Man tricks girlfriend into taking abortion drug, gets 14 years.

[Quasimod0]

She wanted to have the baby, and he acted deviously and slipped her some drugs that killed the unborn child? That is awful. Sounds like murder to me.

 

[Feenix]

It takes two to tango. If a man doesn't want a woman to become pregnant he should take some responsibility for birth control. He can wear a condom. He can have a vasectomy. He can avoid sex with the woman. The point is in this day and age a man can take precautions to prevent a woman's pregnancy. If he does not and a woman falls pregnant, trickery or not, it's his responsibility because he did not take any responsibility to prevent it.

He should be responsible for his birth control. Like she would be responsible for it if it were up to her.

I disagree. On the flip side, you could say the woman should get her tubes tied. If she doesn't want to then he shouldn't have to either.

As for avoiding sex with the woman, come on, people lie. If you're in a relationship, you trust the person. I've seen women do this exact thing. I hardly doubt anyone would have much sympathy (or any for that matter) for a woman who tricked her partner into getting her pregnant so she could reap the benefits. And like Teelie said, there are women who will poke holes in a condom. That's not the guy's fault.

As for your example in the Navy, if it's true then that guy should be let off the hook. It's called fraud and people get fined and go to jail for that all the time.

 

[charl_huntress]

I disagree. On the flip side, you could say the woman should get her tubes tied. If she doesn't want to then he shouldn't have to either.

As for avoiding sex with the woman, come on, people lie. If you're in a relationship, you trust the person. I've seen women do this exact thing. I hardly doubt anyone would have much sympathy (or any for that matter) for a woman who tricked her partner into getting her pregnant so she could reap the benefits. And like Teelie said, there are women who will poke holes in a condom.

Right. A woman can take steps to prevent pregnancy...just like a man. If one or both parties fails in this act then they are both responsible because it takes two to tango. Point is if a man does not want a woman to become pregnant he can and should take steps to prevent it. If he does not take any steps to prevent it then he is responsible.

 

[Lily Adler]

I smell a new Law & Order episode!

 

[redhawk23]

Regardless of whether you're in a pro-life or pro-choice jurisdiction, there are criminal laws against adminstering a substance to someone without their consent or knowledge.

Not to mention this is once case that both sides can agree on as simply being the worst: This asshat both terminated a fetus and asserted control over a woman's body.

 

[redhawk23]

This guy is a real jerk, but 14 years is excessive, IMO, for something women take legally every day to induce abortions.

It's legal for her to kill her unborn baby but not for him to indirectly do it?

Its illegal to chemically assert control over someone else's bodily functions without their consent. It is extremely illegal to mis-represent medication.

 

[Feenix]

Right. A woman can take steps to prevent pregnancy...just like a man. If one or both parties fails in this act then they are both responsible because it takes two to tango. Point is if a man does not want a woman to become pregnant he can and should take steps to prevent it. If he does not take any steps to prevent it then he is responsible.

I see pregnancy through deception as nothing short of fraud.

 

[charl_huntress]

As for your example in the Navy, if it's true then that guy should be let off the hook. It's called fraud and people get fined and go to jail for that all the time.

That is not what happened. The woman was very well known around base for pulling this trick on gullible sailors. When this happened to the sailor I knew, he went to the command to help him after finding out this woman had pulled this trick before. The command backed him and he went to court... The judge essentially told him what I just said. If you did not want her to become pregnant you should have taken some precaution for birth control. Since he took none then he was liable.

I see pregnancy through deception as nothing short of fraud.

It's preventable fraud if the man can take responsibility to prevent it, which he can. Also considering the man is the one who provides the seed, he can always refuse to provide the seed.

 

[TheBat812]

Not if she intentionally renders said precaution useless...

 

[redhawk23]

To further complicate it the father may not want the child but will have to pay child support. If a woman doesn't want a child the father has no rights to prevent an abortion.

Even still, having children does not have near the economic, status or career effects for men that it has for mothers. Most of what remains of the wage gap between men and women is actually between men and mothers. (Unmarried, childfree women tend to have career arcs more similar to men)

A man may have to pay child support but it does not have comparable effects on his ability to get, keep or advance in jobs.

Being an unwed father does not have the same correlation to poverty and health problems that there are for un-wed mothers.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Reading through this thread is making me gayer by the second ...

 

[charl_huntress]

Not if she intentionally renders said precaution useless...

No birth control is 100% effective. Also, the man has the ability to provide his own birth control and should be responsible for it. He can avoid sex because abstinence is the best way and only way to avoid conception.

 

[Duran Man]

Reading through this thread is making me gayer by the second ...

qft

 

[Teelie]

Even still, having children does not have near the economic, status or career effects for men that it has for mothers. Most of what remains of the wage gap between men and women is actually between men and mothers. (Unmarried, childfree women tend to have career arcs more similar to men)

A man may have to pay child support but it does not have comparable effects on his ability to get, keep or advance in jobs.

Being an unwed father does not have the same correlation to poverty and health problems that there are for un-wed mothers.

So you're going to abuse statistics and facts to justify a case where a man doesn't want a baby but a woman tricks him into it and forces him to pay it because on average, women have it harder? What if this man has a low paying job or has no way to afford it? Tough luck because on average, more men are better off?

That's poor justification. It also neglects to account for when a man wants to keep a child but the woman does not. He has no say, no right at all in her keeping it but her keeping it gives him no say nor rights either.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I guess the moral of this thread is that do NOT get into a serious relationship with someone unless you are on the same page re: kids. For every heterosexual person in the world, male or female, that should be their dealbreaker.

As for one night stands, you're on your own there. An unwanted child isn't the worst thing you can get from such a scenario.

 

[Feenix]

It's preventable fraud if the man can take responsibility to prevent it, which he can. Also considering the man is the one who provides the seed, he can always refuse to provide the seed.

Most fraud cases are preventable. Fortunately, being a sucker doesn't mean the other person gets off scot free. If someone lies about having cancer and you donate money to them, they're still at fault. Scams (ie. lying) is fraud and fraud is illegal. Even "preventable fraud" as you put it.

Pregnancy through deception (if either gender does it) is fraud.

What that woman did to your Navy friend should be fraud. Like I stated above, a con artist who scams someone who didn't take the necessary precautions to not get scammed (ie. doing their research) will still be found criminally responsible. Their actions are still illegal, regardless of how stupid their victims are.

Edit: A different judge could have seen your Navy case in another way. There are judges here that will always side with a woman, no matter how ridiculous her claims are (like suing for $10,000 a month in spousal support). That doesn't make their decision right, it just proves the judge is biased.

 

[redhawk23]

So you're going to abuse statistics and facts to justify a case where a man doesn't want a baby but a woman tricks him into it and forces him to pay it because on average, women have it harder? What if this man has a low paying job or has no way to afford it? Tough luck because on average, more men are better off?

That's poor justification. It also neglects to account for when a man wants to keep a child but the woman does not. He has no say, no right at all in her keeping it but her keeping it gives him no say nor rights either.

No. I'm reflecting on the reality that in the vast majority of cases, men and women are equally responsible for producing a child but the consequences are not at all the same. The laws have been constructed to try and stave off many of the negative effects not just for the women, but for the children as well. It has always been a lot easier for men to just run away from the situation or not to take responsibility and the laws restrict their ability to do so.

Trying to negate those efforts by constructing conspiracy theories in which "those horrible women are tricking all of the men!" is to deny the common reality and the societal need for those laws.


Either way it is moot in this case. There is no indication at all that this women did anything untoward beyond refusing to receive an invasive surgery. What is clear is that this man obviously committed medical fraud to assert chemical control over someone else's body. I mean on top of everything else, she wasn't even actually getting the anti-biotics she apparently needed for an infection.

Really, what need is there to mitigate that this guy is awful regardless of the abortion issue?

 

[NickNitro]

Pro life vs Pro Choice vs Morality

 

[redhawk23]

This guy is a real jerk, but 14 years is excessive, IMO, for something women take legally every day to induce abortions.

It's legal for her to kill her unborn baby but not for him to indirectly do it?

14 years seems pretty standard for poisonings and food tampering and similar crimes.

 

[TheBat812]

No birth control is 100% effective. Also, the man has the ability to provide his own birth control and should be responsible for it. He can avoid sex because abstinence is the best way and only way to avoid conception.

I'm talking about cases where he does provide his own birth control that she then tampers with. What then?

 

[charl_huntress]

Most fraud cases are preventable. Fortunately, being a sucker doesn't mean the other person gets off scot free. If someone lies about having cancer and you donate money to them, they're still at fault. Scams (ie. lying) is fraud and fraud is illegal. Even "preventable fraud" as you put it.

Pregnancy through deception (if either gender does it) is fraud.

What that woman did to your Navy friend should be fraud. Like I stated above, a con artist who scams someone who didn't take the necessary precautions to not get scammed (ie. doing their research) will still be found criminally responsible. Their actions are still illegal, regardless of how stupid their victims are.

Edit: A different judge could have seen your Navy case in another way. There are judges here that will always side with a woman, no matter how ridiculous her claims are (like suing for $10,000 a month in spousal support). That doesn't make their decision right, it just proves the judge is biased.

The man could have prevented the pregnancy by various measures, including not having sex. The fact she lied about not being able to get pregnant doesn't absolve him from actually getting her pregnant, since he could have prevented that. A woman cannot get pregnant by herself. She may have defrauded him into thinking she couldn't get pregnant, but again that does not absolve him from responsibility for the child because she did get pregnant. I doubt any judge would rule in his favor and it has nothing to do with bias toward women. It's that a man is liable for his seed...in more ways than one.

I'm talking about cases where he does provide his own birth control that she then tampers with. What then?

My uncle always tells his young son that every man is responsible for their own hat.

 

[redhawk23]

I'm talking about cases where he does provide his own birth control that she then tampers with. What then?

Prove it first, for one thing.

 

[Teelie]

No. I'm reflecting on the reality that in the vast majority of cases, men and women are equally responsible for producing a child but the consequences are not at all the same. The laws have been constructed to try and stave off many of the negative effects not just for the women, but for the children as well. It has always been a lot easier for men to just run away from the situation or not to take responsibility and the laws restrict their ability to do so.

Trying to negate those efforts by constructing conspiracy theories in which "those horrible women are tricking all of the men!" is to deny the common reality and the societal need for those laws.


Either way it is moot in this case. There is no indication at all that this women did anything untoward beyond refusing to receive an invasive surgery. What is clear is that this man obviously committed medical fraud to assert chemical control over someone else's body. I mean on top of everything else, she wasn't even actually getting the anti-biotics she apparently needed for an infection.

Really, what need is there to mitigate that this guy is awful regardless of the abortion issue?

There is no conspiracy theory, no negating anything, except on your part where again, you misconstrue or ignore facts to fit an argument instead of accepting anything that goes against them.

That you choose to ignore or invalidate the very real cases where a man wants to keep a child and a woman does not is no "conspiracy theory" and saying there aren't women who decieve men is more ignoring the facts to fit your argument.

You are so assumptive men would not want a child you can't even accept it and call it a conspiracy theory. You seemingly cannot believe there are women who can and do lie or trick men into getting them pregnant.

I never once said that the laws themselves weren't necessary. I did say they were one-sided however and don't take into account other factors like the father's rights. You are the one who said men have it better off as if this was a defacto situation where it's clearly not always true. Instead of accepting there are cases men cannot pay child support and/or are decieved into having a child but not given any say in the pregnancy you are ignoring they even exist!

I'm not mitigating anything he did. You once more ignore facts that don't fit your perception despite my first post even saying, "Either way this is not the way to handle an unwanted pregnancy, whether you're pro-choice or not. He got what was coming to him." How am I mitigating his illegal and blatantly unethical actions?

 

[Feenix]

The man could have prevented the pregnancy by various measures, including not having sex. The fact she lied about not being able to get pregnant doesn't absolve him from actually getting her pregnant, since he could have prevented that. A woman cannot get pregnant by herself. She may have defrauded him into thinking she couldn't get pregnant, but again that does not absolve him from responsibility for the child because she did get pregnant. I doubt any judge would rule in his favor and it has nothing to do with bias toward women. It's that a man is liable for his seed...in more ways than one.

You're missing the point. By saying that the man shouldn't have had sex with the woman and is therefore responsible is like saying that someone shouldn't donate to a person with cancer because that person could be a con artist and defraud them out of that money. People trust other people. That's not illegal. What is illegal is fraud and pregnancy through deception is fraud and should be illegal. Everyone has a responsibility to do their research before donating to a cause, but that doesn't mean the con artist is off the hook because what they did is still illegal.

This stems from what I saw at the law firm where women would purposely get pregnant to get the money from the guy and use it towards themselves. One woman bought herself a $2000 jacket while her child went hungry. That is illegal.

 

[Feenix]

Trying to negate those efforts by constructing conspiracy theories in which "those horrible women are tricking all of the men!" is to deny the common reality and the societal need for those laws.

Try working in a family law firm. You'll see very quickly that these "conspiracy theories" are actually a reality and the majority of the men who walked through that firm were victims of deception from women who are nothing short of evil. I live in a province where we have lots of oil, lots of jobs, and lots of money. Men, right out of high school, can make 6 figures working in the oil fields and that's where a lot of women "patrol" to find a guy they can dupe.