Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?