Teen Gets Life Sentence For Helping Girlfriend End Pregnancy

[Brad]

TPJCatholic:

Brad,

I am not placing the blame on the boy because in our civil society he really did nothing wrong (put aside the obvious moral law violation here). Think it through calmly without attachment to your feelings for the unborn. The simple truth is abortion is legal, the murder of the unborn is legal…that mother asked the boy to abort her babies for her. If the boy had driven the girl to the abortion clinic, the babies would not be less dead, but the boy would be eating dinner with his family tonight, rather then facing a suicidal life in prison. Sure, the boy did the deed, but he did not kill those babies anymore completely then if an abortionist had done it in a so-called legal manner. How exactly is the murder of those babies through extraction or salt or chemicals, etc…any more moral then jumping on them?

If abortion were illegal, then I would be with you all the way, but it is legal to murder our unborn…therein lies the problem. It is waaaay beyond hypocritical to place that kid in jail forever, but let aduly baby murderers (abortionists) walk free and become rich killing the unborn. Please, try to see that the young man did nothing that the abortionist would not have done…he aborted those babies. Why do you think Texas could not do anything to the mother? It is because abortion is legal and she used her so-called legal rights to have her friend abort her babies.

I am disheartened that you have fallen victim to moral relativism yourself.

What is the superior law? God’s law or man’s law?

If it were legal for blonde haired persons to kill but illegal for black haired persons to kill and a black haired person killed someone in your family, would you NOT want him punished???

You have to seperate the severity of the sentence from whether is was just to punish someone for killing or not. I am not arguing about the severity of the sentence. I am arguing that he should be punished.

I am NOT saying what the abortionist does is OK. I am saying what the young man did was WRONG. You don’t decide right or wrong through comparisons with other people. That is moral relativism. Moral rights and wrongs are absolute, unchanging.

You and I agree that the law allowing abortion is wrong. You also seem to believe that the Texas law is wrong because it is discriminatory. Seeing as you disagree with BOTH laws, why do you trump the Texas law with the abortion law when the abortion law causes MUCH more death and mayhem??? The Texas law did exist. He DID do something wrong according to civil law.

If you think one day all the laws regarding abortion will turn in synchronization and all will be well, you are not understanding how this will work. You have to take moral, legitimate, steps to curb the tide against abortion. You cannot take the all or nothing approach. Nothing gets accomplished that way.

No person should stomp on the stomach of any female to kill the baby inside. The young man was not seeing himself as an abortionist. He was seeing himself as avoiding an abortionist because she was too late in term and they were looking to go around the law by causing death themselves.

Finally, the young man is not a boy. He was 19 years old. That is a young man, able to live on his own and make his own moral decisions, including fornication, which I know you think should be punished - yet you think he should get off the hook for killing the evidence.

 

[Brad]

caroljm36:

So I’m wondering how these Lacey Peterson-type laws are holding up. Someone’s bound to challenge them, maybe even over this case. So the supreme court will probably rule that it’s okay to abort this way too if that’s the woman’s “choice.” But then they can’t hide behind the doctor-patient secrecy…wow what a grisly convoluted mess we’re in…

Maybe these laws are the first steps to turning the law against killing babies.

 

[marcadam]

TPJCatholic:

beckers,

How is what the boy did NOT abortion?

I agree. His lawyer must be a moron, because given the current state of “law” in this country and even Texas, I’m struggling to understand how this wasn’t pled (sp?) down to practicing medicine without a license and providing an abortion to a minor without parental consent.

Then again, I don’t know the parental consent laws in TX; perhaps they allow the parents of the child to bring a “fetal harm” case against the abortionist (licensed or otherwise)? Anyone in Texas know the answer to this one?

-Marc

 

[mikev]

Brad:

Nobody should have such a “right”. I’m sure you have heard the saying “Two wrongs don’t make a right”?

I agree abortion is wrong; I do not support it…

mikev:

If the mother has the right to commit abortion because it is “her” baby, shouldn’t the father have the same right because it is “his” baby? (note: I am absolutely pro-life, just noting the inconsistancy here.)

Their baby is temporarily residing in the mother due to biology; it’s not hers.

This whole thing is sad, but it seems to be punishing the father unequally for the same crime.

Indeed, two wrongs don’t make a right. It just seems warped logic to punish the man and not the woman in this case. If either are to blame (which I think they are); they both are.

 

[marcadam]

Brad:

If I speed at 90mph and accidentally hit a car on the shoulder and kill someone, I must pay for the crime.

If someone else speeds at 90mph, drives across the same shoulder, but there is no care on the shoulder, this person never pays for the crime. Should I no longer be punished because other speeders are lucky?

Your analogy doesn’t hold. In the first case, you are guilty of speeding, perhaps reckless operation; in the second, vehicular manslaughter.

This would be analogous to stepping on a non-pregnant woman’s belly (by force, assault and battery; by request, ???) as opposed to stepping on her belly without knowing she was pregnant (manslaughter, I think? Don’t know because of our schizoid laws on fetal harm at the moment).

The vehicular anaolgy to this case would be truly bizarre. First, we have to imagine some sort of “hit” license you could recieve after some schooling in a precision driving school that would allow you to be a “vehicular killer for hire.” Then we’d have to imagine that you have a friend who want to contract a murder, but doesn’t have the money or impetus to hire a licensed “vehicular killer” so asks you to do it. I suppose that we’d also have to throw in there that the only allowable contract killings are those brought by mothers upon their children, and that the request has been made to you as such. And that people can only be killed while inside their cars. With their mothers. Hmmm.

Now, all this really illustrates is how insane abortion law is. But for the sake of argument…

Of what are you guilty here, according to these human laws? Obviously that person killed had no “right to life,” since his mother already expressed the desire to kill it, but was unsuccessful in her own efforts to do so. Basically, it is patently impossible to figure out. The law is saying two different things here, placing bizarre conditions on the value of human life (sound familiar?) The only real conditions are judicial and legislative fiat. Either you are guilty of murder, or “practicing vehicular contract killing without a license”.

shudder

The fairness lies with what the young man did. He made his choice. She did not force him to do what he did. He is culpable.

No one forces the abortionist to do what he does, and yet it is perfectly legal–with parental consent for minors, of course. That’s the essential “unfairness” here.

But as I have said elsewhere, it may be that TX law allows the parents to bring the fetal harm case when no parental consent is sought or given. In which case the unfairness is that such a case will probably never really be brought against a real, live abortionist, just sad cases like this one.

-Marc

 

[marcadam]

TPJ, I completely agree with your sentiment, and I understand what you are trying to say, but even so, sentences like this

TPJCatholic:

Think it through calmly without attachment to your feelings for the unborn.

Are somewhat… unsettling.

 

[Brad]

marcadam:

Your analogy doesn’t hold. In the first case, you are guilty of speeding, perhaps reckless operation; in the second, vehicular manslaughter.

This would be analogous to stepping on a non-pregnant woman’s belly (by force, assault and battery; by request, ???) as opposed to stepping on her belly without knowing she was pregnant (manslaughter, I think? Don’t know because of our schizoid laws on fetal harm at the moment).

The vehicular anaolgy to this case would be truly bizarre. First, we have to imagine some sort of “hit” license you could recieve after some schooling in a precision driving school that would allow you to be a “vehicular killer for hire.” Then we’d have to imagine that you have a friend who want to contract a murder, but doesn’t have the money or impetus to hire a licensed “vehicular killer” so asks you to do it. I suppose that we’d also have to throw in there that the only allowable contract killings are those brought by mothers upon their children, and that the request has been made to you as such. And that people can only be killed while inside their cars. With their mothers. Hmmm.

Now, all this really illustrates is how insane abortion law is. But for the sake of argument…

Of what are you guilty here, according to these human laws? Obviously that person killed had no “right to life,” since his mother already expressed the desire to kill it, but was unsuccessful in her own efforts to do so. Basically, it is patently impossible to figure out. The law is saying two different things here, placing bizarre conditions on the value of human life (sound familiar?) The only real conditions are judicial and legislative fiat. Either you are guilty of murder, or “practicing vehicular contract killing without a license”.

shudder

No one forces the abortionist to do what he does, and yet it is perfectly legal–with parental consent for minors, of course. That’s the essential “unfairness” here.

But as I have said elsewhere, it may be that TX law allows the parents to bring the fetal harm case when no parental consent is sought or given. In which case the unfairness is that such a case will probably never really be brought against a real, live abortionist, just sad cases like this one.

-Marc

I think you are reading way too much into the analogy. It really has nothing to do with the fact that someone was killed through manslaughter. I was trying to point out that is someone commits a crime and is caught they should be punished irregardless if someone else committed the same crime and was not. Perhaps it was a bad analogy.

Let’s say 2 people are in prison for life for crimes they DID commit. One has a mistrial declared on a technicality unrelated to the evidence and is let go. Should the other person also be let go because this is not fair?

 

[Brad]

marcadam:

No one forces the abortionist to do what he does, and yet it is perfectly legal–with parental consent for minors, of course. That’s the essential “unfairness” here.

I am not arguing about fairness as it corresponds to the young lady’s guilt. I’m arguing that the young man should be punished irregardless and that it is fair in isolation of the young lady. She did not force him to do what he did.

 

[Brad]

mikev:

I agree abortion is wrong; I do not support it…

Indeed, two wrongs don’t make a right. It just seems warped logic to punish the man and not the woman in this case. If either are to blame (which I think they are); they both are.

It is warped logic but only because the Roe V. Wade decision was far more warped. I’d prefer to continue to move towards “unwarping” the laws of this country rather than allowing everyone to go scot free because we can’t prosecute all.

 

[Mom_of_one]

Brad:

And here we see the insane logic that those that are the primary protectors of another person are allowed to kill that person while others are not allowed to kill the same person.

**“Insane logic” says it all. **

 

[Traditional_Ang]

caroljm36:

So I’m wondering how these Lacey Peterson-type laws are holding up. Someone’s bound to challenge them, maybe even over this case. So the supreme court will probably rule that it’s okay to abort this way too if that’s the woman’s “choice.” But then they can’t hide behind the doctor-patient secrecy…wow what a grisly convoluted mess we’re in…

Caroljm36:

This is one big reason ROE V. WADE needs to be OVERTURNED! That’s why I pushed so hard on the Appeals Court Judges last month, and that’s why I was so angry and upset over the McCain “Deal” that kept the rules about Judicial Filibusters from being changed.

We were in a place were ROE V. WADE was going to be done for if the right steps were taken, and that’s when the Devil intervened and made sure the first of those steps weren’t taken. This “Deal” the Senate made insured that Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justices will NOT be replaced with PRO-LIFE Ones!

Since ROE V. WADE is here to stay, we’re going to have to put up with unfair laws like the one cited that fail to punish the most egregious offenders, but punish stupid teenagers instead.

Note to those in Arizona - John McCain is NOT PRO-LIFE in his effects! It was his deal that saved ROE V. WADE!

Blessed are they who act to save God’s Little Ones. Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Brad:

It is warped logic but only because the Roe V. Wade decision was far more warped. I’d prefer to continue to move towards “unwarping” the laws of this country rather than allowing everyone to go scot free because we can’t prosecute all.

Brad:

Thanks to the warped logic of ROE V. WADE and the decisions that followed on it, the conviction will probably be overturned, and the law itself will be thrown out (they’ll rework it).

His girlfriend testified that she was “trying to end the pregnancy” and has asked for his help. She even testified that she told him what to do and how to do it.

The poster, marcadam(?), who said “practicing Medicine without a Licence” and “Providing an Abortion to a minor in violation of the TX Laws requiring parental consent” are what will end up being the convictions is probably right.

Blessed are they who act to save God’s Little Ones. Michael

 

[TPJCatholic]

marcadam,

The point is sometimes we can let our emotions take over our minds. Any person who has deep love for the unborn will find themselves deeply moved by abortion; therefore, in order to make rationals choices we must find a way to remove ourselves from that attachment…only then can we help the unborn.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Brad,

I am disheartened that you have fallen victim to moral relativism yourself.

==> I am glad you are concerned for me…yet fear not, I have not fallen victim to moral relativism.

What is the superior law? God’s law or man’s law?

==> Oh good, a quiz. Umm, I’ll say God’s Law. Was I right, do I get a prize?

If it were legal for blonde haired persons to kill but illegal for black haired persons to kill and a black haired person killed someone in your family, would you NOT want him punished???

==> Another quiz? Hmm, not sure I can handle this many questions in one mornig… (teasing btw). Answer: You make a poor analogy. Let me try: Say it was legal for blonde and black haired persons to kill…should either of them be punished for killing?

I am arguing that he should be punished.

==> I am arguing that the boy aborted the babies and abortion is legal, so why punish the boy for murdering the babies when the law says that it is legal to do so? Like it or not, this situation has nothing to do with Gods Law, because if it were then the only just thing to do would be to ban abortion across the globe.

I am NOT saying what the abortionist does is OK. I am saying what the young man did was WRONG. You don’t decide right or wrong through comparisons with other people. That is moral relativism. Moral rights and wrongs are absolute, unchanging.

==> I am not deciding right or wrong. It makes no difference how a person murders the unborn, it is wrong no matter how they do the murdering. Can you not see what I am saying? The abortionist murders babies, the girl asked for her babies to be murdered, the boy murdered the babies as asked and was given life…yet had the abortionist done it, the boy would be home right now. Please, stop and think it through…the problem is that abortion is legal. Those babies would be dead no matter what form of abortion took place…yet we are giving the boy life for doing something that is done legally by thousands of abortionists everyday. If you feel the boy deserved this punihsment, then you should be clamoring for every abortionist to be give life immediately, and for every woman attempting to kill their unborn she should receive life and for every father who helps the mother, etc…they should all be given life.

The Texas law did exist. He DID do something wrong according to civil law.

==> All that boy did was abort the babies. How is that different then why an abortionist does legally? Or, are you arguing that since it is legal for ab abortionist to kill babies, that it is okay for them to do so?

You cannot take the all or nothing approach. Nothing gets accomplished that way.

==> Then Lincoln was wrong…lets bring back slavery.

No person should stomp on the stomach of any female to kill the baby inside.

==> Really?

The young man was not seeing himself as an abortionist.

==> How do you know this?

He was seeing himself as avoiding an abortionist because she was too late in term and they were looking to go around the law by causing death themselves.

==> How do you know this? Mind reader?

Finally, the young man is not a boy. He was 19 years old. That is a young man, able to live on his own and make his own moral decisions, including fornication, which I know you think should be punished - yet you think he should get off the hook for killing the evidence.

==> The young man was 17 when all this happened! He was a minor who kill babies just as dead as an abortionist does, yet the abortionist gets to go play a round of golf, while the boy sits in a cell for the rest of his days. If you think that is just, then I do not want to live in your world. I desire to live in a world where we at least try to adminster justice equally. To say it is fine for one person to murder babies, but it is not fine for another person to murder babies, is severely unjust imo. If it is wrong to murder babies (as we both know it is), then it is wrong for all people to do that–it does not just apply to 17 year-old boys.

 

[Brad]

Traditional Ang:

Brad:

Thanks to the warped logic of ROE V. WADE and the decisions that followed on it, the conviction will probably be overturned, and the law itself will be thrown out (they’ll rework it).

His girlfriend testified that she was “trying to end the pregnancy” and has asked for his help. She even testified that she told him what to do and how to do it.

The poster, marcadam(?), who said “practicing Medicine without a Licence” and “Providing an Abortion to a minor in violation of the TX Laws requiring parental consent” are what will end up being the convictions is probably right.

Blessed are they who act to save God’s Little Ones. Michael

So she’s an accomplice to murder. Since when do we not prosecute the actual hit man?

 

[Brad]

TPJCatholic:

Brad,

I am disheartened that you have fallen victim to moral relativism yourself.

==> I am glad you are concerned for me…yet fear not, I have not fallen victim to moral relativism.

What is the superior law? God’s law or man’s law?

==> Oh good, a quiz. Umm, I’ll say God’s Law. Was I right, do I get a prize?

If it were legal for blonde haired persons to kill but illegal for black haired persons to kill and a black haired person killed someone in your family, would you NOT want him punished???

==> Another quiz? Hmm, not sure I can handle this many questions in one mornig… (teasing btw). Answer: You make a poor analogy. Let me try: Say it was legal for blonde and black haired persons to kill…should either of them be punished for killing?

I am arguing that he should be punished.

==> I am arguing that the boy aborted the babies and abortion is legal, so why punish the boy for murdering the babies when the law says that it is legal to do so? Like it or not, this situation has nothing to do with Gods Law, because if it were then the only just thing to do would be to ban abortion across the globe.

I am NOT saying what the abortionist does is OK. I am saying what the young man did was WRONG. You don’t decide right or wrong through comparisons with other people. That is moral relativism. Moral rights and wrongs are absolute, unchanging.

==> I am not deciding right or wrong. It makes no difference how a person murders the unborn, it is wrong no matter how they do the murdering. Can you not see what I am saying? The abortionist murders babies, the girl asked for her babies to be murdered, the boy murdered the babies as asked and was given life…yet had the abortionist done it, the boy would be home right now. Please, stop and think it through…the problem is that abortion is legal. Those babies would be dead no matter what form of abortion took place…yet we are giving the boy life for doing something that is done legally by thousands of abortionists everyday. If you feel the boy deserved this punihsment, then you should be clamoring for every abortionist to be give life immediately, and for every woman attempting to kill their unborn she should receive life and for every father who helps the mother, etc…they should all be given life.

The Texas law did exist. He DID do something wrong according to civil law.

==> All that boy did was abort the babies. How is that different then why an abortionist does legally? Or, are you arguing that since it is legal for ab abortionist to kill babies, that it is okay for them to do so?

You cannot take the all or nothing approach. Nothing gets accomplished that way.

==> Then Lincoln was wrong…lets bring back slavery.

No person should stomp on the stomach of any female to kill the baby inside.

==> Really?

The young man was not seeing himself as an abortionist.

==> How do you know this?

He was seeing himself as avoiding an abortionist because she was too late in term and they were looking to go around the law by causing death themselves.

==> How do you know this? Mind reader?

Finally, the young man is not a boy. He was 19 years old. That is a young man, able to live on his own and make his own moral decisions, including fornication, which I know you think should be punished - yet you think he should get off the hook for killing the evidence.

==> The young man was 17 when all this happened! He was a minor who kill babies just as dead as an abortionist does, yet the abortionist gets to go play a round of golf, while the boy sits in a cell for the rest of his days. If you think that is just, then I do not want to live in your world. I desire to live in a world where we at least try to adminster justice equally. To say it is fine for one person to murder babies, but it is not fine for another person to murder babies, is severely unjust imo. If it is wrong to murder babies (as we both know it is), then it is wrong for all people to do that–it does not just apply to 17 year-old boys.

Sorry. Moral relativism.

 

[marcadam]

Brad:

I think you are reading way too much into the analogy. It really has nothing to do with the fact that someone was killed through manslaughter. I was trying to point out that is someone commits a crime and is caught they should be punished irregardless if someone else committed the same crime and was not. Perhaps it was a bad analogy.

Yes, because this isn’t about one person getting caught and the other person not getting caught for the same crime. This about two people performing the same act (the 19-year-old in question, and any given abortionist) but one gets a life sentence because he doesn’t have some arbitrary “license to kill”.

Let’s say 2 people are in prison for life for crimes they DID commit. One has a mistrial declared on a technicality unrelated to the evidence and is let go. Should the other person also be let go because this is not fair?

Still wrong, because there is no mistrial for the first, nor even a consideration of crime. Abortionists are considered good, lawful citizens providing a necessary medical “treatment”. This boy, for doing the same thing they do, albeit more crudely and without license, gets life in prison. Either they are both murderers, or not. It can’t be both. These laws are insane. Sooner or later this legal dissonance is going to implode.

 

[marcadam]

Brad:

I am not arguing about fairness as it corresponds to the young lady’s guilt.

Nor am I. I’m considering the fairness, the sanity of this judgement in relationship to abortionists, who are considered upstanding citizens for providing the same “service” this boy did without a license, day in and day out. That is certainly worth considering.

 

[Brad]

marcadam:

Nor am I. I’m considering the fairness, the sanity of this judgement in relationship to abortionists, who are considered upstanding citizens for providing the same “service” this boy did without a license, day in and day out. That is certainly worth considering.

It sure is. I hope the whole world sees this insanity and says “Hmm. We should change things here.”

 

[marcadam]

Brad:

So she’s an accomplice to murder. Since when do we not prosecute the actual hit man?

Since 1973.