• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

joko104 said:
This case does raise the problem of if a woman can abort against the man's wishes, why can't the man abort against the woman's wishes?
Click to expand...

Or why should a man have to pay child support for a baby he didn't want? It seems that the woman has all the power in the decision making process so she should also, following that logic, be the one to pay for the child as well.
 
spud_meister said:
The guy unlawfully killed a person, that's murder. There's no double standard. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You're correct, if you believe life begins at conception. If, however, you believe in the pro-choice view that life begins at "viability" then no person was killed, therefore, no murder could have been committed.

It will be interesting, at least in my view, to see if his defense includes a discussion about when life begins as a basis for determining if the charge of murder is a valid one. A lot could rest on a ruling of that issue.
 
Now thats just odd. How can he be charged with murder for killing a 6 week old unborn child?
 
spud_meister said:
It practically is under the law the guy's being prosecuted with.
Click to expand...

Yes, but not actually. It's a law in conflict with a SCOTUS ruling since abortion is ruled legal under certain circumstances, under those circumstances the fetus cannot legally be considered a person. Within the time frame that abortion is legal, one should not be able to be charged with murder of the fetus; it's inconsistent.
 
I'm surprised we haven't had many of the usual adamantly pro-choice women chime in on the issue as yet. Perhaps it's girls' night out.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, but not actually. It's a law in conflict with a SCOTUS ruling since abortion is ruled legal under certain circumstances, under those circumstances the fetus cannot legally be considered a person. Within the time frame that abortion is legal, one should not be able to be charged with murder of the fetus; it's inconsistent.
Click to expand...

From my perspective, the real complication is that the guy actually performed an illegal abortion. He used the medication that doctors use when inducing labor within the first 9 weeks of pregnancy to abort the child.
 
CanadaJohn said:
From my perspective, the real complication is that the guy actually performed an illegal abortion. He used the medication that doctors use when inducing labor within the first 9 weeks of pregnancy to abort the child.
Click to expand...

If you had been this honest from the start, maybe more people would have humoured your initial premise.
 
CanadaJohn said:
From my perspective, the real complication is that the guy actually performed an illegal abortion. He used the medication that doctors use when inducing labor within the first 9 weeks of pregnancy to abort the child.
Click to expand...

Assault and unlicensed abortion, sure. Probably the proper charges here.
 
sangha said:
Don't you understand what it means when a poster puts a phrase in quotes? Yeesh!!
Click to expand...

Yes, and you were using the term "an unborn child" in your quote. Why use the term anywhere if you don't believe it?
 
Hatuey said:
If you had been this honest from the start, maybe more people would have humoured your initial premise.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you'll have to show me where in this thread I've been anything but honest with my views.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Sorry, you'll have to show me where in this thread I've been anything but honest with my views.
Click to expand...

First post.
Your illogical conclusion that because something may "not exist" to those who advocate for choice, forcing somebody to have an abortion does not infringe on a) their understanding of where starts b) the choice they've already made etc.
 
Hatuey said:
First post.
Your illogical conclusion that because something may "not exist" to those who advocate for choice, forcing somebody to have an abortion does not infringe on a) their understanding of where starts b) the choice they've already made etc.
Click to expand...

Got an English translation for that - and one that specifically references my words, not your interpretation of my words?
 
sangha said:
From your article



Notice how even the girls lawyer is not arguing that the fetus had any rights. Instead, he is arguing that the girl was deprived of her right to choose whether or not to have a child.

No matter how hard you try to twist the facts, the truth is that this case is supported by the pro-choice philosophy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as to the matter of choice that's true. But the charge isn't "denial of choice" it's murder. The whole pro-abortion rationale is based in great part on the idea that the fetus isn't a human being. That's their rationale. So it seems they are willing to throw that out the window whenever it's convenient.
 
per how the LAW is written the guy CAN be CHARGED with murder :shrug:

I actually like how this sub-law is written because it totally violates the womans rights, risked her life and endangered her. Giving her that pill against her will should be at least attempted murder on her.
but either way from my understanding its uncommon that the murder charges stick but i have no issue with it

as for the number of times i read posters say "pro-life" opinion/definition/views etc i laughed every time because if honest posters know anything, its blanket statements like that are always complete failures.

i have said many times that all those terms are meaningless to the actual abortion debate but i have argued what they mean when people lie about them or dont understand them.
 
LowDown said:
Yeah, as to the matter of choice that's true. But the charge isn't "denial of choice" it's murder. The whole pro-abortion rationale is based in great part on the idea that the fetus isn't a human being. That's their rationale. So it seems they are willing to throw that out the window whenever it's convenient.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you're saying, but it's not likely a pro-choice decision to charge this man with murder - it's likely comes from pro-life sympathies, those of the pregnant woman and those of the prosecutor. It's why I asked for pro-choicers to comment to see if they agree with the charge or are troubled by it.
 
The threshold question is Are there one or two victims here? 1) Mother and 2) Child.

1) Mother: Certainly as an adult human being, there has been a battery upon the mother and depending on the relevant statutes, it could be aggravated battery or mayhem, plus all other related criminal and civil charges.

2) Child: Was there a living child killed? This is the central issue. The ramifications of concluding that a live baby was killed will be extensive and strike at the moving mechanism of Roe v Wade. Are the abortionists serious in arguing that an unborn fetus is not a baby or was that conclusion a political correctness for convenience sake and to get the female vote?

Think of the ramifications of concluding a living baby was killed. How many millions of living babies have then been killed by their own mothers since Roe v Wade?

Rightly or wrongly, it's difficult to believe that a court would take a step that large.
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
I agree with what you're saying, but it's not likely a pro-choice decision to charge this man with murder - it's likely comes from pro-life sympathies, those of the pregnant woman and those of the prosecutor. It's why I asked for pro-choicers to comment to see if they agree with the charge or are troubled by it.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that pro choice people are at loggerheads with themselves if they support these charges, particularly the charge of murder. I'm all for charging the guy with whatever is appropriate for the act of sneeking the woman a foreign substance that has an undesired effect, but murder can't be sustained, it seems to me, not with Roe v Wade, which strongly implies that the fetus is not a human being in the early stages of pregnancy, i.e., there is a human there that the state my enact laws to protect later but not earlier.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Why is it a mistake to say it's "his baby" while it's growing inside her womb? Unless, of course, there is a question of paternity, I don't see the issue.
Click to expand...

It can't be his baby while it's part of her body. Even leaving aside the issue of her bodily autonomy, he's incapable of acting toward that child in any paternal capacity until after it is born.
 
Grant said:
Or why should a man have to pay child support for a baby he didn't want? It seems that the woman has all the power in the decision making process so she should also, following that logic, be the one to pay for the child as well.
Click to expand...

The man does have a choice. He can choose to keep his pants zipped. After the spermatozoa have fled the flesh flute it's out of his hands, so to speak.
 
LowDown said:
Yeah, as to the matter of choice that's true. But the charge isn't "denial of choice" it's murder. The whole pro-abortion rationale is based in great part on the idea that the fetus isn't a human being. That's their rationale. So it seems they are willing to throw that out the window whenever it's convenient.
Click to expand...

Nope

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother
Click to expand...

Murder is a charge under United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1111

In this case, they are being charged under United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841

Not the same
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom