CORPUS CHRISTI (Kiii News) - Matthew Lara, the 18-year old facing charges of capital murder and assault family violence after allegedly beating his pregnant girlfriend and causing her to lose her baby, was in court receiving his bond conditions Tuesday morning.
Lara’s bond was set at $1.1 million – $1 million for the charge of capital murder, and $100,000 for the charge of assault family violence. If he makes bond, he will be required to remain in house arrest and have no contact with the victim’s family.
Lara was arrested Sunday in the 1900 block of Rodd Field Road, where they found his girlfriend badly beaten. She was three-months pregnant at the time, and lost her baby.
But the moral equivalence with 12-week abortions can’t be missed, double standard. Life not desired can be terminated legally, but life desired terminated is capital murder.
When did there become a consensus on when life begins? There is no scientific consensus as to when human life begins. It is a matter of philosophic opinion or religious belief according to pro-choice. I don’t see it.
Every individual organism begins its life when it is genetically complete, intact and viable. That is a biological fact and scientifically demonstrable. It is “philosophical opinions” to the contrary that attempt to undermine the fact of conception as the point when life begins,
I never included “person” as a condition or requisite for viability. The dictionary definition of viable is “capable of working successfully.” In the case of human beings, it simply means “capable of living a human life.” The word “capable” does not preclude correctable issues or living without accidental or descriptive characteristics of human beings. Having two legs is not an essential requirement to be a human being. Someone could be missing a leg and would still be a human being capable of living a human life.
Someone, somewhere made a distinction between a definition and a description. “Icky things that build webs in dark, dank places” is descriptive of spiders, but not definitive. Similarly, “bipedal animals” is a description, or, better, nominative of human beings, but does not essentially define what a human being is.
I see others have brought up the abortion debate in this, and I think that is wrong. I am not for abortion, but a guy beating his girlfriend up is an entirely different matter. He needs to go to jail for a long time for beating her and killing the unborn child. She is lucky to be alive, and hopefully she won’t get involved with another one like him.
Men and women need to be much more careful and observant about their selecting of a potential husband/wife or girlfriend/boyfriend. I just don’t know how to get that done. I have met so many young people and older, that seem to get tied up with fools. Where has the inner instinct gone that gives off warning bells?
If you are going out with someone who is verbally abusive, puts you down all the time or is showing signs of choosing booze and drugs over you…run and keep on going. Stop now.
Your post, whether a dictionary definition, or a personal premise is flawed.
At the moment of conception, a being is already “genetically complete”. Certainly not fully physically developed, but DNA, the building block of life, are already present.
“Intact” is not a requirement to begin life. To contend such is true, then babies in the womb suffering from, say, spinal bifida, would be considered intact. Today, children suffering the birth defect of spinal bifida, live well into adulthood.
“Viable” is a moving target; a range that gets smaller every day, precisely because of advances in science that make the “scientifically demonstrable” “biological fact” counter to your contention. Babies born weeks or months premature that in probability would not have been “viable” in years gone by, are now surviving. It is not a stretch to say, as science advances, the day may come that what you define as “viability” begins at the precise moment of conception.
So, now, you may concede, but offer, while life may exist, the quality of life is the important factor. If that argument is used, that the “philosophical opinion” you lament will not be to justify when life starts, but to justify in your mind what “life” is.
I’m just trying to understand Peter Plato’s position on the unborn. I believe from conception that baby is a baby and deserves the right to live. I’m confused when Peter believes a baby has a right to live. God Bless you.
Certainly his assault on her is irrelevant to abortion. If guilty, he deserves a prison sentence.
However, the death of the unborn child is directly related to abortion. Is feticide truly the killing of a human being? Why is feticide by choice considered acceptable, while feticide by force considered unacceptable? Is it a matter of property theft or is it a matter of murder? If the fetus is merely property, the mother is morally free to dispose of it as she wishes. If so, why is feticide considered a crime separate from theft or robbery?
However, if the fetus truly is a person, how can abortion be considered acceptable?