08-17-2007, 12:40 AM | #1 (permalink) | |
Delusional... but in a funny way
Location: deeee-TROIT!!!
|
Man poisons pregnant gf with cattle hormone
Article
Quote:
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?
__________________
"I'm sorry, all I heard was blah blah blah, I'm a dirty tramp." |
|
08-17-2007, 12:45 AM | #3 (permalink) |
<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) |
<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, 01:18 AM | #5 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
So now you have the answer to your question... somehow I don't feel like that will end this debate. |
|
08-17-2007, 01:48 AM | #6 (permalink) | ||
Delusional... but in a funny way
Location: deeee-TROIT!!!
|
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:
Quote:
__________________
"I'm sorry, all I heard was blah blah blah, I'm a dirty tramp." Last edited by TotalMILF; 08-17-2007 at 01:51 AM.. |
||
08-17-2007, 03:23 AM | #7 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
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:
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. Last edited by analog; 08-17-2007 at 03:40 AM.. |
||
08-17-2007, 03:32 AM | #8 (permalink) | |
Location: Iceland
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran |
|
08-17-2007, 03:45 AM | #9 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
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:
|
||
08-17-2007, 04:30 AM | #10 (permalink) | |
Location: Iceland
|
Quote:
Still a total asshat. He deserves whatever he gets in this situation.
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran |
|
08-17-2007, 05:12 AM | #12 (permalink) | |
Submit to me, you know you want to
Location: Lilburn, Ga
|
Quote:
__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!! |
|
08-17-2007, 07:53 AM | #13 (permalink) |
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, 12:30 PM | #14 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Lake Mary, FL
|
Quote:
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
__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me. |
|
08-17-2007, 03:07 PM | #15 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
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. |
|
08-17-2007, 04:18 PM | #16 (permalink) | |
Mistress of Mayhem
Location: Canton, Ohio
|
Quote:
__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths. Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open. It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch. |
|
Tags |
cattle, hormone, man, poisons, pregnant |
|
|