I find that a meaningless question as murder is just a legal label assigned to certain acts of killing a person. The colloquial definition is inaccurate, wrong and not useful. That does not mean you can not discuss the moral aspects of state sanctioned killing (or homicide) or whether (or when) the fetus should be considered a fetus and thus it would be possible to even kill it. To answer the question about the act being "state sanctioned" killing, you first have to answer the question about personhood.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Man charged with murder after tricking girlfriend into taking abortion drug.
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
Devolution
Member
If our justice system wasn't so fucking lazy we'd already have laws surrounding fetal deaths since abortion being legal is an obvious contradiction to a murder charge. They seem to be operating under the idea that if a mother wants it, it's a human being, if she doesn't, it's not. I think the best answer would be to just make a special crime for trying to force a miscarriage.
And this way you're not declaring the fetus this or that, you're simply talking about what the asshole did.
And this way you're not declaring the fetus this or that, you're simply talking about what the asshole did.
Well then clearly men should be even more careful, considering they won't have grow the thing for 9 months.
Cobdoms arent a 100% effective and then there is the cases when a condom breaks or worse fringe cases where a condom is sabatoged
I kind of agree with this idea, but only if some sort of legal document or waiver was signed by both the man and women before they engaged in any sexual activity. It isn't fair to have the man opt out after the women is pregnant. It would also let the girl know ahead of time what type of guy she was getting involved with as it would probably be the man that would have to bring up this type of agreement.
Anyways, this case is interesting, and what the guy did is pretty low. He needs to go to jail for this.
darkazcura
Member
Man, I need to work on my writing skills or just stop writing on my iPad. I wrote a similar post and got ripped into by two people.
I need to be more concise.This is not at all equivalent though. If a woman chooses to abort, neither person has any financial obligation of a child. If a woman chooses to keep the child, both parents have a financial obligation to the child. If men could "opt out" the woman would be solely burdened with the financial obligation of a child. How is that a fair scenario?
Also, lets not pretend that, in a scenario where one parent wants nothing to do with the child, child support equals the burden and responsibility. In Ontario, you can expect to pay $400-500 a month in child support for one child if you are making $50k a year. That's all of 12% of the absent parent's gross wages and 0% of their time (unless they choose to have a relationship with their child). In this case, the parent with custody is going to be shouldering the majority of the burden, even if they other parent is making child support payments.
Deified Data
Banned
If pro-lifers were truly concerned for the well-being of the unborn they'd be focusing on accomplishing this instead of gunning for an outright abortion ban that'll never happen.
This case really shouldn't have anything to do with abortion, invoking it just muddies the waters. It's way outside the purview of this criminal case to settle any question about abortion. Abortion isn't a relevant concept because a father-to-be doesn't get to compel an abortion. As far as he's concerned, that baby will be born and his responsibility.
Plus, there's a question of intention. He committed this vilest crime I've heard of in a long time fully aware that otherwise the baby would be carried to term. In his mind, he was ending a life.
Sometimes things have double standards because the world is messy. It just happens. I don't think the legal system has a duty to be perfectly consistent anyway--that's why cases go to court and we have judges and juries and all that. To interpret the law as it applies to a given case. What this man did is not the same as the mother taking Plan B of her own volition.
Devolution
Member
To me this law would not apply to the women carrying though. We don't need squads of Uterus Police. Sets a very bad precedent.
Exr
Member
The sentencing is apt and this guy is a piece of shit, but its not apologism. Fetal deaths are kind of a murky area in our legal system and it needs more definition, simply calling it murder isn't right.
The woman should get the entire burden since she has all the control. If she wants to split control, and the burden, then they can perform this legal thing called marriage(and divorce).
In this case, they were together for over a year. They should have talked about how to avoid/deal with this situation, in the event. Maybe then neither of their lives would have been ruined
The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act goes out of its way to create a detailed and specific exception for abortions against these kinds of prosecutions. Moreover, this would be an absolutely terrible case for the creation of judicial precedent given how unsympathetic the defendant is.
It's ok. Obviously it's a bit of a touchy subject.Man, I need to work on my writing skills or just stop writing on my iPad. I wrote a similar post and got ripped into by two people.
I think there have been instances where couples have done this, but the courts throw them out.
After all, child support is paid to the state
GAFers arguing about legal definitions and such doesn't mean we think this is setting legal precedent.
Deified Data
Banned
Of course not. Having a law that protects fetuses from coerced or unintended termination would be a good idea, but I can forsee a lot of legal gray areas that could be exploited to infringe on abortion rights. Such a law would have to be very specific in its wording and context.
KefkaPalazzo
Member
Scum of the earth here.
That poor lass.
That poor lass.
GoldenEye 007
Member
I haven't had the chance to fully think about everything here... I'll do that at home, it's kind of is like the death penalty I guess. Murder vs. death penalty/state sanctioned murder. One has specific checks and standards to meet to be lawfully carried out while the other version does not.
I think they think that way due to the method of the termination, but the method isn't particularly relevant.
Hari Seldon
Member
Yes, however there is something to be said about laws that ban smoking and drinking during pregnancy.
darkazcura
Member
But don't you see how it's not fair to force the man's hand in this case? The pregnant woman basically has 100% say in both her and the baby's father's financial future. $500 a month sounds like a lot to me for someone you don't want.
I think I'm just going to stop posting, though. A few people have clarified my point much better than I could have, and I don't want to potentially be misunderstood anymore.
stufte
Member
But what if the father wants the child and the mother doesn't? What legal recourse does the father have to get to keep his child and prevent the mother from aborting the child? I know it's a tricky situation, but there are plenty of men out there that don't even get informed consent when a woman aborts a child that he might have wanted.
Devolution
Member
Indeed but it seems to me that the justice system just takes the lazy way out. There really should just be a set of laws about trying to force a miscarriage or abusing a pregnant woman.
The father has to fuck a woman willing to carrying the baby to term or just deal.
Why does it need definition? Is it going to impact the way anyone acts? I still stand by legal system doesn't need to be--and absolutely shouldn't be--perfectly prescriptive. Every single case is an exception or edge-case in some way. What this man did should be interpreted by the court as murder.
People keep saying the word "precedent" in here but cases get overturned and precedent gets ignored by the truckload every day. Settling this is-a-foetus-a-human question is so far outside the jurisdiction of this court it's irrelevant. The way this goes is dude is found guilty of murder, then spends years in jail trying to appeal it up the chain.
Saying "I'm afraid of the precedent" just reeks of slippery slope fallacy and not having a properly robust understanding of common law.
stufte
Member
The mother has to fuck a man willing to financial provide for the child or just deal.
You seem to be willfully ignoring whose interests should and do control in a hypothetical like this: the child's.
Devolution
Member
Not really sure why you're acting like financial responsibility and the burden of pregnancy are equivalent.
Deified Data
Banned
My belief that men should be able to terminate legal responsibility within a specific time period of the pregnancy is the only view I've deemed congruent with my belief that a woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy within a similar time period. Some might say "use a condom", but such retorts have been leveled against pro-choicers in the past and they fell equally flat in my opinion. Ultimately I think people are overestimating the amount of women who would be abandoned if such a law were put into place. It's an argument that comes more from people's guts than their brains.
stufte
Member
You're right, they're not equivalent. The burden of pregnancy is 9 months, financial/paternal responsibility, etc are for life. Or at very least 18 years.
Women only have say when it comes to the actual pregnancy, and you are talking about things that happen after birth. If a woman does not believe in abortion, but doesn't want to keep the child, the father can A) block her from putting the child up for adoption, and B) sue her for child support in the process of raising the kid himself.
Devolution
Member
18 years. One is forcing someone to actually use their body against their will, one is their checkbook. You can argue about how the financial burden is unfair without being fucking ridiculous and comparing it directly to a pregnancy. It really does your argument no favors.
Randolph Freelander
Member
I'm no constitutional scholar, but it seems equal protection would preclude any charge of murder here. If the baby is not recognized as a person when the mother chooses to terminate, equal protection under the law says the father cannot be charged with murder, either.
I'm pro-life, but this charge cannot hold.
I'm pro-life, but this charge cannot hold.
Thats about 18 years of financial responsibility and a lifetime their presence. I don't really know where I stand, but I can't help but try and see his point. A woman can keep or abort a child regardless of a man's input. And if she does decide to keep the child, the man has to pay regardless with how he feels.
Deified Data
Banned
They really are quite dissimilar, but in a perfectly just society they'd be recognized equally.
Dude Abides
Banned
Can I borrow your kidney for a few months?
What's just about treating dissimilar things as though they were the same?
The father and the mother are not in the same position with regard to the fetus. Equal protection does not require treating two things the same when they are not the same.
stufte
Member
But my original point, the one that you belittled with your "dude just needs to fuck a willing woman", was that men deserve equal say.
I just don't see why, out of an act perpetuated by 2 willing partners, only one person has a say about what happens to the potential life created therein.
If it doesn't hold, it's going to be due to the federal link being inadequate because the circumstances do not amount to murder (intent, malice, mitigating factors, aggravating factors etc.). It's extremely unlikely that the constitutionality of the Unborn victims of violence act to be tested and even if was, it wouldn't have anything to do with equal protection clause.
Deified Data
Banned
A woman should have the right to abort with or without her partner's consent and a man should have the right to forfeit responsibility for the same reasons. I consider that just.
Devolution
Member
So far you've been kind of showing your ass and it grants no one any sympathy to the plight of being financially strapped. A pregnancy is a life changing, body changing, stressful event in which a woman carries a fetus to term. Women can still die from it. In arguing your points you diminish the seriousness of such an endeavor, why take you at all seriously?
I should also add if she keeps it, she's rearing it, so she's not off the hook after it's born either.
Randolph Freelander
Member
A person is a person is a person. It cannot conditionally be a person depending upon who is viewing it. Either it is or it is not. If a mother can terminate it and have it be called simply tissue matter, then that is what it legally is for anyone who terminates it. Charge the father with a crime against the prospective mother, but the father committed no wrong against anyone else, at least as far as the law is concerned.
Dude Abides
Banned
I actually don't disagree with that. I do think it's disingenuous to act as though the man's position is the same as the woman's, though.
The difference is not in the moral status of the fetus, but rather in the different interests of the mother vs. the father. The mother will have to bear the child, the father will not. That puts them in fundamentally different positions. A third party who tricked the mother into aborting and happened to be female would also be guilty of murder under this law.
Nostalgic Nightmare
Member
John Andrew Welden,
Yeah this isn't looking good for him, he's obviously capable of some hardcore shit to get out of responsibility, vessel or unborn fetus be damned. The guy obviously knows better than most how pregnancy can effect peoples lives given his father has a practice, and he has the knowledge to do this, yet he still didn't use a condom or pull out.
She was elated, and expecting a baby and he took that from her willingly. I could see this being murder but yeah interesting case.
- A 28-year-old son of a Tampa fertility doctor
- According to prosecutors, Welden forged his father's signature on a prescription
- Lee became pregnant in February 2013 and was elated about her pregnancy
Yeah this isn't looking good for him, he's obviously capable of some hardcore shit to get out of responsibility, vessel or unborn fetus be damned. The guy obviously knows better than most how pregnancy can effect peoples lives given his father has a practice, and he has the knowledge to do this, yet he still didn't use a condom or pull out.
She was elated, and expecting a baby and he took that from her willingly. I could see this being murder but yeah interesting case.
Deified Data
Banned
Not at all. I'm arguing for equal outcomes, not equal circumstances.
stufte
Member
I was being entirely respectful to the discussion, and I feel contributing to a very delicate issue. When you respond to me with
Don't expect a well though out or delicate response from me. You're doing a disservice to the conversation by trying belittling me or shut down the conversation.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked