Texas Court Ruling Defines Unborn Child as "person"

www.lifesitenews.com

Texas Court Ruling on Murder Case Defines Unborn Child as “Person”

By Kathleen Gilbert

HARRIS CO., Texas, November 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Texas appellate court has upheld its ruling that affirms the personhood of an unborn child who was murdered along with its mother.

Jacob Eguia, who was convicted of the capital murders of a woman and her nearly eight months gestation unborn child, challenged the court’s ruling on several points. He argued that finding him guilty of the unborn child’s death violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Art. I, Sec. 6 of the Texas Constitution, which bars giving preference by law to a religion.

In the Texas Penal Code, as the court noted, “‘Person’ means an individual," and “individual” may refer to “an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth”; and “‘death’ includes, for an individual who is an unborn child, the failure to be born alive.”
According to the court’s published opinion, Eguia complained that “the State’s definition of ‘individual’ ‘has the effect of endorsing religion as it is based solely upon a religious belief that life begins at conception.’”

Justice Elsa Alcala concluded that, because a statute does not violate the Establishment Clause when serving a secular purpose, “the definition of ‘individual’ serves the State’s legitimate secular interest in protecting unborn children from the criminal acts of others.”

The court also cited precedent to affirm that, "a statute is not automatically rendered unconstitutional simply because it advances ideals that harmonize with religious ideals."
In addition, Eguia argued that under such a statute abortion practitioners would also be guilty of murder, but the court noted that earlier legislation had already “narrowed the class of murderers who may be charged by specifically excluding ‘conduct committed by the mother of an unborn child’ and ‘a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician … with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure.’”

To view the court document in full, go to: 1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/PDFOpinion.asp?OpinionId=86058

See related LifeSiteNews.com articles:

Top Texas Court Upholds Double Murder Conviction in Deaths of Unborn Twins
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021302.html

Texas Court to Prosecute Woman for Delivery of Cocaine to her Unborn Child
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/sep/04090907.html

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Now let us pray that this holds past the expected challenges.

Medical science itself testifies to the fact that an unborn child is human. It’s the pro-aborts who would like us to focus on their self-assumed “rights” that has brought on this culture of infinticide.

Even though I am generally pro-choice, it’s stupid not to say an embryo is human life. Of course it is - that’s a fact. The question is whether human life at the stage of being a few cells is entitled to the full protection of personhood and citizenship as born people. Historically, this has not been the case (if a man beat a pregnant woman causing stillbirth, this was generally not considered murder). I respect and understand the Catholic position on this, but I think it is ridiculous to consider those who have abortions murderers on the same level as people who kill born people. These people have nowhere near the same malice or hatred in their hearts as murderers - they do not see something smaller than a peanut as a child yet, and are making the decision not to become a parent unexpectedly when they are not ready. I understand your disagreement, but I think it’s clear some people do not recognize a non-viable fetus as a person, and that is understandable to me. Alive, yes…entitled to personhood, no.

50,000,000 deaths later, and the blood lust of the choicers still isn’t satisfied…:shrug:

However one cuts it, a “therapeudic” abortion is homicide. And as for lack of malice, Obama voted against a law that would require a child who survives an abortion to be given medical case, mainly on the grounds that the intent was to kill that child, and so it would be awkward to provide aid that would subvert that goal. I can’t think of any word to describe this sort of action except as malice. In the case of abortion, one can argue, as you do, well, the abortionists means no harm, but while that applies to the mother, it certainly doesn’t apply to the child. The law has depersonalized the unborn child simply by fiat and thereby caused a conflict between the law and reason.

The choicer logic escapes me. If somebody was burning me to death with saline solution, ripping me appart limb by limb, or punching a hole in the base of my spinal cavity to suck my brains out - I would certainly think they meant to do me harm. But choicers are cold blooded people who support killing children. Depraved, indifferent, deluded, and inhuman.

“Indifferent” is sufficient. The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. I hope for their own sake, that abortionists do what they do with regret if not for the child’s sake then at least for the women whose wombs they invade, for no abortion is without pain or humiliation.

Just immagine the looks on the faces of the abortionists on the last day when all of those babies they aborted are raised from the dead - and they are forced to watch as it happens.

God: “Do these look farmiliar to you? They are my children. You murdered them in cold blood. Explain yourself!”

The fact is that a human being and a person are protected in differing ways under law. A “person” has rights and protections under the legal system.:thumbsup:

Sadly a human being does not:( .

This is why this is so important and the pro-aborts have fought so hard to make sure an un-born child was not declared a PERSON.

When most abortions happen, the fetus is considered to feel no pain, and partial-birth abortions horrify me but my understanding is they are very rare and happen only in unusual cases in which there’s a risk to the mother etc. I definitely think abortion should be kept to when the fetus is extemely small and cannot feel pain.

Though it’s impossible to be sure just what anyone feels, the more experimentation is done with the unborn, the more aware they appear to be – reacting to stimuli at a fraction of the age doctors and biologists thought possible a generation ago, firing neurons before we’d once thought they were even growing them. All this before the mother normally knows she’s pregnant in some cases. Though an ant has no brain and just a few nerves, it reacts if sprayed with a harsh chemical or if it finds itself on a hot surface, with signs of pain. To pull the wings off a fly is considered sadistic because the fly reacts with signs of pain. How can we know whether the jerking and rearing away of an embryo means s/he feels pain? We can’t; we just guess the way we guess with the ant and fly – they move away as well as they can, given what body parts they have to work with and where they are.

So with this logic then if someone has been given enough pain meds to not feel the pain it would be OK to murder them?

See the “logic” of feeling no pain can actually be extended to every day that a human being is alive.

Also lets remember that that “fetus” is a baby not a lump of tissue.

I certainly wouldn’t want that person as my doctor!

And speaking of the right to kill as long as pain isn’t inflicted, would that include lethal injection? The anti-death penalty people can shut up and stop protesting now, huh?:smiley:

I refuse to enter into a debate with a pro deather. I need to get more strength in Christ to even see Christ in that person to begin with. :o :o
Everytime I see the topic, and someone tries to defend their prodeather view I get ill.

Whether they feel pain or not, they are being robbed of THEIR life.

This is an absolutely crucial point. You are on the side of science by recognizing this. It’s amazing, that in the 21st century, with all that is known about reproduction&DNA, that so many in your camp do not recognize this point. I don’t know if it violates forum rules to say it’s stupid. But I dare any moderator to suspend me for saying it’s ignorant.

That is the question. And, in Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court said no. “…the unborn are not persons as that term is used in the 14th Amendment.” Another question…if the Supreme Court can, willy nilly, declare one group of persons unprotected by the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, simply because they haven’t exited the birth canal, what’s to stop them from declaring any other group unprotected for any other equally arbitrary reason? Another question…where does the Constitution give the Court this kind of power?

The supreme court legislated from the bench. Simple as that. They are appointed, not elected, and have the power to create new laws without the consent of the american people.

Wow, I am a prochoicer and I am not depraved indifferent deluded or inhuman. But I am sure you know every prochoicers heart personally and can judge them right? Really though attitudes like this do nothing to help the prolife side and is a big reason why I am not prolife myself… Also the methods desribed are for late term abortions which are rare.

Don’t offer the reason you are prodeather to be because you don’t like prolife people. That just smells like a rotten fish.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.