The HuffPo article said she was 6 weeks and 5 days.
-
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
The HuffPo article said she was 6 weeks and 5 days.
Meus Renaissance
Member
Could you elaborate further
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
So not murder then, in my eyes.
Dark Octave
Banned
Yeah that's a rough one. He's in prison for the same thing thousands of people are doing legally every day.
His only crime was doing it through deception.
No problem at all with this.. If he had kicked her in the stomach with the intentions of causing a miscarriage he'd be seeing at least if not more of a punishment..
The fact that he used medication to induce an abortion doesn't suddenly make the punishment more controversial. She could have died from bleeding due to his actions, the medication he gave her is supposed to be administered in a medical environment with supervision.
The fact that he used medication to induce an abortion doesn't suddenly make the punishment more controversial. She could have died from bleeding due to his actions, the medication he gave her is supposed to be administered in a medical environment with supervision.
NobleGundam
Banned
Wow that guy is a monster and deserves what he gets.
Dark Octave
Banned
This is a good point too.
Brian Griffin
Member
Even if she wanted to keep it and it was a child in her eyes? I'm not coming down on you, I just find this discussion and the different points of view interesting.
There is always the debate over personhood and I don't see a problem with letting it be defined by the mother. If she wanted to keep it and considered it her child then this man killing it could have the same emotional and psychological impact as if he killed her newborn.
If she didn't want it and was planning on having an abortion and he did this it would still be a crime against the mother, but not murder since the fetus wasn't a person according to her.
Punchy4486
Banned
At the very least, it's a gross violation of her personal well-being not unlike rape. Is there any law on the books for violating a person's rights or health in the way that he did?
If not, there should be, and of course the penalties should be strong.
If not, there should be, and of course the penalties should be strong.
i think he committed a crime here, although i agree it wasn't murder or a crime against the fetus. what he did to her should probably be a crime, although I'm not sure what american law it would fall under. reckless endangerment maybe? There'd probably be more than one applicable charge.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
The problem I have with that is that it makes personhood even more arbitary than it needs to be, which will make the abortion debate even more of a mess.
I simpler solution would be to just make a seperate charge for putting a woman through an unwanted abortion, that can be as severe as it needs to be because it is afterall a horrible crime.
That wouldn't require treating the fetus as a schrödinger's person.
I think a lot of you guys are over thinking this in a way that actually undervalues human life. You don't need to strip a fetus of any concept of personhood in order to justify your belief in the right to choose. Trying to come up with a rigid definition of human life while still being pro-choice forces you to devalue the fetus, which is wrong. Criminal law does not require such rigidity, so don't try to impose it. A fetus can be a victim in some circumstances but not in others. I am pro-choice but I feel that has nothing to do with this case.
Thousand of people falsely give another human being a mislabeled drug legally?
It is absolutely disgusting that because a fetus was involved so many ignore this was a crime against a women- a living breathing person who is suppose to have equal protection under the law. She was poisoned. It was a premeditated act. He's a monster.
I'm glad the he got 14 years.
Brian Griffin
Member
Hmm, I hadn't thought about removing it from the realm of homicide law all together. I could get behind this.
That being said I do think the laws in this case are set up pretty well. They punish those who kill the unborn but also protect the women who carry them if they wish to abort.
I'm talking about giving someone a drug with the intention of causing harm is battery. In your example giving someone a drug that would kill his sperm production permanently would be aggravated battery.
I was going to respond to this but Cat Party's quote below says exactly what I wanted to say.
Exactly. Abortion is about a woman's right to choose. It isn't contingent on the fetus/baby (as much as that upsets many). There is no equivalence where the father/male is concerned either simply because of biology. Try as you might, there is no way to give the sexes parity in this one situation.
ElectricBlue187
Member
That's maiming the man, not the same thing at all. There is no gender swap analogy to be made here. Men and women are not equal in this way.
CadetMahoney
Member
Someone would already charged with murder or manslaughter for causing a miscarriage that is not your own.
The only controversial issue is if the woman wanted an abortion and someone helped them they would still be charged with murder - so if the person helping isn't an approved physician with the governments blessing to perform abortions they would get charged regardless. That's not right. . . the woman gets off scott free but the person helping doesn't!?!
That's like a hitman getting done but the mafia boss who ordered the hit gets off scott free legally.
Roe V Wade makes no ruling regarding the "human status" of the embryo.
You guess its probably the same, so it should be? Solid reasoning.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
I really don't know how to feel about this. I sort of completely agree and am also opposed... god knows.
Well at least a lawyer will have a career moment with this case, fucking hell.
ElectricBlue187
Member
I know I won't feel safe with this guy on the streets 15 years from now
*shrug* I've never suffered either, so obviously I don't know exactly how traumatizing they are. If you want some statistics:
Doesn't look like a big difference. And considering both involve invading another person's body, they seem like pretty similar crimes to me. Keep in mind that a normal miscarriage also wouldn't have the added effect of someone else having caused it, which I'm guessing (oh no!) would make it worse.
Dark Octave
Banned
Read above and you'll see that I agree with most of your points.
Monster or not, I can see his side of it as well though. Being in a situation that will effect the rest of your life and the person that holds that key to his future is about to choose a door and break it off in the lock. Not excusing his actions but that's scary too.
Unbound By Death
Member
It's simply not murder, although he really is sick.
Yeah, I can absolutely see that.
Why is it so hard to believe? It's basically like this:
Abortion before X weeks = Legal Killing
Abortion after X weeks = Illegal (in other words doctors won't do it)
Forced abortion at any time = Illegal Murder
Just because the mother can choose to do something doesn't mean that the father has any say. He basically killed a child she wanted and deserves the time.
putting 'lol' after the actual reason, does not invalidate the reason.
To me the problem with this is the "forced" part. Now in this case it's pretty clear he did it without her consent. Although I could see them doing this under the table so to speak to avoid embarrassment. What about when a dude convinces a woman to get one? Conspiracy to commit murder?
I really think the father should have some say in what happens to a potential human created from his DNA, but I am at a loss on how you can reasonably accomplish that without trampling all over the woman's rights.
As someone who was told their baby was aborted without my consent, I can relate. Both parties signatures and/or presence should be required to abort a child.
^ Why does she get off scott free?
> ib4 "its her bodylol"
misread the question
This makes no sense. how would that solve the problem of her boyfriend being mad at her?
yah, lol right. we should totally force women to carry our children, its no big deal!
I was talking about the forced parenthood
Edit: wait, I misread that question in the image. I thought he was mad at her for not getting an abortion
Fenderputty
Banned
So 14 years for something that wasn't murder? I'm glad I missed this thread.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
14 years? Murder?
Should have been aggravated assault. People with agendas will use this to interpolate (nonsensically) backwards into the "all abortions are murder / a ball of cells is a human soul" realm.
She was 6 weeks pregnant and they got him for killing an unborn "child," aka the most loaded and far-reaching description they could come up with for these circumstances. Of course he deserves jail time but really now? What the fuck?
Should have been aggravated assault. People with agendas will use this to interpolate (nonsensically) backwards into the "all abortions are murder / a ball of cells is a human soul" realm.
She was 6 weeks pregnant and they got him for killing an unborn "child," aka the most loaded and far-reaching description they could come up with for these circumstances. Of course he deserves jail time but really now? What the fuck?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
If bodily autonomy were the sole concern, a woman would be allowed to terminate the foetus at any stage. As it is, most countries and constituent parts thereof place a limit, usually at around 24 weeks. They do this because the right to life of a person is judged a higher right than the right to bodily autonomy, and because they judge personhood to develop at around 24 weeks. Murder is the unlawful killing of another person. By charging this man with murder, you implicitly state that he has unlawfully killed another person. Given this foetus was less than 24 weeks, a consequence of that is that the definition of personhood must have been set an earlier stage for a charge of murder to be valid.
Given the established precedent is that the right to life outweighs the right to bodily autonomy, then that should similarly set the limit to when abortions can be conducted at an earlier stage. This would be an awful thing for reasons I'm sure I don't need to elaborate on. Given we don't want this awful thing to happen, then we should avoid setting this precedent. That means not charging this man with murder. That doesn't mean not giving him just punishment, or absolving him of guilt. It simply means defining this crime such that we can punish an act we consider immoral without opening ourselves up to difficulty elsewhere.
Dark Octave
Banned
Well he still endangered and tricked her so I guess he should get something. Other than that, I agree.
OrlanisWorks
Banned
Maybe a new type of charge needs to be introduced. "Forced abortion" or something.
CadetMahoney
Member
Not really, they can put stipulations and common sense into the rulings.
For example carrying a pregnancy late into gestation puts a limit where you can only terminate for certain reasons. The idea behind it is the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb with or without medical help and by carrying it so late she made a decision to carry it to term. Which is what Roe v Wade did and little to no pro-choicers disagreed with it.
Pro-lifers constantly trying to lower the limit since they cannot outright ban it is another topic however.
The precedent already exists. If someone pushes a pregnant woman on the floor or crashes his car into her car and causes a miscarriage they get charged with murder. If she dies he gets done for double murder/homicide.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I disagree it with because implied consent is a terrible thing to do. There are so many reasons why not having aborted before the 24 week doesn't necessarily mean a woman has consented to carry the child to term.
Thankfully, I don't live in the United States and it's not an issue here.I also think whether this is a double murder or not should depend on the developmental period of the foetus.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Men can legally force women to have abortions - just as long as it's not deceptive? Did you think about what you posted before you did so?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked