In Eguia v. State of Texas, (TX Ct. App., Nov. 20, 2008), a Texas appellate court upheld appellant's conviction for murdering a woman and her unborn child. The court rejected appellant's constitutional challenge to the Texas statute that defines an unborn child as a "person" for purposes of the capital murder statute. (TX Penal Code 1.07(a)(26)). Jacob Eguia contended that this definition violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Art. I, Sec. 6 of the Texas Constitution that bars giving preference by law to any religion. Holding that "a statute is not automatically rendered unconstitutional simply because it advances ideals that harmonize with religious ideals," the court found that the statute meets the Lemon test. It concluded that "the State has a legitimate secular interest in protecting mothers and their unborn children throughout the mother’s pregnancy
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
18 comments:
Seems like a no-brainer. I'll bet it took the Court about 5 minutes to publish this decision. Too bad they didn't address the perception that unborn children loose the right to live when it's the mother who wants them killed.
Yeah, it's a no-brainer, alright. No brain cells were injured or inconvenienced in the making of this decision.
If it's unborn, it's not yet a child. If it's a child, it has already been born.
Did you pull that out of your ass or is there some scientific foundation upon which you proclaim the status of unborn children as non-entities with no value as humans? I'm guessing you moved your head aside and pulled it out of your ass.
Do you ever read anything with what's commonly known as comprehension?
Where did I say anything about non-entity? Or about its having no value?
Do you even think before you write these comments? If a "thing" has value, arbitrarily destroying it would be idiotic. You declare that unborn children are free to be arbitrarily destroyed, but they have value? You playin' some good music with that tap dance?
"...non-entities with no value as humans..."
Chimera certainly said nothing of the sort. That's a silly emotional straw man. Chimera, however, did say,
"If it's unborn, it's not yet a child. If it's a child, it has already been born."
This is really a comment worthy of discussion. It seems to me quite absolute. I understand the attraction of the clarity that such positions seem to have. The equivalent pro-life position is something along the lines of,
"It is fully human at the moment of conception."
One issue to be grappled with here might be the implications of legal personhood for unborn children. The statute reads:
"Individual" means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth."
As our strawman maker did reasonably point out, "...unborn children loose the right to live when it's the mother..."
The way the statute is written it could easily include a morning-after pill meant to inhibit implantation. Someone must have written a book on the implications of this. Anybody know of one?
Jim51
Jim51, see the Prometheus books web site. Do a word search on abortion for an overview. I did and came up with the following link:
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.php?main_page=advanced_search_result&search_in_description=1&keyword=abortion
-American Atheist
"You declare that unborn children are free to be arbitrarily destroyed, but they have value?"
Find where in I said that and then quote me in full.
American Atheist,
Thanks. Interesting book list.
I have a feeling that the implications of defining a fertilized egg as an "individual" or "person" are far greater than those who passed the statute considered them to be.
Jim51
Cute Chimera; while Jim51 and AA have an actual discussion about this issue, you, off by yourself play your silly word games. Grow-up.
Jim51 I have an issue with your decree that pro-lifers deem the "life" begins at conception. Some do, many do not. Most I think would use a common sense rationale determining that viability is the point of a human life with constitutional rights superceeding the whim of the biological host mommy. This point in development makes a lot more sense than Chimera's absolute of until I see the head, it might as well be dead.
I'm with Chimera on this I think.
The problem with viability is medical science is continuing to push forward when a fetus becomes viable. In the future, a person may be grown in an artificial womb so would be "viable" at conception. And yet a viable pharyngula shouldn't have the full blown rights as a regular child, one capable of feeling fear and pain.
And yet, viability is a smoke screen. The real hard and true question is who gets to choose what happens to the fetus while it's in the mother's body; the mother or the State?
I look at it this way. If it's INSIDE me, it's MY decision; not the States! Doesn't matter if it's viable or not!
And besides, the odds of a woman having an abortion of convenience in the late 3rd trimester is vanishingly small even if she can find a doctor willing to do it. If she thinks she needs to that late in the game, she's obviously desperate and must have some very good reason for doing so. If that's the case, it's probably best we stay out of it and let her continue.
-American Atheist
Anonymous,
Your comment,
"Most I think would use a common sense rationale determining that viability is the point of a human life with constitutional rights superceeding the whim of the biological host mommy."
What you are saying here is essentially Roe v Wade. I don't have a problem with it, but I have never met a self-described pro-lifer who would subscribe to it.
Based on previous comments from you, I am surprised by this comment. Perhaps I am getting the "anonymous" folks mixed up. It will help if you sign your posts with something unique.
Jim51
To All,
I will be on a business trip for the next 6 days so I may go dark.
Sorry.
This discussion can be very valuable, particularly if we can remove the venom.
JIm51
"Cute Chimera; while Jim51 and AA have an actual discussion about this issue, you, off by yourself play your silly word games."
This is no word game, buster. You accused me of something. Now prove it. Or get lost.
Chimera, I never once used the word accused. I defy you to find it anywhere in my previous post. Stop putting words in my mouth. If you can't participate in an adult conversation, take your toys and leave.
Of course you didn't use the word. It's a verb, you idiot.
The decision in Eguia v. State of Texas doesn't triangulate well. (1) Given a woman's right under Roe v. Wade to choose an abortion (let's say in the first trimester) and (2) the state claims an interest in protecting a fetus, (3) different results are obtained depending upon who the actor is that terminates the fetus. Where is the equal protection (application) of the law?
Since I am pro-choice as I support women's reproductive rights, in stead of saying that abortion is wrong, it seems to me that the criminal law is wrong for making the termination of a fetus a separate offense. Under this view, if any thing, the termination of a fetus in the commission of crime should be an aggravating factor.
"...termination of a fetus in the commission of crime should be an aggravating factor."
Mmmmmmm...not sure I can agree with you on that one, Bob. Making it an aggravating factor seems like giving it a status over and above that of simply being a fetus, doesn't it? And if you grant that, then you're opening the door for others to say that if it's important enough for special status, then it's important enough to be granted status as an individual, the aborting of which can then be classified as murder.
Post a Comment