miércoles, 30 de junio de 2010

Court of Criminal Appeals Upholds Texas' Personhood Law

I wasn't too sure on the justices on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals...wasn't sure who I'd vote for. Now I know I'll be voting the incumbent Republicans back in, largely because of this:
Court Upholds Texas' Personhood Law In another victory for Texas' "personhood law," the Prenatal Protection Act, the state's highest criminal court unanimously upheld the conviction of a San Antonio man for murdering a pregnant girl and her "thirteen-week-old unborn child."

The groundbreaking Prenatal Protection Act recognized, for the first time in the history of Texas, the personhood of "an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth" and made it possible to prosecute for violent crimes of assault and murder against unborn persons.

In its opinion, delivered on June 16, the nine-member Texas Court of Criminal Appeals relied heavily on an amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) brief submitted by Texas Alliance for Life (TAL). TAL's brief defended the constitutionality of the Prenatal Protection Act, which was passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Perry in 2003.

In 2005, Adrian Estrada, a youth director at a San Antonio church, murdered through "multiple stab wounds and strangulation" 17-year-old Stephanie Sanchez, who was carrying a child fathered by him. It was the third time she was impregnated by Estrada, with the first pregnancy ending by abortion and the second by miscarriage.

The Court noted that Roe v. Wade permits states to criminalize the homicide of an unborn child so long as the law does not restrict the mother's right to terminate her pregnancy.

"Once again the legal personhood of the unborn child has been upheld in Texas so that our legislature can protect mothers and unborn babies from violent crimes," says Joe Pojman, Ph.D., TAL's executive director. "Although the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade opinion forbids Texas from protecting unborn children from abortion, we believe the Prenatal Protection Act creates a foothold for someday overturning Roe."

This is the fourth time the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has upheld the Prenatal Protection Act and the third time TAL has submitted a brief to that court. In each case, the Court's opinion was consistent with the arguments in TAL's brief.

Source: Texas Alliance for Life

18 comentarios:

  1. that's good ...considering.

    I still find it amazingly illogical that they are only a person worthy of protection unless their own mother wants to murder them.

    makes about as much sense as protecting children from pedophiles... ...unless that pedophile is your own parent.

    ResponderEliminar
  2. The real shame is that the pro-life community would support a personhood law that excepts abortion. Colorado will once again vote on a personhood law designed to SPECIFICALLY OUTLAW ABORTION (PersonhoodColorado.com). And whether it passes this election cycle or sometime in the future, I hope it teaches pro-life voters that we don't have to settle for scraps thrown from the abortion industry's table. We can stop abortion if we do not compromise on God's enduring command... "Thou Shalt Not Murder".

    ResponderEliminar
  3. You can't fully commit to 'Life is Sacred', and still kill millions of innocent men, women, children, and the unborn, in the wars we elect to participate in for empire, profit, and our unsustainable way of life. When we can reconcile that hypocrisy, we will insure the safety of all, including the unborn. Just a thought.

    ResponderEliminar
  4. Joey G. Dauben | The Palmer Post1 de julio de 2010, 6:54

    I've always argued that our pro-life movement in Texas is exceedingly watered down. With all due respect to the Texas Right to Life and to Cathie Adams, they continue to put the same people back in office that continue to do nothing but lip service to this issue.


    It'll never change until we stop wholesale taxpayer funding of abortion and its related services.

    ResponderEliminar
  5. I formed my opinions about Iraq from 1) Scott Ritter ( chief UN Inspector ) and his many lectures since 2003 on what he saw in Iraq. 2) the propaganda ( incubator babies, that Iraq was involved in 911, etc) . 3) We didn't seem to care if they did all this stuff when Hussein was working for us and when we were selling him the gas and weapons that he used on his own people. We knew he was doing all that stuff and only labeled him bad when he didn't do our bidding.

    So, the only way we could stop him from killing people is to carpet bomb the place and kill another million. Not too mention all the deaths resulting from no hospitals, no drinking water, no waste facilities, etc. What an embarrassment. There is a reason we have so many enemies, and it's not our freedoms.

    Look deeply into the history of many of these atrocities and you will see that we could have done much to prevent them. For Instance, like not funding the people who were committing them.

    ResponderEliminar
  6. I thinks its a reasonable step to say that if you kill an unborn child, that’s murder. But, I don’t believe that one moment after conception, you have an unborn child. I’m going to leave that one to medical science. When we have addressed the issues of how we treat humanity in general, then I will be willing to debate at what point a collection of cells becomes an unborn child. If we can stop the killing of millions of the already born and the millions of close to being born, then we can get into the medical details of life. I won’t see it in my lifetime. You attack it from your side, i’ll attack it from mine and I hope we can meet in the middle and celebrate.
    ===============

    The medical details of life have been settled and firmly established for decades already.
    Taxonomically, you have an individual human organism immediately after conception: a diploid individual that is merely developing - growing-- just as any other child does. The only thing that allows us to legally kill it is geography.

    I have yet to find a human embryologist that will even consider debating that this "collection of cells" is not alive, is not human, or is not an individual human. The only ones trying to make the case appear fuzzy are philosophers, theologians, bioethicists, psychologists, medical doctors, or those who are not *human embryologists*. Similar to the left's call for discrediting any other scientist except those specialists who study climatology. ;)

    I'll get further into the other issues a bit later, but i will leave it for now at just a simple caution to be careful making blanket statements about religion: history shows that the bad sides of religion occur when the followers *don't follow* what the religious teachings actually teach. ;) And scripture warns about that too.

    Iraq-- well, there were a LOT of other people analyzing Iraq than just the chief inspector, and manymanymany more variables that wouldn't necessarily have "prevented" much of anything.

    Happy 4th of July weekend everyone! I'm off to the Red Oak party [if it doesn't rain....]

    ResponderEliminar
  7. Steve "the preacher" Hedtke6 de julio de 2010, 11:30

    Big John,
    Just wanted to speak on the topic of *religion* here...
    The "RELIGION" you speak of is truly *Yours* and yours alone.
    I say *yours* generically, because I don't know your *religion* or faith.
    Religion is as changeable and as flawed as the folks who invented it, and who tomorrow can change it again.
    Faith is a whole 'nother matter.
    Generically speaking, you cannot blot out faith like you can blot out someone's life.
    Kill enough folks or let 'em die off, and you can a kill a {religion}
    But faith...
    You can't put it in a box, you can't quantify it scientifically
    (and that pisses off most athiest [which IS a religion] scientists)...
    I'm gonna preach for a moment...
    bet you thought I was done?
    Now to the question of the faith of a Christian/not religion of a Christian
    It says in 2 Corinthians 5:7 {the Christian Bible}
    ... for we (believers in Christ Jesus) walk by faith, not by sight.
    So "faith" is the key here.
    There IS a distinction to be made between religion and faith.
    Christ Jesus [my personal savior] was crucified because of *religion*, not faith.
    Religion IS the problem today, but the word RELIGION can be applied to almost [any] endeavour of man...
    NOT GOD.
    Remember, Jesus was only Jewish on His mother's side.
    Like you said and I'll add too it...
    Religion is what happens when you don't practice what is taught in religion.
    I believe, and yes it's just me saying this (faith), that if we all follow Almighty God's (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) commands...
    and accept that Christ Jesus is God's Only Son come down from heaven to live among men as a man, and who suffered, died and rose again (as promised by Almighty God) in order to [JUSTIFY] me (a poor miserable sinner) before Almighty God.
    Then...
    No matter what happens to me or any *CHRISTIAN BELIEVER* in this "fallen" world, we will stand strong and live by the GREAT GIFT that is God's favor and is "our faith"...
    Our command...
    Love God unconditionally and love our neighbor as ourself. {THE GREATEST COMMAND}
    and we will be blessed by Almighty God for it...now and forever...
    Jesus never said it would be easy in this life, even though His burden is light, but His promise is that He is with us to the end of the world
    How can we, miserable sinners, have this "faith" you ask?
    We CAN'T...
    Faith is a free gift of Almighty God.
    We're free to decide, it's not forced on anyone...
    accept or decline, you choose, you're not a puppet on a string
    Simply put...
    I am able to love because I am 1st loved...
    I am able to understand Almighty God's commands for my life because He chooses for me to, not because I'm some great scholar or philosopher.
    No other "religion" teaches such a principle...
    that I'm aware of...
    Most important...you can no more disprove Almighty God's existence than I can prove to your satisfaction that God does "in fact" exist.
    He [God] has chosen you and me since before we were born to be "Son's of GOD" and they's only one thing that you can do to stop Him...
    temporarily, anyhow...
    You can reject the gift...
    Not too Smart... if you ask me!
    Almighty God is still the same as He has always has been... from the beginning...
    we (His greatest creation) have turned away, and have been bought back by His actions!
    Just my "Holy Spirit" influenced observation...NOT MY RELIGION

