Baby dies after man allegedly tricks girlfriend into taking an abortion pill

[OriginalShroom]

If a woman can abort an unborn baby because she isn't ready to be a mother, why can't the man abort an unborn baby if he isn't ready to be a father??

There is the 14th Amendment. Equal protections under the law.

Because its not his body destroyed by carrying it. His life is never at risk.

But he is held, by the law, liable for the baby if it is born.

BTW, you are aware that the Federal Government requires that a wife gives her permission before a man can have a vasectomy in a Government facility, right?

 

[Cuyo]

If a woman can abort an unborn baby because she isn't ready to be a mother, why can't the man abort an unborn baby if he isn't ready to be a father??

There is the 14th Amendment. Equal protections under the law.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...into-taking-an-abortion-pill.html#post7244918

It's not the law's job to pass moral judgment on the act.

If a man could become pregnant, you'd be correct. Until then, you're discussing two different scenarios.

 

[buckeye45_73]

If a woman can abort an unborn baby because she isn't ready to be a mother, why can't the man abort an unborn baby if he isn't ready to be a father??

There is the 14th Amendment. Equal protections under the law.

As soon as men have wombs and carry fetus' until they are viable....then you will have a point.

Well miss double standard, it's not a womens choice, again you're full of shit, and quit using the vaccum defense

 

[Seawytch]

If a woman can abort an unborn baby because she isn't ready to be a mother, why can't the man abort an unborn baby if he isn't ready to be a father??

There is the 14th Amendment. Equal protections under the law.

Because its not his body destroyed by carrying it. His life is never at risk.

But he is held, by the law, liable for the baby if it is born.

BTW, you are aware that the Federal Government requires that a wife gives her permission before a man can have a vasectomy in a Government facility, right?

Once it's born, it's a different story. Until then it is part of a woman's body and putting her life at risk, not his.

That is a rule of the facility not law.

 

[bodecea]

If a woman can abort an unborn baby because she isn't ready to be a mother, why can't the man abort an unborn baby if he isn't ready to be a father??

There is the 14th Amendment. Equal protections under the law.

As soon as men have wombs and carry fetus' until they are viable....then you will have a point.

Well miss double standard, it's not a womens choice, again you're full of shit, and quit using the vaccum defense

As soon as men have wombs and carry fetus' until they are viable....then you will have a point.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It can't be murder. You can't have it both ways. Either a baby is a person, and this is murder, or a baby isn't a person and abortion is ok. Saying that we get to decide whether a person is a person on a case by case basis is wrong, and evil. That is how we had slavery and basically every genocide in history

Actually no, it's pretty cut and dry.

A woman has jurisdiction over her own womb; Nobody has jurisdiction over someone else's womb.

Clear enough?

Your sociopathic indifference to human life on the basis of the illegitimate legal technicalities of human law in violation of natural law will not stand before God. God’s law will stand. His jurisdiction over the womb will stand, not your monstrously depraved arrogance.

Clear enough?

 

[AmyNation]

Do you mean the morning after pill?

No, because that is not what she was given.

I thought that's what the morning after pill has been called. I really don't keep up on these things, so I didn't realize there is actually an abortion pill? Then why do women go to abortion doctors? It would be cheaper to take the pill.....

You have to have a licensed professional give you the pill. About 30% of abortions are medical( non surgical) abortions.

 

[syrenn]

If a woman can abort an unborn baby because she isn't ready to be a mother, why can't the man abort an unborn baby if he isn't ready to be a father??

There is the 14th Amendment. Equal protections under the law.

Because its not his body destroyed by carrying it. His life is never at risk.

But he is held, by the law, liable for the baby if it is born.

BTW, you are aware that the Federal Government requires that a wife gives her permission before a man can have a vasectomy in a Government facility, right?

that's right, his choice in the matter was consent to be responsible for a child the instant his sperm was implanted in a woman.

if he does not want a baby then HE has the responsibility to control his sperm.

BTW, a woman is held just as responsible once a baby is born....so what is your point?

 

[High_Gravity]

Do you mean the morning after pill?

No, because that is not what she was given.

