http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/john-andrew-welden-faces-sentencing-in-tampa-abortion-pill-case/2162858
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547135/Fertility-doctors-son-gave-girlfriend-pill-woman-sentenced-14-years-jail.html

You can find more just googling John Welden case. I didn't quote either article as they are both much too long.

John Welden of Tampa, Florida gave his ex-girlfriend Remee Jo Lee pills and told her they were antibiotics - but they induced an abortion
He gave her the pills 'because he was worried about his other girlfriend finding out about the pregnancy'
Welden's father is prominent Tampa fertility doc Dr. Stephen Welden, whose signature Welden forged to get the drugs

Edit:

My cliffs: Guy knocks up stripper. Guy has girlfriend. Guy doesn't want girlfriend to find out. Guy gets drugs by forging daddy's signature and slips them to stripper. Pregnancy is terminated. The potential mother is pissed. Guy goes to jail.

He deserves to be punished, but I do question the length of the sentence. It is strange to me how the fetus' status as a human being or not seems to fluctuate on a case by case basis.

14 years strikes me as about right for what is, basically, premeditated murder.

It is strange to me how the fetus' status as a human being or not seems to fluctuate on a case by case basis.

Well, the big difference is whether the person carrying the baby wants to carry it to full term.

14 years means that he'll become an actual hardened criminal (as opposed to a coward who slipped a pregnant woman a pill to give her an abortion), and then be released, with minimal employment prospects. What are the odds that he'll serve as a functioning member of society?

I don't feel bad for him in this scenario, but I feel bad for society.

 sebster wrote:
14 years strikes me as about right for what is, basically, premeditated murder.

It is strange to me how the fetus' status as a human being or not seems to fluctuate on a case by case basis.

Well, the big difference is whether the person carrying the baby wants to carry it to full term.

Wait, so killing a fetus is premeditated murder, except when the person carrying it wants to kill it herself?

 Seaward wrote:
Wait, so killing a fetus is premeditated murder, except when the person carrying it wants to kill it herself?

Yes, the intent of the mother in whether she plans to bring that child to term or not matters. How is this news?

 sebster wrote:
Yes, the intent of the mother in whether she plans to bring that child to term or not matters. How is this news?

It would seem to take a great deal of cognitive dissonance to suggest that one case meets the definition of homicide - the killing of a human by a human - and the other does not. Unless it's Schrodinger's fetus, both a human and not a human at the same time.

 Seaward wrote:
Wait, so killing a fetus is premeditated murder, except when the person carrying it wants to kill it herself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction

Obviously it isn't the same, but the simplest way to represent the massive harm done by forcing an abortion on someone who doesn't want it (or killing a pregnant woman, etc) is to pretend that the fetus is a full person so that a harsher sentence is justified.

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Yes, the intent of the mother in whether she plans to bring that child to term or not matters. How is this news?

It would seem to take a great deal of cognitive dissonance to suggest that one case meets the definition of homicide - the killing of a human by a human - and the other does not. Unless it's Schrodinger's fetus, both a human and not a human at the same time.

LOL @ Schrödinger's fetus!

I got the impression that in Common Law countries, the legal part of the discussion hinges more or less exclusively on the "reproductive rights" of the female instead of the fetus' status. (If I'm wrong here, someone please correct me.)

This leads to the construction of abortion being a female exercising her reproductive rights. If a third party causes that abortion without her consent, the reproductive rights of the female were violated. Said violation is then treated LIKE homicide.

As a lawyer from outside the Common Law zone, I find this reasoning a little bewildering, but purely logically, I can get behind it.

I agree it's illogical to consider abortion murder or not depending on circumstances. The administration of the pill could be considered an assault and/or poisoning of the mother, though.

He wasn't prosecuted for murder, however, or for an assault or poisoning.

one of the news articles wrote:Lazzara sentenced him to 13 years and eight months — likely to be served in a minimum-security work camp — on charges of product tampering and conspiracy to commit mail fraud.

Apparently there is a law about tampering with foetuses, the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" which probably designed to stop women having abortions. This was invoked at first but he did a deal and got the other crimes instead.

Which, for me, is the really astonishing part of that trial. Almost 14 years for "product tampering and conspiracy to commit mail fraud", because they wanted to sentence him for something else, but in order to cut corners they allowed him to walk away with the lesser offences.

I will never get this "deal" culture of yours.

I assume that if they had prosecuted him for Murder 1 and he'd been convicted it would have given anti-abortionists something to work with. So there is that.

Which really shouldn't be the concern of the court at all. The social consequences are an issue the legislative body has to handle.

Plea bargaining is incredibly silly.


I don't think he deserved 14 years though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Allod wrote:
Which really shouldn't be the concern of the court at all. The social consequences are an issue the legislative body has to handle.

Can tell that you are not from a common law country The courts create their own legislation which can only be overridden by Parliament.

Trying to get anything about abortions through a legislative body is an absolute nightmare.

If he'd pushed the lady down the stairs to cause her to miscarry, would he have deserved 14 years then?

Damn right he deserves 14 years.

 welshhoppo wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Allod wrote:
Which really shouldn't be the concern of the court at all. The social consequences are an issue the legislative body has to handle.

Can tell that you are not from a common law country The courts create their own legislation which can only be overridden by Parliament.

Well, to be fair, I don't think that's a bad way to go about it. It's more that external factors like "will this sentence be utilized by group X to further their political agenda" should still play no part in a trial, no matter if it's situated in a Common Law country or not.

He deserves to be punished, but I do question the length of the sentence. It is strange to me how the fetus' status as a human being or not seems to fluctuate on a case by case basis.

it does doesn't it.

That isn't the case here, though, as explained earlier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It seems the Unborn Victims of Violence Act specifically exempts abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

What a douche. 14 years sounds okay to me. Forging signatures which could potentially get his dad in trouble, those pills aren't good for people: they essentially flush a woman's system hardcore, he cheated on his current gf, and prevented a kid from seeing the world. 14 doesn't sound too long to me.

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
14 years strikes me as about right for what is, basically, premeditated murder.

It is strange to me how the fetus' status as a human being or not seems to fluctuate on a case by case basis.

Well, the big difference is whether the person carrying the baby wants to carry it to full term.

Wait, so killing a fetus is premeditated murder, except when the person carrying it wants to kill it herself?

In the words of the Immortal Bard: "How do you say...Bingo? Bingo!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
If he'd pushed the lady down the stairs to cause her to miscarry, would he have deserved 14 years then?

Damn right he deserves 14 years.

This falls under the heading of: "if you're a dick, sometimes Karma gets you. " yea Karma

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Yes, the intent of the mother in whether she plans to bring that child to term or not matters. How is this news?

It would seem to take a great deal of cognitive dissonance to suggest that one case meets the definition of homicide - the killing of a human by a human - and the other does not. Unless it's Schrodinger's fetus, both a human and not a human at the same time.

Well, in no jursidiction is forced termination considered homicide. In fact, there are few if any areas of the law that treat fetuses as "persons."

Still, the legal principles behind criminilized termination and legalized abortion aren't complicated, they are just controversial. At its core, much of the law deals with competting or conflicting rights, be they civil rights, property rights, so on. Even the criminal code is our way of regulating the conflict between a person's right to do as they please, and the right of others to live in peace.

Both laws (legaized abortion and criminilized termination) arise from the same theory: that a woman has a right to control her reproductive autonomy. There is also the right of the state to protect the fetus, for while it is not a person, it is clealry something. To take away a woman's right to be pregnant, through forced termination, is both wrong, and criminal when the state finds the fetus to be protected. However, our current jurisprudence holds that a woman has a right to not be pregnant, and to therefore terminate her own pregnancy. While the state also has the right to protect that fetus, even from its own mother, that right is not always strong enough.

You can see the same general principles in definiations of "crimes against humanity," which list both forced pregnancy and forced abortion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 trexmeyer wrote:
It is strange to me how the fetus' status as a human being or not seems to fluctuate on a case by case basis.

Well, judges aren't robots, and some have their own perspectives. this is a case out of tampa florida, which would probably criminilized abortion in a nano-second if they could. So, to this judge, and likely to any jury, the guy did commit murder.

Really, the bigger problem here is that he commited forgery as part of this. This may not be murder, but it's premediatated poisoning, which is harsly punished as a rule.

 trexmeyer wrote:
It is strange to me how the fetus' status as a human being or not seems to fluctuate on a case by case basis.

Welcome to US Law, where the same crime can either get you life in prison or a 2 year suspended sentence based on the judge, jury, prosecutor, defense attorney, the breakfast served to the sequestered jury, the amount of media involved, and so on.

 kronk wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
It is strange to me how the fetus' status as a human being or not seems to fluctuate on a case by case basis.

Welcome to US Law, where the same crime can either get you life in prison or a 2 year suspended sentence based on the judge, jury, prosecutor, defense attorney, the breakfast served to the sequestered jury, the amount of media involved, and so on.

Very few crimes are the same. They might be prosecuted under the same statute, but things get more complicated in a hurry.

Would you be more comfortable if there was no flexibliity for aggravating or mitigating circumstances?

 Polonius wrote:

Would you be more comfortable if there was no flexibliity for aggravating or mitigating circumstances?

Nope. I'm not complaining. I'm just pointing out that even 1st degree murder can get you an entire range of punishments based on an entire range of circumstances.

And by circumstances, you mean the jury makeup...

 kronk wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

Would you be more comfortable if there was no flexibliity for aggravating or mitigating circumstances?

Nope. I'm not complaining. I'm just pointing out that even 1st degree murder can get you an entire range of punishments based on an entire range of circumstances.

Yeah, some of that is a good thing, some isn't. In the end, it's a matter of discretion, and that will often lead to abuses, but its generally better than a rigid system.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
He wasn't prosecuted for murder, however, or for an assault or poisoning.

Oh, I know. I was responding to sebster's assertion that what the guy did amounts to premeditated murder. It clearly doesn't, if you're pro-choice, and clearly does, if you're pro-life. You can't really have it both ways.

In the US, our laws are created and interpreted by lots of different people with competing interests. The resulting melange is a compromise that must then be rationalized by subsequent interpreters; but it's a mistake to pretend all of these principles flow from the same ethical (or even logical) perspective. It's a puzzle where we pretend to recognize the picture after hammering the misfit pieces together.

@Seaward: Pfft, you and your logic!

Should have been a fine - he didn't kill anything.

Well, that's just incorrect. He killed the developing embryo.

Whether said embryo gets the protection of law, or whether it counts as a "person" is up for debate, but it is certainly a living thing with a unique genetic code.

I am actually having a very difficult time settling on a reaction to this case. Normally, it is a very clear-cut thing, but as other posters have pointed out here, a murder charge does not make sense in the context that we are okay with abortions (assuming that is the case, ymmv naturally). However, at the same time, this kind of act is a very big violation of the woman's rights as well. One that should be come down on pretty severely in my opinion.

Do I believe 14 years is an adequate sentence?

I...eh....I'm not sure. Maybe someone here has more legal knowledge or access to resources that I am unaware of, but to me, the following crimes were committed:

Fraud - Used when the man acquired the abortion pills with a false signature.

Product tampering(?) - I'm not certain if this is complete, but this is for the misuse of the drug and presenting it as something else to the woman, correct?

Poisoning/Assault (??) - This is where it is pure mud for me, but is there a crime on the books for drugging someone unknowingly, even if it is not something like a case of poisoning?


This is a complex one, and even I'm not sure what to make of it.

14 years seems a little harsh to give someone who only killed a cluster of growing cells that a woman would hope would one day become a fully fledged human. I would consider this a crime against the mother and should be treated as such. Otherwise, it seems to me that the precedent that the mother can decide whether an embryo is a legal person or not. That in itself raises several questions.

 gossipmeng wrote:
Should have been a fine - he didn't kill anything.

He killed something that was in all effective ways a living part of her body through deceit by poisoning her.

Should it just be a simple fine if I were to feed you something that burns out one of your kidneys without your knowledge or permission?

To make it worse, what if this were a complete stranger?

It wasn't part of her body, it was a separate organism currently depending on her for nutrition and protection while it grew.

Using phrases like "a cluster of cells" obscures the truth, since we're all, when you get down to it, clusters of cells.

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Wait, so killing a fetus is premeditated murder, except when the person carrying it wants to kill it herself?

Yes, the intent of the mother in whether she plans to bring that child to term or not matters. How is this news?

The simple word for this is Hypocrisy

GG

 Da Boss wrote:
It wasn't part of her body, it was a separate organism currently depending on her for nutrition and protection while it grew.

What's the difference? I don't see one, but I'm more than willing to be convinced.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:

The simple word for this is Hypocrisy

In what way?

Well, one could make the same argument about a newborn child up to the point where it can fend for itself, or a person who requires care to survive- a very ill person, a paralysed person, a person on any kind of life support.

In my view, at least.

Also, significantly from a biological perspective- the embryo has an unique genetic code.

 daedalus wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
It wasn't part of her body, it was a separate organism currently depending on her for nutrition and protection while it grew.

What's the difference? I don't see one, but I'm more than willing to be convinced.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:

The simple word for this is Hypocrisy

In what way?

In that the expecting mother has the sole right to determine whether or not the fetus is human, the father and rest of society be damned.

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, one could make the same argument about a newborn child up to the point where it can fend for itself, or a person who requires care to survive- a very ill person, a paralysed person, a person on any kind of life support.

I feel like that one's a bit of a stretch. I mean, there's a big difference between being just dependent on someone else for care and protection, and being completely unable to survive for any period of time should physical connection to the host be severed. The life support is much closer, but I'm hung up on the fact that it is machines and not a person sustaining life, so the analogy doesn't really stick.

Also, significantly from a biological perspective- the embryo has an unique genetic code.

This is pretty compelling. I.. don't have a response to this at this point.

I'll need to think about it for a while.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
It wasn't part of her body, it was a separate organism currently depending on her for nutrition and protection while it grew.

What's the difference? I don't see one, but I'm more than willing to be convinced.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:

The simple word for this is Hypocrisy

In what way?

In that the expecting mother has the sole right to determine whether or not the fetus is human, the father and rest of society be damned.

Who is going to have it in their body for 9 months? Who has to give birth to it? Who will have their body undergo major changes?

That's not relevant to whether or not it is a human. You can't have it be a human only when it is convenient to you. It either is or it isn't. The mother has the right to decide if she wants to go through with the pregnancy and childbirth or have an abortion. I don't see how this also gives her the right to determine that is human prior to the birth. By that logic a woman could change her mind multiple times during the pregnancy.

A fetus does not have to be human for it to have legal protections.

I don't agree with that wording. I'd say no one has the right to interfere with a woman's pregnancy against her wishes. Otherwise those legal protections for the fetus should extend to abortions. We don't need to muddy the waters. There needs to be a clear legal distinction.

 trexmeyer wrote:
That's not relevant to whether or not it is a human. You can't have it be a human only when it is convenient to you. It either is or it isn't. The mother has the right to decide if she wants to go through with the pregnancy and childbirth or have an abortion. I don't see how this also gives her the right to determine that is human prior to the birth. By that logic a woman could change her mind multiple times during the pregnancy.

What if it's not a human, but the woman has the right to determine if it becomes a human?

