Say what?
he would have killed the mother too and maybe a few of her family members for good measure.
Say what?
I view an unaborted unwanted Pregnancy the same way I'd view a gun pointed at my head.
I can't say I would not have done the same thing or worse in his situation.
That said I have always made these feelings known to any sexual partner. Has cost me a few hookups but gives me peace of mind.
That doesn't make sense, could you expand on this point? There are no limits on Abortion in Canada so going by your logic, abortion is not flawed in any way.
It's a matter of bodily autonomy, the fetus does not have the right to occupy the body of the women, she has a right to remove the fetus from her person.
So you recognize that you are balancing the rights of two separate living humans and you still think the woman should have the right to kill the unborn child even if it could survive outside her womb?
There should be no limit or maybe set the limit at when the fetus would be viable outside her body and it would be removed but not killed. If the mother wants the baby out of her that's her right. Now if this leads to 1000s of mothers aborting their 7 month old fetuses then I might feel differently but since late term abortions don't happen that often I don't see why it is needed.The very fact that there is a limit on when an abortion can be done should make you think about how flawed it is to assert that the mother has the ultimate say in whether her unborn child should live. Unless you don't think there should be a limit?
...the peace of mind of knowing that your possible murder victim was warned first? Does...does that qualify as "peace of mind?"
Is this supposed to be a gotcha? I don't consider a fetus to have any rights. A fetus is not a separate living human. Personhood begins at birth.
I'm not saying the law is the only thing that matters. I'm saying the fact that it's in place means something. You speak of bodily autonomy but fail to give the fetus (even in the third trimester) the most important right we have. The right to live. Do you not see the disconnect here?
The point is that once you concede that abortions are morally a-okay up until the time of birth, you have to play word games with the definition of 'life' and 'human'. This is where the cognitive dissonance comes in.
She has the right to remove the 'unborn child' from her body, the fact that it may die is irrelevant in regards to her bodily autonomy. The scenario you are painting is so incredibly rare in any case, late term abortions are only done when the mother is at risk or the fetus has serious issues.
The fetus is killed in most late term abortions, even if there is the potential for it to survive outside the womb. Women in Canada have the right to kill the fetus, not just to remove it from their bodies. The fetus does not have the right to life in that case.Where did I say the fetus does not have a right to life? The fetus has a right to life but not at the expense of the bodily autonomy of the women. Just as it would be both legally and morally wrong to take your organs to sustain the life of different individuals, your right to bodily autonomy trumps their right to take your organs in order to live. There is no cognitive dissonance, it doesn't matter if it's 'human' (which doesn't give the fetus personhood in any case), the women should have the right to remove something from her body.
Holy shit....I mean, let's talk in hypotheticals here but you sincerely believe that a woman should be able to kill a baby mere days before it's born? There should be no law against this?
I'm generally pro-choice, but when the fetus is viable outside the womb that's a whole different story. That's killing a child. No question.
The fetus is killed in most late term abortions, even if there is the potential for it to survive outside the womb. Women in Canada have the right to kill the fetus, not just to remove it from their bodies. The fetus does not have the right to life in that case.
And most late term abortion bans in the US have exemptions for the health of the mother.
The idea does bother me, but a woman's bodily autonomy is more important to me, and late-term abortions are so rare that I do not have a problem with there being no law against it.
I get they are extremely rare, so are a lot of illegal things. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal. It's sickening and their absolutely should be a limit long before birth. Preferably at a point of viability outside the womb.
Holy shit....I mean, let's talk in hypotheticals here but you sincerely believe that a woman should be able to kill a baby mere days before it's born? There should be no law against this?
I'm generally pro-choice, but when the fetus is viable outside the womb that's a whole different story. That's killing a child. No question.
I think Brian Griffin said it better than I can. "Most women who carry a fetus for that long most likely want to keep it and if they in fact need a late term abortion the reason must be something serious so I don't think they should be denied the option."
Women should keep the option of having an abortion even if it makes you feel uncomfortable. It's not like it's a flippant decision. They actually have a relationship to the fetus, it's part of their life, they can decide for themselves. It's nobody else's business.
If abortion is legal he is guilty of abortion not murder. Misdemeanor assault makes more sense.
This is the new pro-choice, more extreme than ever. You better catch up unless you want to end up as a conservative
Now I consider it a serious crime (as I am generally against abortion), however, how can one be charged with murder when if the mother did it, it would not be murder? Note that I am saying murder here, since obviously he needs to be charged with at least something for faking the pills.
I get they are extremely rare, so are a lot of illegal things. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal. It's sickening and their absolutely should be a limit long before birth. Preferably at a point of viability outside the womb.
Killing someone should make anyone feel uncomfortable, in a society it SHOULD be everyone's business.
14 years on a plea agreement... I'm confused.
Really surprised this didn't go to trial. Seems like a case lawyers would have been excited to take, but maybe this dude was genuinely remorseful and wanted to do his time.
He was facing life in prison. I imagine his defense team decided 14 years is much better than risking life at a trial.
In Tampa? Hell yes they would.They would have never convicted for the murder charges. No sane jury would.
They would have never convicted for the murder charges. No sane jury would.
This is my view as well.There should be no limit or maybe set the limit at when the fetus would be viable outside her body and it would be removed but not killed. If the mother wants the baby out of her that's her right. Now if this leads to 1000s of mothers aborting their 7 month old fetuses then I might feel differently but since late term abortions don't happen that often I don't see why it is needed.
Most women who carry a fetus for that long most likely want to keep it and if they in fact need a late term abortion the reason must be something serious so I don't think they should be denied the option.
But that's me.
If abortion is legal he is guilty of abortion not murder. Misdemeanor assault makes more sense.
This is the new pro-choice, more extreme than ever. You better catch up unless you want to end up as a conservative
why wouldn't it make the same people sick? its the mothers decision as to what value she gives to her own fetus, this is an example of someone taking that away form her, its the same exact agenda these people have always pushed. pro-choice for the mother.
it makes people sick when the mother is forced to have the baby, and it makes people sick when the mother is forced to not have the baby. thats what pro-choice is all about, respecting the choice.
The status of the foetus depends on if it's wanted. For those expecting and wanted a child, it's their baby. For those who don't want to be parents it's not a baby.
She wanted the child so for her it was a human being. He poisoned her, taking away her bodily autonomy and killed the baby she was expecting.
I don't see the cognitive dissonance here.
It's like you don't understand bodily autonomy or the pro-choice position at all.
This makes no sense whatsoever homey. Your reproductive rights end when you inject someone else with your swimmers. Sorry, if you are a dude who is in position to be a dad and are in an insecure relationship where you aren't seeing eye to eye on having the baby, I don't have much sympathy for you. My wife and I have used condoms 99.9% of the time in the last decade and I can count on one hand how many times one has slipped off or broke, she still didn't get pregnant from those accidents so there's no excuses. Find a partner on the same page as you or wrap it the up.If women have reproductive rights, men should too otherwise neither should. equal protection under law shouldnt have exceptions
This story makes people sick because they're instinctively giving value to the being's future, a future which must be dismissed as of little or no value in order to argue in favor of legalized unnecessary abortion. I explain below.
And what other living thing would you apply that standard to, where how much someone loves it determines WHAT THAT THING IS?
That's where the cognitive dissonance lies. Let me explain, using an analogy of a living thing that the owner can kill but someone else cannot.
If you have an apple tree given to you by your grandpa, and you value that apple tree more than ANYTHING IN THE WORLD, and I chop it down, I owe you the value of an apple tree, and nothing more. If it makes you feel like you've lost your grandpa all over again, I still legally owe you an apple tree, not a grandpa. What you value it as is irrelevant: it is not your grandpa, no matter how much you imagine it to be; it's an apple tree, and the law recognizes it as such.
So why can you chop down your own apple tree but I can't? Because the law is protecting you, not the apple tree, because it's your property. Apple trees are not in-and-of themselves protected by the law, and most people agree they shouldn't be. Well, you say, embryos aren't either, and therefore the mother should be able to "chop it down" as she's the owner, just like the apple tree. Well, that's where things get hairy, and that's where the cognitive dissonance reveals itself.
Outside the abortion debate, the law does not allow how much someone likes something to determine that something's value; instead, the law uses objective measures, such as market value. So in a situation like this one, where a person kills another's embryo, it forces us to decide how much an embryo is worth. Do we give value to its future as a person? A story like this one makes our heads and hearts say, "Yes! She lost a child! It would have been a child, but now it's dead, throw the book at him!" But if we legally give value to the future of the embryo, that future is a human life, which--unlike the apple tree--the law protects from harm even by that life's "owners" (readarents). So if the law objectively gives human value to an embryo because of its future, then the law protects it from being killed, even by its parents. So many proponents of legal abortion (I've seen many on this board) downplay the value of an embryo, saying it's no more than tissue. But, again, then you see a story like this that makes you instinctively feel something of great importance was lost, and that feeling contradicts the whole notion of an embryo's future being valueless. After all, would anyone here think someone deserves even a month of prison--let alone 14 years--for pulling out someone's hair, or clipping someone's skin tag? No, that's ridiculous. But hair is valueless, while the embryo would have been a child!...which is exactly why it should be protected by the law from being killed.
And this dissonance of legally recognizing the future personhood of an embryo in some cases, and ignoring it in others... it is disturbing.
So there are two ways people have found as an out: First, they can resolve the dissonance (as some in this thread have done) by arguing the law should always disregard all value in an embryo's future and treat it as nothing more than tissue, and a case like this should be persecuted as nothing more than falsifying medication or something of the sort. People inherently know that something is very, very wrong with the situation, and that's why people have been trying to justify a long prison sentence as battery on the woman, etc., because that way they can feel justice has been done, but still avoid the cognitive dissonance of recognizing an embryo's personhood sometimes.
Second, they can ditch confronting the dissonance altogether by claiming the value of the fetus doesn't even enter into the equation, that it's all about "bodily autonomy," and even if the embryo's value were exactly that of a human, it's irrelevant and something the law shouldn't consider, because "bodily autonomy" is an absolute right and should never be subject to a balancing test. See below for why "bodily autonomy" as an absolute right is mere fiction, used to avoid having to address the dissonance of only some embryos being of great worth by claiming that tackling such difficult value issues isn't necessary, and therefore can be ignored..
I understand it very well, better than most even, as I understand that "bodily autonomy" is largely a fiction, conceived to make abortion sound justifiable, as I've outlined in the past. No law can exist without affecting someone's body, and yet, virtually everyone sees the value in having laws. Ergo, virtually everyone sees the value in controlling others' bodies, they just don't phrase it that way since it sounds bad--which is precisely why they DO phrase it that way for supporting killing a fetus. Don't stick that knife in the baby sucking nutrients out of your chest, and you have to keep it well nourished or else you've committed a crime? Common-sense law. Don't grind that fetus up and then vacuum it out? Violates bodily autonomy.
It's all about framing.
And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting there are no valid arguments in support of abortion; there are. But a right to "bodily autonomy" is not absolute, and never has been. The "bodily autonomy" line is as over-generalized and inapplicable as the tired "freedom" line the Right shouts just as vehemently in other issues. Yes, we all love freedom and controlling our own bodies; they're great general principles that are subject to balancing tests in their applicability just like any other rights and principles. As they're used in these debates, they're just pretty words meant to simplify, generalize, and hide the ugly balancing act of law that must be performed: choosing whose rights trump whose, and why.
This makes no sense whatsoever homey. Your reproductive rights end when you inject someone else with your swimmers. Sorry, if you are a dude who is in position to be a dad and are in an insecure relationship where you aren't seeing eye to eye on having the baby, I don't have much sympathy for you. My wife and I have used condoms 99.9% of the time in the last decade and I can count on one hand how many times one has slipped off or broke, she still didn't get pregnant from those accidents so there's no excuses. Find a partner on the same page as you or wrap it the up.
This makes no sense whatsoever homey. Your reproductive rights end when you inject someone else with your swimmers. Sorry, if you are a dude who is in position to be a dad and are in an insecure relationship where you aren't seeing eye to eye on having the baby, I don't have much sympathy for you. My wife and I have used condoms 99.9% of the time in the last decade and I can count on one hand how many times one has slipped off or broke, she still didn't get pregnant from those accidents so there's no excuses. Find a partner on the same page as you or wrap it the up.
