[gandt]

I feel as if there are going to be various view points from members on here. But I am interested to hear what everyone thinks.

At first I thought this was a little extreme. But by the sounds of the story it seems like the GF was fairly far along in the process. Perhaps it is justified...

Quote:

A man in Tampa, Florida, is being accused of secretly slipping his girlfriend an abortion drug, an act that killed the couple’s unborn baby. The alleged details of the troubling story are ghastly.

Prosecutors claim that John Andrew Welden, 28, switched the label on an abortion pill bottle to make it look like Amoxicillin, a common antibiotic. After the woman, identified as 26-year-old Remee Lee, took the drug, she purportedly miscarried, reports The Tampa Tribune.

In March, Welden apparently found out that the woman was pregnant. While he purportedly wanted her to have an abortion, Lee decided to keep the baby and allegedly said that she would care for the child on her own.

Here is the link: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/...tion-pill/

[gandt]

The girlfriend was 6 weeks along.

[scorpion]

A mother kills her unborn child: she's an empowered woman making a difficult choice. She deserves society's financial and emotional support to help her kill the baby and recover from her self-inflicted emotional trauma.

A father kills his unborn child: he' a monster who needs to be executed or locked in a cage for this rest of his life. He deserves the worst scorn and opprobrium possible, and should be removed from society immediately.

[LibertarianBootyHunter]

[chexmix]

really depends on if you see the fetus as a human or a potential human. Then it turns into a circular argument.

I mean what he did was wrong, although he did it for his own self preservation. Hopefully society sees this and says "what causes a man to feel afraid of being a father, so much, that he feels the need to do this?"
but chances are it will just get blasted on the media and all the single mothers that are still my facebook friends will bitch about how horrible it is and no forward thinking will really be done.

[n0000]

The situation sounds pretty bad, but I don't understand how the law can be so blatantly contradictory. If the woman wanted to terminate the pregnancy she would be able to in the state or Florida or any other state. However, if anyone else kills this baby they are tried for murder! It seems like the law holds that the only thing that determines if the baby is worthy of life or not is the whim of the mother.

[Last Parade]

Quote:

Welden could face life behind bars without parole if he is found guilty of murder under the “Protection of Unborn Children Act,” a federal statute.

A terrible act to be sure, but LWOPPed? In the same league as murderers, terrorists, traitors? People who commit vicious and brutal acts that affect real people? Come on...

[j r]

(05-16-2013 04:50 PM)n0000 Wrote:  

The situation sounds pretty bad, but I don't understand how the law can be so blatantly contradictory. If the woman wanted to terminate the pregnancy she would be able to in the state or Florida or any other state. However, if anyone else kills this baby they are tried for murder! It seems like the law holds that the only thing that determines if the baby is worthy of life or not is the whim of the mother.

Easy. The Republcians in congress can't overturn Roe v Wade, so they passed a law making it murder to kill a fetus during the commission of a number of other crimes.

[gandt]

Yeah actually I am curious what the abortion laws are given how far along in the pregnancy the girl is.

[Excelsior]

(05-16-2013 04:17 PM)gandt Wrote:  

The girlfriend was 6 weeks along.

Interesting fact here, as it raises an important contradiction for pro-choice arguments.

Pro-Lifers have long held that abortion is murder. Pro-Choicers have usually responded by claiming that the unborn child can't be considered a murder victim and drawing a very clear line between the abortion of an immature fetus (24 weeks or younger) and actual murder. Some have even gone as far as to say that the fetus simply doesn't qualify as a "person" or even as a "human" in a way that a murder victim must.

Here, however, we have a woman who was only 6 weeks pregnant. The child was ultimately "aborted" against her will, but this is being considered a murder. It would appear as though many states maintain legal protection for unborn children, despite the presence of Roe v. Wade.

The only answer I can see for this paradox relates to the intent of the female, and I suspect that this is the difference that will matter going forward.

In one case, a woman chooses to abort her unborn child.

In the other, a woman is forced to abort her unborn child.

In the absence of female consent, that child has been murdered. In the presence of female consent, that child wasn't a "real" child at all, and the act cannot be considered murderous.

In short, unborn children are legally protected from everyone save for the person closest to them-their mother. Nobody can legally choose to harm or end the life of an unborn child...except its mother.

I suppose that this is the ultimate manifestation of the pro-choice idea: in expressing their choice, women are now allowed the exclusive ability to decide on the life and death of a (future) American citizen.

[j r]

(05-16-2013 04:59 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 04:17 PM)gandt Wrote:  

The girlfriend was 6 weeks along.

Interesting fact here, as it raises an important contradiction for pro-choice arguments.

Pro-Lifers have long held that abortion is murder. Pro-Choicers have usually responded by claiming that the unborn child can't be considered a murder victim and drawing a very clear line between the abortion of an immature fetus (24 weeks or younger) and actual murder. Some have even gone as far as to say that the fetus simply doesn't qualify as a "person" or even as a "human" in a way that a murder victim must.

Here, however, we have a woman who was only 6 weeks pregnant. The child was ultimately "aborted" against her will, but this is being considered a murder. It would appear as though many states maintain legal protection for unborn children, despite the presence of Roe v. Wade.

The only answer I can see for this paradox relates to the intent of the female, and I suspect that this is the difference that will matter going forward.

In one case, a woman chooses to abort her unborn child.

In the other, a woman is forced to abort her unborn child.

In the absence of female consent, that child has been murdered. In the presence of female consent, that child wasn't a "real" child at all, and the act cannot be considered murderous.

In short, unborn children are legally protected from everyone save for the person closest to them-their mother. Nobody can legally choose to harm or end the life of an unborn child...except its mother.

I suppose that this is the ultimate manifestation of the pro-choice idea: in expressing their choice, women are now allowed the exclusive ability to decide on the life and death of a (future) American citizen.

Except that these laws are generally enacted by conservatives and opposed by pro-choice people. The right can't make abortion illegal, so they try to legally surround it and curtail it as much as possible.

[esperar]

I don't think he did anything wrong. If men had equal rights, he wouldn't have had to do it.

[bacon]

It seems he took a gamble with giving her an abortion pill that he would get away with it and if he had he would have been off the hook with no chid support. However even though he was caught he is still off the hook for no child support except now he has the possibility of jail, also a possibililty if he ever feel behind on child support over the next 18 years. Ultimately I see his actions as the moves of a desperate man powerless to controlling his future by a woman who wants to make him a father against his will and his action of giving her the abortion pill was just him reaserting control over his life. Honestly I am surprised that stories like this are not more common.

[JimNortonFan]

If this continues, eventually Tom Leykis may get accessory charges for his advocacy of the "Hail Mary".

[AlbertoDelMuerto]

What has the world come to? It isn't a crime if the girl chooses to get an abortin, because it's her body, but they fail to realize the sperm donor also has a say in this matter.

[Timoteo]

One issue you also have to look at is that he gave her a drug that causes bleeding, which could also be a risk to her health or life, as well as terminating her pregnancy. Since the worst didn't happen, I don't see why he should be facing life in prison. Also, there's the argument that he shouldn't be facing a murder charge. At 6 weeks, the fetus cannot live outside the womb. That's fact. Pro-lifers want personhood conveyed at the point of conception, but based purely on science, that isn't a person, therefore you can't "murder" it. I'll definitely stay tuned to see how this case progresses and ultimately is resolved.

[JimNortonFan]

The issue is that it's her plaything to do with as she wishes.

She can abort (kill) it if she wishes.

She can put it up for adoption if she wishes.

She can raise it on her own if she wishes.

She can use it to get $ from the guy if she wishes.

This dude stepped over the line in the eyes of today's society so he will pay for it.

Think about this the next time you want to go raw.

[lurker]

How are they possibly going to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt?

[gfly]

Can of worms. Wonder if is the decision to charge is a pro female, it is only murder if she wants the kid bit. Or if it is a pro life political prosecution out to make 'fun' case law. Dude is screwed either way.

[Wadsworth]

He's guilty, but not of murder. We've truly arrived at the apogee of cultural stupidity when we decide to hold men and women to two different standards where murder is concerned.

Frankly, I don't even blame the guy.

(05-16-2013 08:52 PM)JimNortonFan Wrote:  

The issue is that it's her plaything to do with as she wishes.

She can abort (kill) it if she wishes.

She can put it up for adoption if she wishes.

She can raise it on her own if she wishes.

She can use it to get $ from the guy if she wishes.

This dude stepped over the line in the eyes of today's society so he will pay for it.

Think about this the next time you want to go raw.

Don't forget she can legally abandon it.

[Gmac]

Guy should have immediately fled the country.

[Kabal]

(05-16-2013 04:59 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 04:17 PM)gandt Wrote:  

The girlfriend was 6 weeks along.

Interesting fact here, as it raises an important contradiction for pro-choice arguments.

I'm agnostic on abortion (prefer it to be legal for selfish reasons, but definitely understand where pro-lifers are coming from), but that was my reaction as well: the hypocrisy and lack of intellectual consistency of PC-liberal-feminist ideology.

But since when is the PC-liberal-feminist complex concerned with intellectual consistency?

Marriage is just another extension of the hetero-normative Judeo-Christian patriarchy, until it becomes an opportunity for gay war-crying and attention whoring. Then all of a sudden marriage is the end all be all.

Cognitive traits such as intelligence are entirely due to nurture, unless the cognitive trait is homosexuality. Homosexuality must be genetically determined and intelligence environmentally determined--despite the ~= 20% heritability of homosexuality and the >= 50% heritability of IQ.

Social conservatives are anti-science for opposing stem cell research, but bioinformatics and searching for genes linked to IQ is teh evulz.

Social conservatives are also teh stupidz for not believing in evolution, but there's no way that different human populations with limited inter-population gene flow for tens of thousands of years aren't identical in every way.

We should judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin... unless doing so favors pet minority groups.

More women are attending college than men because women are smart and men are lazy, but men dominate women at STEM subjects because of teh sexisms and da patriarchy.

The only thing the PC-liberal-feminist complex is consistent about is its devotion to sanctimony, indignation, and feelings.

[WanderingSoul]

The guy is fucked. They are going to throw the book at him. If they don't, dudes are going to be slipping girls this pill in record numbers. It would be an epidemic No chance in hell the powers that be let that start happening.

[Therapsid]

This story demonstrates the pervasive misandry of both the liberal left and social conservative right.

We already well know how liberals support the right of women to extinguish the life of fetuses because of financial reasons, career aspirations, and personal preference. But here we see the disregard social conservatives have of men. Traditional conservatives are happy to endorse the double standard by which men are punished for abortions and women aren't, as second best alternative to banning abortion in general.

Both sides of America's ideological divide are only too comfortable with making an example out of men for the sake of their ideological hobby horses.

Personally, I'm morally opposed to abortion. But I'm against it on behalf of the unborn which means it doesn't make a difference whether the mother or father ends their life. But there's a weird consensus of right and left that as long as only men are held accountable for abortions, it's pretty much okay.

[Vacancier Permanent]

Do you think the average guy out there knows about this option? They are for most part beyond help as they are way too brainwashed by the mainstream machine. Also, about 40 or so million people don't even have a passport in the US so that says it all...

(05-16-2013 10:10 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

Guy should have immediately fled the country.