Posted on 11/22/2007 7:17:40 PM PST by paltz
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - Texas laws allow the killing of a fetus to be prosecuted as murder, regardless of the fetus' stage of development, but they do not apply to abortions, the state's highest criminal court has ruled.
Wednesday's ruling by the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected an appeal by Terence Lawrence, who said his right to due process was violated because he was prosecuted for two murders for killing a woman and her 4- to 6-week-old fetus.
The court ruled unanimously that state laws declaring a fetus an individual with protections do not conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling that protects a woman's right to an abortion.
"The Supreme Court has emphasized that states may protect human life not only once the fetus has reached viability but 'from the outset of the pregnancy,'" the court said. "The Legislature is free to protect the lives of those whom it considers to be human beings."
Lawrence was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life for the 2004 shooting death of his girlfriend, Antwonyia Smith, and the couple's unborn child. Lawrence shot Smith after learning she was pregnant with his child, according to court documents.
Lawrence's appeal argued that he should not have been prosecuted for the death of the fetus because it was not viable. Supreme Court precedent in abortion cases has established that states have no compelling interest to interfere before a fetus would be old enough to live outside the mother's womb, he said.
However, the court said abortion precedent is based on the premise that a woman wants to have the procedure.
"The 'compelling state interest' test, along with the accompanying 'viability' threshold, has no application to a statute that prohibits a third party from causing the death of the woman's unborn child against her will," Presiding Judge Sharon Keller wrote.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
bttt
His momma probably wants him to live so would that exempt him from the death penalty?
TEXAS: The last great hope for mankind. :)
Ambiguous pronoun ping.
ping ur lists
That isn't what they said.
This sort of legal “reasoning” should be required to be read to the accompaniment of the “Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies”.
Then all's well since Mom can kill the kid (fetus).
However, the court said abortion precedent is based on the premise that a woman wants to have the procedure.
“The ‘compelling state interest’ test, along with the accompanying ‘viability’ threshold, has no application to a statute that prohibits a third party from causing the death of the woman’s unborn child against her will,” Presiding Judge Sharon Keller wrote.
The twisted logic that is used is incredible! It goes something like this:
1. There is a fetus growing inside the mother’s womb.
2. If a person shoots or punches or kicks the mother in the abdominal area and causes the death of that fetus, the perpetrator has committed the crime of murder, which is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
3. However, if the mother wants to terminate the pregnancy and has a doctor perform an abortion, the fetus is now NOT considered a human being.
4. So, we now have a contradiction in terms, wherein the very existential nature of what a fetus is, is determined solely by whose idea it is to kill it.
This is why NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and others of their ilk are more than likely in an uproar over this.
Until the writers of legislation change the wording to reflect (and thus limit) a woman's right to choose to end a pregnancy rather than hire a serial killer to off her alive unborn child, this issue will remain an empowerment scheme for dead-soul Democrats and a wedge issue for obsequious Republicans.
Japanese researchers have managed to sustain a goat fetus (an animal in the class of mammals to which humans belong also) for seventten weeks in an artificial amniotic sac while nourishing and protecting the alive fetus.
There is rapidly approaching a day when science will be able to terminate a pregnancy yet sustain the alive little one until 40 weeks of gestational age even back to the embryonic stage. THEN the issue will bea woman's right to reject being a life supporter for another alive human being. Time for legislatures to take this truth of the humanity of the alive unborn into account NOW, before the dilemma arises where a woman is being granted a right to hire a serial killer to kill a living human being sequestered or not to her body.
Of course, Barbara Boxer and the Rodham-rodent won't like that since they proved thier deadness of soul by arguing with Sick Santorum that a woman hiring an abortion is entitled to a dead child whether the alive unborn is viable or not ... and on the floor of the Seante no less!
It seems to me that that alone is enough of an argument without the need to make things up.
What is the difference between someone taking a knife and stabbing the pregnant mother in the womb and the mother taking a hanger and stabbing her unborn child in the wound?
Yes, their logic is demonstrably inconsistent. But that’s just a Texas court. Let’s see if it holds up nationally.
In the “pro-choicers” want to be consistent, they cannot call it murder when someone other than the mother kills the fetus. They need to call it a property crime.
Let me try that one more time:
If the “pro-choicers” want to be consistent, they cannot call it murder when someone other than the mother kills the fetus. They need to call it a property crime.
Well, they(the Dem. Party) treat the unborn the way they treated their slaves...poorly. My fear is that one day when abortion is finally looked at as the horrible act that it is by EVERYONE in the country, the liberals will revise history and make it sound like conservatives were pro-abortion and liberals were pro-life. They revised history already and make liberal democrats out to be the ones who freed the slaves.
>> The twisted logic that is used is incredible! It goes something like this:
Indeed. Does it not seem more evil for the fetus to be killed by the mother than a third person? Is there not an element of betrayal by the mother in addition to the killing via abortion? Is there not further betrayal by the gov’t that promises life, liberty, and justice for all?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.