Man sentenced to 13 years for tricking girlfriend into taking abortion pill

[CZroe]

If denying choice is a serious serious crime then isn't denying men the right to reproductive choice a serious crime?

Supposedly, this choice involves what one does with ones own body. The man made his reproductive choice already.

 

[Exophase]

Of course, it's entirely proper to send people to jail to ensure society can honor women by ensuring no infringements whatsoever on their right to kill clumps of parasitic cells with no consequences. I'd put it in the pantheon with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 for its importance.

Yet what you're saying has nothing to do with the actual charges in this case. Tricking someone into taking some prescription medication they're not aware of should be a very serious crime, especially if there's an intent to cause some kind of bodily harm.

 

[nehalem256]

Supposedly, this choice involves what one does with ones own body. The man made his reproductive choice already.

Sounds like exactly what right-wing conservatives say to women. Why do you hate men?

Yet what you're saying has nothing to do with the actual charges in this case. Tricking someone into taking some prescription medication they're not aware of should be a very serious crime, especially if there's an intent to cause some kind of bodily harm.

Come on now. If someone slipped a man some laxatives it wouldn't be considered a serious crime, more like a bit for a comedy.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Sounds like exactly what right-wing conservatives say to women. Why do you hate men?

Say? More like try to make it a law. As in, if you are raped and are pregnant, you must still keep the child kind of law.

Right-wing conservatives want a woman's vagina on lock down. So far as to demand it's acknowledged that a pregnancy won't happen, unless a woman wants it - even when it's rape. As in, it's not rape, unless the woman is wet and/or gets pregnant. Therefore, she allowed it, and should be responsible for it.

Whatever fantasy "war on men" you think exists, is no where near to what the right-wingers are doing.

I hope you don't ignore this next part, but, I suspect you will; men are indeed treated unfairly when it comes to parenthood. But, parenthood ONLY.As in divorces and what not.

Men are NOT treated, and are not held to special standards, when it comes to sex. Because it just takes ONE person to prevent a pregnancy. If you have unprotected sex, and expect the woman to worry about not getting pregnant - then you deserve whatever comes to you,.. and that mentality is what led to the unfair treatement of men in parenthood related trails.

This also goes for women. But, as a man, a true thinking smart and intelligent man, you figure out if you need to put on a rain coat or not. Scoffing and throwing that responsibility to woman means you lack responsibility and damn well deserve getting dragged through the coals.

It's not hating men - it's hating stupid dolts.

 

[nehalem256]

Say? More like try to make it a law. As in, if you are raped and are pregnant, you must still keep the child kind of law.

And if you are a male and raped repeatedly for 3 years you still have to pay child support.

A 15-year-old boy who was raped by a 34-year-old woman now faces child support in Nebraska.

This is the case for now 19-year-old Jeremy Steen, of Lincoln, Nebraska. In 2008, Steen was seduced and raped repeatedly by his 34-year-old baby sitter Linda Kazinsky. Sources testified that the sexual abuse took place weekly for nearly 3 years. After police were alerted, Ms. Kazinsky was arrested and charged with statutory rape and false imprisonment.

...

Jeremy had his day in court and was ordered to pay $475 a month in child support to Linda Kazinsky as well as a whopping $23,000 in back Child Support payments.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11149730

Whatever fantasy "war on men" you think exists, is no where near to what the right-wingers are doing.

It's not hating men - it's hating stupid dolts.

So a teenage boy is stupid for being raped by a woman 2 decades older than him?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

And if you are a male and raped repeatedly for 3 years you still have to pay child support.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11149730



So a teenage boy is stupid for being raped by a woman 2 decades older than him?

Holy FUCK!

That is sad and at the same time FRIGHTENING

 

[Newell Steamer]

So a teenage boy is stupid for being raped by a woman 2 decades older than him?

You ignored this tidbit,..

This also goes for women. But, as a man, a true thinking smart and intelligent man, you figure out if you need to put on a rain coat or not. Scoffing and throwing that responsibility to woman means you lack responsibility and damn well deserve getting dragged through the coals.

This kid was raped. This was forced on him and has nothing to do with my statement.

I don't see what this story has to do with someone who refuses to put on a condom - and whines about having to pay child support, or not allowed to force the woman to abort.

You veering off into left field, has to do with court system screwing this one up, which I gave clearly admitted is pro-woman/mother (which we got there, thanks to the knuckle dragging deadbeats).

#1, she should never have gotten custody of her child - she is convicted rapist,... something a man would never be ale to pull off.

#2,.. make the victim pay for child support; no way. This is down right vile.

Some of you are really reaching pretty far out there. The criminal in the OP is Rosa Parks,.. a male rape victim is "stupid" - really? Is that what these boards are all about??

 

[nehalem256]

You ignored this tidbit,..



This kid was raped. This was forced on him and has nothing to do with my statement.

I don't see what this story has to do with someone who refuses to put on a condom - and whines about having to pay child support, or not allowed to force the woman to abort.

So then by your own logic any woman who refuses to take BC has no right to whine about needing to make an abortion. She made her own choice when she let a guy stick a dick in her.

You veering off into left field, has to do with court system screwing this one up, which I gave clearly admitted is pro-woman/mother (which we got there, thanks to the knuckle dragging deadbeats).

#1, she should never have gotten custody of her child - she is convicted rapist,... something a man would never be ale to pull off.

#2,.. make the victim pay for child support; no way. This is down right vile.

Some of you are really reaching pretty far out there. The criminal in the OP is Rosa Parks,.. a male rape victim is "stupid" - really? Is that what these boards are all about??

Say? More like try to make it a law. As in, if you are raped and are pregnant, you must still keep the child kind of law.

You obviously missed your own bolded point. You tried to claim the "War on Men" is a fantasy when men are CURRENTLY treated exactly how those who are supposedly engaging in a "war on women" treat men.

 

[Newell Steamer]

You obviously missed your own bolded point. You tried to claim the "War on Men" is a fantasy when men are CURRENTLY treated exactly how those who are supposedly engaging in a "war on women" treat men.

So, the war on women doesn't have a major political party demanding they know what a woman's body does and therefore, they (the major political party) should decide what she can and can't do with it.

And, the war on men, truly is a war; not a case where the courts fucked up their ruling on the raped father. On a side note (but related to your issue), the unfair treatment men get in parenthood cases (not these cases; John Andrew Welden & this raped child), has nothing to do with a history of dead beat dads. It's men haters hating men.

Gotcha - the war on women is "supposedly" going on. So, therefore, by that logic, the war on men is "supposedly" going on as well!!

It's settled; we're both delusional.

Well, not you of course. I am. Since I refuse to champion for someone who forges Rxs, tampers with meds and lies to the mother of his child (he is like Rosa Parks, stupid!).

And, of course how a raped male is the same as someone who outright refuses to wear protection (,.. it's a woman's thing,.. not for me,...).

Thanks for clearing that up chief. You've been very helpful in setting me straight.

 

[Wreckem]

I am not sure if this has been posted. I am not going through 8 pages of garbage.

The guy struck a plea deal where he would plea guilty to product tampering and mail fraud. IE: lesser charges. Not of murder. Not of inducing an abortion by fraud. Not of assault. The guys attorney and the federal prosecutors both agreed upon the thirteen year eight month sentence in return for his guilty plea.

The Feds held the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act over his head to force him to plead guilty to the above lesser charges. He would have been found guilty under the 2004 Act and would have faced life in prison without the plea deal. The Act was written by the GOP and passed by party line votes by a GOP House, GOP Senate, and then signed by President Bush.

/end thread

 

[Newell Steamer]

I am not sure if this has been posted. I am not going through 8 pages of mostly garbage.

The guy was convicted of product tampering and mail fraud.

The guys attorney and the federal prosecutors both asked for the 13 year sentence.

/end thread

Noted plenty of times.

But, some folks took this as being sentenced to prison for clipping her toe nails, because men are always being unfairly treated.

 

[Wreckem]

Holy FUCK!

That is sad and at the same time FRIGHTENING

What he cited is fake. As in not real. Made up. The facts are based off of a one off outlier 1994/1995 California case.

 

[nehalem256]

So, the war on women doesn't have a major political party demanding they know what a woman's body does and therefore, they (the major political party) should decide what she can and can't do with it.

Because its not like society ever tells men what they can do with their body *cough* the draft *cough*.

Well, not you of course. I am. Since I refuse to champion for someone who forges Rxs, tampers with meds and lies to the mother of his child (he is like Rosa Parks, stupid!).

This is a logical end result of not allow men the right to terminate their parental responsibility. Don't liberals always say: "If you make abortion illegal, women will just get illegal abortions"?

 

[Newell Steamer]

Good to see the truth eventually comes out,.. Thank you Wreckem. And, shame on me for not looking into it fruther,...

http://www.inquisitr.com/915699/was...m-ordered-to-pay-child-support-to-his-rapist/

nehalem256, try to back up your claims with some actual facts.

Not made up fantasies of bullshit.

Good to know (for next time) your posts are devoid of facts and just trolls.

 

[Newell Steamer]

What he cited is fake. As in not real. Made up. The facts are based off of a one off outlier 1994/1995 California case.

Thanks.

It can't be verified; http://www.inquisitr.com/915699/was...m-ordered-to-pay-child-support-to-his-rapist/

 

[nehalem256]

Good to see the truth eventually comes out,.. Thank you Wreckem. And, shame on me for not looking into it fruther,...

http://www.inquisitr.com/915699/was...m-ordered-to-pay-child-support-to-his-rapist/

nehalem256, try to back up your claims with some actual facts.

Not made up fantasies of bullshit.

Good to know (for next time) your posts are devoid of facts and just trolls.

Hermesmann v. Seyer (State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer 847 P.2d 1273 (Kan. 1993)) was a precedent-setting Kansas, United States case in which Colleen Hermesmann successfully argued that a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act committed by the woman.[1][2] The case was brought in her name by the then Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

...

The case established a precedent which has subsequently been used in the Kansas courts.[8] It is one of the earlier cases now cited in U.S. child support guidelines which say that in every case that has addressed the issue the court has decided that an underage boy is liable for the support of his child even when the conception was the result of statutory rape

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer

Facts enough for you?

 

[Newell Steamer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer

Facts enough for you?

You sited a fake case,.. you got called out on it,.. and then yank something that is over two decades old.

Look, I thank you for revealing what type of person you are, it will make it that much easier to just avoid you next time.



Have fun on your next troll!

 

[Wreckem]

Umm. The case you just linked isn't the same case as the fake case you posted above. It is also substantially different scenario as 17 and 13 is a lot different than 15 and mid 30s.

Also if you read, no child support was ever collected in that case and by the sounds of it should have been dismissed as moot(since the state wasn't actually going enforce the child support) instead of being decided on.

PS. Whoever edited that wiki page is an idiot. They say the case is precedent setting, but the case that cites to show it as precedent setting is NOT citing it for the alleged percent, but something else entirely. The case has been repeatedly cited negatively by courts and legislatures across the country.

Cite me a case since the early to mid 1990s? Something else coincides with those dates and that is changes to statutory rape in many states(including CA). In the late 80s and early 1990s a lot of jurisdictions had statutory rape laws that only applied to adults having sexual relations with females under the age of consent. It wholly excluded statutory rape of males under the age of consent.

 

[Geosurface]

end thread

Sorry, but you need to be enlightened on one or two things:

1.) a lot of us use a case like this more as a jumping off point to have a discussion about larger societal issues which it TOUCHES ON OR BRINGS TO MIND. So it doesn't really matter what he was charged with or what he could have been charged with. There are interesting issues and double standards in our society regarding men and women's reproductive rights and responsibilities and this case can serve to bring attention to them regardless of the particulars.

For my own part, I never claimed he'd been charged with murder or anything of the sort. The only case-specific thoughts I really had was that 13 years seems excessive to me and that is my view no matter what he could have gotten or plead to, etc. I'm looking at the end result and saying "that seems excessive." Simple as that.

2.) You seem to think you have some great "gotcha" point in saying that a lot of these "unborn life" laws are traced back to republicans and pro-lifers. News flash: you can be pro-choice and still think there are some huge problems with gender equality for men in our current laws/society.

I've seen at least one other pro-choicer in this thread besides myself agree with that overall sentiment.

I've never voted for a republican let alone a pro-life hard liner, and I've donated to Planned Parenthood for years. I hate both parties and look at the situation they've created TOGETHER by both being corrupt and stupid, and I say we can and must do better.

Finally, to those giving nehalem a hard time, he likely just didn't check his source and passed along what he thought was an example. He supplied a legit one when it was pointed out, we're all human, relax.

 

[nehalem256]

Umm. The case you just linked isn't the same case as the fake case you posted above. It is also substantially different scenario as 17 and 13 is a lot different than 15 and mid 30s.

Also if you read, no child support was ever collected in that case and by the sounds of it should have been dismissed as moot(since the state wasn't actually going enforce the child support) instead of being decided on.

PS. Whoever edited that wiki page is an idiot. They say the case is precedent setting, but the case that cites to show it as precedent setting is NOT citing it for the alleged percent, but something else entirely. The case has been repeatedly cited negatively by courts and legislatures across the country.

Cite me a case since the early to mid 1990s? Something else coincides with those dates and that is changes to statutory rape in many states(including CA). In the late 80s and early 1990s a lot of jurisdictions had statutory rape laws that only applied to adults having sexual relations with females under the age of consent. It wholly excluded statutory rape of males under the age of consent.

So what you are saying is it wasn't a legitimate rape

Also, here is another case from 2008:

A Pickerington couple and their son are fighting for custody of a baby born to a Lancaster woman charged with having unlawful sex with the boy, who was 15 at the time of conception.

A paternity test shows that the teen is the father of the baby born April 7 to Jane C. Crane, who was 19 when she became pregnant. Now, a judge has ordered him to pay $50 a month in child support and set visitation at seven hours a week.

Crane, meanwhile, faces criminal charges. A Fairfield County grand jury indicted her last month on two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, a fourth-degree felony. Conviction carries a maximum sentence of 18 months in prison and a requirement to register as a sex offender for 25 years.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2008/08/16/janecrane.ART_ART_08-16-08_B1_T0B1RSR.html

 

[Munky]

Ah, but if a woman tricks a man into 18 years of child support by lying about birth control, it's all fairness and justice, right? Is this the "Patriarchy" I keep hearing about?

 

[Wreckem]

So what you are saying is it wasn't a legitimate rape

Also, here is another case from 2008:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2008/08/16/janecrane.ART_ART_08-16-08_B1_T0B1RSR.html

And the final disposition of that case is mentioned where? Was the child support ruling upheld by a higher court? Or did the family get custody? I'm pretty sure its probably the later and the statutory rapist is likely a dead beat mom.

The actual number of people that have had to ACTUALLY pay child support under your scenario is extremely low, most likely in the single digits.

Its as rare or rarer than rapists being successful at getting court ordered visitation for children they fathered during a rape in the 31 states that allow it.

 

[Geosurface]

someone who refuses to put on a condom - and whines about having to pay child support

Young, inexperienced, naive, trusting, unworldly 18 year old woman gets pregnant by boyfriend who convinces her there's no danger of pregnancy, she shouldn't be punished by having to become a parent before she's ready or wants to - our society provides many options to her, abortion, safe drop off, adoption, child support, WIC, welfare, EBT, etc etc.

Young, inexperienced, naive, trusting, unworldly 18 year old man gets girlfriend pregnant after she convinces him it's not a danger, even if it's via lying that she's on birth control, even if she's 38 and lives by a navy base specifically to prey on young, sexually inexperienced men (these women exist, in large numbers) and has a deliberate plan to get pregnant by him against his will before she gets too old to - our society tells him "tough shit" and that he should "man up" - he has whatever options she decides to grant him and she can change her mind later. He's at her mercy and the mercy of the courts. She decides if the baby is born, she decides if it is aborted, she decides if it is kept after birth vs dropped at a fire department, she decides if he pays for 18 years, she decides, to a great extent, whether he gets to be a part of his own child's life. Wanted to take a few years off before college and backpack Europe, staying in hostels? Wanted to just be lazy and not get a job for whatever reason? Sorry bucko, these are no longer legal options for your life. She can still be jobless though, and get you and the taxpayers to subsidize that lifestyle.

Seem fair?

Both were young and naive, both weren't as careful as they should have been, but our reaction to one is a cornucopia of options, and to the other it's "stop whining dumbass, you should've kept it in your pants, now get ready to deal with the fallout of that five minutes of youthful indiscretion for the rest of your life!"

 

[Newell Steamer]

Seem fair?

Both were young and naive, both weren't as careful as they should have been, but our reaction to one is a cornucopia of options, and to the other it's "stop whining dumbass, you should've kept it in your pants, now get ready to deal with the fallout of that five minutes of youthful carelessness for the rest of your life!"

The unbalanced reaction can be attributed to a collection of past men and their outright belligerent/nasty attitude towards a pregnant girl walking up to them and saying it's theirs.

The truth is, men weren't exactly nice people in the days of old. Sure, we were tougher, stronger, fought in wars and boxed with bears in the dead of winter,... but, without paternity tests, men could and have walked away from their fatherly responsibilities. You found a girl, told her whatever you needed, knocked her up and walked away with no real worries about what happened next.

This does not justify how men are treated today in paternal court cases - but, it explains why men are public enemy number 1 in divorces & relationship splits that involve women with children.

I see it with my co-worker. His ex wife does things that would land him in prison for his entire life. I see it. I get it.

So, what next? Place police around a pregnant woman's vagina, to ensure she does not abort? Or chain both mother and father together, to make sure no one runs away? Or drug the mother by force and abort when a court decides the father can get rid of it?

There isn't anything really pragmatic and possible, to "voice" the father's wishes. Because, the baby is not within his control/grasp. It is not part of his body.

EDIT: And, the courts have decided that since the fetus is part of her body, she should and could do what she wants with it.

 

[Munky]

The unbalanced reaction can be attributed to a collection of past men and their outright belligerent/nasty attitude towards a pregnant girl walking up to them and saying it's theirs.

The truth is, men weren't exactly nice people in the days of old. Sure, we were tougher, stronger, fought in wars and boxed with bears in the dead of winter,... but, without paternity tests, men could and have walked away from their fatherly responsibilities. You found a girl, told her whatever you needed, knocked her up and walked away with no real worries about what happened next.

This does not justify how men are treated today in paternal court cases - but, it explains why men are public enemy number 1 in divorces & relationship splits that involve women with children.

I see it with my co-worker. His ex wife does things that would land him in prison for his entire life. I see it. I get it.

So, what next? Place police around a pregnant woman's vagina, to ensure she does not abort? Or chain both mother and father together, to make sure no one runs away? Or drug the mother by force and abort when a court decides the father can get rid of it?

There isn't anything really pragmatic and possible, to "voice" the father's wishes. Because, the baby is not within his control/grasp. It is not part of his body.

EDIT: And, the courts have decided that since the fetus is part of her body, she should and could do what she wants with it.

The solution is a lot simpler. You remove the safety net which shields women from the consequences of their actions. Remove taxpayer funding of abortions. Remove forced child support from the man if she chooses to keep the baby (or give the person with more income the primary custody). Make her liable to return child support payments if the paternity test comes back negative at any time. These safety nets only enable and encourage such behavior by removing any deterrent against them.

To put it in context, if the sentence for robbing a bank was a fine of 10% of the loot, there would be a lot more bank robberies. But add a sufficient deterrent of a long prison sentence, and suddenly only the truly motivated thugs attempt bank robberies.