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

[CLite]

You've obviously never heard of Carrie Nation, then. And plenty of women today support drug prohibition, although those numbers appear to be declining.

I'd also wonder how many women (or men) are still singing that "her body, her choice" tune if a woman wants to work in the sex industry.

Yes drug control is an obvious example, but you must realize that is control over what you can put in your body rather than forcing someone to keep something in their body against there will. You will probably point out psychotic medicine in asylums, but again that like drug control hits both men and woman equally and the waters get murky here as we discuss doing things for a person's benefit after we've determined they can't live on their own.

These are really entirely different subjects than forcing a normal functioning human being to keep something inside their body against there will that is living off their blood and nutrients.

 

[Geosurface]

I obviously find what this guy did to be horrible. I can't say that I know what his punishment should be, but I do feel confident in saying that within a society where abortion is legal and men have no legal pathway to avoiding fatherhood once a pregnancy exists, 13 years seems excessive.

Whatever flaws our society had back when abortion was illegal, at least that society was consistent. It said that it was wrong to terminate a pregnancy, period.

Our current society is very inconsistent on these matters and in some troubling ways.

Woman gets pregnant, she has the option to abort it if she doesn't want to be a mother, and the father's desires don't even have to be a factor for her consideration if she doesn't want them to be. Once the pregnancy completes, she then has the option to STILL avoid being a mother if she wishes, by dropping the baby off at a fire department or putting it up for adoption. There are ways she can go through the adoption procedures without the father ever finding out. In fact, she can legally go through these scenarios without ever even informing the father that a pregnancy exists.

So women have an awful lot of options in this regard. Now, you might say "well yea they're the one who has to grow the child in their body for 9 months they should have more options!" - and okay, let's say I agree with you. Perhaps they should have more options. But men really have NO options:

If a man impregnates a woman he just has to buckle up and hope she is merciful. If she decides to screw him over, she can. She can dump him for no reason whatsoever, and use all the government's power to force him to pay an outrageous percentage of his personal income for the next 18 years even if the pregnancy was unintended, even if the condom broke, even if she lied and said she was on birth control when she wasn't, even if she pulled his condom out of the trash and impregnated herself with its contents, even if the couple had a standing agreement that she'd get an abortion if she got pregnant before they'd agreed to do so, etc etc etc.

Sometimes a judge will even decide it is in the child's interest to have the father pay for college after that 18 year mark. The courts really have the ability to do just about anything they wish to men, and most of this doesn't even bring with it much in the way of parental rights for the father, usually. He could end up paying for a child for years who he gets very little, if any access to. Sure, some courts will be better about giving him visitation than others, but this isn't very consistent and of course the woman can make up any lie about the father that she wants and the courts do not go to any trouble to try to verify that he really is the awful person she says, their default assumption is that she's telling the truth.

Now if people say "well she should get more protections and rights in this regard because women are the weaker, fairer sex and any society worth a crap cares more about them and protects them more." and if you were that society I spoke of earlier who didn't allow abortions, and had traditional values about gender roles, divorce, children, sexuality, etc... then you'd be consistent. Can't really fault 1900 America for saying something like that because it fit into the entire picture of their worldview perfectly well. On the other hand, 2014 America is being very inconsistent when it says, or acts in a way which says, that. Because it gives an awful lot of lib service to gender being irrelevant, the sexes being identical, etc. Again, it's the inconsistency that bothers a lot of us.

EDIT: Meant to say "lip service" but I think I like that typo, it works quite well.

How much punishment does a woman face if she uses spermicidal measures without the man knowing? In this scenario, she could tell him they were actively working to create a pregnancy, but she could be outright lying to his face and killing his living sperm, a part of his body, and she wouldn't face any punishment at all. I don't think she'd even be breaking any law at all.

A woman could tell a man they were working to get pregnant together and then the very last day that an abortion was still legal within the pregnancy, even if he'd bought a house for their family, and bought a crap load of carriages, cribs, toys, clothes, diapers... she could go get the abortion then come home and show him the receipt for it and say "PSYCH!!!! I planned this from the beginning!" and then leave him high and dry with all that stuff, and he'd have zero legal recourse.

So all I'm saying is, if we're going to leave abortion legal (and I am in fact pro-choice, with misgivings) then can we at least give men a couple of options?

Make some laws requiring notification of the father, and making finding him more of a requirement if she's putting it up for adoption. Make some laws against deceiving a man about pregnancy and sex.

And most of all, give men the "financial abortion" - the option to say, before a certain point in the pregnancy, "I do not want to be a father" and the legal right to sign away his parental rights and responsibilities, which the woman can react to by having the abortion, planning to put the baby up for adoption, or just deciding she can handle it on her own. Along with this there needs to be a legal requirement to inform the father in a timely fashion of the pregnancy so he can use this option. That's entirely fair and at least gives men some sort of control over their own reproductive rights.

 

[nehalem256]

Woman and Men are not beholden to society to maintain things inside their bodies that they don't want to maintain. The only current exception being once a fetus is viable the woman is beholden to care for that fetus despite no likewise requirement imposed on a man's body for any sort of life within them. If anything the pendulum is still swung in man's favor because there is nothing they are forced to keep inside their body against their will.

And women are not beholden to maintain things that come out of men's bodies.

Your murdering man analogy is worthless, although me replying to you about woman's rights is equally worthless so we are both stupid.

So you are saying women are not responsible for the things men do with gifts they are given?

 

[Exophase]

So, abortion is murder?

Oh and somebody should explain to her that milligrams is a unit of measurement of weight.

It's actually a unit of measurement of mass.

Was he actually found guilty of murder? I couldn't find it in the article. At any rate, I think the sentence of over 13 years is excessive.

 

[CLite]

That fetus was also the fathers property.

As such he should have the right to decide if he wants to be a parent, just like what a woman gets to do.

A fetus is not a property, it is a life-form whose rights are protected once it can viably live on it's own. Prior to being able to viably live on it's own it is subject to the decisions of it's incubator for whom it is dependent upon for blood/nutrients/etc. If the incubator was the male then the male would have the power, however it is the female with whom resides the ultimate decisions for what is kept within her own body (until viability).

Now the interpretation of the Roe vs. Wade ruling is probably going to get complicated once we have super advanced technology that can incubate embryo's. For now this is not a problem.

 

[Texashiker]

Prior to being able to viably live on it's own it is subject to the decisions of it's incubator for whom it is dependent upon for blood/nutrients/etc.

Once again we are back to women having more rights than men.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Actually the defendant was convicted on charges of tampering with a consumer product resulting in bodily injury and conspiracy to commit mail fraud and not for tricking his girlfriend into taking the drug/inducing an abortion. The drug was not the day after pill, it was a drug that could cause abortion. More media sensationalism.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/28/us-usa-abortion-florida-idUSBREA0R1HS20140128

John Andrew Welden, 29, was sentenced on Monday after pleading guilty in September to charges of tampering with a consumer product resulting in bodily injury and conspiracy to commit mail fraud.

 

[CLite]

Once again we are back to women having more rights than men.

The fact that men can only control what is inside a woman's body for 1/3+ of the pregnancy means woman have more rights than men? Are you daft?

Women currently have less rights than men because in Roe vs. Wade they thought it was fair to give the State power to protect the fetus once life is viable. Personally I agree with this decision, however to think it is somehow granting women more rights than men is fucking ludicrous. Women have no power to force a man to keep something inside their body that is consuming their blood and nutrients.

 

[bshole]

Actually the defendant was convicted on charges of tampering with a consumer product resulting in bodily injury and conspiracy to commit mail fraud and not for tricking his girlfriend into taking the drug/inducing an abortion. The drug was not the day after pill, it was a drug that could cause abortion. More media sensationalism.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/28/us-usa-abortion-florida-idUSBREA0R1HS20140128

Ok I feel much better about his now. Thanx Londo.

 

[nehalem256]

The fact that men can only control what is inside a woman's body for 1/3+ of the pregnancy means woman have more rights than men? Are you daft?

Women currently have less rights than men because in Roe vs. Wade they thought it was fair to give the State power to protect the fetus once life is viable. Personally I agree with this decision, however to think it is somehow granting women more rights than men is fucking ludicrous. Women have no power to force a man to keep something inside their body that is consuming their blood and nutrients.

So men can force women to support the child for 3 months(and only after she has had 6 months to abort it). Women can force the man to support the child for 18+ years.

You tell me who has more rights.

 

[CLite]

Make some laws requiring notification of the father, and making finding him more of a requirement if she's putting it up for adoption. Make some laws against deceiving a man about pregnancy and sex.

It's going to be tricky to come up with any new laws that aren't inherently flawed. About one of your earlier notes I agree it's bullshit fathers can be held responsible for college, because married couples aren't obligated to pay for their children's college.

The thing with the law is that it has 2 basic tenants:

1) The state can only interfere with a woman's body once life inside has achieved viability.
2) Children are born innocent and free of blame and should be cared for by the two people that gave life to the child.

Neither of these seems particularly unfair, however courts have sometimes gone overboard in crippling a man to essentially debtor's prison at times. I think this is a misapplication of law rather than the laws themselves being flawed.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Wow... 13 years?? Really?
<snip>

Tampa Tribune News article link

For your liberal nazi ways I'm surprise you're not on the side of the woman's right to choose. You should be saying the kid should get life in prison :whiste:

 

[boomerang]

So men can force women to support the child for 3 months(and only after she has had 6 months to abort it). Women can force the man to support the child for 18+ years.

You tell me who has more rights.

We've heard the same answer like six times already. I see no reason to believe we'll hear a different one this time. Give it up, you're dealing with a one trick pony.

 

[CLite]

So men can force women to support the child for 3 months(and only after she has had 6 months to abort it). Women can force the man to support the child for 18+ years.

You tell me who has more rights.

Men can force a woman to support the child with blood and nutrients and keep it inside her for 3 months. Women can't force a man to keep anything inside his body for even more than 1 second that consumes his blood and nutrients.

Women and men are theoretically both held liable for the future of the child for 18 years. I agree sometimes child support rulings have been ludicrous in how they cripple men, but the law itself levels equal responsibility to both parties for 18 years.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I obviously find what this guy did to be horrible. I can't say that I know what his punishment should be, but I do feel confident in saying that within a society where abortion is legal and men have no legal pathway to avoiding fatherhood once a pregnancy exists, 13 years seems excessive.

Whatever flaws our society had back when abortion was illegal, at least that society was consistent. It said that it was wrong to terminate a pregnancy, period.

Our current society is very inconsistent on these matters and in some troubling ways.

Woman gets pregnant, she has the option to abort it if she doesn't want to be a mother, and the father's desires don't even have to be a factor for her consideration if she doesn't want them to be. Once the pregnancy completes, she then has the option to STILL avoid being a mother if she wishes, by dropping the baby off at a fire department or putting it up for adoption. There are ways she can go through the adoption procedures without the father ever finding out. In fact, she can legally go through these scenarios without ever even informing the father that a pregnancy exists.

So women have an awful lot of options in this regard. Now, you might say "well yea they're the one who has to grow the child in their body for 9 months they should have more options!" - and okay, let's say I agree with you. Perhaps they should have more options. But men really have NO options:

If a man impregnates a woman he just has to buckle up and hope she is merciful. If she decides to screw him over, she can. She can dump him for no reason whatsoever, and use all the government's power to force him to pay an outrageous percentage of his personal income for the next 18 years even if the pregnancy was unintended, even if the condom broke, even if she lied and said she was on birth control when she wasn't, even if she pulled his condom out of the trash and impregnated herself with its contents, even if the couple had a standing agreement that she'd get an abortion if she got pregnant before they'd agreed to do so, etc etc etc.

Sometimes a judge will even decide it is in the child's interest to have the father pay for college after that 18 year mark. The courts really have the ability to do just about anything they wish to men, and most of this doesn't even bring with it much in the way of parental rights for the father, usually. He could end up paying for a child for years who he gets very little, if any access to. Sure, some courts will be better about giving him visitation than others, but this isn't very consistent and of course the woman can make up any lie about the father that she wants and the courts do not go to any trouble to try to verify that he really is the awful person she says, their default assumption is that she's telling the truth.

Now if people say "well she should get more protections and rights in this regard because women are the weaker, fairer sex and any society worth a crap cares more about them and protects them more." and if you were that society I spoke of earlier who didn't allow abortions, and had traditional values about gender roles, divorce, children, sexuality, etc... then you'd be consistent. Can't really fault 1900 America for saying something like that because it fit into the entire picture of their worldview perfectly well. On the other hand, 2014 America is being very inconsistent when it says, or acts in a way which says, that. Because it gives an awful lot of lib service to gender being irrelevant, the sexes being identical, etc. Again, it's the inconsistency that bothers a lot of us.

EDIT: Meant to say "lip service" but I think I like that typo, it works quite well.

How much punishment does a woman face if she uses spermicidal measures without the man knowing? In this scenario, she could tell him they were actively working to create a pregnancy, but she could be outright lying to his face and killing his living sperm, a part of his body, and she wouldn't face any punishment at all. I don't think she'd even be breaking any law at all.

A woman could tell a man they were working to get pregnant together and then the very last day that an abortion was still legal within the pregnancy, even if he'd bought a house for their family, and bought a crap load of carriages, cribs, toys, clothes, diapers... she could go get the abortion then come home and show him the receipt for it and say "PSYCH!!!! I planned this from the beginning!" and then leave him high and dry with all that stuff, and he'd have zero legal recourse.

So all I'm saying is, if we're going to leave abortion legal (and I am in fact pro-choice, with misgivings) then can we at least give men a couple of options?

Make some laws requiring notification of the father, and making finding him more of a requirement if she's putting it up for adoption. Make some laws against deceiving a man about pregnancy and sex.

And most of all, give men the "financial abortion" - the option to say, before a certain point in the pregnancy, "I do not want to be a father" and the legal right to sign away his parental rights and responsibilities, which the woman can react to by having the abortion, planning to put the baby up for adoption, or just deciding she can handle it on her own. Along with this there needs to be a legal requirement to inform the father in a timely fashion of the pregnancy so he can use this option. That's entirely fair and at least gives men some sort of control over their own reproductive rights.

Very well stated about the hypocracy of these laws. /Applause

 

[dainthomas]

Actually the defendant was convicted on charges of tampering with a consumer product resulting in bodily injury and conspiracy to commit mail fraud and not for tricking his girlfriend into taking the drug/inducing an abortion. The drug was not the day after pill, it was a drug that could cause abortion. More media sensationalism.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/28/us-usa-abortion-florida-idUSBREA0R1HS20140128

Ah, well this makes more sense. Although the sentence seems kinda high for those crimes. He must have a crappy lawyer.

 

[nehalem256]

It's going to be tricky to come up with any new laws that aren't inherently flawed. About one of your earlier notes I agree it's bullshit fathers can be held responsible for college, because married couples aren't obligated to pay for their children's college.

The thing with the law is that it has 2 basic tenants:

1) The state can only interfere with a woman's body once life inside has achieved viability.
2) Children are born innocent and free of blame and should be cared for by the two people that gave life to the child.

Neither of these seems particularly unfair, however courts have sometimes gone overboard in crippling a man to essentially debtor's prison at times. I think this is a misapplication of law rather than the laws themselves being flawed.

Except that the law is assigning equal responsibility for rubbing your dick around for 10 minutes as you are for choosing to carry a fetus for 6 months.

Seems pretty ludicrous to assign equal responsibility for such drastically different acts.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Ah, well this makes more sense. Although the sentence seems kinda high for those crimes. He must have a crappy lawyer.

Apparently the sentence was a plea bargain, no telling what the maximum he could have received under federal law.

 

[CLite]

Except that the law is assigning equal responsibility for rubbing your dick around for 10 minutes as you are for choosing to carry a fetus for 6 months.

Seems pretty ludicrous to assign equal responsibility for such drastically different acts.

Yes, but the States position is that the child should not be faulted for only taking 10 minutes of the father's time 9 months ago.

Look I'm all for revamping the implementation of child support laws, they honestly lead to a lot of stupid bullshit that is biased against men. However, abortion privileges clearly are biased towards men because men don't have anyone interfering with keeping shit in their bodies while woman do for 3 months of pregnancy.

I don't agree with something as drastic as men being able to right off paying for the child, however demanding equal pay from both parties and not requiring stupid shit like college education would be more fair than some of the things done nowadays.

 

[SlickSnake]

But if a woman tricked a man and said she was taking birth control pills and wasn't, and just did it to entrap a man into father hood and financial responsibility, then it would all be OK for the woman to screw over the father, am I right? And this happens WAY more often than clingy and needy women are EVER willing to publically admit, BTW.

The sentence was stupidly and overly harsh for what would be a legal abortion that a women has the right to do with or without the fathers consent in the first place. The father should have an equal say over the abortion process, regardless of what the radical abortion feministas think to the contrary about it.

And when women get knocked up and put men in the possible abortion situation, who has the majority of the blame for that happening since the females usually allowed it to happen by being careless?

Ever watched an episode of Maury Povich recently? Nearly every episode now is some gross skank who slept with 5 or 10 guys in a weeks time and has no idea who the father is so she goes on Maury to get 10 free genetic tests so she can play pin the tag on the father for child support. You just can't make this stuff up.

http://www.mauryshow.com/

 

[Geosurface]

I feel like maybe his sentence should have been the same as what she would've gotten if she'd aborted his child without his permission... which would be nothing.

Nah actually I realize that the fact that it was her body and he surreptitiously put a chemical into her body she didn't concede to, and which is also a fairly serious chemical which could have harmed her. I agree that changes the situation.

But a society that permits abortion getting this upset at him seems a little out of whack. 13 years seems out of whack.

I feel like he should've gotten maybe 1 year? maximum 4 years? 13 is just out of control for this.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, but the States position is that the child should not be faulted for only taking 10 minutes of the father's time 9 months ago.

Seems like the states position is that women are helpless and need men to pay up for their choices.

 

[Geosurface]

Seems like the states position is that women are helpless and need men to pay up for their choices.

Yea I mean ultimately there's nothing stopping a man or a woman from racking up a massive amount of credit card debt, student loans, etc right?

There will always be bad, expensive choices which limit a person's options from there on out in their life if they decide to make them.

I don't see why a man who wanted no part in that decision going through to completion should be on the hook for a couple of decades because he obeyed the very strong biological directive to seek and have sex with a woman.

And I feel like the woman already has a pretty good parachute to get out of that bad choice after making it, in the form of being able to put the kid up for adoption.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I feel like maybe his sentence should have been the same as what she would've gotten if she'd aborted his child without his permission... which would be nothing.

Nah actually I realize that the fact that it was her body and he surreptitiously put a chemical into her body she didn't concede to, and which is also a fairly serious chemical which could have harmed her. I agree that changes the situation.

But a society that permits abortion getting this upset at him seems a little out of whack. 13 years seems out of whack.

I feel like he should've gotten maybe 1 year? maximum 4 years? 13 is just out of control for this.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36008465&postcount=57

He was not convicted for causing the abortion, he was convicted for tampering with a consumer product resulting in bodily injury and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. His sentence was part of a plea deal with Federal Prosecutors/Judge.

 

[nehalem256]

And I feel like the woman already has a pretty good parachute to get out of that bad choice after making it, in the form of being able to put the kid up for adoption.

Even that was not enough of a parachute. So many women were murdering their newborns that society went and added an extra special parachute so they could just dump the baby at a hospital no questions asked.

What does it say about society where expecting women not to murder their newborns is considered to be an undue burden, but expecting men to pay child support for 18 years is totally reasonable.