Associated Press – 2:46 PM EST, November 22, 2007:
AUSTIN, Texas – 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.
How was his right to due process violated? He was prosecuted. What his he claiming was wrong with the trial?
I believe this issue a fair issue that the Pro-Choice people I know haven’t really grappled with.
Isn’t there a double standard about fetuses? If, for example, a doctor commits malpractice and damages the fetus, he’s liable, right?
But another doctor — with permission — totally dismembers and kills the fetus, it’s perfectly legal.
If you look at this issue from the point of the mother’s right to chose, it makes sense.
But how does it make sense if you look at it from the perspective of the fetus?
Because people, it’s about CHOICE. If a women doesn’t CHOOSE to have the fetus aborted, then it’s murder. I have no problem with this ruling, and I doubt you’d find many pro-choice people who do.
Maybe they are thinking of a fetus like a pet or possession. You can take your pet to the pound where it will be euthanized and that is okay. But, if someone kills your pet without your permission, you may have legal recourse and/or the state may be able to prosecute.
#4, Jeanne,
Good point. Can a fetus be property?
#5 – Well, I own you. Does that make you a fetus?
I guess it is considered property in some ways. I think that the reason why it is considered a person in a murder case is the natural want of the prosecutor to increase the charges.
#6, Well your comments generally make a great reason to advocate abortion.
#6: Don’t know whether you were trying to be illogical for some reason, but you succeeded. Just because you own something does not make it a fetus.
#8: Laws are (should be) made for the good of a society. I think a strong case can be made for the permitting of abortion.
#9 Laws should be made for the good of a society, yes, and the good of a society is almost defined by the lengths to which they’ll go to protect human life. And that means all human life, at any stage of development.
So in other words, if you want to kill a fetus, hire a licensed professional?
#10: The good of a society is –not– “almost defined by the lengths to which they’ll go to protect human life. And that means all human life, at any stage of development”.
Blood cells are human life, as are egg and sperm and skin cells, etc. There is no beginning of life; life is a continuation. A society’s well-being can very well be improved by having less unwanted and cared for humans.
In one case the law deems the foetus person-like, the other not. Biological realities need not be part of the consideration, only the definition as written on paper and made into law.
Couldn’t we do something similar with racism, whereby the law deems all black people to be white (or vice versa) thereby legally ridding our country of racism?
We do this sort of definition thing already with sex change operations.
RBG
This dazzling display of logic baffles me…
Either the fetus is a human, or it isn’t. Roe vs. Wade says it isn’t human, otherwise it would have rights.
Come on, this isn’t a “Schrödinger’s cat” scenario.
Please explain where Roe v Wade says a fetus isn’t human.
Chad, you can’t have it both ways. If you define the fetus as a living being, then sure, it’s murder if I kill your fetus. But then it’s also murder when you kill your fetus. However, if you define the fetus as just another lump a tissue that can be removed at your discretion (like a wart or a tail)–then how can it be murder when I remove it? It could certainly be some sort of assault–as it would if I cut off your hand. But I would be tried for murder. So this is not about CHOICE–it’s about how you define the fetus. Is it a person which can be murdered or lump of tissue to be removed at our discretion?
Roe vs Wade was a subjective decision in 1973 and was made irrelevant by DNA fingerprinting science in 1989.
DNA fingerprinting evidence distinguishes the fetus as a different human being from the mother.
A critically injured person lying on the street is not self-reliant.
A newborn is not self reliant.
Many disabled people aren’t self-reliant.
It is against the law not to try to preserve the lives of these people, yet some of you wouldn’t afford the same right to a fetus.
So answer this.
By what science or logic do you justify your lethal discrimination against the unique innocent life of a fetus?
#17, Rob,
A fetus may have its own DNA. It may also have its own limbs, organs, and brain. Until it is capable of surviving outside the womb however, it is similar to being a cancerous lump. While an eight month fetus may survive outside the womb, the odds and success of the happening diminish exponentially for every day more premature.
So how do I justify allowing a woman to decide she does not need to carry a fetus to term? Simple. It is her body and I will not force her to do something with her body she does not want to do. When the fetus becomes old and mature enough to survive, then to purposely kill the fetus for vanity is not the best decision.
While I am sure you hold your opinions high, I’m not so sure about the other anti-choice crowd. Yes, maybe the accident victim will be treated. If that victim has no insurance though, they will only receive minimal treatment and be pushed out the door. For those of lesser illness, they won’t even receive minimum treatment if they don’t have insurance. I find it quite hypocritical to insist a woman bear a child only to watch the child suffer from medical neglect caused by those who insisted the child be born in the first place.
Before you use the adoption argument, forget it. Every State has thousands of children waiting to be adopted. Yet I continually read about Bible Thumpers going overseas to adopt babies. Yet, waiting for a loving home in America there are babies with fetal alcohol syndrome. There are others born addicted to crack or meth. There are babies with mild physical difficulties and some with severe problems. There are children with issues. There are children that have been abused, physically and or sexually. There are children that are dyslectic and some that are mentally retarded.
When the anti-choice crowd starts adopting these unwanted children then they may start telling me all about morals.
The DNA of the fetus distinguishes it from the mother. It is a living distinct human being.
This science proves that it is not the mothers body, nor is it some malignant growth threatening it.
The fetus is a dependant like any other. It takes sacrifice to keep it alive and it would die without care.
Other dependants currently have the right to live and their caregivers have a legal obligation to care for them.
By what science or logic do you justify your lethal discrimination against the unique innocent life of a fetus?
Adoption is absolutely a safe and valid option for promiscuous mothers.
Ask any adopted adult if they would have preferred to be aborted. I suspect you already know the answer.
18 Mr. F: In the meantime throw out the baby with the bathwater, is that it?
Now I understand the kind of people who make laws without any regard to realities such as biology. You and King Canute could have a good time together out on the town.
What’s the difference between a 28 week unborn child (“the lump”) supported in the womb by the mother and the same 28 week unborn child (…”lump”) that is then delivered by cesarean and continues to be supported, by technology just fine, outside the womb? Other than personal politics, I mean. (Wow: lump to child at the snap of your definition.)
There are plenty of people in this world who are different and/or disabled. Shall we get rid of them too? Maybe via pillow while they sleep?
Humankind has always come up with “good” reasons why it’s OK to rid our world of undesirable and inconvenient people. The more powerless, the easier. Nothing new here.
RBG
by the way there are no unwanted children…. unless the mother keeps it and does not want to… but there are many couples who are unable to have their own children who would love to have one of the children that has been killed by abortion
Next in the US circuses called courts:
Suing a partner for not impregnating her egg during intercourse, thus actively killing potential baby of hers.