It's murder.
After the mother has made the conscious decision to carry the baby through the pregnancy, for an outside party to purposefully induce the death of the future child constitues as a heinous crime.
And I'm pro abortions.
It's murder.
After the mother has made the conscious decision to carry the baby through the pregnancy, for an outside party to purposefully induce the death of the future child constitues as a heinous crime.
And I'm pro abortions.
Fair point, and I personally don't like the murder charge myself although I would certainly hope that it be a serious charge short of it.True, but if someone cuts your finger off they won't be charged with murder. Murder implies that another human has died. There is attempted murder for trying to murder someone and they live. And this is first degree murder, which is life in prison / death penalty.
There is no consistency here. If the fetus is not a human, then how can one be charged with murder for killing it? If it is just a part of the female body, then the same charges for cutting off a finger should apply (what would that be? attempted murder of the mother?)
Do you have a source for this? I'm pretty sure that abortions rights are tied to Roe v. Wade, which based their decision on the 14th Amendment. Because a fetal after viability isn't considered a legal person either.
I don't really understand this. If she'd voluntarily taken it, it's not murder? That seems a bit... bizarre.
That's great, just don't be upset when that attitude leads to that state being able to label all abortions as murder.
Most states do not allow abortions after 24 weeks, and most hospitals won't do it after 20 weeks (for both moral and health reasons).
The key question seems to be: Is killing unborn "not yet human" children murder or is it not?
One of the arguments you hear frequently by pro-choice people is that it's not murder to have an abortion because the fetus is not yet a human.
Based on that, this couldn't really be murder either, right?
So women are allowed to murder their unborn babies, but men aren't?
Did you read the article?? It said that he relabeled the bottle to say "Amoxacilian" and he told her to take that, which is an antibiotic... What was in the bottle was a pill that killed her unborn child, because he did not want to be a father.
Do you have a source for this? I'm pretty sure that abortions rights are tied to Roe v. Wade, which based their decision on the 14th Amendment. Because a fetal after viability isn't considered a legal person either.
Killing a fetus is like taking an egg from a bird nest and smashing it.
Take that however you want.
It's her body; if she decides to host a human life inside her or not, it's her decision.
I don't think the murder 1 charge will stick:
http://articles.dailypress.com/2007-10-17/news/0710170053_1_sentencing-hearing-andrews-cytotec
A few days later, she discovered the drug purchase when she discovered an e-mailon Riase's computer. Riase later acknowledged what he did in a phone call, and Best reported it to the police.
I believe the label of "human" should be relative (At least until a determined time in pregnancy) to the woman carrying the child.
If she did not believe the embryo to be a human and chose to have it aborted, it is not murder since it was not considered to be human by the mother.
The opposite is true for someone that does believe the embryo to be human and carries the child to birth.
In this case the woman believed the embryo to be a human and thus the man should be charged with murder.
That should definitely be considered an incredibly serious crime regardless of the legal definition of the unborn child.
Pro abortions?! Blimey, that's a bit strong!
And how can this be murder? I've got no problem with it being a crime - a hugely punishable crime, in fact - but murder? The reason abortions aren't "murder" is because the embryo is not deemed to be a human. It's why abortions are legal. This legal precedent - that embryos are not humans and therefore killing them is not murder - cannot simply be ignored because the person doing the killing is not the woman within whom the embryo resides.
One cannot be deemed to have murdered something which the law has declared effectively disposable.
"heinous crime" != murder. The fact something's bad does not mean lazily slapping "murder" onto it is valid. It's a dangerous precedent to set, and our legal system should be more nuanced than that.
Killing a fetus is like taking an egg from a bird nest and smashing it.
Take that however you want.
So I'm not trying to say one is equal to the other, but:
If a mother gets an abortion without the consent of the father, it's ok. But if the father gets an abortion without the consent of the mother, it's murder?
I'm no legal expert (at all) but I think intent might come into play here.
She wanted the baby, he didn't, it's the mother's body (and baby) and her decision (not his). That's probably where it becomes murder.
This case isn't relevant at all as becauseI don't think the murder 1 charge will stick:
http://articles.dailypress.com/2007-10-17/news/0710170053_1_sentencing-hearing-andrews-cytotec
I am a strong supporter of abortion. But I can get behind this charge. The reason I support abortion is because I don't really give a shit whether a fetus can be considered alive or not, none of that matters (to a certain point obviously), the only thing that matters to me is the womans right to choose whether or not to carry the baby to term. The woman in this case was cruelly robbed of that choice in this case. Disgusting act, which needs to be punished severely. The exact charge brought against him is not really important to me personally, just as long as it is strict.
It's messed up that he did this, and he should be charged with something..not ANYWHERE close to life in prison.
But this thread is bringing up an interesting thought/questions now. A lot of people seem to be forgetting that this is HIS baby too.
It's messed up that he did this, and he should be charged with something..not ANYWHERE close to life in prison.
But this thread is bringing up an interesting thought/questions now. A lot of people seem to be forgetting that this is HIS baby too. I don't like the precedent that in the end, the mother seems to have 100% choice in whether the baby is born or not, and then get hit up this guy with child support after he/she is born. The father should have a lot more say (obviously equal say wouldn't be possible in this case, but a lot more than 0% say would be nice) in whether an abortion should happen or not because it is also affecting his life. I understand this would be incredibly difficult to govern, but a couple "pro abortion" people in this thread who are okay with a murder charge are kinda scary.
It shouldn't be only her decision unless she is willing to drop all possible child support claims before she gives birth. I'm not saying she would go after this guy, but hey, you never know. If he didn't want the baby, he should have a say.
Let me be clear, though. The way he handled it and what he did was WRONG. He should be charged with something. I just don't know what. Poisoning?
The fuck is this shit? You don't care? You fucking kidding me?
...A lot of people seem to be forgetting that this is HIS baby too...
Charging him with assault would probably make more sense.
Guy definitely deserves some jail time though.
The fuck is this shit? You don't care? You fucking kidding me?
Wow. I'm pro-choice and this is boldly stupid.
Guy should get any and all punishment coming to him.
It shouldn't be only her decision unless she is willing to drop all possible child support claims before she gives birth. I'm not saying she would go after this guy, but hey, you never know. If he didn't want the baby, he should have a say.
Let me be clear, though. The way he handled it and what he did was WRONG. He should be charged with something. I just don't know what. Poisoning?
Guy should get any and all punishment coming to him.
I think the father's decision ends at "condom vs no condom" and "pull out vs deposit my seeds inside a vagina". Whatever happens to the other human being he is potentially impregnating is his responsibility, and her choice.
I am aware that a condom may not work, or the woman can lie and say she was on the pill. Not for the condom, but if the woman lied, I agree that there should be some legal protection against claims of child support.
I said what he did is wrong, but it's incredibly stupid that you would say that. Please think about it.
Think about the fact you edited your post after I already posted.
Some people don't. Different opinions on the matter make the world go round.
Um.
I don't understand what his line of thinking was.
After the abortion happened, did he actually think he could get away with it?
What an interesting judicial precedent. How many weeks along was she?