Man poisons pregnant gf with cattle hormone - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

TotalMILF · 08-17-2007, 12:40 AM

Quote:

GALENA, Md. -- A dairy farmer was accused of giving a cattle hormone to a woman he got pregnant in hopes of inducing a miscarriage.

Police said William Stanley Sutton III, 25, added ProstaMate last week to a soda drank by Lauren Ashley Tucker, 21, who is carrying his child.

Tucker felt sick to her stomach and vomited after drinking a 20-ounce soda Sutton gave her that "tasted nasty and burnt her throat," according to court records. She went to the hospital Aug. 9, and the hospital reported a possible poisoning to police.

The unborn child survived. Tucker is now 15 weeks pregnant.

ProstaMate is a hormone given to cows in the breeding process to bring all cows in heat at the same time. It can also be used to stimulate an early term abortion in a heifer that gets pregnant too young or a cow that mates with an undesired bull.

Tucker told authorities Sutton tried to get her to drink more of the soda, "telling her that soda helps an upset stomach," according to charging documents.

She told police that Sutton is the father of her child and that he wanted her to have an abortion, the records said. Sutton was charged with reckless endangerment, assault and contaminating Tucker's drink.

Sutton allegedly told police that he put 15-cc of ProstaMate in Tucker's soda while she was visiting him. Sutton said he bought the drug from a veterinarian in Kent County.

According to police, Sutton said he didn't mean to harm Tucker, just to cause her to miscarry.

Sutton's lawyer, Mitch Mowell, declined comment when contacted by the newspaper. Sutton has been released on $50,000 bond and is to have no contact with Tucker.

Tucker was still being treated for her injuries Monday. Police are also investigating whether Sutton added ProstaMate to a glass of water he gave Tucker Aug. 6.

Tucker told police the water tasted odd and that she felt sick, but attributed the feeling to being pregnant.

"It's an unthinkable type of situation," said Kent County Sheriff's Sgt. Glenn M. Owens.

So, I want to know why this fuckstick wasn't charged with attempted murder of the fetus. I think he should've been.

My reasoning is this: at 12 weeks the embryo becomes a fetus, and I think that late-term abortions (those performed after 12 weeks) are murderous. In fact, they're outlawed in most states (except for rare exceptions for medical emergencies, incest, etc) pretty-much for that reason. 12+ week fetuses look human, feel pain, can suck his/her thumb, etc. Purposely and pre-meditatively attempting to kill a fetus is attempted murder, in my book.

So, my question to you is this: Should his attempt(s) to abort his unborn child at 14 weeks gestation, without the mother's knowledge or prior consent, be considered attempted murder? Why or why not?

Infinite_Loser · 08-17-2007, 12:43 AM

Personally, I've no problem with what he did for so long as the abortion rights activists continue to argue a woman's "right" to choose.

xepherys · 08-17-2007, 12:45 AM

I think the laws surrounding murder charges in abortion are still difficult to make decisions on. I do however think that those charges were not enough. Perhaps to make the law easier to read and give less leeway, there should be new laws put on the books specifically for ending the life of an unborn child, with variances in degree based on the term when the life was terminated. Then using murder charges would be unnecessary and undebatable.

MageB420666 · 08-17-2007, 01:10 AM

I personally think that having an abortion at 12 weeks is fine, however, trying to force the abortion on the mother is not. I wouldn't consider it attempted murder, unless it is known that the drug could possibly have killed the woman.

analog · 08-17-2007, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TotalMILF

So, my question to you is this: Should his attempt(s) to abort his unborn child at 14 weeks gestation, without the mother's knowledge or prior consent, be considered attempted murder? Why or why not?

Regardless of opinion, the answer is no, because under Maryland law (I looked it up), abortions are legal up to viability, which is usually 24-25 weeks' gestation. She is only at 15 weeks, which means it is not considered a "life" under Maryland law. At best, he could also be charged with destruction of property, but not murder.

So now you have the answer to your question... somehow I don't feel like that will end this debate.

TotalMILF · 08-17-2007, 01:48 AM

OK, I'm definitely not a lawyer, so please let me know if I get this wrong.

I just looked up the Federal law regarding late-term abortions. From what I understand all abortions past 12 weeks are illegal, and it is a felony to perform one. This being a federal law, it supersedes any state laws that are in place (like Maryland's law).

That being said, I think he needs to be held responsible in some way for attempting to abort the 14-week fetus. Didn't he attempt to commit a felony? Someone please correct me if I'm interpreting this incorrectly.

Linky

Quote:

Federal law outlaws certain second-trimester abortions, without an exception to protect a woman's health. 18 U.S.C.A § 1531 (2003).

In 2003, President Bush became the first president ever to criminalize safe, medically appropriate abortion when he signed into law the Federal Abortion Ban, called by its anti-choice sponsors the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003." The federal law makes the performance of certain previability, second trimester abortions a felony and imposes a criminal penalty of up to two years in prison. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1531 (2003).

Six federal district and appellate courts declared the law unconstitutional. Carhart v. Ashcroft, 287 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (D. Neb. 2004), aff'd sub nom. Carhart v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2005), rev'd, 127 S.Ct. 1610 (2007); Nat'l Abortion Fed'n v. Gonzales, 287 F. Supp. 2d 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), aff'd, Nat'l Abortion Fed'n v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 278, (2d Cir. 2006), vacated by 127 S.Ct. 1610 (2007); Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am. v. Gonzales, 320 F. Supp. 2d 957 (N.D. Cal. 2004), aff'd, Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am. v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 1163, (9th Cir. 2006), rev'd, 127 S.Ct. 1610 (2007). The courts found the ban unconstitutional in part because, like a very similar Nebraska law the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 2000, the ban had no exception to protect women's health. Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000). Several of the courts also found that the ban's language was overbroad and potentially outlawed the most common second-trimester procedures.

The Bush administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Eighth and Ninth Circuit decisions and in April 2007, the Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and declared the ban constitutional. Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 127 S.Ct. 1610 (2007). The Court interpreted the ban to be limited to a single procedure, and based on that construction, found that a health exception was not constitutionally required. As a federal law, the ban applies nationwide, regardless of state law.

Federal Abortion Ban (PDF)

Quote:

The Federal Abortion Ban:
* Is a criminal ban on abortion care that could apply as early as the 12th week of pregnancy.
* Is part of a larger agenda to outlaw abortion entirely.
* Is the first federal law ever to criminalize safe medical procedures.
* Is opposed by doctors and medical societies.
* Is not about banning late-term abortions; 40 states already ban late-term abortions and NARAL Pro-Choice America does not oppose such restrictions.
* Is not a ban on a single procedure; the law's overly broad language actually outlaws multiple procedures, including the most common methods used after the 12th week.
* Does not provide an exception to protect a woman's health.
* Does not provide an exception in cases of severe fetal anomaly.

analog · 08-17-2007, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TotalMILF

I just looked up the Federal law regarding late-term abortions. From what I understand all abortions past 12 weeks are illegal, and it is a felony to perform one. This being a federal law, it supersedes any state laws that are in place (like Maryland's law).

Someone please correct me if I'm interpreting this incorrectly.

You've interpreted it incorrectly because you read the words but didn't actually manage to register what they said. The pertinent points are actually in what you highlighted.

What was banned at the federal level was an abortive procedure called "partial birth abortion". This is where, hence the name, the fetus is partially delivered before being surgically aborted. The law you quote is specifically about that certain procedure for aborting a fetus past 12 weeks, not ALL abortion procedures past 12 weeks. There are several different abortion procedures (methods through which to abort a fetus) and "partial birth abortion" is only one of them.

The law you quote actually specifies one procedure and it is not an outright ban on abortion, just certain procedures used to abort, past 12 weeks.

If that seems asinine to you, it should. What the hell difference should it make if you can abort using procedure x, but not y, z, or a? You're still bringing about the same result. *shrug* Oh well.

This was the beginning part of one of the bits you cherry-picked, but now includes the full language to support what I am telling you:

The only reason the supreme court ruled in its favor as being constitutional, was that (and this is from the article you linked), "

Quote:

The Court interpreted the ban to be limited to a single procedure, and based on that construction, found that a health exception was not constitutionally required. As a federal law, the ban applies nationwide, regardless of state law.

"

So no. It's still not a felony and still not a murder.

Just an aside... why would you ask for our opinions on if it's murder or not, when if a person says "it's not", you try and prove them wrong? Did you really want our opinions, or did you just want to state yours?

Stating your own opinion is excellent, but a lot more discussion could come from this thread if we know your actual intentions here.

abaya · 08-17-2007, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TotalMILF

That being said, I think he needs to be held responsible in some way for attempting to abort the 14-week fetus.

Personally, I think it's more important that he's held responsible for what he did to the WOMAN. Her life is still more important than that of the fetus.

Now, if they were mutually agreeing to poison her in an attempt to abort the fetus, that would be something else... and perhaps more relevant to your discussion about murder vs. aborting the fetus (I still do not think it's a big deal, because it would be *their* choice, but there are certainly easier ways to abort than using COW drugs, jeez!).

But because he was doing it without her consent, and in a VERY dangerous manner, I think he deserves to be prosecuted for what he did to her... regardless of the baby. Now, if the baby dies, or has birth defects due to the poison, that is something else he could be charged with (in my book)... but none of that has come to light yet.

In any case, the man is a friggin' idiot.

analog · 08-17-2007, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Personally, I think it's more important that he's held responsible for what he did to the WOMAN. Her life is still more important than that of the fetus.

Absolutely... but he's already charged with reckless endangerment, assault, and [poisoning]. This is pretty much all a person who has poisoned someone will get charged with. I'm not sure if you all want his testicles in a trophy case over this, but he's charged with pretty much everything he can be. I doubt the DA would have had it any other way.

I have no idea why there seems to be a cry for blood here... he's already being charged with the crime he's committed. Did you want to start making up things so you can charge him with more?

I mean, YES he's a dirtbag for poisoning her, but you all can't have his blood for this.

Quote:

In any case, the man is a friggin' idiot.

Definitely agreed there. lol

abaya · 08-17-2007, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

I have no idea why there seems to be a cry for blood here... he's already being charged with the crime he's committed. Did you want to start making up things so you can charge him with more?

Nope, sorry, my fault. I skimmed the article and missed the charges (I was trying to see why this was being posted in the first place, at the bottom of the post), and just saw that the OP was concerned more for the fetus' life. With all due respect to TotalMILF, my gut reaction was, "WTF, who cares about the fetus, how about the woman!"... and so my gut reaction appeared on the screen before I went back to read the article again. That's all.

Still a total asshat. He deserves whatever he gets in this situation.

albania · 08-17-2007, 04:41 AM

I think this man took his girlfriends outcries of feeling like a cow a little too literally, and he’s shown himself to be quite the asshole. What I want to know is how's he ever going to be able to face his child? I suppose he'll just lie to him or her.

ShaniFaye · 08-17-2007, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Personally, I've no problem with what he did for so long as the abortion rights activists continue to argue a woman's "right" to choose.

you're actually equating the right of a woman to voluntarily have a procedure to a man sneaking around and giving her animal drugs without her knowledge to make her miscarry? If he'd just kicked her down the stairs and gotten the same result would that be ok too?

TotalMILF · 08-17-2007, 07:53 AM

OK, this thread isn't what I wanted it to be, so let me try to get it back on track.

The new question is this: Should unborn babies (who are intended to be carried to term by the mother) have rights?

For example, should the man in the article be charged for assault against the fetus, if the mother had every intention of carrying said fetus to term?

Consider this hypothetical situation: A wealthy man dies leaves everything he owns to his issue (closest blood relative). He has a brother, and a pregnant wife. The the child is set to gain the entire inheritance. The brother does not want this so he kicks the mother in the stomach, causing her to miscarry. He serves a menial sentence for assault, but still inherits EVERYTHING from his dead brother. Do you think the brother should've been charged with something more than assault with a deadly weapon? Should he still get the inheritance? If not, then would that mean that the fetus had the RIGHT to inherit his/her father's estate? If so, then could that also mean that fetuses DO, in fact, have some rights?

Y'all know my opinion. Now I want to hear yours.

Infinite_Loser · 08-17-2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

you're actually equating the right of a woman to voluntarily have a procedure to a man sneaking around and giving her animal drugs without her knowledge to make her miscarry? If he'd just kicked her down the stairs and gotten the same result would that be ok too?

Like I said earlier, for as long as those 'pro-abortion' nuts keep running around claiming that a woman has the right to choose (While completely ignoring the fact that humans aren't asexual), then I've no problem with what he did.

He stated that he didn't have any malicious intent and only wanted to induce a miscarriage. I guess one could say he was exercising his right to choose

analog · 08-17-2007, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TotalMILF

OK, this thread isn't what I wanted it to be, so let me try to get it back on track.

The new question is this: Should unborn babies (who are intended to be carried to term by the mother) have rights?

For example, should the man in the article be charged for assault against the fetus, if the mother had every intention of carrying said fetus to term?

Consider this hypothetical situation: A wealthy man dies leaves everything he owns to his issue (closest blood relative). He has a brother, and a pregnant wife. The the child is set to gain the entire inheritance. The brother does not want this so he kicks the mother in the stomach, causing her to miscarry. He serves a menial sentence for assault, but still inherits EVERYTHING from his dead brother. Do you think the brother should've been charged with something more than assault with a deadly weapon? Should he still get the inheritance? If not, then would that mean that the fetus had the RIGHT to inherit his/her father's estate? If so, then could that also mean that fetuses DO, in fact, have some rights?

Y'all know my opinion. Now I want to hear yours.

The reason he's not being charged with assault on the fetus is the same reason he's not being charged with attempted murder: At the current stage of gestation, under that state's law, *it* is not "alive". *It* doesn't exist as a life in the eye of the law.

So really, it's akin to wondering if a chair could retain property rights.

And for your example, no, I don't believe it would be at all appropriate to establish property rights on people that don't exist yet. Say what you want and believe what you want about "when life begins", it is not a PERSON until birth. Prior to birth, you may as well leave your belongings to a sofa cushion.

Lady Sage · 08-17-2007, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Personally, I've no problem with what he did for so long as the abortion rights activists continue to argue a woman's "right" to choose.

It wasnt her choice, he took that choice from her.

08-17-2007, 12:43 AM	#2 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	Personally, I've no problem with what he did for so long as the abortion rights activists continue to argue a woman's "right" to choose. __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

08-17-2007, 12:45 AM	#3 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	I think the laws surrounding murder charges in abortion are still difficult to make decisions on. I do however think that those charges were not enough. Perhaps to make the law easier to read and give less leeway, there should be new laws put on the books specifically for ending the life of an unborn child, with variances in degree based on the term when the life was terminated. Then using murder charges would be unnecessary and undebatable. __________________ The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible... -- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato My Homepage

08-17-2007, 01:10 AM	#4 (permalink)
MageB420666 <Insert wise statement here> Location: Hell if I know	I personally think that having an abortion at 12 weeks is fine, however, trying to force the abortion on the mother is not. I wouldn't consider it attempted murder, unless it is known that the drug could possibly have killed the woman. __________________ Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

08-17-2007, 07:53 AM	#13 (permalink)
TotalMILF Delusional... but in a funny way Location: deeee-TROIT!!!	OK, this thread isn't what I wanted it to be, so let me try to get it back on track. The new question is this: Should unborn babies (who are intended to be carried to term by the mother) have rights? For example, should the man in the article be charged for assault against the fetus, if the mother had every intention of carrying said fetus to term? Consider this hypothetical situation: A wealthy man dies leaves everything he owns to his issue (closest blood relative). He has a brother, and a pregnant wife. The the child is set to gain the entire inheritance. The brother does not want this so he kicks the mother in the stomach, causing her to miscarry. He serves a menial sentence for assault, but still inherits EVERYTHING from his dead brother. Do you think the brother should've been charged with something more than assault with a deadly weapon? Should he still get the inheritance? If not, then would that mean that the fetus had the RIGHT to inherit his/her father's estate? If so, then could that also mean that fetuses DO, in fact, have some rights? Y'all know my opinion. Now I want to hear yours. __________________ "I'm sorry, all I heard was blah blah blah, I'm a dirty tramp." Last edited by TotalMILF; 08-17-2007 at 09:20 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

08-17-2007, 04:41 AM	#11 (permalink)
albania Psycho	I think this man took his girlfriends outcries of feeling like a cow a little too literally, and he’s shown himself to be quite the asshole. What I want to know is how's he ever going to be able to face his child? I suppose he'll just lie to him or her.