- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 28,824
- Reaction score
- 20,497
- Location
- Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Why would people who support a person's right to choose be OK when someone takes away a person ability to choose?
Curious why it is a FEDERAL case, rather than a state court case. I also would like to see the actual charge and relevant statute, not the lay-language used by the media.
You can be as cute as you want and avoid the question - just means you're not consistent in your views.
Avoid the question? What are you talking about?
You didn't ask any question!! :lol:
The point I was making was to point out that your belief that the pro-choicers position on abortion being about the state of the ZEF was incorrect. The pro-choice position is about the mothers rights.
Therefore, why can't a man initiate the laying of a similar charge when the woman initiates the end of the "child in utero's" life?
Whatever you want to call it otherwise, the guy here simply performed an abortion. Granted, it was against the woman's choice, but it wasn't a violent act such as he didn't try to kill her but only killed the child or he didn't kick and beat her causing her to miscarry. All he did was what any doctor involved in ending a pregnancy in the first 9 weeks would do.
By your logic, if you want to commit "murder" of a fetus, it's ok, but if you don't want to, the same act is first-degree murder.
This case does raise the problem of if a woman can abort against the man's wishes, why can't the man abort against the woman's wishes?
Again: her body. The problem is that we keep making the mistake of saying it's "his baby" while it's growing inside her womb.
Sorry, but you justify it by claiming it's not a person. It's a woman choosing to remove a wart, not a woman choosing to end a life.
By charging this as murder, it is society saying that some people have the right to "kill" but others don't. It says that the woman is in charge of this "life" and no-one else. There was a time in America when black people were owned and their lives were in the hands of their owners. This charge implies that the woman is the sole person able to end this life - she owns the life - sounds like the modern day definition of slavery to me.
This case does raise the problem of if a woman can abort against the man's wishes, why can't the man abort against the woman's wishes?
Here is the original complaint, and if you read it, you'll see that both the terms "fetus" and "child" are used: http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2013/PDFs/abortiondrug051613/FAX_20130516_1368706082_2.pdf
A man has the right to abort any pregnancy he happens to have.
I disagree with the murder charge, since the fetus was well below viability. After viability, I might be able to understand it, though I still wouldn't agree with it since it's using the law to impart a polical/ideological agenda, and would have repurcussions on a woman's right to choose.
The guy should be charged with aggravated assault on the woman, who should then civilly sue the pants off him for what he did to her and to her fetus. That makes sense to me.
That is the civil case
Again: her body. The problem is that we keep making the mistake of saying it's "his baby" while it's growing inside her womb.
Yes, this is inconsistent. If we define the fetus as a part of the woman's body, and not as a person, then this cannot be murder. It is a kind of assault or bodily harm. At most it can be 'mayhem.'Fla. Man Accused of Killing Ex-Girlfriend's Fetus - ABC News
Ex-girlfriend was six weeks, five days pregnant, by her ex-boyfriend. Ex-boyfriend didn't want to have a child, ex-girlfriend did.
Ex-boyfriend tricked her into taking a pill that caused her to go into labor and lose the "baby".
He is now charged with first-degree murder.
Doesn't the crime of murder require a "person" to be killed? Doesn't abortion law tell us that a fetus that is six weeks, five days old is not a person?
Shouldn't the pro-choice, pro-abortion crowd be outraged that this charge was laid and what is the impact going forward if he is convicted of first-degree murder?
Certainly, and I have no problem with this as an assault case. Drugging anyone destructively is an assault. However, I do see a contradiction IF - as I believe - the man has as much liabilities after birth as the woman has. In short, this case makes me uncomfortable from both directions.
Yet such contradictions aren't rare. My wife is more pro-actively pro-choice than anyone I know, yet she had given the hospital and her doctor a statement - sworn and notarized - that if they had to make the choice between her life or that of her fetus, save the fetus at the expense of her own life. She also wanted my promise I would support that decision of hers. Her's was an extremely dangerous pregnancy - and that really tested my "pro-choice" respect of her right to her own decision - as I absolutely did NOT want to promise as it was exactly opposite what I would want. So I struggled with whether I had to make such a promise. Was it really just her decision? Or did I, our children and others have a say in it - did we HAVE to support her "choice" decision I/we did not agree with?
