Investigators say they have obtained a tissue sample from a woman’s miscarriage and will have it tested for presence of an abortion drug that her boyfriend allegedly slipped her in an attempt to terminate her pregnancy.Businessman Manishkuma Patel was charged yesterday with attempted homicide of an unborn child. His lawyer says he was to be released today on $750,000 cash bond raised with the help of his friends.
But the Outagamie County Sheriff’s Department says a court commissioner decided he would remain in custody while officials verify the whereabouts of another $231,000 in funds.
Sheriff’s deputies say they obtained the tissue sample from a local hospital, and it will be tested for the presence of the abortion pill RU-486. Results should be available in about two weeks.
The county prosecutor says a positive test result could be used to support an upgraded charge in the case. The 34-year-old Patel runs service stations and other businesses in the Appleton area. Charges against him include seven felonies and two misdemeanors, carrying up to just under 100 years in prison.
A positive test could result in an upgraded charge? What?
If a woman wishes to terminate a pregnancy, it is a perfectly legal matter. If she saddles a supposed father with child support, over which he has no influence regarding how it’s spent, that is legal as well. The man has no legal rights from the moment of conception, whereas the woman’s extend into the forseeable future.
I think that slipping a woman a pill under any circumstances is a nasty business, and that this is a particularly nasty instance, but what are we to make of this disparity? There are two instances of fraud, one of which is punished with extraordinary severity, and one of which is rewarded with great generosity. And this is because . . . ?
And wasn’t this incident previsible? If not, why not?
To play devil’s advocate here, I can legally kill my own dog, but if I poison my neighbor’s dog I’m going to be charged with a crime.
Where is moops? I am interested in hearing his opinion on what charges should be leveled.
Are you permitted to kill your own dog?
I thought the same thing when I heard this story yesterday. Although pretty much everyone agrees that the slipping of pills into drinks is nasty business, there is definitely an aspect of double standards in play here since women are permitted to abort the same baby without any legal consequences. Spies, Brigands makes a valid point, but there is a small flaw in his analogy in that the baby/fetus being aborted is not the same person/life as the mother… it is a separate life. For that reason, the killing of the neighbor’s dog doesn’t completely apply. Furthermore, the father had as much to do with creating that life as the mother.
“I can legally kill my own dog”
I almost got 20 years for “allegedly” slipping date rape drugs to a goat.
You, sir, are a liar.
But, if the woman could be convinced to say she didn’t want it after all, it’s all good, right? Right?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Well, if you split with your roomie, and one of you gets to keep the dog, does the other pay dog support?
So if she had done it, right at the 9th month, she could get a free tee shirt from planned parenthood, he does it, and maybe gets 100 years????
This is one of the many reasons why people who support having the abortion pill over the counter are complete idiots. That this was going to happen sooner or later was 100% forseeable by anyone with an average IQ and no pathological agenda.
Now, if whatever he slipped into her drink gets >smeared on the kid’s toys, there’ll be hell to pay.
This isn’t really complicated, people.
To modify the analogy in #1, if I cut off my own finger, it is perfectly legal. If you cut off my finger, it ain’t.
Slipping her a pill is an assault. Having that action result in the loss of part of her body, is a further assault.
“The man has no legal rights from the moment of conception, whereas the woman’s extend into the forseeable future.”
Yeah, so what? That is as it should be.
It’s a woman’s choice whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Nobody else’s. You may not think that’s right, but you can see that because it is in her body, she has different standing than anyone else. Someone else that chooses to terminate the pregnancy is a murderer (unless it’s a doctor in an emergency situation). It seems simple to me- or at least as simple as things can be in a complicated matter.
JoeCitizen:
Why?
If it is a civil right for a woman to procure an abortion, or to make a man be responsible for their offspring if she chooses otherwise, and if the point about her procuration of an abortion being legal is that the fetus doesn’t yet resemble a human being enough to enjoy its own rights, MayBee, then doesn’t a potential 100 year term seem rather over the top? Is this worse than, say, giving her rohypnol and raping her?
I think the guy ought to go to jail, but is this the attempted homicide of an unborn child? If so, when does the child attain that status?
Are you permitted to kill your own dog?
Generally yes, if it’s done humanely. I’m also permitted to kill cows, pigs, deer, etc., but not when they belong to my neighbor. I can have the vet give my own cat an abortion, but if I somehow cause my neighbor’s purebred cat to miscarry, thereby losing a litter of valuable kittens I’m likely to be sued, or even charged with a crime depending on the circumstances.
I usually avoid debating the abortion issue. First, everyone made up their mind long ago and debate isn’t likely to be productive. Second, my own views are non-standard and thus tend to get both sides angry at me (in brief, there are more than two sides to this issue… there are tenable positions other than “one cell is a human being” and “it’s not a human being until 1 nanosecond after the head emerges from the vulva”).
I’m simply pointing out that “okay for her to abort, not okay for him to induce an abortion without her permission” is logically consistent with what’s generally called the “pro-choice” position, as well as a great deal of existing law.
Slipping her a pill is an assault. Having that action result in the loss of part of her body, is a further assault.
We get that part. What we don’t get is the “men have no legal rights” part, except the “right” to pay the bitch money when SHE does it to a man, whether it’s cuckholding, claiming to be sterile when not, or puncturing the condom with a pin in order to gain a legal financial slave. for 18 to 22 years. THAT’S what gives us a case of the ass, bro.
Someone else that chooses to terminate the pregnancy is a murderer
I could see “guilty of assault” or “reckless endangerment” as it would be an unwanted ‘attack’ on the mother’s body putting her at risk, but if you’re going to call an unwanted abortion “murder” (assuming the mother was not killed), then that murder charge would be logically inconsistent, unless you’re willing to declare that voluntary abortion is murder too.
MayBee, then doesn’t a potential 100 year term seem rather over the top? Is this worse than, say, giving her rohypnol and raping her?
A 100 year sentence may well be over the top.
Speaking for myself, I would rather be raped than have had someone kill my baby when I was pregnant.
Darrell: that would be true if all killing were murder, but it isn’t. Killing someone in self-defense, killing an enemy in time of war, killing someone accidentally, removing or not providing “heroic measures” for a terminal patient — all sorts of exceptions.
Someone else that chooses to terminate the pregnancy is a murderer
This is the problem the pro-aborts have; they want it both ways. Even the hardcorps activists realize that and oppose the killing of unborn babies by second parties being categorized as murder.
I would rather be raped than have someone kill MY baby when pregnant.
…that would be true if all killing were murder, but it isn’t. Killing someone in self-defense, killing an enemy in time of war, killing someone accidentally, removing or not providing “heroic measures†for a terminal patient  all sorts of exceptions.
Actually, it could very well fall under premeditated homicide; 1st Degree Murder. Your exceptions have very narrow limitations.
Unless the nation of Wombistan has declared formal hostilities against Fetusalia due to an unprovoked attack, or the fetus was trying to kill mom by grabbing her internal organs, so she had no choice but to defend herself, I don’t accept the logic. It sure ain’t an accident, nor is the healthy fetus “terminal”.
but if I somehow cause my neighbor’s purebred cat to miscarry, thereby losing a litter of valuable kittens I’m likely to be sued
True enough. But your analogy would be more appropriate to the case being discussed if you had a situation with both you and your neighbor sharing joint ownership of the purebred cat, then 1 of you causing the cat to miscarry. (and yes, I’m stretching to equate animals with humans)
What makes this case interesting is that it highlights the fact the woman is legally given total control, althought the father had as much to do with the pregnancy as the woman. Yes, the woman carries the baby, but is it fair and reasonable for her to have such complete and total control over the situation? She can terminate the pregnancy over the father’s objections without legal consequences or she can carry the baby to term over the father’s objections and obligate him to pay child support. This may be the law, but it doesn’t make it fair.
Now slipping date rape drugs to your neighbor’s goat which has rebuffed your advances, well..
Now slipping date rape drugs to your neighbor’s goat which has rebuffed your advances, well..
She said “no”, but I knew she meant “yes”.
The coy little minx!
Who’s your Da-a-a-a-addy?
SGT Ted: I was pointing out that there are plenty of other exceptions, not that that particular one applied to this situation.
SGT Ted and Darrell: I agree completely that if we’re going to allow abortions, men should have an equal opportunity to disclaim parental responsibility. However, that’s not the issue under discussion.
Then why are you upset that this man is being charged?
I understand that you don’t find it equitable, but it isn’t. I feel for men when it comes to abortion rights, but I don’t think the answer is to treat an outside actor that kills a baby just like any other assault. Laws are like that. It’s illegal to drink when you’re 20 but not when you’re 21. It’s legal for a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy but not someone else.
SGT Ted and Darrell: I agree completely that if we’re going to allow abortions, men should have an equal opportunity to disclaim parental responsibility. However, that’s not the issue under discussion.
Well, I see it as the most likely motive for the assault. Her choice equalled his obligation with no say in the matter. I’d say it goes to the heart of the matter. Not saying it was right either morally or legally, either. An unintended consequence yet somewhat forseeable.
but I don’t think the answer is to treat an outside actor that kills a baby just like any other assault
Assuming that he is the father of the child, I object to your characterization of him as an “outside actor”. He had as much to do with that pregnancy as the woman, he would have significant legal responsibility and rights regarding that child, should it have been allowed to be born.
And although I agree with your characterization of it as a “baby”, legally, it has the rights of a “fetus”, which means that it’s life can be legally terminated at pretty much anytime during pregnancy, as long as it’s the mother making that sole decision to terminate it. You seem to be trying to have it both ways. I agree, the law is on your side. I’m just saying that it’s not fair
I’m just saying that it’s not fair
No, it isn’t fair.
I object to your characterization of him as an “outside actorâ€Â
He is an outside actor when it comes to why the baby died. He’s not the carrier. He’s not god.
He had as much to do with that pregnancy as the woman,
He had as much to do with the fertilization as the woman. Certainly you aren’t going to pretend the woman doesn’t have more to do with the pregnancy.
he would have significant legal responsibility and rights regarding that child, should it have been allowed to be born.
Yes, and I think there are significant legal inequities in that. I don’t know the right answer, though. Just because abortion is legal it doesn’t mean all women believe it is moral. Just because a man decides he doesn’t want a baby after his partner is pregnant doesn’t mean she needs to be stuck with all the consequences either. It’s tremendously complicated. Should a man be able to force a woman to get an abortion?
Yes. But it seems that penises cause temporary blindness. It’s a shame abortion rights were invented, but if the groovy guys of the seventies failed to see to it that the Constitution also included penumbra implying their right to deprive the unborn of life, well, suck it up. Keep your penises in your pants, guys, until you’re ready to raise a family.
It’s tremendously complicated. Should a man be able to force a woman to get an abortion?
Given the right to choose, the short answer is “Your Choice, Your Responsibility”.
Pregnancy begins with implantation of the fertilized ovum in the wall of the uterus. Without fertilization there cannot be a pregnancy. There is equal responsibility for the pregnancy; there shuold be, in a just situation, equal rights regarding its conclusion…or no rights at all in the matter since a third human life is involved.
“In the land of the blind, the one-eyed” . . . wait a minute.
He’s not god.
Neither are mothers who choose to abort their babies. What’s your point with that comment?
You are absolutely correct, however, in saying that it’s a ‘tremdously complicated’ situation. I’d call it a tremendously complicated and inequitable situation.
You rightly point out that just because a man decides he doesn’t want a baby after his partner is pregnant, that doesn’t mean that he can avoid all responsibility. But you don’t seem to be giving equal weight, however, to the flip-side situations where the woman is able to evade all responsibilities for the baby by deciding on an abortion.. even over the objections of her partner. The mother has sole control on whether she herself can avoid all responsibility or whether she the father can be forced to pay child support.
Pregnancy begins
Come on, guys. Pregnancy is more than fertilization. Can’t we women get credit for anything? :-)
Given the right to choose, the short answer is “Your Choice, Your Responsibilityâ€Â.
There are individual women that don’t believe in that choice, right? That complicates things.
When it comes to a pregnancy, I would say the law is pretty much, your choice, your responsibility. It falls on the woman to make the choices. After that, though, it is complicated and I don’t know that it helps to pretend otherwise. Some men act like they want a pregnancy and then ditch the woman. Some women act like they are on the pill and then get purposefully pregnant. It’s all difficult and sordid, but that is separate from who gets to decide whether a pregnancy is terminated or not.
Darrell- yes, I said it was inequitable in my first comment. It absolutely is.
But you don’t seem to be giving equal weight, however, to the flip-side situations where the woman is able to evade all responsibilities for the baby by deciding on an abortion.. even over the objections of her partner.
That’s what I mean by complicated and inequitable. That’s why I said I feel for men and abortion rights. I don’t think it’s fair, but I don’t know the right answer. I still think that because the woman actually has the baby in her body, she has a special standing. You may think she’s a murderer if she aborts the baby. I say that is complicated, but anybody else that aborts the baby is *definitely* a murderer.
MayBee, I don’t think there’s a real issue there. The question doesn’t have so much to do with whose decision it is, but with the fact that the responsibility issue is completely detached from the decision issue.
Remove the option of abortion and the debate becomes more simplified since consideration of the life of the third person involved becomes mandatory. The whole context of intercourse changes for both parties. Now, a man thinks abortion will solve it all and accepts the premise and promise of their sexual union. For whatever reason contraception fails and the premise and promise between the two fails. If abortion were not an option, might the situation be previsible? Most certainly it would be.
Abortion is a foundational part of the dilemma and argument. What the abortion “right” grants women is the ability to terminate a pregnancy, not the right to ensnare others into 18-year financial obligations. Socially, men have for years been liberated from the sense of responsibility for the unborn child by the women in our society. Men can have sex and walk away from the responsibiity if a pregnancy results. That was the deal (see Hugh Hefner, et. al.) It was men who made the Supreme Court decision in 1973, wasn’t it, at the request of women? And now women cry “Foul!” when men exercise what they thought was their benefit in the Faustian understanding?
If nothing else, the law of unintended consequences provides entertainment, especially since these developments were previsible (see Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae).
Which is kinda where it kicks off. The other choice I’d like to question is did she want the child, and if so, what part does that play in the charges?
See, if she did, wouldn’t it be a worse crime (like the 7-felony model, with the shiny 100 yrs vacation standard equipment)? If not, would it be a crime in the first place? Murder and all that.
Start there, gentle reader, and then go forth into that brave new world of political feminism: The severity of the crime is possibly predicated solely on her choice. Such as it may be on any given Thursday.
Or Sunday. Seems quite logical that that little turn of reason would give anybody that case of the ass. Only in this case, for wrecking the couple decades of his being a legal financial slave…so go to jail.
Sorry to be flip, but the core of this is gender bias. Regardless of this idiot’s malice aforethought, which is to me 100% damning, the penalty looks like it’s a private choice thing potentially involving gender politics. Or the legislation dictating the penalty is, and if so, it definitely involves gender politics.
MayBee, the law is pretty much, her unilateral choice (pregnancy, term, birth, and these days, even defining rape) his responsibility.
Except when it privileges the woman to make the choices.
Oh, keep it in your pants? Fine. Then push all premarital sex and all marital sex aimed at mutually-agreed pregnancy off the table for a moment. Is the choice equation balanced then?
That part cracks me up: The penchant for feminine fickleness dictates male subservience for years and decades, including legalized kidnapping and extortion, legalized grand larceny, and in this case, potentially her decision defining his penalty. If I can think of a case of that occurring anywhere else in the law, with the endorsement of the state and with the fabulous consequences, I’ll be sure to mention it.
I’m curious if, on the other end of the spectrum, it constitutes some offense far shy of murder, depending on a pregnant woman’s sole desire concerning the child lost.
In other words, a pregnant woman suffers this offense, but says she hadn’t planed to give birth anyway. Then what?
Oops. Now we’re back to unilateral choice, in terms of (1) the terminated pregnancy, (2) the legal and financial consequences to the father represented by a child, and (3) the criminal penalty levied in a case such as this one, if any, although I can’t imagine any legislation being that sloppy.
Except that two of those three are.
So let’s say tomorrow abortion is made illegal. For all of you who are deliberately conflating gestation with a child, how is that going to make you feel any less pissed at the woman who gives birth? Are you also all advocating moving adultery and fornication out of the mere moral realm and into the criminalization venue? Hands?
I submit the general “bitch” statements above indicate more a power struggle issue and less anything to actually about the child in particular.
even defining rape
JH
Please read CA Penal Code 261 and tell me what you object to on how we define and prosecute rape.
For all of you who are deliberately conflating gestation with a child, how is that going to make you feel any less pissed at the woman who gives birth?
Actually, it would make the mans position less sympathetic. If the woman has no choice, well, that’s that.
That used to be the standard. Shotgun weddings came from the old standard. Sure, fool around, but, when push comes to shove, take responsibility. Now, the woman holds all the cards and can get away with fraud. No. “get away” implies she fooled the system. Now they can commit fraud with the deliberate enablement of the State. Cheat on your spouse and get preggers? No problem! Dump the old schmoe, move in with your new BF and make the used chump pay child support for the new BFs kid. Tell your BF you don’t want to get preggers and/or are sterile in order to reassure him to get him in the sack. Because, you can then get preggers and have access to his wallet and bank account until the spawn is graduates from college and avoid working for a living.
This is the issue Darleen. Your post
scratch the last two words in my last post. :P
Legally consequential actions, Darleen? I thought we already had that. And “criminalizing” sex that leads to pregnancies? While that’s a stretch, ironically we do have criminalized fathering all day long in the US, don’t we? By dint of the outcome dictated by crap law, you see.
Speaking of which, how about simply making the law dictate that both parties to a pregnancy must agree to it’s final outcome? Solves this issue (which is apparently already solved, so to speak) and solves the kid-for-kash problem (if child support is to be truly fair and responsible) thereby removing the incentive for cases like this one. IOW, getting the State out of unfair and unconstitutional support situations saves lives, our individual moral and legal prior responsibilities notwithstanding.
For what it’s worth, (1) my intent is as meaningless as your characteristic anecdotal ire about these things is — aside from what you think you can deduce, individual views on morality aren’t the entire issue around here, if they’re even a majority of the views expressed in a thread like this one. Consistency and reason in the law’s impression on American civilization is, as well as how it came to be so. Probably much of the above is merely aimed at the lovely inconsistency of lopsided social law in these enlightened times.
(2) Most folks are probably as unlikely to see political reason through the eyes of the California penal code (or your experiences with it) as they are to use that perspective to make sense of the inequalities created by law. That would be kinda backwards, wouldn’t it? The law is typically an ass.
Just reread that. What laughable rubbish. The “power struggle” for men is listing hard to port and taking on water. I think the bow is already under. You can see the props turning in air.
And these children in particular? Spare me. Had they not been conceived within Support Nation by less-than-animals, they might actually have lived.
I believe the term I’m looking for is Jaysus Keerist?
Speaking of which, how about simply making the law dictate that both parties to a pregnancy must agree to it’s final outcome?
Or…what, JH?
Forced abortion? Or do you really want to go back in time when there is a whole class of people known as “bastards”… no support/inheritance/paternal family rights.
Because, you can then get preggers and have access to his wallet and bank account until the spawn is graduates from college and avoid working for a living. Teddy
What is the average child support payment? Find that out, double it and see if you can raise a kid on that.
yeah… Kids 4 Kash(tm) that’s the ticket!
and yes, JH it IS about a power struggle
be it the female who denies the male and his role in raising the child to punish or the male using the threat of impoverishing his child in order to punish. Neither one is keeping the interest of the child paramount.
Abortion is one of the mercifully few issues in public life where our ideals of liberty and morality irreconcilably collide. I have found cowardice to be the most expedient way of preserving my peace of mind, and so I cannot comment further.
You know, I would support a sort of pre-nup agreement, where two people in a relationship can sign a legal document that he wants no offspring and won’t support any that come from this relationship. Or that she guarantees that if she gets pregnant she will carry the child to term and allow him to raise it, but she otherwise wants nothing to do with it.
Other than that, I can’t really think of a legal solution. It won’t ever be equal, as long as only one gender can carry a pregnancy. It could be more fair, perhaps, but there’s no way to make it equal.
Having said that, my main concern here was that the idea that because women in general are allowed to terminate a pregnancy that somehow negates the idea that killing a wanted baby in a willingly pregnant mother could be murder.
“Having said that, my main concern here was that the idea that because women in general are allowed to terminate a pregnancy that somehow negates the idea that killing a wanted baby in a willingly pregnant mother could be murder.”
MayBee – Looking at this from the “pro-choice” mentality, don’t they say that there is no “baby”, it’s just a “fetus”? That is the rationale for abortion-on-demand. So, I think the key here to this case is to find out what is the logical punishment for a man killing a fetus. The pro-abortion side should not be able to get away with calling the fetus a fetus when the woman is killing it and calling the fetus a baby when the man is killing it. That doesn’t make sense. It’s a fetus. Period. So, the question seems to become, what is the punishment for killing a fetus?
This could get sticky for the pro-abortion side though, because if we legally define the punishment for killing a fetus, this could then be taken by the pro-life side to attack abortion.
Also, sticking to the pro-abortion definition of a fetus as simply “a body part” of the woman, doesn’t that seem to say that legally, the man should only be charged with say the equivalent of chopping off the woman’s hand or something?
Let me state that my opinion is the man is completely in the wrong and should be punished, but I am also pro-life and also align myself with the opinions stated above about how the abortion laws in our country are completely unfair to the father.
Darleen, because I’m a nice guy I’ll spare you any more embarrassment: If you justify the system because you prefer its madness to all those bastards running around that Victorian moonscape in your imagination, unable to be supported even on 2x ~$800/month+ anyway (frequently adjusted at better than the rate of inflation) then you’re just occupying your own little quiet place. No way anybody’d ever support the child not born in the case at hand on a measly ~$1800 a month.
Got it.
Seeing the repercussions of all those unintended consequences, at least in this area, just isn’t your strength, is it? Because this welfare program works. Anecdotally.
MayBee – Looking at this from the “pro-choice†mentality, don’t they say that there is no “babyâ€Â, it’s just a “fetusâ€Â?
The pro-choice activist’s rhetoric doesn’t determine or create the law. I’m pro-choice, and I say any wanted fetus is a baby.
It is really very easy to make a law that states that anybody besides a mother and/or a licensed physician that purposefully terminates a pregnancy can be charged with homicide. You seem to want to set the law for all pregnant women and unborn children as a way of punishing people that don’t think abortion should be illegal.
Ummm…what ever happened to the adoption option? Sure, biology requires the female to carry the child but that doesn’t mean she’s forced to keep it. There are nonlethal alternatives you know. You can even discuss the male being required to split pregnancy bills. Until the wonders of medical science give us artificial wombs the biological inequity is unavoidable, but the final destination of an unwanted child doesn’t have to be a dustbin, rather it can be the arms of a loving family that wants to adopt. If the male wants the child he pays some or all of the pregnancy and takes custody upon birth. Whats the problem here people?
“The pro-choice activist’s rhetoric doesn’t determine or create the law. I’m pro-choice, and I say any wanted fetus is a baby.”
MayBee – I thought Roe v Wade, and thus current law in America that states that a woman has the “right” to abort her fetus at any time for any reason, was based on the definition that the life inside the mother is not a person, not a baby, but a “fetus”. I thought that was what our laws were based on. The fact that there is no baby inside a mother, it is just a fetus which is part of the body of woman. Therefore, it does not have the rights of a person or a baby. It is simply a fetus, a body part of the woman.
That is my understanding of the current abortion law in America. Legally, a fetus only becomes a baby when the mother decides that she wants to bring her pregnancy to term. But, if she decides she wants an abortion, then she is not killing a baby, but merely terminating a fetus.
I am not trying to be a pain here, this is my understanding of the current laws.
omment by MayBee on 12/1 @ 4:43 pm #
MayBee – Looking at this from the “pro-choice†mentality, don’t they say that there is no “babyâ€Â, it’s just a “fetusâ€Â?
The pro-choice activist’s rhetoric doesn’t determine or create the law. I’m pro-choice, and I say any wanted fetus is a baby.
So any unwanted ‘fetus’ isn’t alive? How wonderfully convenient.
So any unwanted ‘fetus’ isn’t alive? How wonderfully convenient.
I didn’t say that. I would say that to the mother, an unwanted fetus is probably a fetus. Legally even, an unwanted baby is a fetus. Heck, even a wanted baby is a fetus. I’m just disputing the idea the the pro-choice opinion is that a fetus is just a lump of tissue in a womb. I don’t think that, and I don’t think any abortion law declares that.
The fact that there is no baby inside a mother, it is just a fetus which is part of the body of woman. Therefore, it does not have the rights of a person or a baby. It is simply a fetus, a body part of the woman.
Michael in MI-
I don’t know that there is any law that states that a fetus is a body part of a woman. I could be wrong, but I do believe most people that write abortion law realize that there is really no medical equivalent to a pregnancy, and that abortions are a singular type of medical procedure.
Legally, I believe that a fetus only becomes a baby when it is born. However, I support laws that hold a person that kills that fetus against the mother’s wishes responsible for murder.
But a baby wanted by the mother is not “just a fetus”? A baby wanted by the father, on the other hand is “just a fetus”?
Are you asking legally, Dan? Or are you asking my opinion?
I feel horrible for any man that wants a baby but who’s partner has an abortion. I feel horrible for any man who wants a baby but who’s partner refuses to have one. I feel horrible for any man who does not want a baby but his partner insists on having one. I just don’t see a legal way to make it completely fair.
I’ve really been trying to discuss this only in relation to one question that I thought was being posed- if abortion is legal, can it still be murder to kill an unborn fetus/baby/ I think yes. That doesn’t mean I think abortion and child support issues are easy, or that men are treated fairly.
At some point that’s settled by her decision. Apparently, so are the charges…amounting to a possible life behind bars.
If there’s a hard and fast definition of life and associated rights existing in the prior law that governs such cases — one that somehow avoids that politically-touchy decision/choice per gender issue — how does it work?
Seems there’s reason…and then there’s social values and norms.
“Legally, I believe that a fetus only becomes a baby when it is born. However, I support laws that hold a person that kills that fetus against the mother’s wishes responsible for murder.”
Okay, so it’s murder if the fetus is terminated against the wishes of the mother, but it is not murder if the mother willfully terminates the fetus.
Okay, so the law is basically written to allow the mother to define what is murder and what is abortion.
I don’t know if you remember a case (happened here in Michigan I believe) in which a teenage boy used a baseball bat to hit the stomach of a teenage girl and cause a miscarriage. The boy could not be charged with anything, because the girl agreed to allow him to do it. Apparently, she did not want the baby either. What the boy did was the same thing as in this case. He terminated the life of the woman’s fetus. The only difference (the major difference) is that the mother agreed to the termination. Basically, the boy was serving as an amateur abortion doctor.
So, it seems that current abortion law in this country is written to allow the mother of a fetus the freedom to define her fetus as a fetus or a baby, depending on whether or not she wants to keep the baby.
Playing Devil’s Advocate here, and worst case scenario I admit, but let’s say that a woman was on her way to get her fetus aborted, got into a car accident, and then her fetus died. If she wanted, she could sue the driver of the car who hit her for killing her “baby” by saying she wanted to keep it. Since no one would know she was just about to go get an abortion. Within seconds, that fetus went from being a fetus to a baby. All on the whim of the mother.
Doesn’t this seem ridiculous to give a mother all encompassing power of the definition of a fetus?
Instead of this, shouldn’t we be able to have a majority of people define when abortion is murder and when it is “okay”, based on maybe viability of the fetus outside the womb of the mother?
Instead of having the fetus/baby definition based on science (viability), right now we have it based on the whim of the mother.
MayBee:
I’m pro-choice, and I say any wanted fetus is a baby.
Well I’m pro-life, and I say that any fetus, regardless of whether it is wanted or not, is a baby.
So if a woman is three months pregnant, but doesn’t want to give birth, the fetus is not a baby. If she changes her mind the next day, it is a baby. But if she changes her mind again another day later, it is no longer a baby. Can’t you recognize how irrational your position is?
…. I support laws that hold a person that kills that fetus against the mother’s wishes responsible for murder.
Why? You don’t believe that the fetus is a human until after birth, murder is the deliberate killing of a human. You can’t murder organs, or animals.
How about a person that kills a fetus against a father’s wishes?
That’s exactly my point. We’re men, so we don’t have feelings as such. And yet, we sometimes suffer this sensation indistinguishable from pain.
That’s exactly my point. We’re men, so we don’t have feelings as such. And yet, we sometimes suffer this sensation indistinguishable from pain.
Well, I love men. I don’t particularly admire the man featured in the news article, however.
“What makes this case interesting is that it highlights the fact the woman is legally given total control, althought the father had as much to do with the pregnancy as the woman”
As much to do. Right. You’ll notice that people give up their seats to him when he gets on the bus, etc…
“There is equal responsibility for the pregnancy; there shuold be, in a just situation, equal rights regarding its conclusion”
My friend’s wife kept complaining that while she was pregnant all sorts of waiters would refuse to serve her wine when she was out to dinner with her husband. But not him. I don’t think she tried to educate those waiters on the equal responsibility.
So if a woman is three months pregnant, but doesn’t want to give birth, the fetus is not a baby. If she changes her mind the next day, it is a baby. But if she changes her mind again another day later, it is no longer a baby. Can’t you recognize how irrational your position is?
I submit it is more of an emotional position than a rational one. It is simply my opinion, and really means nothing in the big real world.
…. I support laws that hold a person that kills that fetus against the mother’s wishes responsible for murder.
Why? You don’t believe that the fetus is a human until after birth, murder is the deliberate killing of a human. You can’t murder organs, or animals.
I actually do believe the fetus is human before birth.
How about a person that kills a fetus against a father’s wishes?
I think there is no feasible legal recourse for that if it is the mother that does it. If it is someone else, I would hope that person can be charged with murder.
Michael in MI- I think viability would be a great standard for when abortion should be illegal.
Ah, hormonal logic. What else might this be, but emotional drivel? Conflating gestation with a child is not what I am doing. And I am not moving adultery and fornication out of the mere moral realm and into the criminalization venue; I am moving the murder of a living creature with all the genetic programming of a human being out of mere whim, mere pleasure, mere convenience, and mere circumstance into the moral realm. I am moving it into the most important moral realm, unless, of course, you are conflating destroying human life with orgasmic pleasure contracts?
Stop thinking with your gonads and rise above mere men.
OK. May Bee, as long as we can agree that the fertilized egg is another human being. We are just arguing the nature of the homocide.
#
Comment by andy on 12/1 @ 7:07 pm #
“What makes this case interesting is that it highlights the fact the woman is legally given total control, althought the father had as much to do with the pregnancy as the womanâ€Â
As much to do. Right. You’ll notice that people give up their seats to him when he gets on the bus, etc…
“There is equal responsibility for the pregnancy; there shuold be, in a just situation, equal rights regarding its conclusionâ€Â
My friend’s wife kept complaining that while she was pregnant all sorts of waiters would refuse to serve her wine when she was out to dinner with her husband. But not him. I don’t think she tried to educate those waiters on the equal responsibility.
^
/|
|
|
If ever there were a pro abortion poster boy.
“Instead of having the fetus/baby definition based on science (viability), right now we have it based on the whim of the mother.”
Exactly. We have clear definitions of what constitutes life in every other situation: When can we harvest organs for a transplant? When can we remove life support? Why do these standards not apply at the beginning of life same as at the end?
“Exactly. We have clear definitions of what constitutes life in every other situation: When can we harvest organs for a transplant? When can we remove life support? Why do these standards not apply at the beginning of life same as at the end?”
i don’t see why these issues matter so much to the differences in the rights. To whatever extent pregnancies can be terminated, it is the pregnant person that makes that decision.
ugh. Why is it a question of a woman having the final decision what happens to her own body (and future, in most cases). I will never understand why men strenuously insinuate themselves into this “debate.” What this guy did is a crime because he interfered with her self-determination. It’s hazy, but defensible.
Shorter cynn: I’m too dense/detached/ignorant/dishonest to bother comprehending/seeing/understanding/regarding stuff like this:
Yeah, it’s a crime, cynn. Because operating the turn signals for her is worth 100 years. Can’t you recognize how irrational your position is?
Shorter JHoward: Jailed for life. Why?
MayBee:
I actually do believe the fetus is human before birth.
So your position is that the fetus is a human child, but it has no right to life unless it’s mother decides to give it to the fetus?
I thought rights were inherent and fundamental to our nature as human beings rather than given to us by anybody. I’m glad my mother loved me.
I don’t understand your point. A woman can do a 180 about her body, just like a man can do. I just think it’s a crime to actively interfere with a legally sanctioned choice.
Cynn:
Your position, while biologically unsound and morally repugnant, is at least rational. You deny the humanity of the fetus, and thus allow the woman to do anything she wants to it. MayBee however maintains that the fetus is indeed human, it just doesn’t get the same rights as all other humans unless she decides it does. At least MayBee is honest enough to admit her position is not based on reason, but emotion instead.
“i don’t see why these issues matter so much to the differences in the rights. To whatever extent pregnancies can be terminated, it is the pregnant person that makes that decision.”
When you learn to think clear enough to write two coherent sentences in a row, get back with us.
cynn: “A woman can do a 180 about her body, just like a man can do”
Funny. When it’s time for a man to be drafted into the military, suddenly “my body, my choice” doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
Let me tell you fuckers about this issue. I wound up pregnant at 23; I was a virgin. My mom was disgusted and and handed me $300 and told me to get rid of it because it screwed up my college chances. My neighbor, a nurse, took me to the local clinic. I remember nothing but the valium IV and crying a lot. I threw up un a bag all the way home, and I stayed in my room bleeding into pads for two days before my parents acknowleged me. That’s your abortion; it was the the worst thing I’ve ever done, and I still dream about the possibilities. But I nevertheless support the choice.
I am sorry, cynn. I went to school with dozens of girls just like you. I sat up at night with some of them crying on my shoulder. I sat in bathrooms with others screaming drunk and raging. None of that has jackshit to do with the rationality of it all. But I do question you unblinding support of the choice given the horrors and sadness you describe.
I wound up pregnant at 23; I was a virgin.
Immaculate conception?
Neato!
Of course it is. 100 years worth to interfere with a legally sanctioned choice.
Unless it’s not. Think, cynn. You’re smarter than that.
So your position is that the fetus is a human child….MayBee however maintains that the fetus is indeed human, it just doesn’t get the same rights as all other humans unless she decides it does. At least MayBee is honest enough to admit her position is not based on reason, but emotion instead.
It’s a human fetus, not a human child. My position isn’t based on emotion, except for the point I was making about a mother considering the pregnancy she wants to be a baby rather than a fetus. That’s an emotional distinction.
