Defining Murder Down

twitterlinkedin

gerardo_flores.jpg

Gerardo Flores

Photo Credit: AP

erica.jpg

Erica Basoria

Photo Credit: Lufkin High School

Is there a “pro-choice” activist in America who wants to argue that Gerardo Flores shouldn’t have been convicted of murdering his twin sons? Gerardo, who is 19, was sentenced to life in prison after he stomped on his girlfriend’s stomach to induce a miscarriage. At her request.

The best defense his attorney could conjure was to claim that Gerardo wasn’t at fault because the girlfriend, Erica Basoria, age 17, participated by hitting herself as well. Actually, that’s not a bad point.

But Erica is going free because she had the right to abort her babies.

Yes, the babies: the two tiny baby boys were named Eric and Gerardo, Jr. . . after their parents. (Lengthy article with full story here.)

The graphic that Feathers McGraw chose for his post,”Through the Looking Glass,” at Penguin Proletariat says it all: the Twilight Zone.

Does the “pro-choice” movement really think no one should be held responsible for the death of these two boys? Anyone want to argue that point? The comments are open.

* * *

Links:

Jill Stanek, Pro-life Pulse covers the story, as does The Narrow and a lively discussion over at LaShawn’s Corner.

Lee at Right-Thinking from the Left Coast says this case is going all the way to the Supremes, and thinks, maybe, that was the plan.

* * *

WEDNESDAY MORNING UPDATE: Found some willing to argue the other side —

Jessica from NARAL, on the other side of the debate also has thoughts on the Supreme Court and abortion.

Alas (a blog) says that they should have gotten the abortion.

Civil Commotion writes that the boy is innocent because he merely “stepped on his girlfriend’s stomach” in Rough Justice

U235 calls the abortion a “miscarry” in More Texas Justice (beware: U235 debates with F-words.)

The Debate Link says that the murder was the only, um, choice in Laws of Intended Consequences

A Typical Joe in The Illusion of Legal Abortion wants to “make our positive arguments and win on the merits. I’m pro-abortion.”

Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly, says that “This is the intersection of stupid kids, stupid laws, mendacious legislators, and fanatical prosecutors. It’s what happens when states ban access to otherwise legal abortions ..It’s like living under the Ayatollahs in Iran. It’s simple barbarism.”

John Cole at Balloon Juice agrees with Kevin Drum. John says: “I don’t care . . .how many of you tell me I have a h**d-on for the Christian Right. With your attitudes on sex, marriage, abortion, and homosexuality, living with some of you is getting harder and harder. This is your vision for America? . . .I guess I am just the anti-Christ that way.”

And thanks to Traffic Jam at Outside the Beltway

twitterlinkedinyoutube

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Sierra Faith says:

    Reprise of The Law is a Ass

    The children, Eric and Gerardo, Jr., named after their parents, have our enlightened Supreme Court to thank for protecting their mother’s right to kill them….

  2. Musing Minds says:

    More on He Gets Life, She has the Right to an Abor

    Charmaine Yoest at Reasoned Audacity has more on this story as well as links to the Pro-Abortion side. In comments on my first post He Gets Life, She Has the Right to an Abortion, Elisa asks, “How are the abortion rights people spinning it?”

  3. David says:

    I think you’re kind of misconstruing my post. What I say is that Texas created a situation where, if the girl wanted an abortion, this was the only way she could have done it–there was no practical way for her to do it “legally.” Now, I’m pretty confident that you are perfectly content with this arrangement because you see any abortion as a murder. That’s a fine position to hold–but at the moment, it isn’t legally one the state can make. I think the facts of this case make it abundantly clear that the state is in clear violation of the Casey injunction against putting an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to choose.

    None of that means that I think this was the best, right, or only choice to be made. Indeed, as I expressly stated: “I’m not saying this was the ideal decision by the two teenagers. In an ideal world, a pregnant teenager would be able to have a baby without it being an economic death sentence, secure in the knowledge that society would band together and make sure that she and her child would have a real future. That, to me, is the true definition of pro-life.” Indeed, I consider myself to be pro-life in that sense–a Clintonian “safe, legal, and rare” man, if you will. But we don’t live in that society yet. I don’t think that as a society, we can viably tell 17 year olds they need to have this child or go to prison–and then turn a blind eye as both mother and baby languish in poverty and misery. So long as that is the choice (and often times it is), I will refuse to join the ranks of those who wish to criminalize abortion, despite my pro-life sympathies.

    Essentially, this post proves the binary I outlined–this case can only be justified if all abortion is murder–in which case you have to argue that both the mother and father should have been eligible for the death penalty. Unfortunately, post-Roe this position is not legally viable. Alternatively, one could say that this case represents the state either a) interfering with a woman’s right to choose or b) not taking the steps necessary so that this “choice” would not be necessary. I, personally, think that there has to be some moral distinction between what this boy did and a brutal first degree murder. Prison time? Maybe. Life in jail? We have real criminals to deal with.

  4. Sue says:

    ‘Texas created a situation where, if the girl wanted an abortion, this was the only way she could have done it–there was no practical way for her to do it “legally.”‘ What??

    I live in Lufkin and have been following this case. From what I’ve read (although I haven’t read any trial transcripts), legality or availability of abortion was not a factor. So, David, please support your assumption with facts.

    I’m amazed at the assumptions I’ve read on the Internet about this case. It’s all spin. We have Planned Parenthood here in Lufkin. PP would have referred her for an abortion if she had taken that route. But this couple chose to take things into their own hands. Also, the evidence shows that he hit her in the face, more than once, that night.

    For facts, go to lufkindailynews.com. Then make whatever argument you are inclined to make.

  5. Sue says:

    Also, medics who examined the girl found bruises on her stomach, arms, face and leg. Both sides agreed on these facts during the trial.

    But, in the inevitable editorials and commentaries, who will care about the actual facts of the case?

    Practically no one. The truth gets lost.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *