Man charged with murder after tricking girlfriend into taking abortion drug

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

Right, I'm the thick headed one :roll:

turtlethetaffer

The law instantly decides what's right, does it? Talk to the numerous users on this site that want pot legalized.

What I was trying to suggest was a way for both men and women to have "equal" say in the matter, even though it's not really equal. The woman still has the ultimate decision, but the man doesn't need to pay support for the child if he doesn't even want it in the first place. What's so wrong about that?

Decides what's right?  No, it decides what's legal.

Bolded:  You're doing it again, you're like a fvcking parrot. 

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Well, you keep repeating yourself and it seems pretty clear that you don't understand the decision in Roe v Wade. HoolaHoopMan

The law instantly decides what's right, does it? Talk to the numerous users on this site that want pot legalized.

What I was trying to suggest was a way for both men and women to have "equal" say in the matter, even though it's not really equal. The woman still has the ultimate decision, but the man doesn't need to pay support for the child if he doesn't even want it in the first place. What's so wrong about that?

Decides what's right?  No, it decides what legal.

Bolded:  You're doing it again, you're like a fvcking parrot. 

And basically all you've used against me is Roe V. Wade. Which was a legal matter.

I'm talking about somehting purely hypothetical. A way for both sexes to have equal say. And all you're using is a court case?

And basically all you've used against me is Roe V. Wade. Which was a legal matter.

I'm talking about somehting purely hypothetical. A way for both sexes to have equal say. And all you're using is a court case?

turtlethetaffer

Yes, I'm using a supreme court case to answer your question as to why the men have no LEGAL say in an abortion.   LEGAL, LAW, SUPREME COURT.  Do you not understand how these 3 things are important in this case? 

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

And basically all you've used against me is Roe V. Wade. Which was a legal matter.

I'm talking about somehting purely hypothetical. A way for both sexes to have equal say. And all you're using is a court case?

HoolaHoopMan

Yes, I'm using a supreme court case to answer your question as to why the men have no LEGAL say in an abortion.   LEGAL, LAW, SUPREME COURT.  Do you not understand how these 3 things are important in this case? 

Me asking why women have more say then men was more of a philisophical/ discussion question, not a literal one.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

And basically all you've used against me is Roe V. Wade. Which was a legal matter.

I'm talking about somehting purely hypothetical. A way for both sexes to have equal say. And all you're using is a court case?

turtlethetaffer

Yes, I'm using a supreme court case to answer your question as to why the men have no LEGAL say in an abortion.   LEGAL, LAW, SUPREME COURT.  Do you not understand how these 3 things are important in this case? 

Um... I never asked why men don't have a legal say? I was simply suggesting a hypothetical alternative. Nothing more.

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

Yes, I'm using a supreme court case to answer your question as to why the men have no LEGAL say in an abortion.   LEGAL, LAW, SUPREME COURT.  Do you not understand how these 3 things are important in this case? 

HoolaHoopMan

Um... I never asked why men don't have a legal say? I was simply suggesting a hypothetical alternative. Nothing more.

Edited my previous response.

The charge of murder is probably just something the prosecution is adding on in hopes for a plea bargain.

However for the question on if he should be charged with murder, I am not sure. While I don't agree with abortion, I do support the woman's right of choice (within reason). If the woman wanted the baby I kind of think it should be murder.

Why didn't he just punch her in the stomach?

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] So someone that is asleep is not a human?whipassmt

[QUOTE="xdude85"]

So it was basically an abortion yet they're calling it murder? Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

Sword-Demon

idk if it can be considered murder though.

If the woman aborted it without the consent of the guy it wouldn't be murder. :P tagyhag

Thread winner

You can't charge this guy with murder when women do this literally by the hundreds of thousands every day legally. 

I fail to see how this is murder, though that may be because it isn't murder.

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="ultimate-k"]

What a load of BS, murder? murder? GTFO of here, ye he did wrong but charging him for murder is pathetic. Its was a god dam fetus, not a alive, and women have abortions all the time without telling their partner's but its not murder then? Pure BS

ultimate-k

But the law says a fetus is not a person, you should do a little research. An if the law says the man should be charged with murder, then the law  needs to change.

I fail to see how this is murder, though that may be because it isn't murder.

The__Kraken

[QUOTE="The__Kraken"]

I fail to see how this is murder, though that may be because it isn't murder.

ThaneKrios28

Was what he did premeditated? Yes. Horrible? Yes. Illegal? I believe so. But murder? That's where things get fuzzy. And it sure does not help that American law is rather convoluted.

I'd say that you'd have to completely alter the meaning of words as well as the law in order for what happened to be considered, legally speaking, murder. But, like you, I'm no lawmaker.

[QUOTE="ThaneKrios28"][QUOTE="The__Kraken"]

I fail to see how this is murder, though that may be because it isn't murder.

The__Kraken

Was what he did premeditated? Yes. Horrible? Yes. Illegal? I believe so. But murder? That's where things get fuzzy. And it sure does not help that American law is rather convoluted.

I'd say that you'd have to completely alter the meaning of words as well as the law in order for what happened to be, legally speaking, murder. But, like you, I'm no lawmaker.

The Unites States governemnt doesn't consider a fetus a living person..........SO IT ISN'T UNDER LAW NOW STFU ABOUT IT

Most likely it will go down to Volunary Manslaughter, because he intended to do harm that would take a life. However, since there clearly was premeditation, murder is possible. Could be a landmark case. Regardless, he took a life and needs to do some serious time.

I know some pro-choice people don't agree with the man being charged with murder because it goes contrary to the idea that abortion isn't murder and the right of a woman. However, if you look at the law different circumstances can change the legal penalty of an action, if there is any penalty at all.

I mentioned earlier that Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his unborn child when he killed his pregnant wife. As far as I know his lawyers haven't been able to sucessfully get his murder charge overturned over the fact that he could claim it was an abortion.

Fact of the matter is Roe vs Wade only says the woman has the right to abort the fetus, not some third party against her consent. This is why prosecutors believe they have a case against the man and prosecutors in the Ariel Castro case believe they may have a case in charging him with murder for forcing one of his victims to have multiple miscarriages through deliberate abuse.ad1x2

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

Here's the thing... If a man doesn't want a kid, he should have that right. Now, I am NOT saying that the man should be able to make the woman have an abortion because I know it's much different for the woman. However, how is it right that if a man doesn't want a kid but the woman does, the man needs to be partially repsonsible for it, but if a woman doesn't want a kid and the man does, he has literally no say in the matter?

HoolaHoopMan

Men do have the right to not have a kid, its called not having sex.  

If a man consents to sex with a woman he's also consenting to helping raise the child by AT THE MINIMUM supporting it financially.  Men aren't given a 'choice' in these situations since its not his body.  If couples had children gestate in some 'outside' ovum then yea he'd have an equal say, but alas we don't live in a world like that. 

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]I know some pro-choice people don't agree with the man being charged with murder because it goes contrary to the idea that abortion isn't murder and the right of a woman. However, if you look at the law different circumstances can change the legal penalty of an action, if there is any penalty at all.

 

I mentioned earlier that Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his unborn child when he killed his pregnant wife. As far as I know his lawyers haven't been able to sucessfully get his murder charge overturned over the fact that he could claim it was an abortion.

 

Fact of the matter is Roe vs Wade only says the woman has the right to abort the fetus, not some third party against her consent. This is why prosecutors believe they have a case against the man and prosecutors in the Ariel Castro case believe they may have a case in charging him with murder for forcing one of his victims to have multiple miscarriages through deliberate abuse.ThaneKrios28

Maybe not, but there are plenty of people who are saying the man shouldn't be charged with murder simply because of the fact that if the woman got an abortion of her own free will it would have been legal. The law says otherwise, or the prosecutor wouldn't try to go for a murder charge he obviously wouldn't be able to make stick.

The charge is completely accurate, but inconsistent. If he's charged for murder, why is abortion legal?

Oh, and: 180movie.com. 
God bless,
Crushmaster. 

The charge is completely accurate, but inconsistent. If he's charged for murder, why is abortion legal?

Crushmaster

Roe Vs Wade says a woman has a right to get an abortion of her own free will. Doesn't say anything about someone else doing it for her without her consent, otherwise prosecutors wouldn't have charged people in the past for murder twice when they killed a pregnant woman.ad1x2

[QUOTE="ad1x2"] Roe Vs Wade says a woman has a right to get an abortion of her own free will. Doesn't say anything about someone else doing it for her without her consent, otherwise prosecutors wouldn't have charged people in the past for murder twice when they killed a pregnant woman.Crushmaster

[QUOTE="ad1x2"] Roe Vs Wade says a woman has a right to get an abortion of her own free will. Doesn't say anything about someone else doing it for her without her consent, otherwise prosecutors wouldn't have charged people in the past for murder twice when they killed a pregnant woman.Crushmaster

Sweet double standards

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]If the woman aborted it without the consent of the guy it wouldn't be murder. :P VendettaRed07

Thread winner

You can't charge this guy with murder when women do this literally by the hundreds of thousands every day legally. 

So it was basically an abortion yet they're calling it murder? Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

xdude85

(didn't read it lol but...) if someone tricks you into having an abortion I would consider that murder.  

Couldn't help but laugh at the ridiculousness of it.