are not really interested in getting a concensus-compromise but are more interested in "winning" and bashing the "other side".

I suppose intent of the perpertrator would be a major component of a fetal-homicide. Don't know if that's in the current law - but it probably should be. There should probably also some consideration about the term of the fetus.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by langal
I think most people here are not really interested in getting a concensus-compromise but are more interested in "winning" and bashing the "other side".


I, for one, am FAR more interested in building concensus to get us all on the same page so that we can work together to reduce abortion rates rather than fighting each other.

For what it's worth.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by MR. MEOWGI
I have asked many pro-lifers about sentencing for women who have abortions. I do not get much response (I have gotten a few death penalty answers). They are so focused on the law and do not think of it's ultimate consequences, or they just don't care. To me is not a generalization to say many dodge that question or look to building prisons to stop abortions.

There is no beginning to life, btw. It is all a continuation. Legislate that.

Meowgi, I've never read even one shred of proposed legislation that had any criminal consequence for a woman having an abortion. Every proposal I've read/understood had criminal implications only for the doctors who perform the procedures. You're generalizing. You made an absolute statement that does not apply to many, if not most, of those whom I know are pro-life...including myself.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by bobrek
I am not sure what this new "fetal protection law" entails, but, depending on the language, could produce some interesting defenses.

For example, some women have been charged with endangering a fetus if they intake drugs or large amounts of alcohol. Could they use the "I was trying to induce a miscarriage" defense?

In some states this is the case and I recall that there have been a few prosecutions on child abuse for women who used illegal drugs or alcohal while pregnant.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by bobrek
Under state law, a woman cannot be charged for causing the deaths of her own fetuses for any reason. A similar federal law went into effect in April 2004, a month before Flores was charged.

Bauereiss told jurors he was focused on Flores. He couldn't help that Basoria was outside the reach of the law, he said. If the babies had been killed after being born, it wouldn't have been so controversial, he said.

"Think what a horrible crime this would be,” he said. “We wouldn't hesitate to label it for what it is.”

The law includes the definition of a person — with full rights to legal protection — as existing from the moment of conception. Prosecutors chose not to pursue the death penalty against Flores, meaning he received an automatic life sentence with parole possible after 40 years.

This is exactly the problem that I brought up repeatedly in the last abortion thread.

Our laws are totally muddied about the definition of when a personhood begins and until that is clarified we're going to have more situations like this.

IMO the state law saying that personhood begins at conception is conflict with Federal and other state law. I don't see how you could have legal abortion if the personhood begins at conception because the legal basis of abortion is that the fetus isn't a person and is part of the women's body. For that matter if TX state law acknowledges personhood and gives full rights of legal protection then are they now changing birth certificates to conception certificates? Could someone count a fetus in utero as a dependent for TX tax or welfare purposes?

At the moment this law to me seems half baked and if I was Flores lawyer this would be a case I would be appealing to at least the TX Supreme Court on the basis that the law is in contradiction with established law. For that matter this might be a good case to finally establish a legal bright line standard for when personhood begins.

Another part about this case might also be troubling for pro-lifers because it shows that people will go to great lengths to get abortions. So even if abortion is outlawed that might not make that much of a dent in abortion.

[flamingmoe]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5390

BARBARISM IN TEXAS....This story is almost too horrible for words. The details are a little thin, but here's the outline.

In 2003, Texas passed an anti-abortion law that instituted a 24-hour waiting period; required doctors to show women pictures of fetuses, tell them about adoption procedures, and warn them that an abortion could lead to breast cancer; and forced abortion providers to keep the identities of all their patients in their records. And one more thing, as the Fort Worth Weekly reported at the time:

The bill as passed also includes another requirement that managed to escape the floodlights of controversy and debate: Abortions from 16 weeks onward now can be performed only in hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers.

The clause is a major Catch-22. Very few Texas hospitals perform elective abortions, and the few that do charge extremely high fees and require that the patients go through complicated ethics reviews. And of the state's hundreds of surgical centers, none performs abortions.

So, with no place to get an abortion after 16 weeks, what does a panicky, 17-year-old girl do if she's four months pregnant? Erica Basoria decided to try to induce a miscarriage. When that didn't work, she asked her boyfriend to step on her stomach. A week later she miscarried.

This is all bad enough, but what comes next is fantastically worse: Texas also has a shiny new law criminalizing "fetal murder," and the fact that Basoria wanted a miscarriage in this case doesn't matter. Her boyfriend, Gerardo Flores of Lufkin, has been sentenced to 40 years in prison for his part in this tragic comic opera:

Flores' mother, Norma Flores, stood in stunned silence, surrounded by family members for several minutes after her son was led away by Sheriff Kent Henson.

Under state law, a woman cannot be charged for causing the deaths of her own fetuses for any reason.

....[Prosecutor Art] Bauereiss told jurors he was focused on Flores. He couldn't help that Basoria was outside the reach of the law, he said. If the babies had been killed after being born, it wouldn't have been so controversial, he said. "Think what a horrible crime this would be, he said. "We wouldn't hesitate to label it for what it is."

....Prosecutors chose not to pursue the death penalty against Flores, meaning he received an automatic life sentence with parole possible after 40 years.

This is the intersection of stupid kids, stupid laws, mendacious legislators, and fanatical prosecutors. It's what happens when states ban access to otherwise legal abortions and kids don't know where to turn. And if circumstances and the law had been slightly different, Bauereiss probably would have prosecuted Erica Basoria too and sought the death penalty for both.

It's like living under the Ayatollahs in Iran. It's simple barbarism.

[gifford1967]

I heard that the girl could not get an abortion because abortions after 4 months are illegal in Texas. Does anyone know if this is accurate? That abortions after 4 months are illegal?

[flamingmoe]

Originally posted by gifford1967
I heard that the girl could not get an abortion because abortions after 4 months are illegal in Texas. Does anyone know if this is accurate? That abortions after 4 months are illegal?

read my post just above yours

[wnes]

How old was Laura when she killed her boyfriend?

[bobrek]

Originally posted by wnes
How old was Laura when she killed her boyfriend?

I take it by your question that you do not know how to use google.

[wnes]

Originally posted by bobrek
I take it by your question that you do not know how to use google.

So how old was Laura when she became a boyfriend-killer?

[bobrek]

Originally posted by wnes
So how old was Laura when she became a boyfriend-killer?

What does that have to do with this thread?

If you need to find out the info you request you can go to www.google.com and enter "Laura Bush" in the text field (since I assume you don't know how to perform an Internet search). It helps to enclose your search string in double quotes as it will look for the occurrance of Laura Bush together as opposed to articles containing the word Laura or Bush. This will narrow your search results. You can use additional search terms and narrow your results even more.

I would suggest getting a book such as "Internet Guide for Dummies". Those types of books have lots of information on how to use the Internet. Perhaps there are also tips in there as to how to follow discussion group threads and remain on topic. Folks who tend to derail threads with off topic comments are sometimes referred to as "trolls".

It is also simple on this particular BBS (Bulletin Board System) to create your own threads if you want to discuss a topic that is not being discussed in another thread. You can simply click on the "New Topic" button near the upper right corner of any particular forum and enter the title and particular item you wish to discuss. The only drawback to creating your own discussion topic is that sometimes you get unintelligent responses.

Good Luck!

[Sishir Chang]

Since we're totally off topic.

Hey Bobrek you still in Lakeville? You up for a Clutchfans north Rox viewing party next season?

[wnes]

Originally posted by bobrek
What does that have to do with this thread?

If you need to find out the info you request you can go to www.google.com and enter "Laura Bush" in the text field (since I assume you don't know how to perform an Internet search). It helps to enclose your search string in double quotes as it will look for the occurrance of Laura Bush together as opposed to articles containing the word Laura or Bush. This will narrow your search results. You can use additional search terms and narrow your results even more.

I would suggest getting a book such as "Internet Guide for Dummies". Those types of books have lots of information on how to use the Internet. Perhaps there are also tips in there as to how to follow discussion group threads and remain on topic. Folks who tend to derail threads with off topic comments are sometimes referred to as "trolls".

It is also simple on this particular BBS (Bulletin Board System) to create your own threads if you want to discuss a topic that is not being discussed in another thread. You can simply click on the "New Topic" button near the upper right corner of any particular forum and enter the title and particular item you wish to discuss. The only drawback to creating your own discussion topic is that sometimes you get unintelligent responses.

Good Luck!

Do you have an answer or not?

Note: bobrek, you are making way too many assumptions.

[bobrek]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
Since we're totally off topic.

Hey Bobrek you still in Lakeville? You up for a Clutchfans north Rox viewing party next season?

Might as well continue the derailing. Yep, let's try for something around opening night. Sorry I couldn't make the last one. Perhaps a T'Wolves game Target Center viewing party should be planned.

[Sishir Chang]

Sounds good to me maybe Rimbaud, Ipaman, Baqui and some of the other clutchfans will be passing through the land of loons then.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang


Another part about this case might also be troubling for pro-lifers because it shows that people will go to great lengths to get abortions. So even if abortion is outlawed that might not make that much of a dent in abortion.

that shouldn't be troubling only for pro-lifers.

[giddyup]

This desperate attempt at "abortion" is stupid and pathetic and tragic. Those two sad people could have gone with the flow of the universe (that they started) for five more months and turned those twins over to an eager couple and their two offspring could have led a wonderful life. It was just too inconvenient to do that, I guess.

Instead the two kids get boot-stomped and I'm supposed to feel more than a twinge of regret for the stompers? They made an utterlly selfishness choice in doing this.

The mother should be punished as well. She has a right to a medical procedure not torture by heel.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by MadMax
that shouldn't be troubling only for pro-lifers.

That depends where one is in the pro-choice spectrum of views. The argument there would be that since people will pursue abortion anyway we might as well keep it legal where it can be conducted under controlled circumstances by a professionals.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
That depends where one is in the pro-choice spectrum of views. The argument there would be that since people will pursue abortion anyway we might as well keep it legal where it can be conducted under controlled circumstances by a professionals.

most pro-choicers i know at least agree with me that they'd like to reduce the number of abortions out there. the idea that people will do anything, as evidenced here, to terminate a pregnancy should be chilling to all of us.

[MR. MEOWGI]

Originally posted by giddyup
This desperate attempt at "abortion" is stupid and pathetic and tragic. Those two sad people could have gone with the flow of the universe (that they started) for five more months and turned those twins over to an eager couple and their two offspring could have led a wonderful life. It was just too inconvenient to do that, I guess.

Instead the two kids get boot-stomped and I'm supposed to feel more than a twinge of regret for the stompers? They made an utterlly selfishness choice in doing this.

The mother should be punished as well. She has a right to a medical procedure not torture by heel.

Your punishments will not transform their ignorance and fears.

I thought pro-lifers didn't want to "punish" women. True colors are being shown.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by MadMax
most pro-choicers i know at least agree with me that they'd like to reduce the number of abortions out there. the idea that people will do anything, as evidenced here, to terminate a pregnancy should be chilling to all of us.

Chilling yes but this an example of Andymoon's argument that an abortion ban might lead to greater harm as people seek abortions in other ways.

This is why one of my admonitions to pro-lifers is that the root causes of why people seek abortions need to be addressed. You can obviously do that and seek a legal ban at the same time but without the root causes addressed we might still end up with not much of a reduction of abortions just a whole lot of gruesome illegal ones like this situation.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by MR. MEOWGI
Your punishments will not transform their ignorance and fears.

I thought pro-lifers didn't want to "punish" women. True colors are being shown.
This woman tortured her chldren until they died. Enough said.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
Chilling yes but this an example of Andymoon's argument that an abortion ban might lead to greater harm as people seek abortions in other ways.

This is why one of my admonitions to pro-lifers is that the root causes of why people seek abortions need to be addressed. You can obviously do that and seek a legal ban at the same time but without the root causes addressed we might still end up with not much of a reduction of abortions just a whole lot of gruesome illegal ones like this situation.
And we could have sent Hitler to sensitivity training while letting the ovens at Dachau and Treblinka keep burning

[MR. MEOWGI]

Originally posted by giddyup
This woman tortured her chldren until they died. Enough said.

Maybe we could end the violence instead of continue it.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by MR. MEOWGI
Maybe we could end the violence instead of continue it.

Exactly. If we work together instead of fighting each other, we could reduce abortion rates dramatically.

[giddyup]

Can I hear a Kum Bay Yah? :)

I'm interested in saving the lives of the innocent children who get conceived even though they are not planned nor are they wanted. If you don't want to concern yourself with them, fine, but why do you want to over-ride my concern for those lives.

Because it will inconvenience the somebodies who created that life?

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by MR. MEOWGI
Your punishments will not transform their ignorance and fears.

I thought pro-lifers didn't want to "punish" women. True colors are being shown.

Like the pro-choice side, we have a wide array of views. Personally, I don't see how this girl is any different from Andrea Yates. She should face the same consequences that her accomplice does. This seems like a perfect case to result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, because the law that would be challenged defines life as beginning at conception. If you are a person at conception, then there are already laws that exist that protect you from being killed.

[MR. MEOWGI]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
Like the pro-choice side, we have a wide array of views. Personally, I don't see how this girl is any different from Andrea Yates. She should face the same consequences that her accomplice does. This seems like a perfect case to result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, because the law that would be challenged defines life as beginning at conception. If you are a person at conception, then there are already laws that exist that protect you from being killed.

All I see is tragedy compounded.

We need a more realistic and compassionate approach to the problem.

[Sishir Chang]

And we could have sent Hitler to sensitivity training while letting the ovens at Dachau and Treblinka keep burning

:rolleyes:

[Major]

This is why one of my admonitions to pro-lifers is that the root causes of why people seek abortions need to be addressed. You can obviously do that and seek a legal ban at the same time but without the root causes addressed we might still end up with not much of a reduction of abortions just a whole lot of gruesome illegal ones like this situation.


The same should be said about pro-choicers. Both sides (in terms of the political movements) have simply focused on the legality of abortions. The pro-life movement rarely ever discusses any strategy of reducing abortions except making them illegal, but the exact same is the case for pro-choicers - the argument is consistently "woman's right to choose" and nothing more.

[andymoon]

Can I hear a Kum Bay Yah? :)

I'm interested in saving the lives of the innocent children who get conceived even though they are not planned nor are they wanted. If you don't want to concern yourself with them, fine, but why do you want to over-ride my concern for those lives.

Because it will inconvenience the somebodies who created that life?

Because that "life" if it is indeed one, is simply none of your business. It is only the business of the "somebodies" (and IMO, only one of them), their doctor, and God. You have no business sticking your nose (or your legislation) in someone else's body.

[andymoon]

Personally, I don't see how this girl is any different from Andrea Yates.

This is the reason it is difficult to make progress on this issue. If you truly cannot distinguish the difference then you are blind.

[Major]

Because that "life" if it is indeed one, is simply none of your business. It is only the business of the "somebodies" (and IMO, only one of them), their doctor, and God. You have no business sticking your nose (or your legislation) in someone else's body.

By this standard, I presume you are against laws against murder?

If one believes a fetus is life, then it is no different than murder. The life is being killed by another party, against its will - period. That is something that we, as a society, have determined is unacceptable. The big question, of course, is the first "if". Once you have presumed that, though (as you did in your first sentence), it damn well is society's business.

[MadMax]

One of my favorite posters is back!!!!!!


Welcome, Major!!!

[MR. MEOWGI]

This is why one of my admonitions to pro-lifers is that the root causes of why people seek abortions need to be addressed. You can obviously do that and seek a legal ban at the same time but without the root causes addressed we might still end up with not much of a reduction of abortions just a whole lot of gruesome illegal ones like this situation.


The same should be said about pro-choicers. Both sides (in terms of the political movements) have simply focused on the legality of abortions. The pro-life movement rarely ever discusses any strategy of reducing abortions except making them illegal, but the exact same is the case for pro-choicers - the argument is consistently "woman's right to choose" and nothing more.

Maybe if they were not too busy fighting, they could focus on that more.

I am pro-legal, but I'm not shouting "right to choose". More like "safe to choose without persecution, damnation and incarceration".

[Major]

Maybe if they were not too busy fighting, they could focus on that more.

I am pro-legal, but I'm not shouting "right to choose". More like "safe to choose without persecution, damnation and incarceration".


As you mention, you're relatively "moderate" in the scale of things - the pro-choice political movement, however, is known for its unrelenting "abortion should be legal" and that's about it - no compromise, no push to reduce abortions, nothing but "woman's right to choose". The generalizations you make about the pro-life movement similarly only capture one small portion of the pro-life group. A substantial majority, I believe (including many here such as MadMax), have far more depth in their views than "abortion should be illegal".

[MR. MEOWGI]

Maybe if they were not too busy fighting, they could focus on that more.

I am pro-legal, but I'm not shouting "right to choose". More like "safe to choose without persecution, damnation and incarceration".


As you mention, you're relatively "moderate" in the scale of things - the pro-choice political movement, however, is known for its unrelenting "abortion should be legal" and that's about it - no compromise, no push to reduce abortions, nothing but "woman's right to choose". The generalizations you make about the pro-life movement similarly only capture one small portion of the pro-life group. A substantial majority, I believe (including many here such as MadMax), have far more depth in their views than "abortion should be illegal".

When I hear pro-lifers people calling for people's heads etc., I become very concerned. There are too many heads to call for. What a sad road that will be to go down. I say try our best to persuade people not to have abortions without the use of force. If you can't, let them go, and try to understand and forgive them. Kind of like we do now...(well some do)

[MadMax]

When I hear pro-lifers people calling for people's heads etc., I become very concerned. There are too many heads to call for. What a sad road that will be to go down. I say try our best to persuade people not to have abortions without the use of force. If you can't, let them go, and try to understand and forgive them. Kind of like we do now...(well some do)

Mewogi

I agree with you. There is way too much "violence" in all of this. No doubt.

Having said that...if you truly view this as a human life being snuffed out, then you have a very different perspective on this. If someone snuffed out YOUR life, we'd demand justice. Whether or not our system can ever really afford us justice is for another thread...another discussion. But if you are convinced that this is a human life being snuffed out...then it changes the entire way you view this situation. That's why it's so hard to argue the issue at all (see all the threads here). There's a ton of misunderstanding and circular argument because the argument really starts with the assumptions going in. The definitions of the words we're using...and definitions of words are rarely merely objective.

[MR. MEOWGI]

Mewogi

I agree with you. There is way too much "violence" in all of this. No doubt.

Having said that...if you truly view this as a human life being snuffed out, then you have a very different perspective on this. If someone snuffed out YOUR life, we'd demand justice. Whether or not our system can ever really afford us justice is for another thread...another discussion. But if you are convinced that this is a human life being snuffed out...then it changes the entire way you view this situation. That's why it's so hard to argue the issue at all (see all the threads here). There's a ton of misunderstanding and circular argument because the argument really starts with the assumptions going in. The definitions of the words we're using...and definitions of words are rarely merely objective.

I do absolutely see it as a life, but I see the mothers as a life too.

I have no anger.

I'm not as concerned about "justice" as much as compassion and understanding and peace. The mothers can learn to see things differently. I want to let them have a chance to live and change and heal. That to me is justice.

What good would it do us to judge and "punish" every women who has had an abortion? Absolutely nothing. That is the exact opposite from that we really need.

[MadMax]

What good would it do us to judge and "punish" every women who has had an abortion? Absolutely nothing. That is the exact opposite from that we really need.

Again, I'll say...I've never seen proposed legislation that contemplated a criminal penalty for the woman who has an abortion...only for doctors who provide them.

[MR. MEOWGI]

Again, I'll say...I've never seen proposed legislation that contemplated a criminal penalty for the woman who has an abortion...only for doctors who provide them.

I hear it all the time. It's evident in this thread. That's one of my fears.

What about self-induced abortions?

[MadMax]

I hear it all the time. It's evident in this thread. That's one of my fears.

What about self-induced abortions?

I don't know. I've just never seen proposed legislation drafted in that way.

[andymoon]

By this standard, I presume you are against laws against murder?

Of course not. We know for a fact and without question that a person who has been born is a "life" and nobody has the right to take another's life with certain exceptions (war, capital punishment, etc.).


If one believes a fetus is life, then it is no different than murder. The life is being killed by another party, against its will - period. That is something that we, as a society, have determined is unacceptable. The big question, of course, is the first "if". Once you have presumed that, though (as you did in your first sentence), it damn well is society's business.

The point, however, is that we cannot seem to agree on when "life" begins. Personally, I wouldn't mind defining it and restricting abortion once the agreed upon point is reached.

I don't "presume" that a fetus is a "life" until it can viably survive outside the womb. Right now, that is 25-30 weeks, though I would not be opposed to setting the limit at the end of the first trimester in order to compromise with the "life begins at conception" crowd.

We will not make progress on this issue until we stop fighting each other and begin working together to reduce abortion rates.

[andymoon]

One of my favorite posters is back!!!!!!


Welcome, Major!!!

Agreed. Welcome back, Major.

[MadMax]

We will not make progress on this issue until we stop fighting each other and begin working together to reduce abortion rates.

i'm not sure that the "fighting" here is keeping anyone from working on the problem, as they see it, though! :)

[andymoon]

As you mention, you're relatively "moderate" in the scale of things - the pro-choice political movement, however, is known for its unrelenting "abortion should be legal" and that's about it - no compromise, no push to reduce abortions, nothing but "woman's right to choose". The generalizations you make about the pro-life movement similarly only capture one small portion of the pro-life group. A substantial majority, I believe (including many here such as MadMax), have far more depth in their views than "abortion should be illegal".

Agreed. But there are FAR more of us moderates who believe that there is room for compromise than there are extremists on either side. We need to get together and come up with a viable compromise so that we can reduce abortion rates, a goal that virtually everyone can agree is a laudable one.

[Major]

The point, however, is that we cannot seem to agree on when "life" begins. Personally, I wouldn't mind defining it and restricting abortion once the agreed upon point is reached.


I agree with that. My contention was primarily with the statement that this life, if it's a life, is none of your business. I think if you decide its a life, it is everyone's business. If you decide it's not a life though, that's a different story entirely. Which is why this issue is such a freaking mess. :)

[andymoon]

i'm not sure that the "fighting" here is keeping anyone from working on the problem, as they see it, though! :)

Certainly not the fighting HERE, but the fighting between the -choicers and -lifers ITRW sure seems to get in the way of any meaningful work getting done.

[Sishir Chang]

The same should be said about pro-choicers. Both sides (in terms of the political movements) have simply focused on the legality of abortions. The pro-life movement rarely ever discusses any strategy of reducing abortions except making them illegal, but the exact same is the case for pro-choicers - the argument is consistently "woman's right to choose" and nothing more.

There is some truth to that but at the same time many of the abortion providers and pro-choice groups also support efforts to reduce abortion. Planned Parenthood, as its very name goes, also advocates against getting pregnant and provides a range of services to prevent unplanned pregnancy.

On the wider political level many of the most ardent pro-choice politicians also support programs that will reduce the causes of seeking abortions by making it easier to raise children. Unfortunately many of the most ardent pro-life politicians seek to cut such programs.

[andymoon]

The point, however, is that we cannot seem to agree on when "life" begins. Personally, I wouldn't mind defining it and restricting abortion once the agreed upon point is reached.


I agree with that. My contention was primarily with the statement that this life, if it's a life, is none of your business. I think if you decide its a life, it is everyone's business. If you decide it's not a life though, that's a different story entirely. Which is why this issue is such a freaking mess. :)

I just don't believe that you can have a legislative ban on abortions based on "ifs" and "mights." I would support reasonable restrictions (first trimester, parental notification for minors, etc.), but a legislative ban on elective abortions would do far more harm than good.

[Major]

Agreed. But there are FAR more of us moderates who believe that there is room for compromise than there are extremists on either side. We need to get together and come up with a viable compromise so that we can reduce abortion rates, a goal that virtually everyone can agree is a laudable one.

I agree. I think both sides, just like both political parties, have two problems. One is that they have some pretty radical people at the top - that discourages compromise right there. But beyond that, there is this fear that compromising on ANYTHING is akin to folding and will open the floodgates. So both sides just harden their position.

I think in reality, there is a lot that both sides can agree on, and would do so in a non-political setting.

[MadMax]

I just don't believe that you can have a legislative ban on abortions based on "ifs" and "mights." I would support reasonable restrictions (first trimester, parental notification for minors, etc.), but a legislative ban on elective abortions would do far more harm than good.

I want to resolve this with you. I see you post this a lot.

I'll adopt Major's statement in its entirety in order to do this. So assume I wrote it...and you were responding to me with the post of yours I'm quoting above.

We can argue about if the sky is blue or not. But it is ultimately blue or it is not blue. One of us is right...one of us is wrong. I don't mean to use this example to say it's blatantly obvious, for this illustration, which is right and which is wrong. Just to say that whether we disagree or not...it is what it is. And if we err to one side, and we're wrong...then we restrict rights of women to prevent the termination of something that isn't life....and if we err to the other side, and we're wrong...then we are snuffing out human life because someone else doesn't want it there.

This is where the argument gets frustrating. I don't know how it's anything other than living...and as such, is a life. If it's not a life, I don't know what it is. Maybe it's not human life? I don't know. But my perception isn't important to what is ultimately true. I know that there are those who disagree with me...but I find their arguments in describing what it is OTHER THAN A LIFE to fall very short. Don't you? Because when taken in other contexts (like mentally disabled people or even newborn babies) they justify the position that to be "alive" one has to be able to do handstands and long division. And it's chilling to me to imagine where else that could lead you.

[Invisible Fan]

Given my views on choice, I'm not sure what being ultimately wrong on abortion means, other than it being one hugely misguided war on unwanted pregnancies. Many people have committed manslaughter in circumstances more questionable than elective abortions. I'm not in a position to judge any of that.

My line drawn in concerning abortion usually comes with the start of consciousness. As for the embryo/fetus being alive, a sperm and an egg is living too if you want to paint that broad a brush. On the surface, a one celled embryo doesn't have that much distinction as a cancer cell or a stem cell. I have to rely on the sum of the parts being greater than the whole to carry this thought. If a zygote doesn't differentiate into crucial cells like a nerve cluster or intestinal linings, then it'll eventually terminate. It wouldn't fit the preconditions of a human life. With normal cells, if they don't differentiate right, unused in function, or if its function becomes obselete, it'll terminate by cell apoptosis.

I could be ignorantly wrong. People base most decisions on the external benefits while weighing the social costs in the back of their minds. Maybe the personal social cost of criminalizing murder outweighs the external benefits of not. This doesn't seem to be the case with abortion in the minds of many people.

[andymoon]

I want to resolve this with you. I see you post this a lot.

I'll adopt Major's statement in its entirety in order to do this. So assume I wrote it...and you were responding to me with the post of yours I'm quoting above.

We can argue about if the sky is blue or not. But it is ultimately blue or it is not blue. One of us is right...one of us is wrong. I don't mean to use this example to say it's blatantly obvious, for this illustration, which is right and which is wrong. Just to say that whether we disagree or not...it is what it is. And if we err to one side, and we're wrong...then we restrict rights of women to prevent the termination of something that isn't life....and if we err to the other side, and we're wrong...then we are snuffing out human life because someone else doesn't want it there.

This is where the argument gets frustrating. I don't know how it's anything other than living...and as such, is a life. If it's not a life, I don't know what it is. Maybe it's not human life? I don't know. But my perception isn't important to what is ultimately true. I know that there are those who disagree with me...but I find their arguments in describing what it is OTHER THAN A LIFE to fall very short. Don't you? Because when taken in other contexts (like mentally disabled people or even newborn babies) they justify the position that to be "alive" one has to be able to do handstands and long division. And it's chilling to me to imagine where else that could lead you.

For me, the rights of the fetus completely trump the rights of the mother once it is viable and could survive outside the womb (25-30 weeks). At that point, I believe that the fetus should be protected and it should have rights as an already born baby.

However, I am willing to compromise this belief to extend said protection to fetuses outside the first trimester because I, like you, would "err on the side of caution" when it comes to abortion. I am just not willing to "err" so completely that the woman has no rights after conception. I believe that if a woman is to have an abortion, she needs to make and execute that decision as early as possible, but I do think she has the right to make that decision, given reasonable restrictions.

[Ottomaton]

But if you are convinced that this is a human life being snuffed out...

Not to be churlish, but I would like to point out that, unless you posess an equaly strong distaste for the death penalty, the side most associated with "pro-life" is perfectly willing to snuff out human life under a specific set of preconditions.

If you would like to argue the validity of abortion preconditons vs. death penalty preconditions, I would not fault your logic, but as you frame it here, (assuming, again, the statistical link between 'pro-life' and 'pro-death penalty' which I hope we can agree exists) the basic premise behind how you frame your arguement is unsound.

[MadMax]

Not to be churlish, but I would like to point out that, unless you posess an equaly strong distaste for the death penalty, the side most associated with "pro-life" is perfectly willing to snuff out human life under a specific set of preconditions.

If you would like to argue the validity of abortion preconditons vs. death penalty preconditions, I would not fault your logic, but as you frame it here, (assuming, again, the statistical link between 'pro-life' and 'pro-death penalty' which I hope we can agree exists) the basic premise behind how you frame your arguement is unsound.

Well I didn't realize I was being graded, professor.

I'm anti-death penalty. Does that help?

[Mulder]

Texas Penal Codde 19.02 b

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly
dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter,
and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt,
or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or
attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes
the death of an individual.

and 19.03 Capital Murder

(7) the person murders more than one person:
(A) during the same criminal transaction; or
(B) during different criminal transactions but
the murders are committed pursuant to the same scheme or course of
conduct; or
(8) the person murders an individual under six years
of age.

In Texas an individual is defined as (1.07)

(26) "Individual" means a human being who is alive,
including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from
fertilization until birth.

[Rocket River]

where have you been? that's been the state of the law for quite some time now. remember the jackass who killed his pregnant wife in Calif? he was convicted of killing her AND the unborn life inside her.

it is just hypocritical
to say it is not alive . . in issues of abortion
but
it is alive in murder trials

Rocket River

[rhester]

I would like to ask a hypothetical question(s). Not to further the debate or sway the dialogue, but to gain understanding for those who also hold religious views in this debate (like me).

I ask those who are pro-abortion to respond.
I ask you to assume/not believe (as faulty as these may sound) 3 things-

Assumptions-
1. There is a supreme God who will judge my life after my death.
2. This God views abortion as wrong and equal with murder.
3. I advocate and support abortion.

Now here is my question(s)-

On this day of my judgment how do I change God's mind about this so as to escape His judgment? How do I logically explain that I believed the first two assumptions and yet I also chose the third assumtion?

I really an not asking for an attack on the hypothetical question or the assumptions (I don't mean this facetiously) , I am thinking this through myself to see what explanations I might use.

[MadMax]

it is just hypocritical
to say it is not alive . . in issues of abortion
but
it is alive in murder trials

Rocket River

NO KIDDING!!! that's my point!