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

[Sarah G]

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

I don't trust hatebear or her links. It's likely some whacko religious wingnut website and that is why you would know and believe everything about it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

I don't trust hatebear or her links. It's likely some whacko religious wingnut website and that is why you would know and believe everything about it.

I thought the same thing when I saw it was blaze but it linked to a more reputable link where the drug was named.

 

[Noomi]

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

The woman wanted to keep it, and the boyfriend didn't want to be a man and take responsibility, so he gave her a pill to make her miscarry.
Under the law, that is a crime, and he should suffer the consequences.

You cannot force a woman to have an abortion.

 

[S.J.]

Being pro life, I think he committed murder, BUT the pro choice people say the fetus is NOT a person, so they really don't have a leg to stand on if they want him prosecuted for murder. Can't say on the one hand that the fetus is not a person if the mother wants it dead, but say it IS a person if somebody ELSE wants it dead. It's either a person or it's not.

 

[varelse]

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.

And she made her decision when she spread her legs, right?

You have a law here which says it's okay for A to kill B, but not for C to kill B, based on the insane mental gymnastics that B's status as a person with the fundamental right to life is wholly subject to the whims of A.

It's like Rome saying that it's okay for your father to kill you, but murder for anyone else to.

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.

And if she doesn't want the responsibility of a having a child and support it, she should keep her legs closed, right. Consent to birth a child and all that entails happens the moment she put a penis in her vagina.

Or are women stupid, retarded, helpless little subhumans lacking the intelligence to make responsible decisions, in need of a way 'out' because they are incapable of controlling the urge to whore around or use birth control?

Why do you think men are capable of being responsible for their actions while women aren't? I find yours to be quite a misogynistic position.


As for the OP, it can't be murder for one person to kill it and not for another to. That's just plain stupid and nonsensical. I would imagine there'd be some law regarding his giving her a drug without her knowledge- some sort of assault, perhaps.

I wonder how many people calling this murder would have no problem with her killing the kid without telling him... you know, doing the exact same thing, as far as killing the child is concerned.

 

[editec]

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

It can't be murder.

It can.

You can't have it both ways.

It is not both ways. You'll understand why in a second

Either a baby is a person, and this is murder, or a baby isn't a person and abortion is ok.

Those aren't OUR choices, lad. WE do not have choices.

Saying that we get to decide whether a person is a person on a case by case basis is wrong, and evil.

Again with the WE? What delusional arrogance makes you think you have the right to decide about anything involving her womb?

That is how we had slavery and basically every genocide in history

Nonsense non sequiturs do not a convincing conclusion make, lad.

 

[hboats]

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

I don't trust hatebear or her links. It's likely some whacko religious wingnut website and that is why you would know and believe everything about it.

Because you know me well enough to say that i'm a "whacko religious wingnut?" Wow, you just seem to know a lot for someone who is supremely uninformed.

Rick

 

[AmyNation]

Being pro life, I think he committed murder, BUT the pro choice people say the fetus is NOT a person, so they really don't have a leg to stand on if they want him prosecuted for murder. Can't say on the one hand that the fetus is not a person if the mother wants it dead, but say it IS a person if somebody ELSE wants it dead. It's either a person or it's not.

Except there is a third option, which is what the law says. He should be charged to the full extent of the law, and punished accordingly.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did you read the OP article?

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

Again, "Murder" flies in the face of abortion law. Our courts have declared babies to be non-entities to be disposed of with no more care than fast food refuse. As such, the man CANNOT be legitimately charged with murder - at most it was assault on the woman. The pro-death lobby want's it both ways, but that is irrational. Either the baby is alive, or it isn't. Decide.

 

[AmyNation]

Did you read the OP article?

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

Again, "Murder" flies in the face of abortion law. Our courts have declared babies to be non-entities to be disposed of with no more care than fast food refuse. As such, the man CANNOT be legitimately charged with murder - at most it was assault on the woman. The pro-death lobby want's it both ways, but that is irrational. Either the baby is alive, or it isn't. Decide.

Again, pro-life republicans passed a bill, which was signed into law by a pro-life president back in 2004 which allows this man to be charged with murder.

No matter how many of you keep trying to make this a pro-life vs pro-choice argument, it is not.

You would think youd all be happy that you have this law, instead of complaining about it so much.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Again, pro-life republicans passed a bill, which was signed into law by a pro-life president back in 2004 which allows this man to be charged with murder.

Last I checked, "murder" provisions are the purvey of the states - so no, it wasn't "BOOOOOSSSSHHHH."

What I point out is the utter hypocrisy and absurdity of the anti-life side. Sure, we ALL know it's murder - no question. But since you seek to promote abortion, you are force to claim that sometimes the baby is alive, and sometimes it isn't - depending on who wants to kill it. If the mother kills it, it was never alive - if the father kills it, it was alive.

Absurdity and hypocrisy. I further propose that it violates the 14th Amendment as it provides unequal treatment before the law.

No matter how many of you keep trying to make this a pro-life vs pro-choice argument, it is not.

It demonstrates the absurdity of the pro-abortion position.

You would think youd all be happy that you have this law, instead of complaining about it so much.

I prefer a society where one law fits all - as opposed to this one, where law depends on what group one belongs to.

 

[syrenn]

And she made her decision when she spread her legs, right?

they both made the decisions of which a possible result is a fertilized egg. The woman has the final say if she chooses to carry that egg to term.

And if she doesn't want the responsibility of a having a child and support it, she should keep her legs closed, right. Consent to birth a child and all that entails happens the moment she put a penis in her vagina.

Or are women stupid, retarded, helpless little subhumans lacking the intelligence to make responsible decisions, in need of a way 'out' because they are incapable of controlling the urge to whore around or use birth control?

Why do you think men are capable of being responsible for their actions while women aren't? I find yours to be quite a misogynistic position.

are men so stupid and helpless that the think they are not responsible for their sperm? Or are they the only ones who should enjoy sex?

I hate to break it to you, woman are being responsible when and if they choose to have an abortion. They are both responsible if she carries the pregnancy to term. Men should be happy they are off the hook in the event of a abortion according to the ones moaning about being suckered into paying for a child.

LOL, i guess it just sucks that women can choose to carry a pregnancy or not and to have final say over their bodies. .

 

[varelse]

And she made her decision when she spread her legs, right?

they both made the decisions of which a possible result is a fertilized egg. The woman has the final say if she chooses to carry that egg to term.

Then she- alone- has ultimate responsibility for that decision.

And if she doesn't want the responsibility of a having a child and support it, she should keep her legs closed, right. Consent to birth a child and all that entails happens the moment she put a penis in her vagina.

Or are women stupid, retarded, helpless little subhumans lacking the intelligence to make responsible decisions, in need of a way 'out' because they are incapable of controlling the urge to whore around or use birth control?

Why do you think men are capable of being responsible for their actions while women aren't? I find yours to be quite a misogynistic position.

are men so stupid and helpless that the think they are not responsible for their sperm? Or are they the only ones who should enjoy sex?

Are women so stupid and helpless they can't control their sexual impulses or remember to take a pill, use a foam, make use of a spermicidal lube, or see the doctor periodically to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

Men have 1 opportunity to take measures to prevent pregnancy- condoms.

Women have multiple options before [rods, IUDs, bc pills], during [spermicidal lubes, condoms, 'female condoms'] and after sex [spermicidal foams and douches, Plan B] to avoid pregnancy.

I hate to break it to you, woman are being responsible when and if they choose to have an abortion.

The man in question was exercising the exact same responsibility- killing the resulting child to avoid an unwanted live birth.

They are both responsible if she carries the pregnancy to term.

Why should they be? She decided to not use bc before, use spermicide during or after sex, use plan b after sex, or terminate the pregnancy.

If continuing the pregnancy to term is her decision alone, then it is her responsibility alone. I know you hate men, think all sex is necessarily evil and violent against women, and hate your femininity, but that's your own problem.

Your body, your choice, your responsibility. If you're too stupid or helpless to bear that responsibility alone following the birth of a child, you're too stupid or helpless to be responsible for making the decision alone.

Either women are stupid, helpless creatures and men must make the decision for them and take the responsibility for them, or women are capable of bearing the responsibility of not only the decision but its result.

Real feminism sucks, don't it, my poor little third-waver?

LOL, i guess it just sucks that women can choose to carry a pregnancy or not and to have final say over their bodies. .

We're not talking about your body. We're talking about the body and life of the child whose life you want to end.

 

[AmyNation]

Again, pro-life republicans passed a bill, which was signed into law by a pro-life president back in 2004 which allows this man to be charged with murder.

Last I checked, "murder" provisions are the purvey of the states - so no, it wasn't "BOOOOOSSSSHHHH."

What I point out is the utter hypocrisy and absurdity of the anti-life side. Sure, we ALL know it's murder - no question. But since you seek to promote abortion, you are force to claim that sometimes the baby is alive, and sometimes it isn't - depending on who wants to kill it. If the mother kills it, it was never alive - if the father kills it, it was alive.

Absurdity and hypocrisy. I further propose that it violates the 14th Amendment as it provides unequal treatment before the law.

No matter how many of you keep trying to make this a pro-life vs pro-choice argument, it is not.

It demonstrates the absurdity of the pro-abortion position.

You would think youd all be happy that you have this law, instead of complaining about it so much.

I prefer a society where one law fits all - as opposed to this one, where law depends on what group one belongs to.

According to the OP's article

"Welden could face life behind bars without parole if he is found guilty of murder under the “Protection of Unborn Children Act,” a federal statute. He also faces ramifications for tampering with a prescription, the Tribune reports."

I'd also like to point out the , "Protection of Unborn Children Act" was opposed by pro-choice representatives, but passed anyway.

 

[syrenn]

And she made her decision when she spread her legs, right?

they both made the decisions of which a possible result is a fertilized egg. The woman has the final say if she chooses to carry that egg to term.

Then she- alone- has ultimate responsibility for that decision.

And if she doesn't want the responsibility of a having a child and support it, she should keep her legs closed, right. Consent to birth a child and all that entails happens the moment she put a penis in her vagina.

Or are women stupid, retarded, helpless little subhumans lacking the intelligence to make responsible decisions, in need of a way 'out' because they are incapable of controlling the urge to whore around or use birth control?

Why do you think men are capable of being responsible for their actions while women aren't? I find yours to be quite a misogynistic position.
Are women so stupid and helpless they can't control their sexual impulses or remember to take a pill, use a foam, make use of a spermicidal lube, or see the doctor periodically to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

Men have 1 opportunity to take measures to prevent pregnancy- condoms.

Women have multiple options before [rods, IUDs, bc pills], during [spermicidal lubes, condoms, 'female condoms'] and after sex [spermicidal foams and douches, Plan B] to avoid pregnancy.
The man in question was exercising the exact same responsibility- killing the resulting child to avoid an unwanted live birth.Why should they be? She decided to not use bc before, use spermicide during or after sex, use plan b after sex, or terminate the pregnancy.

If continuing the pregnancy to term is her decision alone, then it is her responsibility alone. I know you hate men, think all sex is necessarily evil and violent against women, and hate your femininity, but that's your own problem.

Your body, your choice, your responsibility. If you're too stupid or helpless to bear that responsibility alone following the birth of a child, you're too stupid or helpless to be responsible for making the decision alone.

Either women are stupid, helpless creatures and men must make the decision for them and take the responsibility for them, or women are capable of bearing the responsibility of not only the decision but its result.

Real feminism sucks, don't it, my poor little third-waver?

LOL, i guess it just sucks that women can choose to carry a pregnancy or not and to have final say over their bodies. .

We're not talking about your body. We're talking about the body and life of the child whose life you want to end.

Men have three ways to prevent pregnancy. Keep it in their pants. Get a vasectomy or use a condom. Once the sperm is delivered he looses all say in the matter.

Bottom line if the man in question took the pills himself then its all good.

He did not, he poisoned someone else to achieve his own ends. It was not his body or his option.

 

[Montrovant]

I fall very much on the pro-choice side of things. No one should be liable for murder if they are responsible for the death of a fetus before it reaches viability. It is a double standard, however anyone might try to spin it.

Be honest. If abortion for convenience is legal under the assumption that the fetus is not yet a person, causing the death of that fetus cannot be causing the death of a person. That does NOT mean this man shouldn't be charged with a crime(s). I'm sure there are any number of laws or statutes under which his actions fall. What he did was immoral and should be illegal. It should not be acceptable to charge him with murder, however.

Now, AmyNation has brought up the Protection of Unborn Children Act as the reason murder can be assigned as a charge in this case. That may well be true, and it simply makes that Act a piss-poor piece of legislation.

Charge him with assault, poisoning, various drug charges, but leave murder out of it.

This post assumes that the pregnancy was not far enough along for a viable fetus. The article didn't specify that I noticed.

 

[AmyNation]

I fall very much on the pro-choice side of things. No one should be liable for murder if they are responsible for the death of a fetus before it reaches viability. It is a double standard, however anyone might try to spin it.

Be honest. If abortion for convenience is legal under the assumption that the fetus is not yet a person, causing the death of that fetus cannot be causing the death of a person. That does NOT mean this man shouldn't be charged with a crime(s). I'm sure there are any number of laws or statutes under which his actions fall. What he did was immoral and should be illegal. It should not be acceptable to charge him with murder, however.

Now, AmyNation has brought up the Protection of Unborn Children Act as the reason murder can be assigned as a charge in this case. That may well be true, and it simply makes that Act a piss-poor piece of legislation.

Charge him with assault, poisoning, various drug charges, but leave murder out of it.

This post assumes that the pregnancy was not far enough along for a viable fetus. The article didn't specify that I noticed.

Now, that may well be true, but no one has argued over the legislation.


The only argument I see is a desperate bid by pro-life advocates to see hypocrisy where there is none by crying that the man is being charged with murder while ignoring that the law passed by pro-life advocates is the reason for this charge.

 

[varelse]

Men have three ways to prevent pregnancy. Keep it in their pants. Get a vasectomy or use a condom. Once the sperm is delivered he looses all say in the matter.

Women can keep their clothes on, get a hysterectomy, or use a condom- or use the pill, Plan B, Depo shots, the rods, IUDs, or any of a number of other means of preventing pregnancy. Once the sperm is invited, she loses all say in the matter.

Using your reasoning, a woman makes her decision when she has sex and shouldn't be having sex if she doesn't want to have babies, especially in light of certain biological realities surrounding where babies come from.

Yours is the classic anti-choice argument typical of those who vilify female sexuality, combined with the misogynistic premise that women are incapable of the same responsible decision-making as men.

To call this man's actions murder, you call all women who abort their pregnancies at that stage murderers. You don't get to have it both ways, and the only way you've tried to have it both ways is by basically arguing that women aren't capable of being responsible for their actions and the lives they end as men are.

The only thing you can accuse this man of, without granting that abortion is inherently murder, is some form of assault against the pregnant woman and a violation of her rights by issuing her a drug without her knowledge.

 

[S.J.]

If we use the pro-choice standard (which is that the fetus is not a person), the man should be charged with aggravated assault or something similar.

 

[syrenn]

Men have three ways to prevent pregnancy. Keep it in their pants. Get a vasectomy or use a condom. Once the sperm is delivered he looses all say in the matter.

Women can keep their clothes on, get a hysterectomy, or use a condom- or use the pill, Plan B, Depo shots, the rods, IUDs, or any of a number of other means of preventing pregnancy. Once the sperm is invited, she loses all say in the matter.

Using your reasoning, a woman makes her decision when she has sex and shouldn't be having sex if she doesn't want to have babies, especially in light of certain biological realities surrounding where babies come from.

Yours is the classic anti-choice argument typical of those who vilify female sexuality, combined with the misogynistic premise that women are incapable of the same responsible decision-making as men.

To call this man's actions murder, you call all women who abort their pregnancies at that stage murderers. You don't get to have it both ways, and the only way you've tried to have it both ways is by basically arguing that women aren't capable of being responsible for their actions and the lives they end as men are.

The only thing you can accuse this man of, without granting that abortion is inherently murder, is some form of assault against the pregnant woman and a violation of her rights by issuing her a drug without her knowledge.

I suggest you read the laws. Yes, murder charges can and most likely will be sought. That has nothing to do with me.

You were the one saying that a woman should keep her legs closed. So that is your argument and reasoning, not mine. Im sorry you didnt like it being applied to men. Do try and keep up.

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.

And she made her decision when she spread her legs, right?

You have a law here which says it's okay for A to kill B, but not for C to kill B, based on the insane mental gymnastics that B's status as a person with the fundamental right to life is wholly subject to the whims of A.

It's like Rome saying that it's okay for your father to kill you, but murder for anyone else to.

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.

And if she doesn't want the responsibility of a having a child and support it, she should keep her legs closed, right. Consent to birth a child and all that entails happens the moment she put a penis in her vagina.

Or are women stupid, retarded, helpless little subhumans lacking the intelligence to make responsible decisions, in need of a way 'out' because they are incapable of controlling the urge to whore around or use birth control?

Why do you think men are capable of being responsible for their actions while women aren't? I find yours to be quite a misogynistic position.


As for the OP, it can't be murder for one person to kill it and not for another to. That's just plain stupid and nonsensical. I would imagine there'd be some law regarding his giving her a drug without her knowledge- some sort of assault, perhaps.

I wonder how many people calling this murder would have no problem with her killing the kid without telling him... you know, doing the exact same thing, as far as killing the child is concerned.