Justice or Travesty?

[Harrison]

Another proof that there is no such thing as equality.

The only equalities in this world are in mathematics.

[Lueyen]

Would this more or less be considered as the 2 of them performing an abortion? What are the laws in regard to who can actually perform an abortion?

What I could find on the Texas Law

Under a law signed June 20, 2003, and effective September 1, 2003, the protections of the entire criminal code extend to "an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." The law does not apply to "conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child" or to "a lawful medical procedure performed by a physican or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent." (SB 319, Prenatal Protection Act)

[Darcler]

Theeeeeen....shouldnt he just be charged with battery or assult or something? Since no one knows for sure who REALLY killed it....

[Rust]

His intent was to cause a miscarriage - so was hers. Under the law, she can't be charged, but he can. They're both guilty, but she can't be charged, only him. so he was charged and convicted.

His best bet is for executive clemency, or to have the law struck down, which is unlikely.

--R.

[kaharthemad]

frankly both should be locked up.

[Gidan]

The major problem I see here was ther he was convicted of murder beyond any resonable doubt. They can not prove he actually killed the fetus/baby/whateer you call it. On the charge of murder, how can you convict him?

The whole thing should never have arised. If she didn't want the child, she should have gone throught the proper steps to deal with it. It was the wrong way to handle it.

Is he an idiot? Yes. Is she an idiot? Yes. Should he spend the rest of his life in jail? No, He is not a danger to society.

This is a situation where the law as it is written has problems. You have 2 individuals doing the exact same thing. 1 of them will spend his life in jail the other gets off with nothing. What is the difference between him aiding her in something that would be the same result as an abortion and an abortion doctor doing it? What makes his crime result in life in prison and the doctors completely legal?

[Harrison]

The major problem I see here was ther he was convicted of murder beyond any resonable doubt. They can not prove he actually killed the fetus/baby/whateer you call it. On the charge of murder, how can you convict him?

The whole thing should never have arised. If she didn't want the child, she should have gone throught the proper steps to deal with it. It was the wrong way to handle it.

Is he an idiot? Yes. Is she an idiot? Yes. Should he spend the rest of his life in jail? No, He is not a danger to society.

This is a situation where the law as it is written has problems. You have 2 individuals doing the exact same thing. 1 of them will spend his life in jail the other gets off with nothing. What is the difference between him aiding her in something that would be the same result as an abortion and an abortion doctor doing it? What makes his crime result in life in prison and the doctors completely legal?

The only equalities in this world are in mathematics.

[xaoshaen]

The major problem I see here was ther he was convicted of murder beyond any resonable doubt. They can not prove he actually killed the fetus/baby/whateer you call it. On the charge of murder, how can you convict him?

The prosecution didn't necessarily have to prove that his were the blows that killed the twins, just that his actions would have resulted in their deaths with or without the mother striking herself.

The whole thing should never have arised. If she didn't want the child, she should have gone throught the proper steps to deal with it. It was the wrong way to handle it.

Yep, but she didn't.

Is he an idiot? Yes. Is she an idiot? Yes. Should he spend the rest of his life in jail? No, He is not a danger to society.

To paraphrase Clarke, sufficiently advanced idiocy is indistinguishable from crime. Anyone dumb enough to see jackbooting his girlfriend as a solution to an unwanted pregnancy is definitely a threat to society via procreation at the least.

This is a situation where the law as it is written has problems. You have 2 individuals doing the exact same thing. 1 of them will spend his life in jail the other gets off with nothing. What is the difference between him aiding her in something that would be the same result as an abortion and an abortion doctor doing it? What makes his crime result in life in prison and the doctors completely legal?

Well, one individual is a medical professional, performing an operation he's been trained to do. The other is some halfwit fuckstick stomping on his girlfriend's stomach. I'm not sure about Texas law, but I know that performing abortion, or most other surgical procedures for that matter, is a crime in some states.

[Martrae]

He could have very easily killed her too. It was a halfwitted thing to do and showed incredible lack of judgment.

[Gidan]

The major problem I see here was ther he was convicted of murder beyond any resonable doubt. They can not prove he actually killed the fetus/baby/whateer you call it. On the charge of murder, how can you convict him?

The prosecution didn't necessarily have to prove that his were the blows that killed the twins, just that his actions would have resulted in their deaths with or without the mother striking herself.

Were they able to prove that they would have died if she did not assist? If so, what means did they go about proving it?

This is a situation where the law as it is written has problems. You have 2 individuals doing the exact same thing. 1 of them will spend his life in jail the other gets off with nothing. What is the difference between him aiding her in something that would be the same result as an abortion and an abortion doctor doing it? What makes his crime result in life in prison and the doctors completely legal?

Well, one individual is a medical professional, performing an operation he's been trained to do. The other is some halfwit fuckstick stomping on his girlfriend's stomach. I'm not sure about Texas law, but I know that performing abortion, or most other surgical procedures for that matter, is a crime in some states.

I am still trying to find a law that in the state of Texas that says, you must be a doctor to perform an abortion, not having any luck.

[Tikker]

I think it's a crock of shit to give him life for something like that

[Themosticles]

Would this more or less be considered as the 2 of them performing an abortion? What are the laws in regard to who can actually perform an abortion?

What I could find on the Texas Law

Under a law signed June 20, 2003, and effective September 1, 2003, the protections of the entire criminal code extend to "an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." The law does not apply to "conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child" or to "a lawful medical procedure performed by a physican or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent." (SB 319, Prenatal Protection Act)

I believe the answer to your question can be found if you start with this post...

[Gidan]

Thats what I was looking for, I missed the end line of that.

[Martrae]

About 20,000 women a year seek abortions after the 21st week, which marks roughly the midway point in a pregnancy. Perhaps 1,000 terminate after 24 weeks, when the fetus is generally considered viable. The practice, though rare, makes many Americans uneasy. While 60% say abortion should be legal in the first trimester of pregnancy, 12% say it should be legal in the third trimester, according to a Harris poll conducted in February.

With over 1 million abortions performed a year that's a VERY small number of late term abortion being done. Like I said...it's rare.

[Harrison]

20k legal murders a year, awesome.

[Rust]

20k legal murders a year, awesome.

I think you meant 1k, since 21 weeks is generally pre-viability. Of the roughly 1k abortions done post-24 weeks, how many are for the mother's health as opposed to elective? Or maybe you meant 20k.

Given the AMA's position prohibiting elective third trimester abortions, I'm not shocked most doctors would not perform them unless there was a risk to the mother's life and health. Obviously the state cannot have a compelling interest in prohibiting abortions at *any* stage when the mothers life is in danger (pre-eclampsia or the like). But I would believe most physicians would simply induce labor in any woman past 24 weeks if it was possible, but some women would probably die in labor.

--R.

[Wrath Child]

20k legal murders a year, awesome.

I think you meant 1k, since 21 weeks is generally pre-viability. Of the roughly 1k abortions done post-24 weeks, how many are for the mother's health as opposed to elective? Or maybe you meant 20k.

Given the AMA's position prohibiting elective third trimester abortions, I'm not shocked most doctors would not perform them unless there was a risk to the mother's life and health. Obviously the state cannot have a compelling interest in prohibiting abortions at *any* stage when the mothers life is in danger (pre-eclampsia or the like). But I would believe most physicians would simply induce labor in any woman past 24 weeks if it was possible, but some women would probably die in labor.

--R.

The whole "women's health at risk" excuse is nothing but smoke and mirrors when one considers EVERY pregnancy threatens the women's health to some degree. So it's a catch all to allow ALL abortions under ALL circumstances. Including those when the unborn baby clearly is a human being that can survive on his or her own.

Now, if you happen to firmly believe that ANYONE - not just pregnant women - have the right to use deadly force to protect their health from anyone threatening it, be it muggers, car jackers, rapists, bullies,..etc, then you're consistant in your point of view and I have no argument with you on this.

What's going to happen to all of you pro-all abortion people when science presents women with artificial wombs? Besides not having any morning sickness, stretch marks or stretched out vaginas(WAHOO!) to deal with, your #1 argument - "it's a women's body and she can do what she wants" - will cease to sooth your conscious.

When will that "clump of tissue" stop being just that and a protected human, I wonder? After he or she is removed from the robowomb? If that's the case, what's to stop the rich from breeding them for spare parts? Or is that OK in your opinions if and when it happens? And it will.

