If I happened to be insane (you never know, it could happen) and decided I wanted to slip one (or two, or three, however many it takes) of these pills to a woman without her knowledge, thus resulting in the 'termination of her pregnancy', what would my criminal liability be? It would seem to me that, in America, where the unborn have no status, that I would only be able to be punished for any side effects she may incur as a result. From what I gather about the 'safety' of this pill, the side effects would be almost nil. Therefore, it would seem that I would be able to terminate pregnancies with little to no consequence, under US law of course. Is this true?
Well, how are you going to get this pill? It is a prescription drug, so your getting hold of it might require illegal acts. The drug itself also requires three doctors visits and another drug taken at the same time, so I don't know that slipping one pill into a woman's drink is actually effective in ending a pregnancy. I think there could be a legal issue with giving prescription drugs to someone else. And I think there could easily be a legal issue with giving someone a drug that can cause them harm (1. No drug is completely safe, some people will have some sort of complication, and 2. Ending a pregnancy without the permission of the woman is different than if a woman chooses to end her pregnancy, at least under some laws). ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Wow, I wonder what you're getting at? How could I be prosecuted for murder if the mother decided to do it herself? Why start this up again? ------------------ "Priorities is our values"-Dubya at campaign stop in San Jose on 11/1/00 visit www.swirve.com
But he probably wouldn't be prosecuted for murder anyway in his example. But even if he were, why is it so hard to grasp that the law treats different things differently. If a woman decides to have a nose job and goes to a plastic surgeon and has it done, she's broken no laws. If I have my friend hold some woman down while I give her a nose job against her will, I've broken some laws. If a young lady decides to take Rohypnol (sp?) just to see what it is like, she has not broken the law (well, assuming that the drug is legal to possess and take. I'm not sure that is true anymore, but maybe it is). If I slip the drug into her drink, I've broken the law. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
R95 is right, that is what I was getting at. I fully understand I could be prosecuted for other crimes in this example, just not murder (which is wrong).
What do I win! ------------------ "He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill visit www.swirve.com
Depending on the laws of the state, you could be charged with murder. Here is an example: http://www.detnews.com/1999/religion/9909/02/09030009.htm ------------------
bobrek -- thank you so much. This is exactly the kind of information I've been looking for for a while. Three young men hired by a pregnant woman's boyfriend kicked her in the belly and killed the baby, prosecutors said Thursday as they brought murder charges in the first test of Arkansas' new Fetal Protection Law. The law, passed this year, makes it a crime to injure a fetus more than 12 weeks old. It allows exceptions for abortions. Tell me how this makes sense on any level. Gotta love the 'ole U S of A. It's okay for my mother to kill me, but if anyone else does, it's a crime. What a country! [This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited November 06, 2000).]
The right to abortion is couched as a right to choose. In the case where you go out and take away that right to choose by illegal means, you've usurped her right to choose. It's just not the same thing. I mean, if we're going to get mad at hypocracy in the law, why aren't you mad that I'm not allowed to hit you in the head with a hammer. I can hit myself with a hammer all I want, but the second I go after you with my hammer, I've committed a crime. What kind of country is this that doesn't treat all hammerings the same way? And why is it okay for the state to kill people, but it's not right for other people to kill.... Well, not all other people. I mean, why didn't we prosecute all those war vets? They killed people, we should put them in prison. It's all the same isn't it? Why isn't everything treated exactly the same? Why is it okay for them to kill and not me? Why is it worse if I kill someone with a gun rather than strangling them? Why is it worse if I kill someone while robbing them instead of killing them just because I feel like it? Why can I carry a gun walking down the street, but I can go to jail if I carry it when I pick up my kids from school? Heck, in this very law, why is a 12 week-old fetus protected and an 11 week-old fetus out of luck? It's that way because things are different. It's not hypocracy, it's noting that some things are not like others. Some killings are different. Some assaults are different. The law treats things differently because some things are different. By the way, you'll find that many abortion rights supporters oppose these laws that make it a crime to harm a fetus. And for all we know, the Arkansas Legislature might like to make abortion illegal but cannot because of the Supreme Court rulings. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Right, and this law proves how ridiculous that 'right' is. This law says that you have the right to commit a murder as a mother, but not otherwise. It flat out says that, and there is no way around it. Not the same thing, not even close. If I hit someone with a hammer and you hit someone with a hammer, we are treated the same under law. Not in this law. Not to mention you hurting yourself is not the same as hurting an innocent person. The men and an abortion doctor are both committing a murder (not my words, what this law says). The fetus in this law is being treated as a person. The men are being tried for murder. There is just no way to rationalize how these men are treated as murderers, while a mother/doctor performing the same act is not. Not to mention that you can't hit yourself with a hammer all you want, because suicide is illegal. Now you're just being silly. The state performing an execution is not a murder. One war vet isn't treated any differently from any other war vet. If they were, like in this law where only mothers are allowed to commit murder, that would be a problem. If I kill someone with a gun and you kill someone with a gun, it is the same under the law. In this law, if a mother kills a 13-week-old fetus, it is okay, but if someone else does, it is called murder. What, you're argument is that laws don't make sense? Well I guess you win then. "Hey, I just got raped of my civil rights, but oh well, the law isn't consistent, so who cares!". This is a case of equal protection under the law. The law is saying that a fetus is a person by prosecuting these men for murder. They are giving this person protection under the law when a stranger kills them, but not when their mother decides to do it. There is no way to explain or rationalize that. The law may treat different crimes differently, but it shouldn't treat different people differently. This law is calling the fetus a person in this case. It however is not giving this person equal protection under the law. That is just absurd. I would hope they would oppose it. It makes them look like fools. This law is ironically the best case against abortion I've ever encountered. It flat out says that a fetus is a person under the law.
Ironic is it not? We pass Fetal Protection Acts to shelter our children in the womb yet refuse to sheild them from the mothers right to terminate their existence, a far more dangerous predator. Pathetic..... ------------------ [This message has been edited by stringthing (edited November 06, 2000).]
By the way, has one of these fetal protection acts ever been decided by the Appeals Courts or the Supreme Court? It is an interesting way to try and argue for the abolition of abortion in this nation. Get a state legislature that is relatively conservative (Democratically controlled, but still generally anti-abortion) to pass a law that says killing a fetus is murder and then point to that law as showing how the Abortion Rights movement is silly because the law treats a fetus differently in different cases. I'm pretty sure that the state of Arkansas might well ban abortions if they were not prevented from doing so by the Supreme Court. If the law is screwed up, perhaps you should note that the reason for the law being screwed up is as much the fault of the abortion opponents who championed such laws in states such as Arkansas as it is the Supreme Court for deciding that abortion was a legal right. If the fact that there are hypocracies in this law bothers you so much, perhaps you should contact the abortion opponents in Arkansas who championed this law and got it passed and tell them that you'd like the law repealed. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited November 06, 2000).]
In fact, this act does not recognize the right of the fetus before the first trimester(which is why this act, for me, falls short). It does, however, re-affirm the mothers rights after same to exterminate the child. (and of course, she already has the right to exterminate the child at ANY time during the first trimester). The effect of this act falls upon a third party and their intervention upon the childs life, but makes no attempt to supress the mothers right to kill the child. The validty of which is couched as a "mothers right to choose". Hence the irony.... ------------------
I am an abortion opponent, and I would not support this law. I'd say declaring someone a person in certain instances and not in others, and taking away that person's rights, is a little bit more than hypocrisy. It's flat out wrong. It should make no difference whether you're anti-abortion or not. This law is simply wrong. I simply could not see a higher court upholding this ridiculous law.
Haven't we already been over this discussion once or twice or a hundred times before? ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Actually I just found out about this law yesterday when bobrek posted it Jeff, so if we've had this discussion before I must have missed it. Nobody's stopping you from ignoring the thread however.
Though I lean (pretty far) to the right on fiscal matters, I'm staunchly pro-choice. Nevertheless, all of you lefties who are wishing TheFreak would not have brought this up.... I think you don't want to hear it because HE HAS A VERY GOOD POINT. ------------------ stop posting my damn signature
Pole, you're right. TheFreak does have a great point. How do you draw that line? How can one person do it and it's called a choice and another person do it and it's called murder? I guess my opinion on abortion itself helps me to rationalize this. I thought that abortions after the first trimester were only performed in cases of possible injury to the mother. Abortions, which are much rarer than the pro-life side thinks, are really rare after the first trimester. I thought Roe v. Wade only allowed abortions in the first trimester, so the example given by TheFreak would only be relevant if it occurred before the 12th week. ------------------ "He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill visit www.swirve.com
TheFreak -- Just some clarification and a bit of trivia I picked up. Attempted Suicide is illegal (as well as assisting suicide in most states). Suicide itself is not illegal -- I imagine because of certain difficulties in prosecuting the offender. So, with the scenerio above, Mr. Paige could be locked up for hitting himself in the head with a hammer. ------------------ Stay Cool...
Congrats, Freak, you make a good point. I do not think you will sway anyone (as most of our laws seem to contradict others) but there really is no way (that I can see) to get around your argument when speaking of the law. On a side thought, what would happen under the following scenario: Freak has a bad kidney, needs a transplant. Pole is found to be the only person (within the time limits) to donate. Rocketman95 knows this, and he hates Freak. He thus attacks Pole and destroys one of his kidneys. Freak dies as a result. Does RM95 get charged for assault and murder? ------------------ EZLN
