little texans a big deal
June 7, 2005 – 2:19 pmAt the time of this writing, 60% of Internet users who’ve read WISCTV.com’s story of the 19-year-old Texas man who killed his girlfriend’s unborn twins by stepping on her stomach believe Texas is too harsh. The other 40% believe the jury done good or should’ve done more.
The girl, who is alleged by the defense to have punched herself in the stomach at the same time, cannot be prosecuted because she has a right to kill her unborn children. Even in Texas. What a tragedy. Didn’t her square-dancin’ squire know Planned Parenthood is always ready to step up to the plate and pinch-hit for violent boyfriends who don’t have enough balls to walk on the floor instead of on pregnant mothers?
Prosecutors declined to seek a necktie party for the clompin’ killer, perhaps because George Bush isn’t governor right now. So thumper gets an automatic life sentence. The Texas jury deliberated for four hours (I like to think they talked about the weather for the last 3 hrs and 45 minutes of that). Don’t mess with Texans. Not even the little ones.
11 Responses to “little texans a big deal”
It is a tragedy that Texas is such a scary state to try to get an abortion in that someone would resort to this.
By Worldgineer on Jun 7, 2005
Texas scary? Let me guess, you ain’t from around here are you? Truth be told, abortions are readily available in Texas. The abortitorium my wife stands outside on weekends does a brisk businees…as evidenced by the shiny black mercedes the abvortionist’s wife drives. If you believe abortion is not the taking of a human life, why do you view this man and his girlfriend’s actions as a tragedy? All they are doing is practicing medicine without a license.
God bless Texas!
By Tex on Jun 9, 2005
It’s a tragedy whenever people resort to risking their lives, and a tragedy that her boyfriend effectively loses his life for this as well. Clearly it isn’t as open-access as you describe, or perhaps it’s people like your wife that drove them to this.
By Worldgineer on Jun 9, 2005
My wife is only insuring that women have access information about healthy options. I’m sure a pro-choice person couldn’t possibly object to that. Right?
By Tex on Jun 9, 2005
If this situation, and others, had occurred 40 years ago they would have been used as proof that this country needed to liberalize its abortion laws.
Why, after 34 years, do we still have violence against women, unwanted births, abandoned babies, malnourished and abused children? I thought that abortion on demand was supposed to eliminate those problems.
By MaureenM on Jun 9, 2005
Yes, and it was meant to freshen your breath as well. I want my money back.
By Worldgineer on Jun 9, 2005
Actually, though I am 100% pro life, I “voted” (on Fox, I think? CNN?) with the majority. It doesn’t make any sense to me that someone can get life for assisting in a legal killing with the mama’s consent. At most, he was guilty of practicing medicine without a license (/sarc) but there were not enough choices in the poll to make any real distinctions.
By Colleen on Jun 9, 2005
Abortion isn’t legal unless performed by a licensed physician. There are still laws on the books making back alley abortions illegal.
By MaureenM on Jun 9, 2005
At most, he was guilty of practicing medicine without a license…
What utter nonsense. Assuming abortion were morally acceptable, then perhaps he’d only be guilty of playing doctor, jackass style. But that’s morally reprehensible and a serious crime in and of itself. Imagine if his girlfriend had had a toothache instead of a baby? Are you too busy casting this as a home-grown abortion to see the obvious, that this guy tromped on his girlfriend?
At any rate, the state of Texas apparently doesn’t share that view. The law in that state assumes that a so-called “potential human” must be treated with all the rights due to any human being. As far as Texas is concerned, it is Roe vs Wade which constitues the loophole from bizarro land. Texas law stipulates (as per this precedent) that it is only inside the abortion clinic that the rights of the unborn are suspended.
By Joel on Jun 10, 2005
Calmez vous, Joel. (/sarc) was supposed to be a clue. I thought everyone was familiar with that convention …
By Colleen on Jun 10, 2005
Joel is correct as well. If the pro-aborts were to be logically consistent in their principles, they would assert that by pounding on his girlfriend and killing his children this man was merely assisting in the liberation of his girlfriend and asserting her automomy.
And we all know what in America no woman can be completely liberated unless she has the unconditional right to slay her offspring.
More sarcasm.
By Tex on Jun 10, 2005