• 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]

Men have a choice too

They can have a medical procedure which will prevent pregnancy. It's called a vasectomy

Intellectually and morally dishonest. Women have choices once pregnancy occurs-- they can have an abortion or give their child up for adoption, either without consulting the biological father. Men are held financially responsible for the woman's decision to have and keep the baby. This is neither fair nor just.
 
Intellectually and morally dishonest. Women have choices once pregnancy occurs-- they can have an abortion or give their child up for adoption, either without consulting the biological father. Men are held financially responsible for the woman's decision to have and keep the baby. This is neither fair nor just.

Men can have abortions too. I know of no law that forbids a man from having an abortion.

And both men and women are held financially responsible for supporting their children
 
Men can have abortions too. I know of no law that forbids a man from having an abortion.

Again, morally and intellectually dishonest.

And both men and women are held financially responsible for supporting their children

Yes. But when a woman is financially responsible for supporting a child, it's because she made the decision to have and keep the child. When a man is financially responsible for supporting a child, it is because a woman has made that decision for him. That is unjust.
 
Your arguments have no grounding in reality.

1) Rights can not be denied because a person did not exercise them at some point in the past

2) A woman who has custody of her children is required to properly care for them.

What rights are you referring to? You made the statement that a man's only power in the decision making process is to have a vasectomy before he has sex. Why shouldn't women have hysterectomies before they have sex if they don't want to have a baby? That sounds really fair to me.

And no, your initial statement was wrong. The check is made out to the woman. All she has to do is feed the kid ramen and pick up some clothes at the salvation army. That several hundred dollars a month can be used on anything her heart desires.
 
What rights are you referring to? You made the statement that a man's only power in the decision making process is to have a vasectomy before he has sex. Why shouldn't women have hysterectomies before they have sex if they don't want to have a baby? That sounds really fair to me.

And no, your initial statement was wrong. The check is made out to the woman. All she has to do is feed the kid ramen and pick up some clothes at the salvation army. That several hundred dollars a month can be used on anything her heart desires.

You are lying. I never said that having a vasectomy was the only power or choice that a man has.

These laws are fair. They only seem unfair to the whiners who think men are oppressed because they lack self-control
 
These laws are fair. They only seem unfair to the whiners who think men are oppressed because they lack self-control

Don't give us this ****. We've all seen how butthurt you get when you apply the same logic to women.

All I'm asking for is a little moral and intellectual consistency.
 
You are lying. I never said that having a vasectomy was the only power or choice that a man has.

These laws are fair. They only seem unfair to the whiners who think men are oppressed because they lack self-control

Oh? Let's take a look at it again:

Men have a choice too

They can have a medical procedure which will prevent pregnancy. It's called a vasectomy

So direct quote, from you, is that men have ONE choice, and it's called a VASECTOMY. So it's actually EXACTLY word-for-word what you said. Want to call me a liar again?

Seeing as how you said that, and then said that men and women have equal choices, that means you believe women should never be able to have abortion, because they should've had a hysterectomy if they didn't want to get pregnant.

Don't give us this ****. We've all seen how butthurt you get when you apply the same logic to women.

All I'm asking for is a little moral and intellectual consistency.

That's asking too much from Sangha. He now is trying to say he never said men can only get a vasectomy.
 
Last edited:
Oh? Let's take a look at it again:



So direct quote, from you, is that men have ONE choice, and it's called a VASECTOMY. So it's actually EXACTLY word-for-word what you said. Want to call me a liar again?

Seeing as how you said that, and then said that men and women have equal choices, that means you believe women should never be able to have abortion, because they should've had a hysterectomy if they didn't want to get pregnant.



That's asking too much from Sangha. He now is trying to say he never said men can only get a vasectomy.

Saying that someone ha a choice does not mean that someone has only one choice
 
Saying that someone ha a choice does not mean that someone has only one choice

Go ahead, then. Tell us what other choices you believe men have. Just don't mention "keeping it in his pants" when you admit that telling a woman to "keep her legs shut" is misogynist.
 
1) Keeping it in his pants

2) Using BC

In other words, the exact same sexist bull**** that you decry when pro-lifers apply it to women. Do you not see your own hypocrisy even when it is pointed right out to you?
 
I'll have to take your word for it because I don't remember any of your comments in this thread :shrug:
That was the first. I thought I'd get that out of the way in advance to avoid the label later.
 
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.

I can't imagine how hurt and upset she could possibly be by everything this guy did. She trusted him and he drugged her, and caused her to miscarry. It's the ultimate betrayal, and I can't imagine she even suspected him capable of this.


Miscarrying can be physically painful and an emotional rollercoaster. But the fact the guy would even put her health and safety in danger to induce miscarriage is beyond selfish.


He didn't respect her choice, her rights, or her body.

The guy is a total piece of crap.
 
I agree
completely that it's a crime. Some sort of very serious assault.

But if the charge is first-degree murder...it is specifically about the rights of the fetus. The woman was not murdered.

His actions obviously hurt the woman, so the crime and punishment shouldn't just be about the fetus.
 
