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

[syrenn]

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.

planB prevents the implantation of an egg to the side of the womb. What he gave her was something to induce labor, a totally different drug and action.

 

[AmyNation]

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.

The morning after pill cannot cause a woman's body to abort a fetus.

 

[OriginalShroom]

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?

No she's not She can still put the baby up for adoption, without the father's consent. Or she can decide to keep the baby and rape the man's bank account for the next two decades.

IMHO, and I am against abortion in nearly all cases, if the woman wants to keep the baby and she is not married, then she has that option. The father of the baby should have the "right" to either accept the role of "fatherhood" and all that entails including finical support and all other rights as any other father would have or give up all fatherhood rights and responsibilities including having to fund the child's life.

Then you would have true equal protection under the law.

 

[hboats]

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.

It would probably help if you took the time to read the article so that you would be correctly informed if you're going to comment. But since that seems to be out of the question, here is what the article says.

Basically Welden (the boyfriend) forged his father's name (his father is an OB/GYN) to get a prescription drug (Cytotec) that induces labor in pregnant women.

This has nothing to do with the "morning after pill" or any other OTC medication.

Rick

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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?

Unborn Victims of Violence Act Title 18, Section 1841 of the United States Code:

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Caroljo]

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.

The article said she was 6 weeks along.....

 

[Caroljo]

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?

No she's not She can still put the baby up for adoption, without the father's consent. Or she can decide to keep the baby and rape the man's bank account for the next two decades.

IMHO, and I am against abortion in nearly all cases, if the woman wants to keep the baby and she is not married, then she has that option. The father of the baby should have the "right" to either accept the role of "fatherhood" and all that entails including finical support and all other rights as any other father would have or give up all fatherhood rights and responsibilities including having to fund the child's life.

Then you would have true equal protection under the law.

I agree!
Most men would want to have a relationship with their child. So, if he doesn't want to marry the woman, he will pay support for the next 18 yrs. And if he's lucky, the woman will support him too letting him have the time with the child that he wants. If he doesn't want the child, he should not be liable if she decides to keep it. The courts should not be able to force him to pay up....he can sign off and never have anything to do with the child. I don't like it, but it's what it is.

And unless he signs off, even if the woman doesn't want support from him, the courts will go after him if she is on government assistance.

I've always said, the man should have just as much say about a child being born as the woman is. I know many won't agree with me, but I think if she gets pregnant, which happened because BOTH of them took part in it....that he should also have the option of making the woman have the child and give it up to him if she doesn't want it. It was both their choices to screw around, it should be both their choices to keep it.

 

[syrenn]

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?

No she's not She can still put the baby up for adoption, without the father's consent. Or she can decide to keep the baby and rape the man's bank account for the next two decades.

IMHO, and I am against abortion in nearly all cases, if the woman wants to keep the baby and she is not married, then she has that option. The father of the baby should have the "right" to either accept the role of "fatherhood" and all that entails including finical support and all other rights as any other father would have or give up all fatherhood rights and responsibilities including having to fund the child's life.

Then you would have true equal protection under the law.

Her body, she can do what she wants to it. Period

No one else can. Period.

If a man does not want the responsibility of having a child and supporting it, then HE should keep his sperm to himself. Consent to father a child and all that entails happens the moment he puts his sperm into a woman.

 

[syrenn]

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?

No she's not She can still put the baby up for adoption, without the father's consent. Or she can decide to keep the baby and rape the man's bank account for the next two decades.

IMHO, and I am against abortion in nearly all cases, if the woman wants to keep the baby and she is not married, then she has that option. The father of the baby should have the "right" to either accept the role of "fatherhood" and all that entails including finical support and all other rights as any other father would have or give up all fatherhood rights and responsibilities including having to fund the child's life.

Then you would have true equal protection under the law.

I agree!
Most men would want to have a relationship with their child. So, if he doesn't want to marry the woman, he will pay support for the next 18 yrs. And if he's lucky, the woman will support him too letting him have the time with the child that he wants. If he doesn't want the child, he should not be liable if she decides to keep it. The courts should not be able to force him to pay up....he can sign off and never have anything to do with the child. I don't like it, but it's what it is.

And unless he signs off, even if the woman doesn't want support from him, the courts will go after him if she is on government assistance.

I've always said, the man should have just as much say about a child being born as the woman is. I know many won't agree with me, but I think if she gets pregnant, which happened because BOTH of them took part in it....that he should also have the option of making the woman have the child and give it up to him if she doesn't want it. It was both their choices to screw around, it should be both their choices to keep it.

condoms.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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?

No she's not She can still put the baby up for adoption, without the father's consent. Or she can decide to keep the baby and rape the man's bank account for the next two decades.

IMHO, and I am against abortion in nearly all cases, if the woman wants to keep the baby and she is not married, then she has that option. The father of the baby should have the "right" to either accept the role of "fatherhood" and all that entails including finical support and all other rights as any other father would have or give up all fatherhood rights and responsibilities including having to fund the child's life.

Then you would have true equal protection under the law.

Or she can just walk away with no consequences, leaving Dad holding the bag (and the kid, and the bills). Seen it a couple times, actually.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

A crime, perhaps. But since you dehumanize the unborn, the most you could charge this scumbag with is assault on the woman.

Remember, babies are mere lumps of flesh without value, like Jews were to the Nazis.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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?

No she's not She can still put the baby up for adoption, without the father's consent. Or she can decide to keep the baby and rape the man's bank account for the next two decades.

IMHO, and I am against abortion in nearly all cases, if the woman wants to keep the baby and she is not married, then she has that option. The father of the baby should have the "right" to either accept the role of "fatherhood" and all that entails including finical support and all other rights as any other father would have or give up all fatherhood rights and responsibilities including having to fund the child's life.

Then you would have true equal protection under the law.

Her body, she can do what she wants to it. Period

No one else can. Period.

If a man does not want the responsibility of having a child and supporting it, then HE should keep his sperm to himself. Consent to father a child and all that entails happens the moment he puts his sperm into a woman.

Yeah, because no woman has EVER lied about (or outright SABOTAGED) contraception to get her hooks into someone! Yes, it happens! Quick swipe with a push-pin and OOPS, the condom is no longer effective! Some woman can remove a condom during sex, without the man even realizing it.

 

[AmyNation]

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

A crime, perhaps. But since you dehumanize the unborn, the most you could charge this scumbag with is assault on the woman.

Remember, babies are mere lumps of flesh without value, like Jews were to the Nazis.

Did you read the OP article?

He's facing a murder charge, and she's suing him in civil court for damages.

 

[syrenn]

No she's not She can still put the baby up for adoption, without the father's consent. Or she can decide to keep the baby and rape the man's bank account for the next two decades.

IMHO, and I am against abortion in nearly all cases, if the woman wants to keep the baby and she is not married, then she has that option. The father of the baby should have the "right" to either accept the role of "fatherhood" and all that entails including finical support and all other rights as any other father would have or give up all fatherhood rights and responsibilities including having to fund the child's life.

Then you would have true equal protection under the law.

Her body, she can do what she wants to it. Period

No one else can. Period.

If a man does not want the responsibility of having a child and supporting it, then HE should keep his sperm to himself. Consent to father a child and all that entails happens the moment he puts his sperm into a woman.

Yeah, because no woman has EVER lied about (or outright SABOTAGED) contraception to get her hooks into someone! Yes, it happens! Quick swipe with a push-pin and OOPS, the condom is no longer effective! Some woman can remove a condom during sex, without the man even realizing it.

again, if a man does not want the responsibility of paying for a child, he should keep his sperm to himself.

there is more then one way to do that, a condom is not the only way.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Baby Dies After Man Allegedly Tricks Girlfriend Into Taking an Abortion Pill | Video | TheBlaze.com



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 you can.

You’d understand that if you knew the difference between civil law and criminal law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

People that are for abortions will say it's not murder, the baby wasn't far enough along to matter. People against abortions will call it murder. Which it is. The guy didn't want to get stuck paying child support, so he took it all into his own hands...and murdered that baby.

What I see now though, are people using this to abort on their own instead of going to a Dr.

You’re as ignorant as the OP.

The man is being prosecuted because he violated criminal law,

The state cannot dictate to private citizens whether they may have a child or not, that’s a violation of civil law.

Neither the state nor a private person may tell a woman she may, or may not, have an abortion; that’s for the women alone to decide in the context of her right to privacy.

 

[Wolfsister77]

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

A crime, perhaps. But since you dehumanize the unborn, the most you could charge this scumbag with is assault on the woman.

Remember, babies are mere lumps of flesh without value, like Jews were to the Nazis.

Actually he can be charged for both the assault of the woman and the death of the unborn. It's a crime what he did.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 prior to birth, a woman’s privacy rights are paramount:

It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.....

There are drugs that bring on labor. Those drugs are controlled substances that are not sold by the local WallyWorld.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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?

I hope that's the way the law sees it. Just as if she had wanted an abortion, the decision should be the woman's.

Period.