<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d12201415\x26blogName\x3dThe+Limburg+Letter\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://brashlimburg.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://brashlimburg.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d424945394657709206', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

For the Record

I'm assuming everyone has already heard about a case like this (unfortunately it's not the first one), but for the posterity I want to record it here.
"A 19-year-old (Mr. Flores) accused of causing his teenage girlfriend to miscarry two fetuses by stepping on her stomach was convicted Monday of two counts of murder...Erica Basoria, 17, acknowledged asking Flores to help end her pregnancy; she could not be prosecuted because of her legal right to abortion."
It's actually even worse than that. Before enlisting her boyfriend in the do-it-yourself abortion, Ms. Basoria
"...started jogging and hitting herself to induce a miscarriage."
I honestly wouldn't believe it if I hadn't read it for myself.

And let's not forget, the Left believes that:
  • Ms. Basoria committed no crime
  • Mr. Flores committed no crime
  • There is no victim in this scenario
  • Ms. Basoria is a mature enough woman to make a decision about abortion without parental guidance or approval
  • Had Ms. Basoria not been pregnant, Mr. Flores should be sent to jail, even if Ms. Basoria was not willing to press charges

Feel free to add your own, but I can't do anymore. It hurts my head to have to think like a liberal.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

- Any attempt to criminalize this act means we must be living in a “theocracy”

6/07/2005 09:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know if the right thinks this is a good right to life argument its the stupidest thing I've ever heard. When people can't chose a surgery there going to turn to folk remedies like accidentally falling down a flight of stairs, and your going to see a whole bunch of this if the ability to choose a surgery vanishes.

and lets please note that the STATE of TEXAS is misusing a law that was intended to prosecute those that victimized and assualted would be mothers with miscaraig resulting from violent attack of the would be mother. She was not atacked by her boyfriend she asked him to do this. This is a great example of a law being abused for activism. Just like she should have had the surgery if she was this determined, the state should have prosecuted them both under a different law because cleary we can't have people attempting dangerous home spun abortions either.

6/07/2005 11:06:00 AM  
Blogger Brash Limburg said...

OK Napolean, let me see if we can break this down.

1.} Do you believe a man should be prosecuted for murder if he attacks a pregnant woman and she miscarries? (Of course assuming the mother is otherwise OK)

2.) If no, then we disagree fundamentally, if yes, then why do the circumstances change if the mother consented?

6/07/2005 12:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think I was very clear on this, but I will explain further, of course I support a law that can be used to prosecute some one who brutalizes a woman so severly that it leads to the termination of the potential life she WANTED and INTENDED to give.

The law the state is using to prosecute this case with no doubt is more often used to prosecute double homocides or cases where the mother was a victim of agravated assualt. I can not believe that they are prosecuting in the spirit of this law. Which is why I believe they should BOTH be prosecuted under some other statute if it exists for gross negligence, for an entirely different reason, home spun abortions can be exceptionally dangerous and have often resulted in the death of a woman. If this young man is truly a party to murder under the law than why is she not charged as an acompliss, as she was certtainly complicent in having him do this. Thats not to say the right would love that even more. What are we going to do folks? ruin tons of young lives... because thes aren't the first kids to try force a termination and they won't be the last-no matter what law gets on the books! the only difference is it wasn't legally murder... before, face it the law was meant for violent criminal offenses against a woman not voluntary termination of a fetus on the part of the woman.
Frankly I would like to know if the reason she didn't have a sugery to begin with was due to a parental notifcation law, anyone know what might have prevented her from making a wiser choice?

6/07/2005 01:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The idea that we must keep abortion legal or otherwise people are going to use dangerous methods for obtaining an abortion is inherently flaw. If you use that rationale, then you can argue that everything should be legalized- because anytime you prohibit something (drugs for instance) it automatically makes use of that product more dangerous. If this is the best argument for legalizing abortion, to say it is a weak argument is an understatement.

6/07/2005 02:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Napolean,
you were not, and are still not clear. It won't take a novel to answer the stated question:

Do you think a man should be prosecuted for MURDER if his attack on a pregnant woman results in the baby's death?

If not, fine - just say so. If you think it is murder, then I've never heard of consent to commit murder on a 3rd party, but whatever - that's the left for you.

6/07/2005 02:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PG, I'm glad it won't take a novel, because if you can't understand the very first sentence of my previous post I doubt you would comprehend the novel so I'll say it slower for you...of course... I support... a law ...that can be used... to prosecute some one... who brutalizes a woman... so severly... that it leads to the termination... of the POTENTIAL... life she WANTED ...and INTENDED... to give....and yes... the appropriate charge... for that unforunate... and haneous crime...should be murder. Hope you got that...

Now get this...THATS NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE... reference to your own statement above there was no attack on the woman and surgical termination is legal they cannot under the current laws prosecute her for having an abortion that she knowingly induced..... WHICH IS WHY THEY CANNOT CHARGE HER....its not legally murder for her but its legally murder for him....what did happen though is a prosecutor and a judge abused a good law to make a political activists statement and as a result have convicted a young man of murder who would otherwise not fall in to the same catagory of violent offenders that the law was meant for.

Under this law if we can convict a teenage boy for murder in the circumstances that apply to this case then I want the judge to endite GOD on multiple counts just for today alone. hope that was light enough for ya.

6/07/2005 03:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Steve wake up man its 2005 you slept through the 70's
, " If this is the best argument for legalizing abortion,"
it doesn't need legalizing it already is legal. And the best argument for keeping it legal is that it is an individual choice that the individual makes based on her circumstances, rather than making it a descision that the state makes for you. You see any woman who believes that an abortion is against her values is most likely not going to have one anyway. But there are so many variables that can lead a woman to decide that a pregnancy must be terminated that the option needs to be left on the table for the individual to decide. And what I can see here with regard to this case is that the STATE decided to abuse a law to charge murder rather than find a charge that was more consistant with the laws regarding abortion since this was an abortion not an agravated assualt on the potential mother, in an attemp to make a statement that could set precedence for resticting and over turning the laws that give a woman the power to make a decision without direction from the state. Does any one know if a parental consent law restrict this girl from seeing a doctor in the first place. Because if it did it made a murderer out of a child today, and I don't think the consent laws intended that either.

6/07/2005 03:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know a more appropriate charge in this case rather than double homocide (Twins?) might have been practicing medicine with out a liscence.

6/07/2005 05:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Uh, Napolean. You have to chill out.

In your prior post you did not clarify that "the appropriate charge for that unforunate and haneous crime should be murder." And here's why that's important. I don't know how you define murder, but I would define it simply as taking another human life. A potential human life is exactly that. It is NOT a human life. So, I find your comments contradictory. Why should someone be charged with murder for killing a potential life even if it's in a violent assault on the mother?

This gets to the core of the abortion issue my friend. I think you (and most other pro-abortion liberals) know in your hearts that it's murder because it IS a human life in there. You're just too big a coward to face the difficult solutions to this societal problem. Instilling values in our children that won't get them pregnant in the first place, and if they do, facing up to the responsibility that we face of caring for the child. Not just killing them off before we have to deal with it.

6/08/2005 08:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well PG... as far as cowards who cannot face the difficult solutions to keep our kids from getting pregnant go the right trumps the list for opposing sex ed and trying to limit acess to contraception because their afriad its actually going to lead to more sex, but the reality if kids aren't taught where babies come from they won't realize when their making one ignorance is bliss though eh? And contraception well its exactly that but you guys can't handle the truth. You probably think contraception is some form of abortion too when its the best way to prevent on barring abstinence. Its all about choices, options, and responsibility that the individual takes on without interference from the state, but perhaps its too existential a concept for the faithful to swallow.

You may percieve a contradiction in my beliefs based on your , "Moral" values, but your missing the spirit of this law - while I may not believe an abortion is a murder, and Texas law does not believe an abortion is a murder, I think we can all agree that when Scott Peterson Killed his wife and slashed open her gut killing the life she intended to give-a double murder took place and thats the sort of violent crime this law was enacted to prosecute. and thats not what happened here.

I like that you have co-opted the language of of judgemental idiots here pro-chioce is not pro-abortion.

Lastly you guys are touting this conviction like its something to be proud of ... Its not, a non-violent 19 year old kid got a life sentence for a double homocide because a judge abused a law to make a political statement...Doctors in the state can legally perform terminations, the girl was only 4 months along and it appears parental consent laws may have prevented her from doing this legally, this does not constitute a consistant application of law, this is a travesty and in the end the blood of those who are convicted to life sentences and potentialy the death penalty, will be on the hands of the right to life movement.

Again a more accurate charge for what happened in this case would have been practicing medicine with out a liscence.

6/08/2005 11:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm, let's see how many of your assumptions about me are wrong....

A) I don't believe in 'abstinance only' education.
B) I am an agnostic.
C) I am not applauding anything. ESPECIALLY the kids conviction.

Now, it's not my moral code that sees a contradiction in your arguments, it's any decent human being's moral code. Let me take you step-by-step and then you can try 'Houdini' your way out.