Fla. Man Accused of Killing Ex-Girlfriend's Fetus - ABC News

Ex-girlfriend was six weeks, five days pregnant, by her ex-boyfriend. Ex-boyfriend didn't want to have a child, ex-girlfriend did.

Ex-boyfriend tricked her into taking a pill that caused her to go into labor and lose the "baby".

He is now charged with first-degree murder.

Doesn't the crime of murder require a "person" to be killed? Doesn't abortion law tell us that a fetus that is six weeks, five days old is not a person?

Shouldn't the pro-choice, pro-abortion crowd be outraged that this charge was laid and what is the impact going forward if he is convicted of first-degree murder?
Good.

"Fetus" is a medical and biological term used often by people to squeamish to proclaim their proud advocacy of homicide.

I hope that he is convicted, and this establishes firm case law.

Human life either is special and unique or it is not. If it is, and than is accepted by the people of this world, you can have the existence that outlook would produce. If it isn't, then you can have the ball of pain, suffering and death that you have now.
 
I
agree with you completely, but CanadaJohn has a point. Does the charge of "first-degree murder" make sense in this case? That is the issue here.

I am not sure what first degree, second, or third degree murder means or the.differences. It's likely the guy isn't a threat to many people or violent, IDK.

I think the law and punishment should fit the crime. I don't think the charges and punishment should be about making political points. If the guy viciously murdered his ex, then I'd consider him more of a danger to others.
 
Therefore, why can't a man initiate the
laying of a similar charge when the woman initiates the end of the "child in utero's" life?

Whatever you want to call it otherwise, the guy here simply performed an abortion. Granted, it was against the woman's choice, but it wasn't a violent act such as he didn't try to kill her but only killed the child or he didn't kick and beat her causing her to miscarry. All he did was what any doctor involved in ending a pregnancy in the first 9 weeks would do.

By your logic, if you want to commit "murder" of a fetus, it's ok, but if you don't want to, the same act is first-degree murder.

This isn't preforming a surgical abortion. There are abortion pills, but this isn't comparable to giving a person a script. This is more like being drugged.
 
Sorry, but you justify it by claiming it's
not a person. It's a woman choosing to remove a wart, not a woman choosing to end a life.

By charging this as murder, it is society saying that some people have the right to "kill" but others don't. It says that the woman is in charge of this "life" and no-one else. There was a time in America when black people were owned and their lives were in the hands of their owners. This charge implies that the woman is the sole person able to end this life - she owns the life - sounds like the modern day definition of slavery to me.

This is absurd. Slavery and murder are two different things. Yes, many slaves were murdered and didn't have equal rights. However, being a slave in America has an entirely distinct history and treatment of people as property, literally people were bought, sold, and auctioned off.

As much as you may hate abortion, to compare it to oppression, like the unborn is suffering oppression or is being treated as a slave is absurd. It ignores a lot of things about slavery that didn't relate to ending lives. Raping women and children, separating families, and selling children covered in scars from whips is just disgusting and shameful. that doesn't compare to abortion.
 
Assault and unlicensed abortion, sure. Probably
the proper charges here.

Isn't it a crime to.illegally perform an abortion? I am sure that would require falsely running a clinic and performing procedures. I don't think that that fits here. IDK.

I don't consider what he did performing an abortion though.

It's not illegal to perform brain surgery, but it's not legal to perform it on your wife or friend without their knowledge. People have to agree and consent to medical procedures and treatment.
 
That's another one of the big issues with
pro-choice. They believe only the woman should have any say whatsoever in the life of the child. The man can just go **** himself, his opinion doesn't matter.

He kills the baby: "It's MURDER!"
She kills the baby: "It's her FREEDOM, it's not a human being!!"

I know what the law you posted says, but that doesn't make it intellectually consistent. Either the fetus is a human being or it isn't, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Do you think abortion is murder or not? If a woman did this to her instead of a man, would you agree with the murder charge?
 
Sure, the women get all the money while the men get ZERO part of the decision. That sounds super equal.

This is not true. If men fight for shared parenting, they won't owe child support. That happened to my.sister.

She got no child support or alimony, and she didn't sign a prenup.
 
This is absurd. Slavery and murder are two different things. Yes, many slaves were murdered and didn't have equal rights. However, being a slave in America has an entirely distinct history and treatment of people as property, literally people were bought, sold, and auctioned off.

As much as you may hate abortion, to compare it to oppression, like the unborn is suffering oppression or is being treated as a slave is absurd. It ignores a lot of things about slavery that didn't relate to ending lives. Raping women and children, separating families, and selling children covered in scars from whips is just disgusting and shameful. that doesn't compare to abortion.
And guess what? Almost all those people got to live, have children and those children got to be free, and usually prosper.

Aborted children get to be dead.

As practices, casual, elective Abortion is a far worse abomination than slavery, which does nothing to make slavery less evil. The slave may hope to be freed, or for his children to be freed. He may appeal to the affections and mercies of his master. He may have hope. Aborted children are denied any appeal to mercy or affection, hope is denied them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom