• 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]

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,820
Reaction score
20,493
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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?
 
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?

It is completely outrageous. It is pretty baldly stating that a murder charge can be laid based solely on a woman's right to choose.
 
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?

From your article

"Whenever a woman is robbed of her ability to give birth and have a child, I don't think there's any greater harm you can cause somebody," said Lee's attorney, Gil Sanchez. "She's devastated. She still can't believe this happened to her."

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.
 
Curious why it is a FEDERAL case, rather than a state court case. I also would like to see the actual charge and relevant statute, not the lay-language used by the media.
 
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 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.
 
Meh. Man poisoned his girlfriend to take away her right to decide whether or not to have a baby. He may not be guilty of "murder" in my eyes, but I'll be damned if I feel sorry for him.
 
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 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.
 
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'm not suggesting the guy shouldn't be charged - he could be charged with assault, administering a drug improperly, or some other more appropriate charge. But first-degree murder? Who was murdered - since the law says nobody exists?

If a woman can have a man who doesn't want a baby charged with first-degree murder for causing the "abortion", is it such a far reach for a man to have a woman who doesn't want a baby charged with first-degree murder for ending her pregnancy?
 
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.

"Malicious wounding" sounds about right. "Mayhem", "grievous bodily harm". None of those carry the same penalty as murder in the first... but there are circumstances under which I'd have no problem with imposing the same penalty for lesser offenses.
 
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 don't know how much that one, specific line matters but he's still charged with first degree murder, not depriving her a right to choose something.
 
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.

Under the Unborn Victims of Violence, the charge is the same as if the harm had come to the mother

(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, 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.
 
Doesn't that law usually only come into play when a woman is murdered and her unborn child dies too? A murder with special circumstances, such as the Peterson murder in California a few years back.

No, it doesn't
 
"Malicious wounding" sounds about right. "Mayhem", "grievous bodily harm". None of those carry the same penalty as murder in the first... but there are circumstances under which I'd have no problem with imposing the same penalty for lesser offenses.

See, I'm all for the man being charged with murder because I believe the fetus is a human being deserving of protection, but that's not what the women's right to choose - pro-abortion crowd believes and preaches.
 

I was wrong, yes, according to the bizarre legalities of the case...but I was obviously not wrong in asserting that the woman was not murdered.

Again, it is a law in which a person's guilt is established solely on the choice of the woman. Further, it established on her say-so, even if she is not being truthful.

I'm not speaking from some "men are alweays victimized" theme...nor do I oppose abortion. In fact, I think abortion laws should be generally more liberal, access easier, the woman's choice as all-important.

This, however, is an entirely different matter.
 
See, I'm all for the man being charged with murder because I believe the fetus is a human being deserving of protection, but that's not what the women's right to choose - pro-abortion crowd believes and preaches.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act specifies that the charge for the crime will be the same charge "for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother. "

Under UVVA, the fetus is technically known as the "child in utero" and not "person"
 
I was wrong, yes, according to the bizarre legalities of the case...but I was obviously not wrong in asserting that the woman was not murdered.

Again, it is a law in which a person's guilt is established solely on the choice of the woman. Further, it established on her say-so, even if she is not being truthful.

I'm not speaking from some "men are alweays victimized" theme...nor do I oppose abortion. In fact, I think abortion laws should be generally more liberal, access easier, the woman's choice as all-important.

This, however, is an entirely different matter.

Yes, the woman was not murdered.

But her "say so" doesn't matter. Whether or not she was going to have an abortion doesn't matter because regardless, the perp took her ability to make that choice away.
 
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act specifies that the charge for the crime will be the same charge "for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother. "

Under UVVA, the fetus is technically known as the "child in utero" and not "person"

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.
 
Yes, the woman was not murdered.

But her "say so" doesn't matter. Whether or not she was going to have an abortion doesn't matter because regardless, the perp took her ability to make that choice away.

Just so. Like I said, a serious crime.
 
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?

Because a woman ending her pregnancy does not interfere with a mans ability to end any pregnancy he may have


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.

For one thing, it's not *my* logic; it's the law

And the law doesn't say that it is murder; It says the person who committed the act will be charged with murder.
 
Because a woman ending her pregnancy does not interfere with a mans ability to end any pregnancy he may have

For one thing, it's not *my* logic; it's the law

And the law doesn't say that it is murder; It says the person who committed the act will be charged with murder.

Fair enough - just from my perspective, pro-choice women, men as well, who believe that a six week, five day old fetus is just a clump of DNA and not a life should oppose such a charge - it gives courts the opportunity to expand the definition of "person".
 
Fair enough - just from my perspective, pro-choice women, men as well, who believe that a six week, five day old fetus is just a clump of DNA and not a life should oppose such a charge - it gives courts the opportunity to expand the definition of "person".

Why would people who support a person's right to choose be OK when someone takes away a person ability to choose?
 
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?

The child being killed isn't in his body. She can kill it without doing any harm whatsoever to him.

Also, I would argue that it's her baby alone until she offers it to him and he accepts... as long as it's in her womb, it isn't anybody's baby but her own.

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.

Meh. I see your point, but I wouldn't have wanted him charged with first-degree murder in the first place. I'm just comfortable with it because I'm comfortable with handing out capital sentences for a lot of crimes, and this is one of them-- it wasn't just assault, but it was a particularly cowardly and vicious sort of assault, similar to a rape. Far as I'm concerned, we should hang the son of a bitch.

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.

Considering where it's growing, I don't consider that logic improper in the slightest.
 
Back
Top Bottom