1 - someone punching a girl (without her permission) in the stomach and killing the baby inside her is murder.
2 - If that's true, then the baby was a human.
3 - someone punching a girl (with her permission) in the stomach and killing the baby inside her is not murder.
4 - If that's true than (going by the prior statements) it's Ok to kill a human if you have their mother's permission. I KNOW that's not what you believe (at least I hope not) so you have a contradiction.

So the only way to get out of this is to claim that the baby in the womb has some strange status that gives the mother domain over their right to be alive. But guess what - the only way that holds water is if the baby is not a human and therefore has no human rights (ie the right to live).

The point is, the left keeps saying it's about the right to choose. But it's not. IF the baby is not a human, then fine, kill away. But if it is, there is no choice because it murder. GET IT?

So maybe you don't believe the baby is a human and therefore it's not murder. If that's the case, then we're back to what Brash said - a difference in opinion. But if you believe it is a human and therefore it IS murder, then you're a hypocrate who believes a defenseless human being's right to live is up to their mother. Boy I hope my mom doesn't get too mad at me.

6/08/2005 11:44:00 AM  
Blogger Nedhead said...

OK you guys are writing way too much. Lot of free time, eh? I couldn't bear to read everything.

I have a question though, if I call myself pro-CHOICE, suddenly I am pro-abortion, which I certainly am not. You and I will disagree on where life starts and who has control over what and where, but STOP STOP STOP confusing pro-CHOICE with pro-abortion. I am pro-life, not death.

6/08/2005 01:16:00 PM  
Blogger Brash Limburg said...

Isn't it all semantics Ned?

What's your take on this case?

6/08/2005 01:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

O.K Pg, I'd like to show you that this is an ordinary pair of handcuffs...enjoy the novel.

as far as making assumptions go here are three big ones that your making, two are predicated on the biggest one.

"I think you (and most other pro-abortion liberals) know in your hearts that it's murder because it IS a human life in there."

"Now, it's not my moral code that sees a contradiction in your arguments, it's any decent human being's moral code."

1)the mitosis of cells does not nescicarily constitute human life there is no heartbeat there is no mind, there is no breath,under many other conditions when cells start dividing we seek medical attention to stop it, so to assume ,"It is a human life in there," is actually a leap of faith as the pregnancy may self terminate before a human being is actually born. I believe myself that life begins at conciousness, which is why I prefer the term potential life. I also believe, for that reason that late term abortions should only be granted if the birthing is discovered to present potential risk to the mother and I don't see that as murder I see it at as a life saving medicine.

2)based on the first assumption you are making you are lead to the next: the notion that abortion is murder, and more pertanent to this post it costitutes criminal murder in the legal sense of those terms. First, nature terminates more pregnancies than surgery. who would you hold accountable as a murderer for those? is the potential mother guilty of involuntary manslaughter if she had a vitamin deficency? or actually does accidentally fall down a flight of stairs? please note if your first assumption about life happens to be wrong then so is the second assumption you have made.

3) "Now, it's not my moral code that sees a contradiction in your arguments, it's any decent human being's moral code."
-actually Pg it is YOUR moral code you are the one choosing to live by it and to suggest that having this belief make a person decent or that not having this belief makes a person indecent is a flawed argument, it is just as possible for a moral person to be anti-choice as it is for an immoral person to be pro-life (Vice versa and all around just to be fair here)

And finally while I do beleive that abortion is not murder, I would rather see a much narrower and more specific version of this law that affords similair protections to women and fetus's and prosecutes truly violent and brutal criminals, but that can't be abused by an activist so that abortion can be called murder. Perhaps the law needs a revision removing the terminology homocide

But getting back to the top of the post and the original topic as this has always been a question of abuse of law for me more than an abortion debate I now have a question for you :

1)Do you actually believe that the law (in legal terms) has been applied fairly in the case that Brash had cited in the spirit and the purpose that it was created for? particularly noting that this was a home spun abortion and abortion is legal when performed by a doctor in the state of Texas.

2) Do you belive the 19 year old man who recieved a life sentence for a double a homocide charge for steping on his girlfriends stomach at her request for a twin pregnancy termination in a state where surgical termination is legal and the girl as such cannot be prosecuted; recieved fair sentencing?

6/08/2005 02:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is ridiculous. Can you address someone's questions to you? And so you have no excuse, I'll address yours, because I'm bored at work...

The first and second assumptions that you accuse me of weren't mine. They were extrapolations
from you prior comments. 2) You said killing a baby in the womb is murder - you even gave the example of the Peterson case. Therefore 1) If that's murder, there must be a human life involved. (Perhaps this is my assumption. Do you not believe to have murder, a human life must be taken?)

The third you may have misunderstood. I was talking about the moral of murder being a generally unacceptable thing. I should have been more clear.

Of course you don't feel abortion is murder. But that's my whole point. Please address how you reconcile a case like Peterson's being murder and abortion not being murder.

And BTW, "I think you (and most other pro-abortion liberals) know in your hearts that it's murder because it IS a human life in there." is an opinion, not an assumption.

6/08/2005 03:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh - I forgot your other 2 questions. I don't really care about that case. I may agree with you about what the spirit of that law is. The kid probably should not be prosecuted for murder under current law.

That's not to say I think the current law is right.

6/08/2005 03:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aww Pg, you had me going for a minute,

I almost believed that you really didnt get that what we are talking about is a grave abuse of a fetus protection law in a state where surgical abortion is legal. and that the law is legal recourse for victims of violent offenders. Therfore you couldn't understand how I can reconcile my belief that abortion is not murder. But killing a mother, and/or the fetus that SHE regards as her baby, which SHE willingly chooses to give life to, can be legally defined as murder for the purpose of providing remedies consistent with the violent intent of the crime. Thats how the peterson case plays into this

But then I realized that I foolishly fell for the anti-abortionists (and the really really right wings) oldest trick in the playbook: always, always, always, accuse your opponent of not answering the question, no matter how many ways the answer is given..no matter how solid the argument is.. no matter how many times the answer is said make it appear as though the other guy has not truly voiced an opinion or answer, and then feign dis-interest at the actual topic but utter a blurb.

PG you have shown me the light. Before running around this thread I thought I was willing to LEGALLY call brutal victimization of a woman that results in the death of a fetus murder for the purpose of legal remedy under the rule of law. But now I am not. Because you have demonstrated that the right is going to force us all to call it something other than murder by pushing special interest agendas through our courts until good laws and the constitution are totally eroded or people wake up again.

Thank you, you've completely changed my mind.

(by the way a fetus is not a human being, its a fetus)

6/08/2005 05:20:00 PM  
Blogger Nedhead said...

Settle down kids!

Brash, regarding this specific case, I am saddened by what happened. I tend to agree with a lot of what Napoleon is saying.

Personally, I think if he (Flores) is found guilty of murder, then she should be found guilty of soliciting and/or abetting murder, no? Or if she is not found guilty, since she has the right to an abortion, then shouldn't he have been found guilty of performing an illegal abortion, not murder?

Unfortunately, I was not present in the court, did not hear testimony, see evidence or listen to the directives of the Judge hearing the case. I have served on a jury before and can tell you that what you read in the paper isn't always the way it works in the courtroom. So to question the courts ruling is beyond my ability.

BTW, semantics regarding pro-choice and pro-abortion? I don't think so. I am decidedly not pro-abortion. In an ideal world, abortion would be a non-issue. The only people getting pregnant would be those who want to have and raise children.

Unfortunately, we live in the real world, not utopia. Crackheads have babies, babies are born with HIV, babies are left in garbage cans to die, orphanages world-wide cannot handle the amount of children. Shouldn't the pro-life community focus their attention on helping the drug addicted babies, the crowded orphanages, the homeless children, babies with HIV? No, pro-lifers would rather post their asses in front of a Planned Parenthood Office and throw verbal abuse at the young 16-year rape victim going in to remove an unwanted pregnancy. Or maybe KILL an abortion doctor, you know, an eye for an eye?
I do not think abortion should be used as birth control, as it is all too often. But shouldn't the world community focus on helping people to make the right LIFE choices: don't do crack, use protection when having intercourse, don't have unwanted children, if you have unwanted children allow them to enter a loving home if it can't be yours. The situation is more than semantics, more than Roe V. Wade. If we, as a world community, start with understanding and spend the time and effort necessary, we can teach the world to not have unwanted children, then abortion wouldn't be an issue. (Talk about ideology!)

Until utopia happens, it is not my position to put my own personal moral code upon someone else. What someone does with their own life is their call, not mine. All I know is that I want to have as much freedom to choose my path as possible, therefore I must grant the same freedom to others. Therefore, I am pro-choice.

P.S. I wonder how many pro-lifers have had the opportunity to spend good amounts of time with a child who was born addicted to crack? I have. It is sad, truly depressing.

6/09/2005 06:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Drugs are just bad, you should try to use Herbal Alternatives as a temporary replacement to loose the dependance!

7/22/2006 09:38:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home