I don't see how that's different. Until it is born or reaches the point where it could be reasonably expected to survive a premature childbirth it is still a fetus. Punish anyone interfering for tampering with the pregnancy, but not for murder.

What crime would it be, trex? Assault?

 trexmeyer wrote:
I don't agree with that wording. I'd say no one has the right to interfere with a woman's pregnancy against her wishes. Otherwise those legal protections for the fetus should extend to abortions. We don't need to muddy the waters. There needs to be a clear legal distinction.

Why? The Ohio code lists "unlawful termination of another's pregnancy" as a form of murder (essentially second degree), and I don't see a problem with it.

You keep no understanding that in most states, the laws would consider a fetus a person, and would find all forms of abortion illegal and criminal.

There's just an overriding legal principle in this specific case, specifically a woman's right to control her own body.

 daedalus wrote:
What if it's not a human, but the woman has the right to determine if it becomes a human?

Aren't both the mother and father equally responsible for offspring? That seems to be the rationale for requiring men to pay child support when they would have wanted the mother to abort the fetus.

 Seaward wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
What if it's not a human, but the woman has the right to determine if it becomes a human?

Aren't both the mother and father equally responsible for offspring? That seems to be the rationale for requiring men to pay child support when they would have wanted the mother to abort the fetus.

Man, you love that topic.

 kronk wrote:
What crime would it be, trex? Assault?

I could see it being classified as assault. Especially considering the fetus is a part of the woman's body. Perhaps it is comparable to someone cutting off a finger, ear or otherwise mutilating another person.

 Polonius wrote:
Why? The Ohio code lists "unlawful termination of another's pregnancy" as a form of murder (essentially second degree), and I don't see a problem with it.

You keep no understanding that in most states, the laws would consider a fetus a person, and would find all forms of abortion illegal and criminal.

There's just an overriding legal principle in this specific case, specifically a woman's right to control her own body.

And what impact, if any, does Ohio's Code have on Florida?

Polonius wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
What if it's not a human, but the woman has the right to determine if it becomes a human?

Aren't both the mother and father equally responsible for offspring? That seems to be the rationale for requiring men to pay child support when they would have wanted the mother to abort the fetus.

Man, you love that topic.

Well it is an issue. You really can't argue that a pregnancy affects the man and woman equally within reason, but completely dismissing the father's role is excessive.

Polonius wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
I don't agree with that wording. I'd say no one has the right to interfere with a woman's pregnancy against her wishes. Otherwise those legal protections for the fetus should extend to abortions. We don't need to muddy the waters. There needs to be a clear legal distinction.

Why? The Ohio code lists "unlawful termination of another's pregnancy" as a form of murder (essentially second degree), and I don't see a problem with it.

You keep no understanding that in most states, the laws would consider a fetus a person, and would find all forms of abortion illegal and criminal.

There's just an overriding legal principle in this specific case, specifically a woman's right to control her own body.

I really don't care what the state laws say about this because they are clearly ignored and essentially pointless.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Why? The Ohio code lists "unlawful termination of another's pregnancy" as a form of murder (essentially second degree), and I don't see a problem with it.

You keep no understanding that in most states, the laws would consider a fetus a person, and would find all forms of abortion illegal and criminal.

There's just an overriding legal principle in this specific case, specifically a woman's right to control her own body.

And what impact, if any, does Ohio's Code have on Florida?

Well, you know when you're cooking spaghetti and you throw it at the wall to see if it's done? It's like that.

 Seaward wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
What if it's not a human, but the woman has the right to determine if it becomes a human?

Aren't both the mother and father equally responsible for offspring? That seems to be the rationale for requiring men to pay child support when they would have wanted the mother to abort the fetus.

I'd agree if the point of child support was to be punitive. I mean, it winds up being so, sort of, because it's a deprivation of income, but the point of the matter is to look out for the child's well being, not punishing the father for something (someone?) he did, and the cash for the kid has got to come from somewhere.

Better that it comes from someone with some bearing of responsibility in the matter than from the state, I guess.

 Polonius wrote:
Man, you love that topic.

I do?

Even if the father desires an abortion the mother has a much greater stake in the situation. The father is simply paying child support. The mother is carrying the child to term and is then expected to raise it. You can't even begin to compare the two.

I think the real winner here is the rest of society. The dumbass "dad" will be in jail away from the rest of society hopefully past the point where he will father any other kids, and the stripper girlfriend isn't tied down with that loser or in a worse case giving the baby over to state care. Given how much low bred stupidity the state generates, if the whole of FL broke off and feel into the ocean we'd all be better off.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Why? The Ohio code lists "unlawful termination of another's pregnancy" as a form of murder (essentially second degree), and I don't see a problem with it.

You keep no understanding that in most states, the laws would consider a fetus a person, and would find all forms of abortion illegal and criminal.

There's just an overriding legal principle in this specific case, specifically a woman's right to control her own body.

And what impact, if any, does Ohio's Code have on Florida?

It's the code I know. Florida's is essentially the same.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.09.html

trexmeyer wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Why? The Ohio code lists "unlawful termination of another's pregnancy" as a form of murder (essentially second degree), and I don't see a problem with it.

You keep no understanding that in most states, the laws would consider a fetus a person, and would find all forms of abortion illegal and criminal.

There's just an overriding legal principle in this specific case, specifically a woman's right to control her own body.

I really don't care what the state laws say about this because they are clearly ignored and essentially pointless.

I"m not sure what you're saying here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
What if it's not a human, but the woman has the right to determine if it becomes a human?

Aren't both the mother and father equally responsible for offspring? That seems to be the rationale for requiring men to pay child support when they would have wanted the mother to abort the fetus.

I'd agree if the point of child support was to be punitive. I mean, it winds up being so, sort of, because it's a deprivation of income, but the point of the matter is to look out for the child's well being, not punishing the father for something (someone?) he did, and the cash for the kid has got to come from somewhere.

Better that it comes from someone with some bearing of responsibility in the matter than from the state, I guess.

And again, this is where constiutational rights really get in the way of equity, a bit. I think there is somethign to be said for allowing abortions only when both parents consent. It's not feasible given the realities of abuse and whatnot, but on paper its not necessarily the worst thing.

It still founders on the idea that nobody, not even the father, can force a woman to keep a pregnancy.

 daedalus wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
Should have been a fine - he didn't kill anything.

He killed something that was in all effective ways a living part of her body through deceit by poisoning her.

Should it just be a simple fine if I were to feed you something that burns out one of your kidneys without your knowledge or permission?

Well lets see, the woman is fine - there is no permanent damage. The guy doesn't want this kid, so that would be just another child from a struggling home. I'm sorry if I don't feel sympathy for women who don't wait for a steady boyfriend/husband before attempting to have a child. Should he have slipped her the pill? No. Am I personally offended by this case? Not at all. Could this all have been avoided if both people involved actually gave a damn about a potential preganancy? Certainly.

It burns down to what your belief is: is it a baby or is it just some useless grouping of cells with the potential to become a baby in the next few months?

 Da Boss wrote:
It wasn't part of her body, it was a separate organism currently depending on her for nutrition and protection while it grew.

Using phrases like "a cluster of cells" obscures the truth, since we're all, when you get down to it, clusters of cells.

Some of are so old, we're just one cell with lots of waivy appendages....

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, one could make the same argument about a newborn child up to the point where it can fend for itself, or a person who requires care to survive- a very ill person, a paralysed person, a person on any kind of life support.

In my view, at least.

Also, significantly from a biological perspective- the embryo has an unique genetic code.

I don't think that has any ethical significance. We recognise identical twins as two separate people despite their identical genes.

 gossipmeng wrote:
Well lets see, the woman is fine - there is no permanent damage. The guy doesn't want this kid, so that would be just another child from a struggling home. I'm sorry if I don't feel sympathy for women who don't wait for a steady boyfriend/husband before attempting to have a child. Should he have slipped her the pill? No. Am I personally offended by this case? Not at all. Could this all have been avoided if both people involved actually gave a damn about a potential preganancy? Certainly.

It burns down to what your belief is: is it a baby or is it just some useless grouping of cells with the potential to become a baby in the next few months?

I've seen women loss pregnancies, either due to medical miscarriage or voluntary (legal) abortion. I won't say there's no harm. Losing a baby is often incredibly traumatic.

 Polonius wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
Well lets see, the woman is fine - there is no permanent damage. The guy doesn't want this kid, so that would be just another child from a struggling home. I'm sorry if I don't feel sympathy for women who don't wait for a steady boyfriend/husband before attempting to have a child. Should he have slipped her the pill? No. Am I personally offended by this case? Not at all. Could this all have been avoided if both people involved actually gave a damn about a potential preganancy? Certainly.

It burns down to what your belief is: is it a baby or is it just some useless grouping of cells with the potential to become a baby in the next few months?

I've seen women loss pregnancies, either due to medical miscarriage or voluntary (legal) abortion. I won't say there's no harm. Losing a baby is often incredibly traumatic.

In that case lets refer back to the details of this particular case - messing around with some random dude and expecting things to go smoothly? Either way you have a broken home or an aborted fetus.

 gossipmeng wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
Well lets see, the woman is fine - there is no permanent damage. The guy doesn't want this kid, so that would be just another child from a struggling home. I'm sorry if I don't feel sympathy for women who don't wait for a steady boyfriend/husband before attempting to have a child. Should he have slipped her the pill? No. Am I personally offended by this case? Not at all. Could this all have been avoided if both people involved actually gave a damn about a potential preganancy? Certainly.

It burns down to what your belief is: is it a baby or is it just some useless grouping of cells with the potential to become a baby in the next few months?

I've seen women loss pregnancies, either due to medical miscarriage or voluntary (legal) abortion. I won't say there's no harm. Losing a baby is often incredibly traumatic.

In that case lets refer back to the details of this particular case - messing around with some random dude and expecting things to go smoothly? Either way you have a broken home or an aborted fetus.

I don't see how the woman's actions have any relevance on the moral and legal integrity of her person.

You're well into dangerous "she was asking for it" territory.

It looks like an advanced form of victim blaming.

It was the woman's fault for having an affair with a man who had another girlfriend.

 gossipmeng wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

I've seen women loss pregnancies, either due to medical miscarriage or voluntary (legal) abortion. I won't say there's no harm. Losing a baby is often incredibly traumatic.

In that case lets refer back to the details of this particular case - messing around with some random dude and expecting things to go smoothly? Either way you have a broken home or an aborted fetus.

I wonder if it is possible to raise a well-adjusted child in a non-nuclear household.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

I don't see how the woman's actions have any relevance on the moral and legal integrity of her person.

You're well into dangerous "she was asking for it" territory.

More horrifyingly, he seems to be saying that the moral and legal integrity of her person justifies what the donkey-cave in the article did to her.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It looks like an advanced form of victim blaming.

It was the woman's fault for having an affair with a man who had another girlfriend.

She shouldn't have worn that slutty dress... (and so on)

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, one could make the same argument about a newborn child up to the point where it can fend for itself, or a person who requires care to survive- a very ill person, a paralysed person, a person on any kind of life support.

In my view, at least.

Also, significantly from a biological perspective- the embryo has an unique genetic code.

I don't think that has any ethical significance. We recognise identical twins as two separate people despite their identical genes.

It has significance in determining that the fetus is not part of the mother's body, which is an incorrect argument put forward by pro choice advocates to disguise the fact that abortion is the killing of an individual.

I am pro choice, by the way. I just find that line of argument dishonest.

It's the internet I'm not here to make friend (or else I'd be "oh-em-jee! jail him a bajillion years - it was a baby! His name was Sean and his funural is next week -> Queue vigil of 10,000).

We have these articles posted on Dakka and some of them are just rehashing the same arguments. We all put on our moraility hats and pull out our crosses from under our shirts.

I'm just putting an extreme viewpoint out there to see what happens. It's supposed to be outrageous - aren't Canadians fun?

 gossipmeng wrote:
It's the internet I'm not here to make friend (or else I'd be "oh-em-jee! jail him a bajillion years - it was a baby! His name was Sean and his funural is next week -> Queue vigil of 10,000).

We have these articles posted on Dakka and some of them are just rehashing the same arguments. We all put on our moraility hats and pull out our crosses from under our shirts.

I'm just putting an extreme viewpoint out there to see what happens. It's supposed to be outrageous - aren't Canadians fun?

That's adorable. Now go play outside while the adults are talking.

I know this might be hard for some, but lets ignore the rights of the fetus for now. Everything else he did was illegal and he should be punished for each thing he did. Lets leave the abortion out of it, since that is such a touchy subject.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I know this might be hard for some, but lets ignore the rights of the fetus for now. Everything else he did was illegal and he should be punished for each thing he did. Lets leave the abortion out of it, since that is such a touchy subject.

I agree with this ^^

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I know this might be hard for some, but lets ignore the rights of the fetus for now. Everything else he did was illegal and he should be punished for each thing he did. Lets leave the abortion out of it, since that is such a touchy subject.

Agreed...

What if he slipped some roofies in her drinks to take advantage of her?

Sorta the same situation, eh?

 whembly wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I know this might be hard for some, but lets ignore the rights of the fetus for now. Everything else he did was illegal and he should be punished for each thing he did. Lets leave the abortion out of it, since that is such a touchy subject.

Agreed...

What if he slipped some roofies in her drinks to take advantage of her?

Sorta the same situation, eh?

I had been thinking something similar, that rape might be a better model for forceful termination of pregnancy then murder.

Either way, 12 years for rape isn't unheard of.

 Seaward wrote:
It would seem to take a great deal of cognitive dissonance to suggest that one case meets the definition of homicide - the killing of a human by a human - and the other does not. Unless it's Schrodinger's fetus, both a human and not a human at the same time.

Not both at once, but is if the mother wants it to be, and is not if the mother does not.

Really, really not that big a concept to wrap your head around. You might not like it as a concept, and that's fair enough, but to act bewildered by it is putting on a show.

 Seaward wrote:
Oh, I know. I was responding to sebster's assertion that what the guy did amounts to premeditated murder. It clearly doesn't, if you're pro-choice, and clearly does, if you're pro-life. You can't really have it both ways.

Of course you can. You can say 'if the mother wants to bring the fetus to term, it is all for all intents and purposes a human life, but if the mother does not want that then it isn't'.

This is, once again, gak that ain't that hard to understand. You don't have to agree with it, but pretending you don't understand it or it doesn't exist is boring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Aren't both the mother and father equally responsible for offspring? That seems to be the rationale for requiring men to pay child support when they would have wanted the mother to abort the fetus.

Responsible for the child, yes. Before birth, however, it is only the woman who carries the child. You might have learnt that from primary school biology or by having children of your own, that the father's role is basically limited to acting sympathetic.

This is why, you know, you get the mother determining if she wants to actually have the baby or not.

I am late to this discussion, but could it be that the judge agrees with the pro-life movement? that way a fetus is alive and the guy committed murder.

 Polonius wrote:

I had been thinking something similar, that rape might be a better model for forceful termination of pregnancy then murder.
Either way, 12 years for rape isn't unheard of.

I suppose after some point in time (7-8 months, when it's viable), you could switch over to a murder based model as opposed to a rape based model. And I'm assuming we're talking willful and malicious termination, not the BF accidentally giving her cough medicine that was too strong and her having an unanticipated reaction.

Well, I can only talk about Austrian (and, to a lesser extent, German and Swiss) legislation, but the way it's handled here always struck me as rather efficient:

We have a seperate offence that's called "abortion", which is basically a form of privileged homicide. If done within the first three months of the pregnancy by a doctor, or at any point of the pregnancy out of serious health concerns for the mother, or if the female is a minor (here: 14 years), it can not be prosecuted. In all other cases, the normal scope of sentencing for this particular offence applies equally to the pregnant female and second parties.

The fetus' protection as a person (e.g. the point at which intentionally killing it becomes "murder") begins with the onset of labor.

There really is no need for complicated constructions when you simply treat it seperately in the criminal code.

He should've got a short sentence or a fine for forcing her to take something she didn't want, but I would really like to see where the logic behind calling it murder is. The Bacteria in your stomach are more complex organisms than a freshly fertilized embryo.

I think comparing the complexity of the embryo to anything else will lead you nowhere. It was six weeks into development, and if you have more complex bacteria than THAT in your stomach, I would see a doctor ASAP.

Abortion isn't treated as murder by the law.

Right-wing Christian groups in the USA, or "Pro-Life" as they term themselves, have annexed the term of murder in order to provide more emotional impact to their message.

Abortion in most countries, such as Austria as described above, the UK, and USA, is treated as the crime of Abortion, with various medico-legal exceptions. An important one of which is if the mother wants the abortion.

In these rare cases in which someone else causes an unwanted abortion by stealth or force, it can be dealt with by the existing legal framework that supports prosecutions for assault, poisoning, abortion, misuse of prescription drugs, and, in the USA, Unborn Child Defence Act.

There is no need for additional law.

 Allod wrote:
I think comparing the complexity of the embryo to anything else will lead you nowhere. It was six weeks into development, and if you have more complex bacteria than THAT in your stomach, I would see a doctor ASAP.

I didn't read six weeks, actually. I thought it was a couple days. Never mind. There's a possibility I have a tapeworm, which is more complex than an Embryo, probably.

Even if it was a couple of days (and I can't believe I'm even engaging in this ridiculous argument), even if it was PRE FERTILIZATION, any human cell, a zygote, a gamete, a skin cell, is far more complex in structure than any bacterium.

At a cellular level, there is piles of incredibly complex stuff going on in a developing zygote, including functionality that an adult cell cannot match. (Totipotency, for one)

But there again, it's a dumb line of argument. Plant cells are "more complex" than animal cells, are they entitled to more rights based on this? Are people who have genetic conditions resulting in an overall loss of complexity less human that those who have greater complexity?

I think the biology of the foetus should be divorced from pro choice arguments because the basis for it is always such a crock of indefensible bs. Trying to win the argument with "science" doesn't work because science has absolutely nothing to say about what a "person" is, when someone "counts as a human" and all of these other things. Both sides try to sway undecideds with information about exactly how developed a foetus is, but it's kind of irrelevant.

Are you okay with killing humans that nobody in the world has met, nobody in the world wants to survive? That is the question. I think in reality most of us are, because even pro-life people don't actually try to intervene in all these "murders". Both sides are a bit deluded about what that means, though.

(Of course, I, Da Boss, am completely right, and therefore glowing in my own smugness. You may lick my feet, if you must )

I think the biology of the foetus should be divorced from pro choice arguments because the basis for it is always such a crock of indefensible bs. Trying to win the argument with "science" doesn't work because science has absolutely nothing to say about what a "person" is, when someone "counts as a human" and all of these other things. Both sides try to sway undecideds with information about exactly how developed a foetus is, but it's kind of irrelevant.

Comparing complexity of cells might be a little silly, but science is the only thing that actually gives us information on how the fetus develops in real time.

If we ignore science, we have to turn to philosophy and religion, and then we're relying on some vague definition of the "soul" and when that enters the body.

Being able to pinpoint the average length of time it takes for a fetus to become viable is important, in my opinion. That's where I consider it "alive" as a person. Prior to that point, fetuses have more in common with a tape worm than a person, in the way they interact with their world/mother/host.

Ah, nah. I don't buy that. That's an emotive argument as well- "it's got more in common with a tapeworm", nah, it doesn't. Tapeworm biology is pretty radically different to a foetus.

It's not science, so much as observation, that tells us about the development of the foetus. Your line in the sand is vague and arbitrary, because the point at which a foetus is "viable outside the womb" is blurry itself, and will move back as technology improves. It may eventually be possible for a foetus to be grown artificially (though we're a long ways off).

That is why I think philosophy, and perhaps religion if that's your thing, are better frameworks to examine this than science. Science does not try to tell us what we "should" do in any situation, and it's not meant for dealing with complex ethical issues.

The more I discuss this issue the more apparent how intensely politicised it is, to the point where I can't even agree with my own "side".

 DogofWar1 wrote:

I think the biology of the foetus should be divorced from pro choice arguments because the basis for it is always such a crock of indefensible bs. Trying to win the argument with "science" doesn't work because science has absolutely nothing to say about what a "person" is, when someone "counts as a human" and all of these other things. Both sides try to sway undecideds with information about exactly how developed a foetus is, but it's kind of irrelevant.

Comparing complexity of cells might be a little silly, but science is the only thing that actually gives us information on how the fetus develops in real time.

If we ignore science, we have to turn to philosophy and religion, and then we're relying on some vague definition of the "soul" and when that enters the body.

Being able to pinpoint the average length of time it takes for a fetus to become viable is important, in my opinion. That's where I consider it "alive" as a person. Prior to that point, fetuses have more in common with a tape worm than a person, in the way they interact with their world/mother/host.

Then you need to educate yourself. Viability is a moving concept. As technology advances, so does that.

 Frazzled wrote:


Then you need to educate yourself. Viability is a moving concept. As technology advances, so does that.

When did I saw viability wasn't a moving concept? I said science can help us determine viability, and that the point of viability was important.

Science is also what causes viability to move about in the first place, and my point was that you can't divorce science from the abortion debate because scientific discoveries concerning fetuses are the main hard facts we have concerning biological development.

Without that it's all philosophy and religion, neither of which is ground in enough fact to influence the whole discussion (merely parts of it).

 DogofWar1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Then you need to educate yourself. Viability is a moving concept. As technology advances, so does that.

When did I saw viability wasn't a moving concept? I said science can help us determine viability, and that the point of viability was important.

Science is also what causes viability to move about in the first place, and my point was that you can't divorce science from the abortion debate because scientific discoveries concerning fetuses are the main hard facts we have concerning biological development.

Without that it's all philosophy and religion, neither of which is ground in enough fact to influence the whole discussion (merely parts of it).

You noted that before viability fetuses were akin to tube worms. Your statement makes absolutely no sense, given the above. Are they moving from not being tube worms more quickly because Dr. Strangelove is making a better test tube? How does your scheme fit when viability occurs at the point of fertilization? Has humanity evolved that quickly.

 Frazzled wrote:

 DogofWar1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Then you need to educate yourself. Viability is a moving concept. As technology advances, so does that.

When did I saw viability wasn't a moving concept? I said science can help us determine viability, and that the point of viability was important.

Science is also what causes viability to move about in the first place, and my point was that you can't divorce science from the abortion debate because scientific discoveries concerning fetuses are the main hard facts we have concerning biological development.

Without that it's all philosophy and religion, neither of which is ground in enough fact to influence the whole discussion (merely parts of it).

You noted that before viability fetuses were akin to tube worms. Your statement makes absolutely no sense, given the above. Are they moving from not being tube worms more quickly because Dr. Strangelove is making a better test tube? How does your scheme fit when viability occurs at the point of fertilization? Has humanity evolved that quickly.

Are you suggesting that technology has advanced to the point that fetuses are viable at the moment of conception? Because they're not, not yet. Even if technology allowed for vat-grown humans like in sci-fi, you still need certain organs to be functioning for the human to function outside of that developmental environment.

I don't really understand what you're trying to argue, because I'm not saying anything not grounded in reality. Prior to a fetus being able to survive outside of the womb/some sort of sci-fi developmental environment, it cannot even function on its own without drawing on outside assistance from the mother. In that way, the relationship prior to viability is a parasitic one, the baby draws on resources of the mother in order to sustain itself. Simple fact.

Post viability, the baby is still growing, BUT it could survive in the world with a relatively minimal amount of unusual assistance. That's an important line, because it's a difference in how that being exists and interacts with the world around it. There is a big difference between a fetus with working lungs that can breath on its own, and a fetus that does not yet have working lungs and either can't breath at all or needs its breathing supplemented by a machine.

If we somehow many fetuses viable at the point of conception then fine, but I don't really see how a zygote could survive outside of the womb.

Viability of premature human infants has hardly improved in the past 40 years.

In 1969, the limit was set at 24 weeks because that was about the earliest an infant could be born and have a reasonable chance of survival with medical intervention.

The medical limit is now about 21 weeks, with heroic measures, and a chance of permanent impairment of the infant.

God didn't want babies being born that early.

It may be possible to invent an artificial womb, of course.

It may be possible to invent an artificial womb, of course.

Now you understand.

 Frazzled wrote:

It may be possible to invent an artificial womb, of course.

Now you understand.

Will we also invent artificial morning sickness?

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

It may be possible to invent an artificial womb, of course.

Now you understand.

Will we also invent artificial morning sickness?

You do know the cure for morning sickness...right?

I would have no problem providing this civic duty to cure morning sickness.

The bioethical considerations of artificial wombs are certainly interesting to discuss as a hypothetical future technology.

They don't yet exist, so altering the current concept of "viable" based upon potential future advancements isn't something I think we ought to do, but it is interesting to think about.

Some definitions of "viable" turn upon whether or not any technological advancements could keep the child alive (with a 50% success rate). Artificial wombs obviously have implications for this. Does this mean that every single fetus becomes "viable?" What if a family that chooses to use an artificial womb decides to terminate at, say, 10 weeks, far before the time when natural viability would occur? Should the artificial womb be treated as different, legally, than a mother's womb?

It's interesting to think about, but for the present day is restrained to the realm of philosophy.

We already have something of an legal/ethical framework in that area from the positions on stem cells, and cryonically preserved gametes and embryos.