[Tuggan]

im kinda thinking if a woman gets this 'artificial womb' pregnant, it wont be an accident and abortion wont have to be considered?

youre a lil crazy there buddy.

[Lyion]

Interesting discussions, Wrath.

I'll have to read on this 'Artificial Womb' research, as it's not something I've heard anything about it.

The same problems are somewhat related to the Stem Cell quagmire.

[Rust]

What quagmire?

--R.

[Lyion]

The quagmire of destroying embyro's for their stem cells which many people have moral objections over.

It relates to the last paragraph Wrath wrote

When will that "clump of tissue" stop being just that and a protected human, I wonder? After he or she is removed from the robowomb? If that's the case, what's to stop the rich from breeding them for spare parts? Or is that OK in your opinions if and when it happens? And it will.

[Wrath Child]

im kinda thinking if a woman gets this 'artificial womb' pregnant, it wont be an accident and abortion wont have to be considered?

youre a lil crazy there buddy.

No, you're just a shortsighted nitwit.

If that "clump of tissue" is a human being in the artificial womb at a certain point between conception and roughly 9 months later, would it not from a scientific point of view - as well as from a common sense one - also be a human being at the exact same stage of development inside a real womb?

In other words, if you were to come to the conclusion that a viable fetus is in fact a human being - with the same rights as you and I - would you still believe it is OK for a women to abort him or her? To enact the death penalty, if you will, on her unborn but completely human child?

I'm not opposed birth control, the morning after pill or even very early abortion, not because of any "woman's right to choose" nonsense or due to any religious beliefs, but simply because I don't believe that it's a human being at that stage of development. It is the beginning of human life, but not a human being per se.

My opposition to abortion solidifies once the child can survive outside the womb, even if that's by artificial means. To play it safe, I see no justifiable reason for an abortion past 16-18 weeks, unless the woman's life is threatened.

You see, whether the baby is inside the womb or outside it, if it's a human being....it IS a human being. There's no magical process that transforms it from a clump of tissue to a fully formed baby upon birth, despite what you must think.

You would no doubt reach celebrity status within the Flat Earth Society should you ever venture to join.

[Wrath Child]

The major problem I see here was ther he was convicted of murder beyond any resonable doubt. They can not prove he actually killed the fetus/baby/whateer you call it. On the charge of murder, how can you convict him?

The whole thing should never have arised. If she didn't want the child, she should have gone throught the proper steps to deal with it. It was the wrong way to handle it.

Is he an idiot? Yes. Is she an idiot? Yes. Should he spend the rest of his life in jail? No, He is not a danger to society.

This is a situation where the law as it is written has problems. You have 2 individuals doing the exact same thing. 1 of them will spend his life in jail the other gets off with nothing. What is the difference between him aiding her in something that would be the same result as an abortion and an abortion doctor doing it? What makes his crime result in life in prison and the doctors completely legal?

According the the CBC interview I heard this morning(but was broadcast in Canada last night), the girl was covered in bruises when she arrived at the hospital. And not just bruises on her stomach, but on her face and arms. This guy was beating the hell out of her it seems. So good riddance!

[Tuggan]

shortsighted nitwit with a grasp on reality.

i cant even tell what the fuck your argument is, or if you even have a stand on the issue.

dont be so long winded if your only point is youre all good with abortion up until 18 weeks.

robowombs, and the rich harvesting body parts... oookay.

[Rust]

The quagmire of destroying embyro's for their stem cells which many people have moral objections over.

It relates to the last paragraph Wrath wrote

When will that "clump of tissue" stop being just that and a protected human, I wonder? After he or she is removed from the robowomb? If that's the case, what's to stop the rich from breeding them for spare parts? Or is that OK in your opinions if and when it happens? And it will.

Embryonic stem cells are derived from the blastocyst - which has somewhere on the order of 100 undifferentiated cells.

I understand that some religious sects have a problem with that - so let their members decline to participate, like JWs don't accept blood transfusions. I can't argue against religious convictions - they're not rational, they're faith-based.

If you'd like to make a *rational* case against creating blastocysts to harvest stem cells, feel free.

--R.