    ResponderEliminar
  8. Another "Christian" who is no doubt for the death penalty, and who spouts hatred at Muslims, blacks, and anyone who disagrees with him.

    What would Jesus do?

    ResponderEliminar
  9. Thanks John. You should set up a good discussion board for Ellis County. :-)

    ResponderEliminar
  10. The law could also allow the killing (or extinction) of people over 70 years old. (And with the new health care program, it is not so unrealistic) So now you still want me to make up my own mind?
    I am anti-abortion, no doubt about it. I won't impose my beliefs on you either, but murder is more than just someone's belief. It is against Christian morals, it is against biblical teaching, no matter whose God you talk to, and it is against social law, (unless you have a baby in your stomach and you decide you don't want it anymore, so you just find an MD and kill it).

    ResponderEliminar
  11. "Dontlikejoey"--

    then you will have no problem if I *don't* impose my beliefs about opposing murder on the person who might want to kill you?

    Who has freewill? only born humans? Where do you draw the line? By killing the human in the womb you take away THEIR freewill too. But that's ok? Is it ok to kill them 2 minutes after they are born also?

    ResponderEliminar
  12. So i have to rely on what you will or will not impose on me as i said i will not abort any child or potential child. But you will support someone killing me. I will not support or condone either

    ResponderEliminar
  13. dontlike joey: you are still missing the basic logic:

    you want ME to impose MY beliefs about murder on another person and PREVENT them from killing you, but you don't want me toimpose my beliefs about murder on another person and prevent them from killing a human in the womb.

    In order to prevent the murder of a human beliefs WILL be imposed on people and consequences issued. Making abortion illegal imposes beliefs about murder on EVEN pregnant women, just as it does on everyone else already.

    But I understand you to say that you won't impose your beliefs about abortion on someone else? why not? You thin kit's ok to murder some humans but not others?

    ResponderEliminar
  14. The majority of people apparently support the right to make their own choice annd live with the consequences of their choices i prefer that than to having fewer choices. In the case of rape is abortion okay?

    ResponderEliminar
  15. How about that baby in the womb? Where is his/her choice? That CHOICE everyone is so hot and worried about is made at conception. After that, the only choice is what name you are going to give your baby. And with some of the names that are chosen today, maybe that should be taken away too.

    ResponderEliminar
  16. Let's face it. Abortion, in most cases, is a convenience. It has nothing to do with choice or rights or anything else we value so highly, except for a fetus that we may decide we don't want. We just wanted the sex, not the fetus. So, we will use the convenient abortion tool, much easier than birth control.
    As for rape, medical emergencies, etc., this should be discussed in a different venue. Abortion is death to a fetus. A fetus is a living thing. There is no other way you can look at it with any common sense. The abortion laws have given us a convenient way to rid ourselves of this "troublesome" fetus that has invaded our bodies after a few minutes of ecstasy.
    You want choice, then choose before conception, not after.

    ResponderEliminar
  17. When Republicans start caring if babies have healthcare, and that they are fed and educated as they grow, maybe they'll convince me that they give a damn about babies living or dying. For now, they say it's "not their job" to take care of the kids they they insist have to be born.

    ResponderEliminar
  18. It's not a "Republican" responsibility to take care of children. It's not even a partisan issue. Your social issues match up with your socialist economic issues, as well. You want someone else to provide and take care of "babies."

    If individual responsibility doesn't come through, I guess it is the prerogative of the State, but at what cost?


    We already see how public school districts are constructing "early childhood centers" for the pregnant teens.


    Public schools are the new welfare agencies.

    ResponderEliminar