No, I don’t think a pregnancy has human rights.
I think there’s no ignoring the fact that the pregnancy is dependent on the mother’s body, and the mother has some special considerations when it comes to dealing with the pregnancy.
It’s a horrible choice. I’m glad I never made it. I think it is often made incorrectly, and the laws allowing it now are too liberal. I think it is unfair to the man. I think it is unfair to the baby that would have been born.
But yes, until the fetus would be viable outside the womb, I think it’s fair to legally accept it may not have the mother’s acceptance to continue to host it. That isn’t the way I thought about any of my pregnancies, but legally I think it’s right.
And yes, I’m glad your mother loved you too, gahrie.
If someone would have killed you while she was carrying you, do you think she would have considered that person a murderer? Because that’s what this post started out to be about.
B Moe: the alternative is unthinkable
#81 is interesting, cynn. It has zip to do with this (as do us fuckers.)
Distilling this down a mite:
1. Is choice legally/consequentially intended to be and fairly really this gender-specific? Consider the fetus vs life component in your answer;
2. Because pursuant #1, does the law then vary on the basis of private, unilateral choice? When it’s one word against another?
With a century of hard time in the balance, the myriad disasters enabled by shit social legislation may just pale by comparison to this little item.
It’s all about parking the car in your own garage… Don’t have sex unless you’re willing to accept the consequences…
OK, Jhoward, toastmater, yes, choice resides with the woman. Is that it? Then piss off and do a swan dive off the stage. Thanks!
“…it was the the worst thing I’ve ever done, and I still dream about the possibilities…
“B Moe: the alternative is unthinkable…
I am having a hard time reconciling this, cynn. I was always one of those best friend guys, no chance of getting the girl pregnant, but being part of the support crew when it happened. The alternative is absolutely not unthinkable, there are tons of options and opportunities. In my experience, abortion was unthinkable, The End, fini. You just do it and it’s over.
No.
‘Nite!
If you say so.
MayBee:
Now you have me really confused. The fetus is human, but it’s not human. The fetus can be murdered, but its mother can kill it for any reason, (or even no reason at all) and it doesn’t have any human rights.
So your position all boils down to the rights of the mother, and not only disregards, but denies the rights of the child or the father.
This is exactly the position of modern feminism, and exactly the problem. Our legal system is based on justice, and nothing in this position is just. The position is based on discrimination against children and men in favor of women. Surely you can see that?
I didn’t say so cynn, you did. It was the worst thing you have ever done, but the alternative was unthinkable. Think about what you are saying. How can any truly sentient being speak about reproduction this way?
B Moe: Oddly, yes, an abortion was the worst thing I ever did, but I can’t imagine a world where that’s not possible. People need to have the right to live with their own quiet annhilations.
I have a choice?
Now you have me really confused. The fetus is human, but it’s not human.
It’s a human fetus, not a human child. Some may consider it a baby. But until it is viable outside the womb at least, or born, it really isn’t a child.
Our legal system is based on justice, and nothing in this position is just. The position is based on discrimination against children and men in favor of women. Surely you can see that?
Well, I can absolutely see that because it is in the body of a woman, the woman has certain rights separate from the man. Because it is not yet a child, the woman has rights separate from it. Is it just? I don’t know. Any unwanted pregnancy is a tragedy because no choice comes without consequences. You have an abortion and end a life you will never know. You give a baby up for adoption and know there is someone else raising the person you gave birth to. If you’re a man and you didn’t want it, you know there is a part of you out there that you have nothing to do with. Or you know someone killed your baby. None of it good. There really is no just answer.
So I would say the difficulty starts when the pregnancy occurs. But since it will alway only be the woman who has the body necessary to host the pregnancy, by necessity she will have the discrimination in her favor. It can’t be made equal. You can’t take discrimination out of it at all.
So I would say the difficulty starts when the pregnancy occurs. But since it will alway only be the woman who has the body necessary to host the pregnancy, by necessity she will have the discrimination in her favor. It can’t be made equal. You can’t take discrimination out of it at all.
So you are saying that biology trumps justice. OK, let us accept that proposition.
My next question then is why is this only so in relation to abortion?
In every other case of biological differences between the genders, accomodations and allowances are made to adjust for them.
For instance, it is impossible for most women to carry as much weight, as quick, as men up a flight of stairs. Among other things, this would (and did) prevent women from becoming firefighters. So, court cases were filed, and fire departments were forced to come up with separate, less stringent requirements for women to become fire fighters, in order to account for their biological differences.
Why is it that when biological differences are taken into account, the discrimination always favors women?
But since it will alway only be the woman who has the body necessary to host the pregnancy, by necessity she will have the discrimination in her favor. It can’t be made equal.
MayBee, your focus seems to be almost entirely on the mother, and not on the baby, a baby which is, a separate living entity apart from the mother. As I understand your position, if a woman decides one day she wants to give birth to the baby, it is “murder” for someone to kill it as you have already stated. Yet if she decides another day that she doesn’t want the baby, and aborts it, well, that’s not so bad, and does not fall under the category of murder.. in your book from what you’ve stated. Is this an unfair description of your position? I’m just using what you’ve written.
You seem like a nice lady.. but since you’re insisting on the “woman can decide whether it’s murder or not”, which I find a reprehensible postion, you might rethink your (irrational imo) point of view on this matter.
separate, less stringent requirements for women to become fire fighters, in order to account for their biological differences.
I don’t agree with the change in requirements to benefit women. Even so, a firefighting job and pregnancy don’t really compare, do you think they do? I don’t think there is anything like pregnancy- there is no greater difference or function between the sexes.
You seem like a nice lady.. but since you’re insisting on the “woman can decide whether it’s murder or notâ€Â, which I find a reprehensible postion, you might rethink your (irrational imo) point of view on this matter.
I understand that you find it reprehensible. What I can’t do is find a rational position that logically proves when a fetus/baby becomes a seperate living entity from the mother.
Everyone that is calling me irrational is basing their own opinion on…..something. It isn’t necessarily ration or logic or even scientific evidence. So I respect your opinion, but it is an opinion, just as mine is.
So I respect your opinion, but it is an opinion, just as mine is.
Your opinion, to be specific, is that it is “murder†for someone to kill an unborn baby if the mother wants to keep it, yet if she decides another day that she doesn’t want to keep the same baby, and aborts it, well, that’s not so bad, certainly nothing like murder.
It helps to clarify exactly what, exactly, the opinions are, which are being discussed here.
Interesting discussion. I’m a gal, but I agree the situation is unfair to men. However, who told us life was going to be fair?
Urging people to recognize the possible consequences of their actions is probably silly, and I’ve had problems in this department myself.
But if I were a guy, considering the situation, I’d probably be real careful about who I had sex with, and make certain of birth control myself, not leaving the responsibility to the woman. A potential 20-year liability would seem to be worth this kind of caution… Abortion is an abysmal form of birth control.
Now that I’m middle-aged, some of what seemed nonsensical religious prohibitions in my youth appear much more reasonable. When I think of the price I have paid for entanglements that began casually, in financial terms, emotional, physical, and in terms of directing the course of my life in negative directions for years, I wish I had behaved in a more “moral” manner. Not for religious reasons, necessarily, but for purely practical ones. You can regain health, sanity, even money, but the years are just gone.
What I can’t do is find a rational position that logically proves when a fetus/baby becomes a seperate living entity from the mother.
How about when the fetus has a heartbeat? Or brainwaves? We use those as the standard to determine when life has ended, why can’t we use them to determine when life begins?
I’ll tell you why. The fetal heartbeat can be detected at six weeks, and should be detected by seven weeks. That’s way inside the first trimester. By 18 weeks, you can tell when the fetus is asleep or awake. That means the brain is functioning. So that would place life at four and a half months at the outside.
That means by any rational scientific standard, the fetus is a separate, living, human being no later than four and a half months.
The pro-choice will never allow that to be the standard however.
I think 4 and a half months would be a reasonable cut off. As I said earlier, I think viability would be a good standard.
Why not 4 months and 16 days, MayBee?
“What I can’t do is find a rational position that logically proves when a fetus/baby becomes a seperate living entity from the mother.
How about when the fetus has a heartbeat? Or brainwaves? We use those as the standard to determine when life has ended, why can’t we use them to determine when life begins?”
Look, I’m kind of a centrist in the abortion wars. I don’t think it should be legal, but I’m perfectly willing to support it if 50+% of Americans think we should allow it.
That said… Gahrie, let’s be honest. We all know when a new life is created. It’s created the second a unique and viable DNA strand comes into being. Everyone intuitively knows this, but many obfuscate it to make it easier to snuff it out so they can continue living the life they imagined.
It is more disgusting to deny that you killed a kid than it is to actually kill it, imo. At least admit what you’ve done. Better yet, let the damned thing live! That’ll learn it.
Now to the meat. There is no way I would convict this guy if I were in the jury. If the woman can kill her child, the man can kill his too. Don’t like it? Then change the law about killing your kids.
That said… Gahrie, let’s be honest. We all know when a new life is created. It’s created the second a unique and viable DNA strand comes into being. Everyone intuitively knows this, but many obfuscate it to make it easier to snuff it out so they can continue living the life they imagined
Oh I agree. I would ban abortion immediately after the egg first undergoes mitosis myself. IMO, the most valuable and unique object in the universe is each individual human life.
I was merely providing an example for MayBee.
What a horrible thing to do. First-class asshole. Certainly, if he slipped her a drug he is AT LEAST guilty of some sort of “assult” charge. Aruments regarding male choice and abortions aside, he did drug her.
But, if he can slip her a drug, and it’s ok with the crowd here, why can’t he just hog-tie her and take her to the local abortionist?
And, what if the woman want to have the baby and put it up for adoption? Then would the pro-male abortion crowd still be saying he still had a “right” to terminate?
Not necessarily. Fertilization happens far more often than pregnancy. By my measure, upon implantation in the uterine wall and subsequent cell division, we have a nascent human being on our hands.
I don’t think anyone has suggested that what he did was OK. The question is whether or not it’s murder. And the question becomes even more interesting in a case like this one where the guy is doing life, and could have faced the needle, while the mother who was entirely complicit in the act goes blameless.
Darleen,
Yeah, pretty much. Granted, that isn’t always the case, but it should never be the case.
Ah….choice!
And justice.
Grrrr….spam catcher…grumble, grumble…
Ah….choice!
#
Comment by MayBee on 12/2 @ 1:50 am #
I think 4 and a half months would be a reasonable cut off. As I said earlier, I think viability would be a good standard.
So prior to that it isn’t a human being? Keeping in mind as soon as the fertilized egg divides it is viable.
Because, you can then get preggers and have access to his wallet and bank account until the spawn is graduates from college and avoid working for a living. Teddy
What is the average child support payment? Find that out, double it and see if you can raise a kid on that.
yeah… Kids 4 Kash(tm) that’s the ticket!
It can be 600 dollars per child in California. Add the approximate 2000-3000 dollars worth of in-kind entitlements of the various programs designed specifically for poor single mothers and yes, one CAN live off of it. Granted, It won’t be the stereotypical Cadillac driving Welfare Queen, but, the money is there. I have seen this first hand many times, especially when I was living in Humboldt County. I’m not even factoring in alimony. (All-I-Money?)
And, please Darleen, avoid using belittling addresses like “Teddy”. I haven’t been called that since 1974.
So prior to that it isn’t a human being? Keeping in mind as soon as the fertilized egg divides it is viable.
Rusty, we aren’t going to agree on this. We aren’t.
I think, just as a living will can give a daughter the authority to take her mother off the respirator that is supporting mom’s life, a pregnant mother has the authority to decide she does not want her body to be the support for a zygote/embryo/fetus/baby.
But, for the purposes of this post, I think only the pregnant woman has the authority to make that choice and only through a medical professional.
The cases Pablo brings up are absolutely tragic, as is the one Dan originally posted.
Let me tell you fuckers about this issue. I wound up pregnant at 23; I was a virgin.
So, you aborted the second coming of Christ, thus saving us from the Rapture. I appreciate that cynn. My grandchildren thank you.
B Moe: the alternative is unthinkable
Having the baby and giving it up for adoption is unthinkable?
…another man makes payments each month to his rapist.
I’d kill the bitch who did this to me. Seriously. I’d gun her down and turn myself in.
Don’t expect rationality, Ted. I still haven’t gotten a bite on how it is her professed decision more or less determines his 100-year sentence.
MayBee: Life’s unfair. Now move along.
cynn: Grrr. Now move along.
You know, choice! Her’s about his fate. For the PW wimmens, I think it comes with reason by anecdote, or in the case of the thread Pablo linked, let the bastards pay ’cause they got the loot. Reason by gender and envy. After all this time, it’s a fine place we’ve made for ourselves.
WELFARE WORKS! FOR THE CHILDREN!
Don’t expect rationality, Ted. I still haven’t gotten a bite on how it is her professed decision more or less determines his 100-year sentence.
In which case, JHoward? The one Dan posted, or the one Pablo posted?
In the case Pablo posted, I’m against the way the prosecutors handled it. Just like I’m against grown men having sex with teenagers, but the Genarlow Wilson case was a bad prosecution.
I was quoting cynn, Ted. It didn’t make sense to me either.
Sorry B Moe. I’m not sure how I got you on that quote. Must’ve been lack of caffeine.
Dan’s, MayBee.
As to prosecutorial conduct, at some point one has to wonder where the SOP comes from if not habit borne of crap feminist legislation. The support cabal involves local government to an impressive degree.
“Child support” is payment from federal government to local government under the guise of reducing welfare payouts. The fact it produces Support Nation the same way Welfare produces Welfare Nation is naturally lost on both sides of the political divide.
Even direct evidence of government’s For-The-Children lie won’t discourage the holy writ of child support.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/us/01child.html?ex=1354165200&en=554e131b7eeb46a0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
You know, for the children. Because it’s contractual.
JHoward: I still haven’t gotten a bite on how it is her professed decision more or less determines his 100-year sentence.
I don’t understand. She apparently made the decision you want all women to make– she kept the pregnancy.
As for Patel, this is his live-in, long term mistress. Furthermore:
Patel and his girlfriend, 39-year-old family physician Darshana Patel, already had a 3-year-old child together, authorities said….
Darshana Patel became pregnant two more times, but miscarried in December and September
They already have a child together. They are in a relationship (although he is married to someone else). It is suspected that this is the second time he’s done this, although she didn’t know it. She is a family physician, not some chick trying to make a penny by having this guy’s kids.
Whatever happened to just breaking up with someone….especially after the first time he did this.
Come on. This guy is indefensible.
I can see you don’t understand, MayBee. Among all the delicious ironies these stories point up, perhaps none is as entertaining as the ultimate goal of feminism being to make sure there’s no equality between the sexes. You know, men produce sperm the kind of which indentures them for two decades (insert both conservative and liberal righteous indignation here, replete with keep-it-in-your pants,-you-bastard.)
Women? Hell, they only produce babies. And pants that don’t stay on. Victims. The very subservients NOW fights so hard to eliminate, only these exist by its very action. Bwaaa.
What I’d like you to eventually consider is how her decision dictates his crime and with it, his sentence. And that her decision is, well, a woman’s prerogative.
She muses; he serves. Life.
As far as what I want, other than that logical cesspool answered to by a reasonable citizenry of your and my reasonable peers, is responsibility. Gender-neutral responsibility. I want prior rights enforced. I want to get social agenda utterly out of government. Etc.
Welfare > welfare dependents, single parenting, childhood dysfunction. Reducing welfare expenses > harnessing men unfairly, leaving the children of Welfare Nation to roam far and wide and greatly adding to their numbers. Government harnessing any component of society unfairly > unintended and intended consequences. Such manipulations > tyranny.
Ergo, social government policy = tyranny. Doh. And in these cases, entirely because of gender-specific special interest and special legislation.
The sum and substance of feminism is tyranny as often as not.
Why is she fucking another woman’s husband? Why has she been impregnated, apparently, 4 times by this married guy?
Is she just a victim, or is she also an idiot? Or something else?
Does she bear any responsibility for her circumstance? I don’t mean to condone Patel’s actions, but is he alone responsible for the circumstances that led to them?
I would say she is an immoral idiot. She bears absolute responsibility for being in a long-term live-in relationship with a married man and having (a) child(ren) with him. She bears absolutely no responsibility for the fact that he poisoned her smoothie so she would miscarry.
So, you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. Yup.
So, you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. Yup.
Or the baby you’re carrying gets killed. Yup.
MayBee,
With your historical and classic “uterus as a laundry basket” bit, I had you leaning toward anti-abortion. Not that any of your arguments necessarily rule that out.
When you keep getting knocked up by a scumbag, which Patel clearly is, what should your expectations be?
If she’s a doctor, she’s not a stupid woman. But yet she seems to want to keep touching the hot stove, despite the inevitable burns. That’s going to work out badly, one way or another, pretty much every time.
When you keep getting knocked up by a scumbag, which Patel clearly is, what should your expectations be?
Ummm…that he doesn’t kill the sibling of the child you are raising with him?
OK, JHoward, let me see if I understand.
1.Abortion is murder
2.Abortion is legal
3.Women that don’t choose to have an abortion are saddling a man with child support payments for life.
4.A man that doesn’t want to pay those child support payments can be defended for murdering the unborn child because it is the equivalent of abortion.
and in this case
5.A scummy woman that has a scummy boyfriend should expect that he is the one causing the miscarriages, so when he causes another one, it’s kind of her fault for getting pregnant in the first place.
Is that right?
Comment by MayBee on 12/2 @ 9:34 am #
Rusty, we aren’t going to agree on this. We aren’t.
No. It would require you calling something by its rightful name. I wonder what it’s like, not being morally responsible? You life must be so much simpler than mine.
Why is this so difficult for, MayBee? If we can’t ask the fundamental questions, can we explore why not?
Why can’t we ask and answer that the legal issue here is that women can make decisions that cost men their freedom for life? I get all that about abortion, murder, and responsibility (or it’s absence). What I don’t get is how 100 years is a fair penalty for what’s completely legal — and in some circles, laudable — on the other side of the gender fence.
I realize I’ve painted a somewhat extreme point these past few comments. My opinion is indeed that he should be prosecuted but my opinion is not at issue. What I simply cannot fathom is how 100 years is just compensation for what is, in the presence of a mutually unwanted terminated pregnancy in these enlightened times, might be a five year offense, had he done precisely the thing he did.
I said I don’t know this law. I’m aware there are offenses that go unpunished if they’re not charged by victims. So what I asked was if it were reasonable that the likely penalty in this instance vary so tremendously in application solely because of the victims frame of mind.
From there, how did we come to have laws like these. Whereby are prosecutors looking at a hundred years penalty if not by some prior legal mandate?
“When you keep getting knocked up by a scumbag, which Patel clearly is, what should your expectations be?”
That people on the internet will care enough to hate on you, but no more.
After fertilization of an ovum, the woman’s immune system is hormonally suppressed until after development of the placental barrier because the fertilized egg is a unique and separate living entity with its own biological signature, a signature that otherwise would trigger an immune response. It just so happens, of course, that the “invader” has its own complete and unique set of human chromosomes. It just hasn’t had enough time to grow a heart (that takes 22 days), and face, hands, and nose (week 6) to look human enough to compel the logical conclusion that it is human and has a right to life no one may abrogate.
One may hide behind the word “logical”. But it is only hiding, and probably for the wrong reason.
I understand a woman in east New Jersey aborted the discoverer of the cure for all forms of cancer in February, 1974. I sure hope no one here might resent that.
I wonder what it’s like, not being morally responsible? You life must be so much simpler than mine.
Rusty- you have no idea how morally responsible I am. What a ridiculous thing to say. Furthermore, I would say that leading a morally responsible life actually makes life a lot simpler. Don’t you think?
JHoward-I am having trouble understanding what it is you want. In particular, I am having trouble reconciling your positions that
1-having an abortion is immoral/murder and
2- a woman that has a baby against the wishes of the father is trying to saddle him for life
We all know that in the days when abortion was not legal, men didn’t universally stick around and support the child he’d helped create. Which is why the laws are now the way they are. So getting rid of 1 doesn’t solve issue 2.
My husband has made it clear that he does not want any more children. If I found myself pregnant tomorrow, what would be the right answer for me? What if me wanting to keep the baby made him so mad he tells me he will leave me if I do?
Then say we aren’t married, but everything else is the same. We live together, have a long term relationship, and we have children. What would be the best option for us if I found myself pregnant?
I think you’ve exhibited exactly how morally responsible you are.
There’s a real simple solution if you don’t want to find yourself pregnant.
“There’s a real simple solution if you don’t want to find yourself pregnant.”
Like be a man.
There’s a real simple solution if you don’t want to find yourself pregnant
For my husband to have a vasectomy, right Rusty? What if he hasn’t done that yet?
Shut up, actus. Adults are talking.
4.A man that doesn’t want to pay those child support payments can be defended for murdering the unborn child because it is the equivalent of abortion.
Wrong wrong wrong. This is NOT being argued by ANYONE. What is being argued is the logical absurdity of whether or not there’s an existing human being based entirely on the decision of a third party who has a conflict of interest in the decision.
What would be the best option for the independent but unborn human being unborn in your womb?
Really, Sgt Ted? NOBODY here is arguing that if she can’t be charged with murder for an abortion, he shouldn’t be charged with murder either?
What do you mean by “a third party who has a conflict of interest in the decision”?
145- The Geezer:
I think the best thing would be to keep the baby. But my husband doesn’t want it, and doesn’t want to have to support it. What if he leaves me? Would I be right to ask for child support from him?
Or, in the other case, my long-term boyfriend doesn’t want it, etc.
MayBee, this being an ostensibly libertarian/conservative blog, my point is (sigh) that socialism breeds idiocy. Both breed totalitarianism. Must I really spell it out?
I can have all the moral virtues under the sun and still decry assholes in society at large doing stupid shit that costs me money and plenty of unborn their lives. The abortion debate is a component of all this, not it’s essence. The issue is that government creates nihilistic programs owing to complete idiots using special interest to make them happen. Stories like this, despite the morality not expressed, are proof.
I find it staggering that “conservatives” find federal child support (and all the nightmares it causes) a legitimate role for government. Staggering. Do conservatives also feel welfare is a legitimate role for government? After seeing the generational ruin?
Come on MayBee, get a 40k foot perspective: If it’s government running the home, the home is in the gutter.
andy is our resident proof of the malignancy of social government. A mind is a terrible thing. To waste.
MayBee, the situation you describe requires picking between choices no one seems to want. The “best thing” is somewhat subjective based upon each parties desires. The pertinent question is “What are his rights and options in determining his future wrt this pregnancy?” The next question is “What are yours?”
Do we agree that the answer to the first question is virtually none, and that the answer to the second is many?
Just to be sure you get it:
1. Yes. It is. In my view.
2. She likely is.
Are you saying I endorse murder if it saves dad’s pocketbook? Hell no. I’m saying that unilateral decisions to wreck people financially sometimes motivate equally corrupt souls to do terrible reactionary things.
What’s to reconcile?
Here’s the solution. (Best to let minds come to these realizations themselves, but you can’t win ’em all):
1. Abolish child support programs;
2. Conventional wisdom about bearing children changes overnight, modifies behavior, much of it female;
3. Single-parented births plummet. Walk-away divorces plummet. Irresponsible marriages plummet. Social order is restored as responsibility again takes root;
4. Child support programs become largely unnecessary;
5. Abortion mickeys stop making the news. Taxes drop dramatically. By way of a far higher percentage of wanted, responsible pregnancies, actual lives are spared. The circle is now complete.
PS: Bonus question. Aside from the Socialist “cost to society”, what right does government have in ensuring bastards are financially “cared for”? We already know child support is a government fraud; where did it even get the fundamental right to enact such a thing?
MayBee, the situation you describe requires picking between choices no one seems to want.
Right. But they are choices that come up everyday, and were brought up in this post by my beloved Dan Collins. I’ve already said the choices are not equitable. So I’m saying, what’s your answer?
If the laws were such that I could NOT force my husband/boyfriend to pay child support, would that make it equitable? Is that a good answer?
J Howard- how does your answer relate to either the case that Dan Collins posted or my hypothetical?
What I’m getting from your answer is that no man should be under any obligation to financially support a child he doesn’t want. Is that correct?
Also, abortion is murder.
You cannot ask that question without an eye toward the costs, fiscal and in human terms, of the child support system. The question here is not what’s equitable. The question is what works.
And the question is ultimately by what right would government institute child support systems even aside from the ruin they foment?
If the government has the right to institute all manner of social programs, why bother being a constitutional republic of divided powers? Just coronate Clinton and be done with it.
By government penalty? That’s what I’m suggesting.
By personal/social/private pressure, absolutely not. Abolish support programs and family courts, reinstitute fault divorce, and recover society. From there, since we’re dreaming, make this act attempted murder and overrule Roe v Wade.
“What is being argued is the logical absurdity of whether or not there’s an existing human being based entirely on the decision of a third party who has a conflict of interest in the decision.”
We don’t need to rely on that absurdity in order to punish causing an abortion / miscarriage against someone’s consent.
#
Comment by MayBee on 12/2 @ 3:41 pm #
There’s a real simple solution if you don’t want to find yourself pregnant
For my husband to have a vasectomy, right Rusty? What if he hasn’t done that yet?
Why is it always the guy who gets cut?
You know, May Bee, Your right. What with all the different methods of contraception available to a woman, why, getting pregnant is inevitable. If it means the kid is as dumb as you, go ahead. Have an abortion.
^ bag of hammers speaks…
er, actus, not you, Rusty… ;o)
Yes. He should have the opportunity to opt out. Of course, he’s not going to hve the same option the woman has, but he should have one. The flip side could also exist here: He wants the kid, and you don’t. Can he force you not to kill it? No. You have the right to do so, and he has no right to make any determination for himself or his child, legally.
Rights and responsibilities should come hand in hand. A person with no rights and no options should be a person with no obligations. As long as we, as a society, are going to treat men as little more than sperm donors, we ought to keep our hands out of their wallets and our chains off their necks. And if we’re going to treat women as not only equals, but the final arbiters of right and wrong, there needs to be responsibility attached to that. We’ve made abortion a choice to which women have a right, and now we ought to live with the logical extension of that. It is the same people who demanded this right that don’t want to bear the responsibility that ought to come with it.
By personal/social/private pressure, absolutely not. Abolish support programs and family courts, reinstitute fault divorce, and recover society. From there, since we’re dreaming, make this act attempted murder and overrule Roe v Wade.
So, what about the divorces that don’t “go away”? Are those women (and their children) just shit out of luck? While I am all in favor of a lowered divorce rate, and “complete” families, it is just a fantasy to think that there are not a hell of a lot of men who will simplyl walk away from their responsibility. Are you willing to add those women (and children) to the welfare rolls? Women who did nothing wrong, but had bad taste in men.
If my husband decided, tomorrow, that he loved his secretary, I would be out on the street if there were no support. And, I know the dynamic of second marriages too well … and the husband usually listens to the woman he is sleeping with. Honey, THIS is your family now …
Yes. He should have the opportunity to opt out.
So let me just be sure I understand you. If my husband gets me pregnant, he should be able to opt out of supporting our child?
But abortion should not be an option for me, because it is murder? Or, if I am against abortion because I think it’s murder, I have a child with a father that has no obligation to help support it. Is that right?
Why is it always the guy who gets cut?
You know, May Bee, Your right. What with all the different methods of contraception available to a woman, why, getting pregnant is inevitable. If it means the kid is as dumb as you, go ahead. Have an abortion.
But wait. I said it was my husband that doesn’t want another child. Shouldn’t he be the one to get cut? I might want another one some day, and hope to convince him to change his mind, so I don’t want surgery. I would never trick him, though. So in this example, I’m on birth control that failed for some reason. It happens all the time.
ps. Rusty, I’m a married woman. Your charm and sweet talk will not work on me!!
Not concurrently. Abortion, as it stands, is not murder. It’s a choice. It’s a right.
I’m reminded of someone I know quite well. She divorced shortly after she and her husband lost their only child. She desperately wanted to have another baby, so she went out and got herself pregnant. The father wanted her to get an abortion, which was simply not going to happen. She’s now raising the child herself with no input whatsoever, financial or otherwise, from the father. By her choice.
Carin,
See “reinstitute fault divorce”.
So, you are advocating palimony only?
Alimony – lol. One glass of wine, and I’m already talking shit.
Besides, what of the woman with no resources – hubby works, wife raised the children (I resemble this remark) – what resources does she have for a lawyer? The woman across the street from me lost both her children to her working, remarried ex-husband because the cheap/free lawyer she got was worth what she paid for it. There is no equality in many situations. Women will be much less willing to stay home with the kids (which is in their best interests) – and she would be stupid to do so- if her interests are so unprotected.
When I was divorced, I paid all of her legal fees, per the court order and by wage assignment, because I made more money than she did…and not by a whole lot. And for the record, no fit parent should lose their children to the other. Both the kids and the parents should have the inalienable right to maintain their relationships to the fullest possible extent. You don’t divorce your children.
As for the rest, fault divorce. Should a woman who abandons his family for the office floozy pay? Yes. Should a woman who similarly decides the grass will be greener on the other side of the fence keep the kids, the house and half the guy’s income? No.
Whoops. That should be a man who runs off with the office floozy.
“When I was divorced, I paid all of her legal fees, per the court order and by wage assignment, because I made more money than she did…and not by a whole lot”
after, or during?
What will it take to raise your assessment of the moral consideration above the matter of your inconvenience? Allright, just kill the little inconvenient independent entity bastard in your womb. There. Whew! I do admit it makes car payments and Bali vacations easier and you can continue to enjoy uncomplicated orgasms.
I wish I was a liberal. It makes life so much easier with death as the solution for unpleasant moral requirements.
There is only one type of birth control that 100% certain. Of course that requires sacrifice, eh?
There used to be this thing called extended family. Private charity. Until it was put out of business. But I digress.
You indulge fantasy. The stats convincingly prove that the reverse is currently true: Women prey on men as support factories by an 85:15 ratio of them to primary male custodians. Women initiate 9 out of 10 divorces with children. The liberating power of gender feminism.
MayBee, it all looks substantially different from 40,000 feet. Stop with the fantasy when the reality is trebly harmful. From there, by what right would government undertake this charge, even if reality worked that way?
Wrong. Click my NYT article, strewn with all the leftist bullshit conventional wisdom and rhetoric known to man, to find this nugget: Getting government out of the sdupport business increases supports paid. People are opting out of that corrupt system so as to economize and support their own kids.
Wow, huh? Conversely, can you cite an instance of government welfare working?
Said with a straight face? Got it. We’re awash in orphans without federal support, the kind of which produces single-parented kids like flies. Oh, and women are chronic penniless victims of their own vaginas because, you know, in a Support Nation where that 85:15 ratio is the artificial outcome, dads just never, ever love their kids enough to parent them.
Kinda sexist, wouldn’t you say, MayBee? Or is that what you’re saying? I thought you were all about responsibility.
So, what about the divorces that don’t “go awayâ€Â? Are those women (and their children) just shit out of luck?…..it is just a fantasy to think that there are not a hell of a lot of men who will simplyl walk away from their responsibility. Are you willing to add those women (and children) to the welfare rolls?
What happened to family? If I was suddenly destitute my family would take me in and help me get back on my feet. That’s one of the things families are supposed to do. It is not the government’s job to be your family.
We also need to bring back social sanction, and shame deadbeats to take care of their children. Government enforced child support became necessary when people stopped being ashamed of being cads.
Women who did nothing wrong, but had bad taste in men.
If there were consequences for this mistakes, maybe women would go back to making better choices?
Exactly. And that from the responsible parties among us…
Because sex is a right, Geezer? Regardless the costs?
BECAUSE FREE SEX IS A RIGHT, BRO!
They don’t call it a safety net for no reason.
Which, made more money or paid her legal bills? In both cases, both. And again, in the first, not by much.
Wait, why am I answering actus? Please, someone rebuke me.
The problems in general started when shame died altogether. In the name of liberty.
“Getting government out of the sdupport business increases supports paid. People are opting out of that corrupt system so as to economize and support their own kids.”
Ah. so you’re proposing a policy that INCREASES the amount of support paid. I see.
Women prey on men as support factories by an 85:15
Care to support that assertion? Because, to do so, you’d need a stat that showed that 85% of women had children SOLELY to get money out of men. Support factories. Please. As you said in another thread: Project much?
Jhoward- check who you are quoting and arguing with. Thanks!
There is only one type of birth control that 100% certain. Of course that requires sacrifice, eh?
Geez- in my hypothetical, I am married. Should I abstain from sex because my husband doesn’t want any more children?
Really, Sgt Ted? NOBODY here is arguing that if she can’t be charged with murder for an abortion, he shouldn’t be charged with murder either?
Well, ok, yes, that IS what is being argued. I don’t think that he should be charged with murder. He should be charged with assault or whatever statute covers slipping someone a drug without their knowledge. Practicing medicine without a licence; whatever.If she has a bad reaction to the drug and dies or is gravely ill, the charge should reflect that.
We are argueing that, if the woman cannot be charged with murder for choosing to abort a baby, neither should the man, if he acts to kill the fetus. Sounds ugly, but to alot of people, abortion is just as ugly. But, the again this isn’t about anybodies feelings; it’s about equality before the law.
What do you mean by “a third party who has a conflict of interest in the decision�
The pregnant woman is a third party, if we posit that the fetus is a separate human being. Her conflict of interest is twofold:
1. Financial. She can elect to keep the child, which will net her an income from both the State and the father, regardless of his wishes to not be a father. She is rewarded financially for her irresponsible behavior, the man is held responsible.
2. Aborting the baby is for the convenience of one irresponsible adult, who gains freedom from her participation in an irresponsible act by killing a potential human being. The father has no say.
The “best interest of the child” is completely ignored, because, it is posited that it ISN’T a child, unless the woman says so. Let us remember that this very same State at one point in time considered grown human beings to be legally less than human as well.
Thats the conflict of interest.
To me, the best compromise that protects all the parties interests and rights, is that if two people are irresponsible enough to get knocked up, you either suck it up and get married, or you put the baby up for adoption.
You did say that life was unfair.
What happened to family? If I was suddenly destitute my family would take me in and help me get back on my feet. That’s one of the things families are supposed to do. It is not the government’s job to be your family.
Isn’t the father/ex-husband also family? Isn’t that kinda what we’re saying he’s supposed to do?
So the dad can legally ditch the mom and child, and the extended family should pick up the pieces?
You are right, that’s the way it used to be. Is that what we should be going back to? Really?
“Which, made more money or paid her legal bills? In both cases, both. And again, in the first, not by much.”
Paid the bills. So she needed to either find a lawyer that could wait, or afford to pay along the way.
That’s often still the way it is. Are you saying that state intervention is the better situation? Really?
No, she needed to find a lawyer who knew she could get an order assigning fees and a wage assignment to see that I paid them. That was not a problem.
Should a woman who abandons his family for the office floozy pay?….
Here in California, this is a likely scenario.
The pregnant woman is a third party, if we posit that the fetus is a separate human being. Her conflict of interest is twofold:
1. Financial. She can elect to keep the child, which will net her an income from both the State and the father, regardless of his wishes to not be a father. She is rewarded financially for her irresponsible behavior, the man is held responsible.
Man, getting pregnant. It’s EXACTLY like winning the lotto.
Not concurrently. Abortion, as it stands, is not murder. It’s a choice. It’s a right.
So you don’t think it’s murder?
FWIW, if my hypothetical were true, I could never have an abortion. I could never abort the sibling of my children. It would haunt me every day. So I guess I’d have to take the husband that ditches me with no support. Is that a good outcome, do you think? Is it moral? Is it equitable?
I’m reminded of someone I know quite well. She divorced shortly after she and her husband lost their only child. She desperately wanted to have another baby, so she went out and got herself pregnant. The father wanted her to get an abortion, which was simply not going to happen. She’s now raising the child herself with no input whatsoever, financial or otherwise, from the father. By her choice.
That sounds right. As I said, I think if a man and woman get pregnant outside of a relationship, the man should be able to opt out of fatherhood.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Wait, why am I answering actus? Please, someone rebuke me.
/bitchslap
Snap out of it man!
Are you saying that state intervention is the better situation?
How is the state getting involved that you disapprove of? By forcing the man to pay child support? Or by arresting him when he poisons his pregnant girlfriend?
Man, getting pregnant. It’s EXACTLY like winning the lotto.
Sometimes it is. Probably about the same odds, too.
But that isn’t my arguement, either. It’s your projection of what you think my arguement is. Go re-read what I wrote.
Yeah, sometimes it is. More commonly, it’s just a quarter million or more of tax free income with no strings attached.
JHoward- did you read what Geezer said? There is one way to keep from getting pregnant. Does he not mean abstinence?
Women who did nothing wrong, but had bad taste in men.
If there were consequences for this mistakes, maybe women would go back to making better choices?
And, by “consequences” I take it you mean that the woman was shuned, lived on the outskirts of town, and lived her life in poverty? In other words, “If only we could go back to the days of unwanted pregnancy being a “women’s issue” wouldn’t life be GRAND!” Especially if we could keep the whole “sexual revolution” freebies.
I’ve been in enough conversations with (conservative) men to know that there isn’t a large majority of them willing to “wait until marriage.” They want the cookies, w/o having to pay.
Believe me, we wouldn’t have the issue of all these unwanted pregnancies if men weren’t more than happy to hop on the horse.
Statistics gathered in 1997 about joint legal custody from nineteen US states found that joint legal custody is awarded in two out of every ten divorce cases involving children. More than seventy percent of all custody cases result in the mother receiving primary custody of the child(ren). Less than ten percent of all child custody cases result in primary custody being granted to the father.
85:15 = 85% to mom. 70:10 = 87.5% to mom. Pick one. BTW, Shere Hite famously found that 91% of all divorce was initiated by the woman. Hite is a feminist.
“Ninety-one percent of women who have divorced say they made the decision to divorce, not their husbands.” Shere Hite, Women and Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress (New York: Knopf, 1987), p. 459.
First Google hit, Carin. Go ahead, have a ball.
http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/html/custody/joint.html
Pablo – I don’t know, but did that lawyer attempt to get custody of the twins? How a man could leave his children with a woman such as that is beyond me.
Carin sockpuppets andy. Commenting from Brazil, boys?
Speaking of caring to support assertions, Carin, kindly stop bullshitting the room.
As it’s currently done under Title IV-D, yes.
How a man could leave his children with a woman on the “outskirts of town” is beyond me.
Do you actually vote?
And, by “consequences†I take it you mean that the woman was shuned, lived on the outskirts of town, and lived her life in poverty? In other words, “If only we could go back to the days of unwanted pregnancy being a “women’s issue†wouldn’t life be GRAND!†Especially if we could keep the whole “sexual revolution†freebies.
Not my arguement. I would willingly trade the “benefits” of the sexual revolution for a reverting to how it used to be.
Having come of age at the beginning of AIDS, I opted out of the revolution. The risk/reward ratio wasn’t woth it to me. Plus, despite an active imagination, I am truly more traditional than most of my conteporaries.
Besides, masturbation is free sex with someone I love.
Like herding cats, Pablo. Ladies, Title IV-D pays the states 66% of each child support dollar, at least by my last-known facts. Think that creates any incentives anywhere?
What do you suppose his odds of getting them were? Slim to none, I’m thinking. I’ve “left” a child of mine with the aforementioned woman who no sensible person would leave a child of theirs with. Despite my repeated and well documented and well substantiated objections, it turns out that I had jack shit to say in the matter.
We are argueing that, if the woman cannot be charged with murder for choosing to abort a baby, neither should the man, if he acts to kill the fetus. Sounds ugly, but to alot of people, abortion is just as ugly. But, the again this isn’t about anybodies feelings; it’s about equality before the law.
Should he be able to force her to get an abortion, or will he have to resort to things like poison and baseball bats?
Also, what about a stranger? Can a stranger be charged with murder for killing the baby?
1. Financial. She can elect to keep the child, which will net her an income from both the State and the father, regardless of his wishes to not be a father. She is rewarded financially for her irresponsible behavior, the man is held responsible.
Where is all this money from the State coming from, anyway? I’ve had 2 babies and have never yet gotten my State money. Carin, have you?
2. Aborting the baby is for the convenience of one irresponsible adult,
ONE irresponsible adult? In a pregnancy?
Oh, and Title IV-D is all rolled up with TANF, arch-Democrats, and Welfare.
For the family.
What I said was, there is only one 100% sure way to prevent pregnancy. Yes, I mean abstinence. It’s not a popular method for trendy post-moderns. It won’t kill you, though.
Carin, MayBee, just curious: How do you politically self-identify?
Where is all this money from the State coming from, anyway? I’ve had 2 babies and have never yet gotten my State money. Carin, have you?
You’re not a single mom. Thus, you don’t rate. You still have a mans checkbook to lean on. That sounds mean, but that’s how the State seems to view it.
2. Aborting the baby is for the convenience of one irresponsible adult,
ONE irresponsible adult? In a pregnancy?
OK, point taken. Should the man have a say? Actually, since the man doesn’t have a say, I maintain the choice IS the convenience of one irresponsible adult, since the man is just along for the ride. He might luck out, if his decision opinion is in line with hers. But, he still has no say. So, it’s certainly not for HIS convenince don’t you think?
MayBee, the point is that if anyone can be charged with murder for killing the baby, then killing the baby should be murder, no matter who does it.
What we have here is another inequity. Patel is not a sympathetic figure, by any means, but you can reverse the roles and suddenly the killer is a brave champion of her own liberty.
Should he be able to force her to get an abortion, or will he have to resort to things like poison and baseball bats?
Uhm no. What gave you the idea that I supported that? You are projecting.
Also, what about a stranger? Can a stranger be charged with murder for killing the baby?
How a man could leave his children with a woman on the “outskirts of town†is beyond me.
Do you actually vote?
You know, I swore after my last run-in with JHoward to never participate in a debate with him. I’ve never had words put in my mouth, so to speak, in such a manner. Mars/Venus stuff. JHoward, you can just fuck off. I mean it.
What I said was, there is only one 100% sure way to prevent pregnancy. Yes, I mean abstinence. It’s not a popular method for trendy post-moderns. It won’t kill you, though.
Ok, Geezer. Then perhaps you will answer the question JHoward found so ridiculous. If my husband does not want me to get pregnant again, should I abstain from sex with him?
MayBee, the point is that if anyone can be charged with murder for killing the baby, then killing the baby should be murder, no matter who does it.
That’s my point and is the answer that got cut off in my last reply to MayBee. More or less.
“No, she needed to find a lawyer who knew she could get an order assigning fees and a wage assignment to see that I paid them. ”
You said after the divorce right? So she the wife needed to find lawyer that worked for free till then or for payment from the woman.
If my husband does not want me to get pregnant again, should I abstain from sex with him?
There are other options, you know.
MayBee, the point is that if anyone can be charged with murder for killing the baby, then killing the baby should be murder, no matter who does it.
At least I know where you stand, but I disagree. As I said before, I think of it as a similar situation to life support. I can choose to take my Grandma off the ventilator, if she’s given me that power. But if someone else shoots her full of poison, that’s murder. I understand you will disagree with me, and I respect that.
What we have here is another inequity. Patel is not a sympathetic figure, by any means, but you can reverse the roles and suddenly the killer is a brave champion of her own liberty.
I really don’t see that. Actually, I really abhor the idea of a woman getting an abortion when her partner doesn’t want her to. I think a man who wants a child, and wants to raise a child, is a beautiful thing. Also, as I said, I really have a hard time picturing an abortion after you’ve already given birth to a sibling. That would haunt me. Others would do it, but not me. I certainly don’t see brave champion status given to most women that abort.
If my husband does not want me to get pregnant again, should I abstain from sex with him?
I can’t speak for him, but, if were faced with being cut off from sex from my wife due to the chance of pregnancy I would get myself snipped in a heartbeat.
How a man could leave his children with a woman on the “outskirts of town†is beyond me.
Do you actually vote?
You know, I swore after my last run-in with JHoward to never participate in a debate with him. I’ve never had words put in my mouth, so to speak, in such a manner. Mars/Venus stuff. JHoward, you can just fuck off. I mean it.
I’m Andy’s sockpuppet … I’m a liberal, I’m a feminist, apparently I’m whatever you choose to believe since what I actually WRITE bears little upon to how you interpret it.
FTR, I’m about as CONSERVATIVE A woman as they come. If I’m too liberal for you … then I just don’t know what to say.
MayBee, the point is that if anyone can be charged with murder for killing the baby, then killing the baby should be murder, no matter who does it.
As I said to Pablo, I understand what you are saying but I vehemently disagree.
And again, if the man won’t be charged with murder for killing his baby, what is his punishment for the baseball bat thing? I’m asking seriously. Do you do time for hitting someone with a baseball bat?
Finally, do you personally think abortion should be legal? Do you think it is murder?
I can’t speak for him, but, if were faced with being cut off from sex from my wife due to the chance of pregnancy I would get myself snipped in a heartbeat.
Maybe she’d rather go on the pill than you know, be all shrewy and threatening and stuff. Maybe she figures when you’re ready to get snipped, you will and until then she’ll just take the pill.
Damn, I cut and past the wrong thing in the last comment. Stupid laptop. Anyway, the assertion unnamed asshole commenter made was that 85% of women view men as support factories.
Let’s parce:
Statistics gathered in 1997 about joint legal custody from nineteen US states found that joint legal custody is awarded in two out of every ten divorce cases involving children. More than seventy percent of all custody cases result in the mother receiving primary custody of the child(ren). Less than ten percent of all child custody cases result in primary custody being granted to the father.
So, does it mention what percentage of men wanted custody? Humn, I’m not seeing it in there. Therefor the awarded percentage has little meaning on it’s own.
85:15 = 85% to mom. 70:10 = 87.5% to mom. Pick one. BTW, Shere Hite famously found that 91% of all divorce was initiated by the woman. Hite is a feminist.
And where, in that statistic, does it say that women viewed men as “support factories”? Projection. Assertion. Unsupported.
“Ninety-one percent of women who have divorced say they made the decision to divorce, not their husbands.†Shere Hite, Women and Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress (New York: Knopf, 1987), p. 459.
The “support factories” assertion is supported where in that stat?
