Monday, February 05, 2007

How soon until we start seeing this in the US?

Man facing charges over attempted abortion

A guy in Sweden slipped abortion pills into his girlfriend's drink. Fortunately, she didn't lose the baby, and the perp is being prosecuted.

I can just imagine what a sideline this would make for seedy doctors. Sell men Cytotec to slip into their wife's/girlfriend's/daughter's drink when she refuses to do what he thinks is the sensible thing.

I think that this sort of thing warrants an attempted murder charge.

9 comments:

Gayle said...

It certainly does deserve an attempted murder charge! If he'd done that to me he'd be lucky to stand trial. What a bad choice of boyfriends that poor woman made! Just one more reason not to go jumping into bed with someone you don't really, really know!

Gayle said...

P.S. I'd prefer women waited for marriage, but they threw that baby out with the bathwater a long time ago. :(

Tlaloc said...

"It certainly does deserve an attempted murder charge!"

No it doesn't. Since no murder is in fact attempted. See how that works? Legally a fetus is not a person. Whether you think they should be or not doesn't matter, legally they are NOT.

The guy should be charged with assault.

GrannyGrump said...

Tlaloc, not everybody shares your personal view that people have to accomplish certain tasks in order to win your approval and thus be granted admission to the human race.

We've already established the degree of your prejudice toward the very young and medically dependent.

So it's a given that you have zero sympathy for a woman who loses a loved and wanted baby before birth. You view her as a deluded nutcase in need of mental health therapy to convey to her that she was attached to a purely imaginary entity.

You're so -- prochoice.

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc, not everybody shares your personal view that people have to accomplish certain tasks in order to win your approval and thus be granted admission to the human race."

As I poointed out above what you or I think qualifies as human doesn't matter here. The law has a definition and fetii do not meet it. Unless it can be shown that the man meant to overdose the woman on the pills causing her death assault is the correct charge.



"So it's a given that you have zero sympathy for a woman who loses a loved and wanted baby before birth. You view her as a deluded nutcase in need of mental health therapy to convey to her that she was attached to a purely imaginary entity."

I have great sympathy toward a woman who wants a child and has a miscarriage. No she didn;t lose a child but she lost the hope that she was going to have one. She lost an opportunity to have one, and probably had her hopes badly dashed. That sucks. None of that is deluded or imaginary.

She may tell herself that she lost a child which is somewhat delusional but you have to accept that kind of thing in people who are deeply distressed. They have all kinds of bizarre coping mechanisms.

Refusing to buy into the fantasy is not the same as not caring.

This is a perfect example. If I truly didn't care than I should say that the guy deserves no charges. But he does. This woman was apparently happy to be pregnant or at least desiring to continue the pregnancy. The guy took it on himself to try and end that, and that is absolutely wrong. Just as wrong as someone choosing to remove your kidney without your permission. Or deliberatley giving you wood alcohol to make you go blind. It is an attack on the tissues of another person with intent to damage them. That's assault. It's a crime and should be treated as such. The guy (assuming he is guilty and the story is true) should be going to jail.

But not for murder. Because there is no murder.

JacqueFromTexas said...

Suppose the fetus is far along enough to determine that the baby who was killed was a girl. Suppose the mother already had a son. Suppose that all the subsequent pregnancies were male (assuming she can still carry to term)- How do you compensate for the loss of her only daughter? Apparently then, a fetus is not merely the hope for baby, since there was an actual female present in her womb and a female that was taken from her without her consent. A fetus is not a commodity that can be replaced if broken. Children are not guarenteed, nor is gender. She didn't simply lose the hope for a child- she lost her child.

Human beings are not replacable. Once one is gone, he/she is gone-- as well as the changes that would have come with their presence in the world. If humans weren't unique, none would mourn death so (especially since 6 billion other humans exist). But if you have lost a child, born or not, all the other children in the world can not compensate for the unique son or daughter that you will never see grow into an adult.

GrannyGrump said...

jacque, you want to field Tlaloc, go ahead. I've decided to not respond to him unless he's being rational.

Tlaloc said...

"How do you compensate for the loss of her only daughter?"

Her loss of the potential of a daughter...

You can't really compensate someone for that. You can commiserate with them.



"Apparently then, a fetus is not merely the hope for baby, since there was an actual female present in her womb and a female that was taken from her without her consent."

No there wasn't an actual female present. There was some flesh that might have some day been a little girl.



"A fetus is not a commodity that can be replaced if broken."

Well technically speaking your body allows you to replace a given fetus every 28 days from puberty until menopause (except when already in the process of gestating). So yeah they can be replaced. Just as your hair grows back when cut, or your nails grow back. Or your skin grows back from an injury.



"Human beings are not replacable."

True, but since a fetus isn't a human being, also irrelevant.

Tlaloc said...

"I've decided to not respond to him unless he's being rational."

Right *I'm* the one being irrational.

There are a lot of things you can say about me that are true and unflattering, but "irrational" isn't one of them.