Interesting legal case

[ChainLightning]

Re: Interesting legal case

If more people were responsible and talked about possibilities and options BEFORE jumping in the sack, we wouldn't have most of these issues going on.

Fact.

I generally use the argument, "if you don't want to be making babies, don't be having sex." Birth control (including condoms and "the morning after pill") aside. When I'm feeling generous, I'll throw in the caveat, "with this/whomever person."

I like simple strategy.

And the potential life sentence, regarding the OP, suits me just fine. Though it seems to be particularly soft on him, to me.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Interesting legal case

If more people were responsible and talked about possibilities and options BEFORE jumping in the sack, we wouldn't have most of these issues going on.

[SPhoenix]

Re: Interesting legal case

I couldn't watch the video, since it would wake my kids up and it's early, but does it say how far along she was? I don't condone what he did in any way, but there's a huge difference in my mind between first trimester and when the baby starts to "quicken", support itself rather then being simply an extension of the mother's body, etc.

As for why a woman should have final say, even though it to two to have a pregnancy...foul play in order to conceive should be taken more seriously then it is. On the other side, though; making a woman go through pregnancy and childbirth because the man wants that child strikes me as risky business. I wouldn't be surprised if more wome self-harmed, and unless the man was planning on taking full responsibility for medical costs, etc, and effectively taking full responsibility for the child after birth ( making more similar to a surrogacy), then I would concerned for the well being of the child. On a mobile device, so can't link properly,but there is a lot of evidence that children who the mother did not want, but carried to term(pressure from others, a sense of moral or religious obligation, etc), are much more likely to be mistreated. If a father wants that child, but the mother doesn't, this needs to be addressed. I think there are a lot of men who would posture about wanting a kid, but be unwilling to take on the responsibilities of single father.

I'm fine with that, as long as the opposite applies, too.

If two people have sex and the woman gets pregnant but refuses to have an abortion, she should be forced to take FULL and COMPLETE legal and financial care of it with ZERO compensation or assistance by the father who didn't want the baby.

Otherwise, there is a clear and present bias towards misandry.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Interesting legal case

I couldn't watch the video, since it would wake my kids up and it's early, but does it say how far along she was? I don't condone what he did in any way, but there's a huge difference in my mind between first trimester and when the baby starts to "quicken", support itself rather then being simply an extension of the mother's body, etc.

Six weeks. The Federal alaw used in this case specifically defines an unborn child - for the purposes of this law - as:

(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.

The law also states:

(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;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

That last provision (#3), by the way, prevents this law from being used in the way that the Mississippi manslaughter law pointed out by Hawkfeathers is being used. Mom can do whatever she wants - if the fetus dies, she is not guilty of anything - based on this law.

[Dez]

Re: Interesting legal case

I couldn't watch the video, since it would wake my kids up and it's early, but does it say how far along she was? I don't condone what he did in any way, but there's a huge difference in my mind between first trimester and when the baby starts to "quicken", support itself rather then being simply an extension of the mother's body, etc.

As for why a woman should have final say, even though it to two to have a pregnancy...foul play in order to conceive should be taken more seriously then it is. On the other side, though; making a woman go through pregnancy and childbirth because the man wants that child strikes me as risky business. I wouldn't be surprised if more wome self-harmed, and unless the man was planning on taking full responsibility for medical costs, etc, and effectively taking full responsibility for the child after birth ( making more similar to a surrogacy), then I would concerned for the well being of the child. On a mobile device, so can't link properly,but there is a lot of evidence that children who the mother did not want, but carried to term(pressure from others, a sense of moral or religious obligation, etc), are much more likely to be mistreated. If a father wants that child, but the mother doesn't, this needs to be addressed. I think there are a lot of men who would posture about wanting a kid, but be unwilling to take on the responsibilities of single father.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Interesting legal case

This may sound selfish, but at this point in my life, when I hear these stories, the first thing I think is "Thank goodness I'm too old to have to deal with this crap anymore". There is a huge and slippery slope of all sorts here.

Oddly, I feel the same way. I see a bad storm rising, and I intend to be dead before it hits. It's not coming from the abortion issue, though, although you can see it there. It's coming from the divisive, all or nothing, us against them, if you're not for us you're against us, if you don't agree with me you are the devil mentality that has become so prevalent these days.

Now, there's another story going on in Mississippi - "Mississippi Could Soon Jail Women for Stillbirths, Miscarriages" which opens up yet another can of worms http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...h-manslaughter

Do be a little careful about how much you take away from Mother Jones. The implication that this use of manslaughter law will allow any woman to be prosecuted for stillbirths or miscarriages is very stinky, very slimy bullshit. The law sets specific conditions under which prosecution for manslaughter can take place.

Whether it's good to use the law in this way or not, I have no opinion at present. But if someone is going to evaluate it, I think they should evaluate it for what it really is, not from Mommy Jones' fairy tales about it.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Interesting legal case

This may sound selfish, but at this point in my life, when I hear these stories, the first thing I think is "Thank goodness I'm too old to have to deal with this crap anymore". There is a huge and slippery slope of all sorts here.

Now, there's another story going on in Mississippi - "Mississippi Could Soon Jail Women for Stillbirths, Miscarriages" which opens up yet another can of worms http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...h-manslaughter

[Kahlenda]

Re: Interesting legal case

I agree with the charges and the sentencing, ok i agree with abortions (up to the first trimester before proper cognative functions start to exist) but that should be for things like both the perants agree they couldnt look after a child or its not right to bring a child into their lives because they arnt ready (them not using protection and rape victims and such is a different story for a different time) but to deliberatly change the pills because you dont want to be a dad, that is murder, and assualt and just just disgusting, ugh people make me sick

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Interesting legal case

I'm not sure why the Feds have jurisdiction. I assume there is a good reason, or the state would be raising holy hell over the violation of state rights. Of course, I may be wrong.

However, there are 36 states with similar laws, making it, in those states, a prosecuteable crime at the state level. All the laws have language that specifically excludes women who voluntarily have abortions, and the practitioner who provides them, from being punished under those laws.

The Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act was instituted in 2004, with the other laws coming in at fairly regular intervals since then. Every time one comes up, there is a big wolf cry about the possible erosion of women's rights. So far, the wolf has not shown up. The way the laws are written makes it impossible for the wolf to show up. Time to stop crying wolf over this, I think, 37 wolf cries later, we may as well quit looking for the imaginary wolf (I'm inclined to type the word "wolf" 31 more times, just to drive this point home, but I'll resist the urge ).

Let me suggest another way of looking at this...does.

Laws like The Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act (and the state equivalents) DO provide the justice that I believe women should have (i.e.: women gain more rights), without making abortion illegal (which would take a right away). If I am being honest, and I am, I'll say:those who are against such laws look to me suspiciously as if they want to take a right away from some women in order to secure some right for other women who are in their favored group.

[Maria de Luna]

Re: Interesting legal case

Women are (supposedly) equal now. IMO, theres no more excuses. Gone are the days of the "oops" pregnancy, where the woman sits there quietly and gets comforted while everyone looks at the man and says "WHY did you do THAT?" Like he was just walking down the street, saw some chick and then raped her while yelling "I must impregnate this woman!!!!" Women should be held equally, if not more responsible for pregnancy because it IS their body.

I actually agree here, to an extent. If both parents were being morons and just did'nt bother, both should be held financially responsible, because they are morons. Moron is not definable in a legal capacity though, so keeping the law to mean that both parents are financially responsible for the child carried to term is fine, If you wanna have sex, know who you are doing it with, and keep in mind, the only way for absolutely nothing to go wrong, is not boinking. It is what it is. Keep in mind birth control pills and IUDs are not free. and both require prescriptions.

The actual article on the other hand creates merry mayhem with abortion rights attempts. (I am going to quote wikipedia, please forgive me)

bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "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", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

Which is good and important. But it makes things hairy. It gives opponents room to skirt things, like if a man wants her to keep the baby, and she doesn't, can he have her declared insane in the eyes of certain courts and forced to carry the baby to term or get murder charges? So while I want to say murder, cause I want this bugger to never see the light of day again, I have to say I would prefer attempted murder of the adult victim, (bugger manslaughter, there are major reasons pills require prescriptions and doctor patient understanding, what if she ends up infertile or any one of another major issues including death, this kid is not a doctor.) Also, is his father being charged with anything? because that's how he got these meds, his father eigther was complacent, or involved. But stack what charges you can on this guy.

[Monster]

Re: Interesting legal case

Wooooooooo............talking about a can of worms. Personally, I want to know more.

I'm going to do a lot of "what iffing" here...and its going to be wildly unpopular, but let me throw some scenarios out there.

First off, we say its a "woman's body" and its "her right to choose" blah blah. But what if the guy had a conversation with the girl and said "I want to make extra sure I/we don't have any kids" and she goes "I agree." And he buys the condoms, and she "claims" to go get a BC shot/implant/whatever.....but the truth is she never goes on any form of birth control, and even goes so far as to poke holes in the condom. Everyone knows someone who was trapped in that way, either through stupidity or maliciousness. Everyone knows at least ONE person who was tricked into having kids by a lie. So, its not outside the realm of posibillity in THIS situation that she lied to him to get pregnant.

So, if the male does EVERYTHING possible in his power to not impregnante her, and she purpousely/willfully/intentionally sabotages the situation and gets pregnant.......then how is that the mans fault?

Another scenario........man/woman gets *oopsie* pregnant. Man says "This is wonderful! I'm going to be a dad!" Woman says "No you're not. Its my body and I'm not having a child." And has an abortion. Again I ask, how is that fair to the man?

I don't care what any man or woman says, there are too many birth control options out there for there ever to be any "oopsie" pregnancies. Guys, unless you trust her enough to risk the next 18-20 years of your life and half (or more) of everything you earn....then you need to wrap it before you tap it. Ladies, if you don't want to get pregnant, don't trust just the pill. Get the implant and/or something else and make sure you can't make any babies. One BC method may fail. Two seperate methods of BC, like an implant and condom....there is an astronomically small chance of it failing. Three? Say an implant, condom AND the guy pulls before he shoots? Its impossible.

Women are (supposedly) equal now. IMO, theres no more excuses. Gone are the days of the "oops" pregnancy, where the woman sits there quietly and gets comforted while everyone looks at the man and says "WHY did you do THAT?" Like he was just walking down the street, saw some chick and then raped her while yelling "I must impregnate this woman!!!!" Women should be held equally, if not more responsible for pregnancy because it IS their body.

In regards to the fetus who will never know life, this is sad. OTOH, I say the guy shouldn't be charged because he found a way to treat a woman the exact same way men have been treated since the dawn of time. Just now, with the help of modern chemistry, and I'm sure Google.....he has truly made the battle of the sexes equal.

[volcaniclastic]

Re: Interesting legal case

I think I agree with Perze's sentence. Messing with medication can kill a person, and therefore he should have been charged with attempted manslaughter and for messing with medication.

From an emotional "right in the feels" perspective, though - I think it's horrible of him to do, and I kinda think of it as 'killing the baby' even though I don't believe in humanity before the third trimester. But I think that's only cuz my hormones have been giving me 'make a baby' vibes for the last year.

[Ophidia]

Re: Interesting legal case

It's not a legally fuzzy fetus, though. Under Federal Law (and he is being prosecuted by the Feds), the fetus is a human - with explicit language exempting voluntary abortion from being prosecutable under this law:

Unborn Victims of Violence Act

I didn't know that had been created. I got sick of hearing about the Petersons and stopped watching the trial news about 2 months in :P

I brought the subject up to my husband, since he's got a law background, and he was surprised to find out that the Protection of the Unborn thing was only enacted in 2004 - he said that if the unborn fetus didn't count as a life to act as a deterrent to violent crime, then people would be assaulting pregnant women in order to cause miscarriage/abortion all the freaking time since punching someone is usually just misdemeanor assault.

I think the charges based on the assault or murder or attempted murder or whatever, of the primary victim - the mother - should be enough of a deterrent to prevent these kinds of crimes on their own without the added victim of the collection of cells that might eventually become a human being involved. I mean, we have personal violent crime in the US, but it's not like everyone just goes around punching one another because 'assault is only a misdemeanor'.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Interesting legal case

Honestly, the fact that this is a federal law surprises me. Feds don't generally do local (well local within a state, DC and US territories can be different) crimes unless the crime impacts a federal concern or the feds are annoyed enough with the lack of useful activity from locals to start looking for ways to interfere*. The scope of this law sounds far more like something that would normally be handled at a state level. Shrug, it'll be interesting to see the appeal if the Feds win.

* Least this is my normal understanding. My knowledge on the subject is very general.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Interesting legal case

It's probably one of those State-by-State definitions. If I was the prosecutor, I would go w/attempted manslaughter and tampering with medication - in many states, that's also felony. If it's a known dangerous substance added to food or medication, it can still be attempted murder - but the guy's defense atty would probably argue that the guy didn't know the abortion pills could possibly kill the woman. By sticking with the adult victim and not the legally fuzzy fetus, the guy is more likely to be charged and sentenced with a lengthy prison term.

Of course, a simple and easily argued case wouldn't make the news.

It's not a legally fuzzy fetus, though. Under Federal Law (and he is being prosecuted by the Feds), the fetus is a human - with explicit language exempting voluntary abortion from being prosecutable under this law:

Unborn Victims of Violence Act