There is a problem when we argue the ZEF is basically nothing, and then turn around and yet agree if a 3rd party, particularly the biofather, destroys it then we equate it to a murder case in punishment.
My emotions say "fry the guy!" But there seems to me to be an inconsistency within this that is maybe too gender based or too contradictory in how serious was it what he did? There are men, not just women, who cry their hearts out at a miscarriage. I strongly believe in and support not only maternal instincts as a good thing, but also paternal instincts. Plus otherwise as a very strict legal duty of both. Making her emotions of such importance as violating them deserves life imprisonment, BUT violating his emotions is just nothing at all does not sit real well with me either.
Many legal issues. For example, if it had NOT been the biofather that had done this, would only the biomother have a civil suit, or also the biofather too? If so, for what? Yet I think he would. Or at least I FEEL that he should.
The notion that someone could do this to my wife and I could do nothing as supposedly I was not affected? I can't buy that.
I'm just being honest here.
Certainly, and I have no problem with this as an assault case. Drugging anyone destructively is an assault. However, I do see a contradiction IF - as I believe - the man has as much liabilities after birth as the woman has. In short, this case makes me uncomfortable from both directions.
Yet such contradictions aren't rare. My wife is more pro-actively pro-choice than anyone I know, yet she had given the hospital and her doctor a statement - sworn and notarized - that if they had to make the choice between her life or that of her fetus, save the fetus at the expense of her own life. She also wanted my promise I would support that decision of hers. Her's was an extremely dangerous pregnancy - and that really tested my "pro-choice" respect of her right to her own decision - as I absolutely did NOT want to promise as it was exactly opposite what I would want. So I struggled with whether I had to make such a promise. Was it really just her decision? Or did I, our children and others have a say in it - did we HAVE to support her "choice" decision I/we did not agree with?
There is a problem when we argue the ZEF is basically nothing, and then turn around and yet agree if a 3rd party, particularly the biofather, destroys it then we equate it to a murder case in punishment.
My emotions say "fry the guy!" But there seems to me to be an inconsistency within this that is maybe too gender based or too contradictory in how serious was it what he did? There are men, not just women, who cry their hearts out at a miscarriage. I strongly believe in and support not only maternal instincts as a good thing, but also paternal instincts. Plus otherwise as a very strict legal duty of both. Making her emotions of such importance as violating them deserves life imprisonment, BUT violating his emotions is just nothing at all does not sit real well with me either.
Many legal issues. For example, if it had NOT been the biofather that had done this, would only the biomother have a civil suit, or also the biofather too? If so, for what? Yet I think he would. Or at least I FEEL that he should.
The notion that someone could do this to my wife and I could do nothing as supposedly I was not affected? I can't buy that.
I'm just being honest here.
Fla. Man Accused of Killing Ex-Girlfriend's Fetus - ABC News
Ex-girlfriend was six weeks, five days pregnant, by her ex-boyfriend. Ex-boyfriend didn't want to have a child, ex-girlfriend did.
Ex-boyfriend tricked her into taking a pill that caused her to go into labor and lose the "baby".
He is now charged with first-degree murder.
Doesn't the crime of murder require a "person" to be killed? Doesn't abortion law tell us that a fetus that is six weeks, five days old is not a person?
Shouldn't the pro-choice, pro-abortion crowd be outraged that this charge was laid and what is the impact going forward if he is convicted of first-degree murder?
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act specifies that the charge for the crime will be the same charge "for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother. "
Under UVVA, the fetus is technically known as the "child in utero" and not "person"
Didn't you use the term 'ZEF' earlier and now call this same baby "an unborn child"? It seems that the name of the baby changes with the situation, thereby magnifying the verbal gymnastics people use to defend their position on abortion.
Therefore, why can't a man initiate the laying of a similar charge when the woman initiates the end of the "child in utero's" life?
Whatever you want to call it otherwise, the guy here simply performed an abortion. Granted, it was against the woman's choice, but it wasn't a violent act such as he didn't try to kill her but only killed the child or he didn't kick and beat her causing her to miscarry. All he did was what any doctor involved in ending a pregnancy in the first 9 weeks would do.
By your logic, if you want to commit "murder" of a fetus, it's ok, but if you don't want to, the same act is first-degree murder.
The guy unlawfully killed a person, that's murder. There's no double standard. :shrug:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?