I thought that's what the morning after pill has been called. I really don't keep up on these things, so I didn't realize there is actually an abortion pill? Then why do women go to abortion doctors? It would be cheaper to take the pill.....

I think you can only take the pill early on in the pregnancy, past a certain point you have to go see an abortionist.

 

[buckeye45_73]

As soon as men have wombs and carry fetus' until they are viable....then you will have a point.

Well miss double standard, it's not a womens choice, again you're full of shit, and quit using the vaccum defense

As soon as men have wombs and carry fetus' until they are viable....then you will have a point.

As soon as women have dicks and can impregnante themselves, I'll give a shit about your vaccum defense

 

[bodecea]

As soon as men have wombs and carry fetus' until they are viable....then you will have a point.

Well miss double standard, it's not a womens choice, again you're full of shit, and quit using the vaccum defense

As soon as men have wombs and carry fetus' until they are viable....then you will have a point.

Koshergyrl...... Just because YOUR womb is all dried up and useless.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If a fetus is not a person, which is the legal argument used to authorize abortion then he can not be convicted of murder, The fetus is not a person. He can be charged with other crimes on the books and probably get convicted, but any conviction for murder violates the law as the fetus is NOT a person BY LAW.

 

[AmyNation]

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ the reason he faces a murder charge.

A federal bill passed by republicans and signed by Bush. See, comprise can be a good thing.

 

[Cuyo]

It can't be murder. You can't have it both ways. Either a baby is a person, and this is murder, or a baby isn't a person and abortion is ok. Saying that we get to decide whether a person is a person on a case by case basis is wrong, and evil. That is how we had slavery and basically every genocide in history

Actually no, it's pretty cut and dry.

A woman has jurisdiction over her own womb; Nobody has jurisdiction over someone else's womb.

Clear enough?

Your sociopathic indifference to human life on the basis of the illegitimate legal technicalities of human law in violation of natural law will not stand before God. God’s law will stand. His jurisdiction over the womb will stand, not your monstrously depraved arrogance.

Clear enough?

I'm sorry, I wasn't listening. Can you start over from the beginning?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If a fetus is not a person, which is the legal argument used to authorize abortion then he can not be convicted of murder, The fetus is not a person. He can be charged with other crimes on the books and probably get convicted, but any conviction for murder violates the law as the fetus is NOT a person BY LAW.

Are you telling us something about the law in the state in which this incident occurred?

With all due respect, people are convicted for double homicides all the time in those states which allow for murder charges against those who kill pregnant women. Assuming I'm understanding you correctly, you're statement is false.

 

[theHawk]

Sounds like this was against her will so it isn't a pro-choice issue. What the guy did was a crime.

Then he should be charged with assault on the woman, not murder, because the fetus or zygote isn't a person, right?

 

[Katzndogz]

Scott Petersen anyone.

 

[AmyNation]

Sounds like this was against her will so it isn't a pro-choice issue. What the guy did was a crime.

Then he should be charged with assault on the woman, not murder, because the fetus or zygote isn't a person, right?

Except we have that pesky law that republicans passed that makes what he did murder.


There is no double standard here. Republicans passed a law that was opposed by many pro-choice advocates back in 04, which was signed by a republican president.

We may not always agree with every law, but we are still required to obey them.

 

[Wolfsister77]

Sounds like this was against her will so it isn't a pro-choice issue. What the guy did was a crime.

Then he should be charged with assault on the woman, not murder, because the fetus or zygote isn't a person, right?

He'll probably get charged with both.

 

[Sarah G]

No, because that is not what she was given.

I thought that's what the morning after pill has been called. I really don't keep up on these things, so I didn't realize there is actually an abortion pill? Then why do women go to abortion doctors? It would be cheaper to take the pill.....

No. RU486 is not an abortifacient.

I believe there is an abortion procedure but it requires more than one pill.

The morning after pill doesn't even require a prescription. It's otc and the pharmacist doesn't have to dispense it but it is behind the pharmacy counter like the cold medicines for people with high blood pressure.

I don't know what he actually gave her or how far along the pregnant girl was. Lot of factors will go into this case.