An interesting comment — if not exactly a convincing argument for much of anything but the power of unbridled emoting — coming from somebody so apt to misrepresent/misread me and than accuse me of misleading the facts (no cites for my “assertions”) and “projecting” about it all.
Fuck off, huh? Sure; I can see that your manufactured ire trumps my not getting a single straight answer out of you.
About #225, Carin, is it truly credible for a conservative woman (the kind that exemplifies conservatism, to be sure) to also trump those clear, objective facts with, um, projection about the inherent floppery of the sweet-talking male of the species, to wit?
I’ll be over here in my corner, fucking off. Given that your highly sexist “conservatism” extends to supporting a particularly virulent strain of equally sexist Socialism, what else would I possibly do?
There used to be this thing called extended family. Private charity.
Ah, the good old days…
“In 1851 Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, estimated that the essential expenditures for rent, food, fuel, and clothing for a family of five was $10.37 a week. In that year, a shoemaker or printer earned just $4.00 to $6.00 a week, a male textile operative about $6.50 a week, and an unskilled laborer just $1.00 a week. The only manual laborers able to earn Greeley’s minimum were blacksmiths and machinists.
While the urban middle-class family emphasized a sole male breadwinner, a rigid division of sexual roles, and a protected childhood, urban working-class families emphasized a cooperative family economy. Typically, a male laborer earned just two-thirds of his family’s income. The other third was earned by his wife and children. Many married women performed work in the home, such as embroidery, tailoring, or laundry. The wages of children were critical for a working-class family’s standard of living. Children under the age of fifteen contributed about 20 percent of their family’s income.”
And again, if the man won’t be charged with murder for killing his baby, what is his punishment for the baseball bat thing? I’m asking seriously. Do you do time for hitting someone with a baseball bat?
Oh yes, one could be charged with attempted murder, regardless of a pregnancy. Most likely it would be a felony aggravated assault. You would do time, unless you could show an extreme mitigating circumstance. Not likely in the baseball bat scenario. I’d say that even in the topic of this post, he could be charged with aggravated assault. Would it stick? Thats the rub.
Finally, do you personally think abortion should be legal? Do you think it is murder?
I am torn. I completely sympathize with people dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. It is a difficult choice to face.
But, you know what? I was an unplanned pregnancy. The father of my stepson wanted my wife to abort him when she first got pregnant with him. He is now a pride of my life; putting himself thru college on an ROTC scholarship after a combat tour in Iraq. We went together in the same unit. He is my son and my comrade in arms.
Two of my three grandchildren were unplanned pregnancies. My step daugher, who is leftwing, couldn’t bring herself to abort them. She knew they were babies, regardless of the planned parenthood propaganda. I love them lots. So, theres a personal angle.
I support 1st trimester abortions, no questions asked. Shit happens. I support abortions after that for the health of the mother. Serious health issues, like complications from diabetes or other risks. Not fitting into the prom dress doesn’t count. In this day and age in America, I don’t buy the bullshit of “not knowing I was pregnant”. Unless it is a child rape.
Since I have alway been willing to step up to the plate and support any accidental child I had a hand in creating, I don’t support abortion on demand. Take responsibility, regardless of your genitalia. If you cannot financially deal with the child, put it up for adoption.
On what rational grounds?
Apples and oranges. And you won’t be taking Grandma off the ventilator, medical professionals who have determined that Grandma is toast and will likely never get off the ventilator will do it. They’ll simply be waiting for your permission to do so, unless Grandma has signed a DNR or a living will that keeps her off it in the first place. I’m intimately familiar with that scenario and it doesn’t compare to the willful act of killing a nascent but healthy human being.
They’re just women exercising their rights. In fact, they need to be protected, so that no one shames them and perhaps makes them reconsider. Because of their liberty.
This is a cool conversation and the most levelheaded about abortion I have ever participated in. Rock on people.
And let’s remember to contrast that with Patel, who is a scumbag baby killer.
SGT Ted- we are mostly in agreement about abortion.
Pablo-
On what rational grounds?
That the fetus is actually inside the mother, using her body. That gives her special standing, IMHO.
Apples and oranges… They’ll simply be waiting for your permission to do so, unless Grandma has signed a DNR or a living will that keeps her off it in the first place. I’m intimately familiar with that scenario and it doesn’t compare to the willful act of killing a nascent but healthy human being.
Also, Grandma isn’t in my body. So apples and oranges, but then there’s nothing quite like pregnancy.
To kill it? To choose? And shouldn’t that special standing come with some special responsibility? Shouldn’t that ultimate authority to make life changing decisions for all involved come with the responsibility to bear the consequences of them? If not, why not?
MayBee – Abortion is not the same thing as taking your grandmother off life support. In the first case, the fetus/baby has no say in the matter. In the latter case, your grandmother put you in charge of her healthcare.
This all depends on whether or not the mother approves of the man hitting her with the baseball bat to kill the fetus/baby. As I mentioned earlier, there was a case where a teen girl got pregnant, didn’t want to go get an abortion, so she had her boyfriend repeatedly hit her stomach with a baseball bat to cause a miscarriage. They were not able to charge him with anything, because she approved it. So they basically conspired to kill her fetus/baby. But neither could be charged.
Pablo- if abortion were illegal, would you support the idea that every man that impregnates a woman must financially support that baby until it is an adult?
Better yet, I’d support shotgun weddings. Now, about that question at the end of my #234…
MayBee – Abortion is not the same thing as taking your grandmother off life support. In the first case, the fetus/baby has no say in the matter. In the latter case, your grandmother put you in charge of her healthcare.
Michael- I realize it is not exactly the same thing, but a couple of points.
1- Sure, Grandma gave me charge of her healthcare, but what if I made the wrong decision? What if she is going to rally? It isn’t hypothetical, even thought Pablo makes it sound like the Doctors always know what they are talking about. I know first hand they don’t.
2- Parents always are in charge of their child’s healthcare.
But in Texas there was a similar situation and the guy is now doing life in prison, while she cannot be charged. See the first link in my #110.
MayBee, it isn’t going to happen at all unless the doctors feel that she’s done. Pull the plug of your own accord, and you’ll be charged with murder. The healthcare proxy will not protect you.
Shouldn’t that ultimate authority to make life changing decisions for all involved come with the responsibility to bear the consequences of them? If not, why not?
Yes, I think it comes with the responsibility to take the pregnancy seriously, and of course the physical responsibility of providing the healthiest environment for the pregnancy you choose to keep. To accept the physical hardships and changes that will occur in your body as you carry the pregnancy to term.
I don’t think that because abortions are legal, it means every woman believes they are moral. I think any woman in a relationship has, unless specifically stated otherwise, a reasonable expectation that a man that impregnates her will bear some of the financial responsibility. I believe that any woman in a marriage that finds herself pregnant by her spouse should know that he will bear some financial responsibility for that child.
Better yet, I’d support shotgun weddings. Now, about that question at the end of my #234…
So would you make that a law? That if you get a woman pregnant, you have to marry her. And if you are married, you must support that child for life.
You would make that a law, Pablo?
MayBee, it isn’t going to happen at all unless the doctors feel that she’s done
I’m sorry, you’re wrong Pablo. You aren’t the only one with first hand experience.
I’ll be over here in my corner, fucking off. Given that your highly sexist “conservatism†extends to supporting a particularly virulent strain of equally sexist Socialism, what else would I possibly do?
La la la pancake picnic bunnies frapple in the Sunday bloomers.
Let’s see what he infers from that. Marxism? Dadaism? The possibilities are endless.
Whoa, there’s a whole lot more to it than that. Like everything that comes next.
I think we make too many laws. I’d make it perfectly acceptable. And perhaps I’d subsidize shotguns for fathers of expecting daughters.
About what? That you can’t do it yourself, or that the docs won’t be doing it unless they feel the case is terminal (barring a directive from the patient)?
that the docs won’t be doing it unless they feel the case is terminal
this
or I should say, they aren’t always right when they *feel* a case is terminal.
The #228 comment smacks of actus…
Are we to infer that the post-industrial (and thoroughly post-modern) State has itself elevated standards of living to the point that we can and should federally incentive dividing families up, involuntarily redistribute the resources, make the kids wards of the government school and family court, and finally liberate all the moms?
Fatherhood. With the aid of the State, finally
relegatedelevated to it’s fitting, manly man’s status. Because of the gender equality. Or the children. Or their best interest. Or…because.The quaint yet frightening extended family. Quickly obsoleted before it had the chance to compete in the State’s Work.
So you’re not a blatant sexist of conservative stripe, Carin?
That would make them wrong, and not me. Regardless, my point holds. It doesn’t happen without the medical opinion that it’s the proper course of action. It’s not simply your option. In my case, they were right.
It doesn’t happen without the medical opinion that it’s the proper course of action.
I’m sure planned parenthood doctors will often tell a patient abortion is the proper course of action.
So.
I’m not sure what your point is here. My point in saying the analogy is not apt is that your grandmother had a say in you allowing her to die. The baby has no say. So the analogy does not hold up. Whether you make the right decision or not is not the issue. The issue is that the baby has no say in being allowed to die/killed, whereas in your grandma example, your grandma has full say in giving you the power to allow her to die.
What is your point here? Parents may be in charge of their child’s healthcare, but they don’t get to just decide to kill them if they become inconvenient (as a woman gets to do when they are developing within her womb).
By the way, just as an aside, there are many cases in which a doctor advises a woman to have an abortion, because he feels that the baby will not survive or the baby will have complications, and, after the mother decides to have the baby anyway, what the doctor thought was going to happen didn’t and the baby was completely healthy.
Again, we’re talking about a terminal patient vs. a healthy but nascent human being. Not the same thing, no matter how you want to compare them.
Primum non nocere.
Thanks, I didn’t realize that. I’ll have to read that and then try to find the case that happened here in Michigan to see where the laws differed.
There are circumstances where it’s appropriate. One that comes to mind is a mother with a very aggressive cancer that requires immediate treatment to save her life. Chemo and radiation cannot, by law, be administered to a pregnant woman, and any chemo would likely kill the fetus anyway. Sometimes life sucks, and all of your choices are ugly.
Exactly. And most of them do tell patients that, because abortion is a business for Planned Parenthood. That is why they rarely, if ever, counsel women on other options such as bringing the baby to term and keeping it or giving it up for adoption. And it is why they are against getting the sonograms (?) so that the women can see the baby prior to making the decision to abort it. Abortion is in Planned Parenthood’s interest, since that is their business. They are not going to counsel patients on something that is bad for business.
I understand that instance happens, but that is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the instance of a completely healthy mother being told to abort her baby, because the baby was at risk of dying most likely if brought to term. Usually, in those cases, the doctor has the best interests at heart, but also stresses that there is probably an X% chance that he could be wrong. Usually that chance is very small, so that is why he advises the abortion.
My point in bringing that up was just to complement MayBee’s point that doctors aren’t always right and sometimes may lead people to decide to pull the plug on grandma when she may have pulled through.
The big difference is grandma has already lived a full live, so pulling the plug on her would maybe deprive her of a few weeks or months or years. Pulling the plug and aborting a baby however deprives the baby of living life at all.
Yes, Michael. I have an old friend to whom that happened. She was told her baby was going to have a horrible birth defect and would probably die within minutes of birth. She chose to have the baby and prepared for the worst. The baby was born healthy and remains so.
Yes, I also know two women that were diagnosed with aggressive cancer during pregnancy. One chose to abort, because she had another child and felt she needed to live to support that child. The other slipped into a coma and was maintained on respirators until her body could give birth to a baby.
There is nothing easy about any of it.
And I agree, for the 200th time, that grandma and baby aren’t a perfect analogy. Then again, there is nothing else that by nature requires using another living being’s body to support a life.