Killing the fetus of another person should not result in charges equivalent to the murder of a person - because the fetus's worth and personhood status cannot as you point out depend on the attitude of the pregnant person.
That would, in my opinion, be crazy.
Just like add that even though some may argue against your point, "human and alive" isn't what Roe v Wade is about so I don't see it being overturned using any of those points.Have had more people come into the thread asserting that a fetus is not an alive human being with no explanation whatsoever.
Here is why it is an alive human being:
It is a unique entity, each cell of which (after becoming a fertilized egg) contains unique human DNA. It is human.
While a fetus or other prenatal stage child may not be able to be sustained outside the uterus of the carrying woman, this is not the standard by which we define living. A newborn in an incubator is alive. A person unable to breath without a machine is alive. Even a person with a damaged or underdeveloped brain is alive. A healthy, growing child in the womb is alive by every scientific standard we have as far as I can see, although I am genuinely curious about the justification people have for asserting the opposite.
Please share.
Roe V Wade makes no ruling regarding the "human status" of the embryo.
This is the new pro-choice, more extreme than ever. You better catch up unless you want to end up as a conservative
I support legal parental surrender/paper abortions in theory. They support a woman's right to choose and autonomy over her body, yet they allow a man to not be forced to look after a child he does not want.
I think Brian Griffin said it better than I can. "Most women who carry a fetus for that long most likely want to keep it and if they in fact need a late term abortion the reason must be something serious so I don't think they should be denied the option."
Women should keep the option of having an abortion even if it makes you feel uncomfortable. It's not like it's a flippant decision. They actually have a relationship to the fetus, it's part of their life, they can decide for themselves. It's nobody else's business.
I wouldn't call this murder at all. Correct me if I'm wrong but if the kid isn't seen as an actual human in the eyes of the law you can't just go round changing that.
Women should keep the option of having an abortion even if it makes you feel uncomfortable. It's not like it's a flippant decision. They actually have a relationship to the fetus, it's part of their life, they can decide for themselves. It's nobody else's business.
I wouldn't call this murder at all. Correct me if I'm wrong but if the kid isn't seen as an actual human in the eyes of the law you can't just go round changing that.
I think this will eventually happen in our lifetimes in at least a few states and then become the norm going forward.
Why do you think so?
I have no idea what "Roe v Wade" is, as a case (I'm not American, fwiw) but my point was that it's basically tautological; If it was generally agreed that an embryo was human, killing it would be murder. The fact that abortions are legal in most civilised countries suggests that embryos are not typically considered to be humans.
I have no idea what "Roe v Wade" is, as a case (I'm not American, fwiw) but my point was that it's basically tautological; If it was generally agreed that an embryo was human, killing it would be murder. The fact that abortions are legal in most civilised countries suggests that embryos are not typically considered to be humans.
To lot's of people, abortion is just a fancy word for murder anyways. I'm pro-choice and respect that the mother can choose what to with her body, but trying to convince one's self that abortion isn't the killing of a fetus (i.e. future baby) is just a way to sleep at night. Abortion is still ending of a life.That's the touchy part of this: if we call this murder, then technically most abortions are murder, since this fetus was only a couple months along.
I wish people who didnt have kids of their own would keep to themselves about whats a "human life" when it comes to a fetus.
Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children
(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
......
(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
......
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
......
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
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.
Frankly, I disagree with PogiJones' two generalizations to how people are approaching this situation.
14 years is in my, and others, opinion way too lengthy of a sentence for what isn't even attempted murder (attempted manslaughter, if that is a thing, sure). Killing the fetus of another person should not result in charges equivalent to the murder of a person - because the fetus's worth and personhood status cannot as you point out depend on the attitude of the pregnant person.
That would, in my opinion, be crazy.
No human born or otherwise has rights the pro-life group where/are pushing with banning abortion, Roe has nothing to do with the "human status" of the unborn.
And killing it is murder if it falls under fetal homicide laws (which makes exceptions for abortion).
Until we have artificial incubation chambers at any stage of pregnancy with pro-lifers happy to pick up the bill abortion will be the minimum force to protect women's right to privacy.
People are being really obtuse if they can't see the difference between this horrendous crime and a voluntary abortion. Despite what many people think, what value the mother places on her unborn child makes all the difference.