Norwegian man sentenced to 6 years for giving girlfriend abortion pill laced smoothie

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by kazenatsu, Mar 1, 2019.

  1. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    All over the entire world, SHE OWNS IT and HE DOESN'T...


    You have never proven otherwise....you can't because it's true and a fact...


    and the guy still did 6 years and paid $23,000 <Trolling>
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2019
  2. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think he viewed it as assault - he just didn't want another kid. I am mixed on this one .. It is definitely a nasty thing to do to someone - give them drugs without consent. I am wondering what the rational for the fine was... its a strange case.
     
    kazenatsu likes this.
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,627
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Glad you are able to see this from the father's perspective.

    If it's accepted as okay for her to abort, you can see how the man didn't think what he was doing was all that terrible.

    But then that begs the question 'Was it?'
    (I mean in relation to the fetus, not her body)
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2019
  4. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,627
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Finally a rational Pro-Choicer.

    The fine was obviously [or presumably?] because the fetus was viewed as hers, and so the female judge believed she deserved to be compensated for it. (Even though he was as much of a parent in relation to that fetus as she was)

    Like they say in Animal Farm, everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.


    (related thread: Swedish law – not so equal after all )
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2019
  5. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The rationale may have been ""If you give someone a drug they could die from it or suffer serious injuries, so if one is a dickhead and does that they should suffer as much as possible"""".

    Administering a drug could be as bad as a beating and/or death....
     
  6. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    """Even though he was as much of a parent in relation to that fetus as she was""""

    :roflol::roll::roflol: OMGAWD! YOU don't know which person is pregnant!! It's the one with the fetus inside of her , the one who has to use her body to grow a fetus....NOT the sperm contributor.

    NO, HE is NOT as much of a parent in relation to the fetus.....if he was HE should've taken the drug. WHY didn't he ? Because HE is not "" as much of a parent " as the woman...
     
  7. The Sentinel

    The Sentinel Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    43
    This is why we should legalize infanticide, with either parent being allowed to terminate the infant parasite. Laci Peterson would still be alive today if infanticide was a rare, safe and legal option.
     
  8. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am driven not by religious doctrine or political stripe but by logic and reason. I read the link and unfortunately the rational for the sentence and fine were not stated in any detail.

    The fine could have been awarded on the basis of pain and suffering - brought on by the abortion pills. The article alludes to the idea that the woman underwent some suffering but again is scant on details.

    As you stated - if the fetus is not viewed as a human, it should not have been much of a factor in the decision. One could view some loss on the basis of a "potential child" but not as if a child actually existed - unless one was to be in complete hypocrisy.
     
  9. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was not aware that there was any significant possibility of death from the abortion pill - or the suffering of serious injuries. I doubt that the dude in this story was either. This makes a difference.

    I wish we had more info on the rational for sentencing than was given in the link.
     
  10. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's just it, no one can know in advance what reaction a person will have to a drug. Some people can be allergic to different drugs that others take daily with no ill effect.



    I believed he caused her to abort....that would certainly be assault at the least.

    From the OP :
    """A man who admitted tricking his girlfriend into having a miscarriage by giving her a smoothie laced with abortion pills has been jailed for six years.
    The man, who earlier he said he feels like a 'sh*tbag' for his actions, has also been ordered to pay the victim 200,000 kroner ($23,000) in damages.
    The 26-year-old from Trondheim in central Norway pleaded guilty to inflicting serious bodily harm and also to terminating a pregnancy without the mother's consent after appearing in court."""
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2019
  11. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I understand what the fellow pleaded guilty to. What is not stated is what the serious bodily harm was. Why I use the term significant risk of harm is because these things matter.

    For example - say someone gave someone an aspirin without their knowledge - and the person had an adverse reaction - not lethal but something that required medical attention. Would we claim that 6 years was an appropriate sentence.

    Intent is an important factor in law. In order to be found guilty of a crime one needs to prove both "mens rea" and "actus rea". The former is that one has to have intended it and the latter is that one has to have actually committed the crime.

    There is actus rea for sure - the man did the deed. The question is whether or not he intended serious bodily harm .. and what actual harm the woman suffered.

    I do not think the dude can be said to have intended serious bodily harm - and what actual harm the woman suffered is not stated.
     
  12. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Obviously she suffered significant enough harm to warrant the sentence and fine he received. :)

    She suffered the "harm" of losing her fetus WITHOUT HER PERMISSION....and could have resulted in worse harm.

    If someone took blood/body parts, from you without your permission would you think they should be jailed and fined?
     
  13. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no idea what harm the woman suffered .. so difficult to comment. I don't buy your body part analogy - way to hyperbolic.
     
  14. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    OK, so you don't think a woman losing a wanted fetus through miscarriage with potentially dangerous drugs , having a miscarriage, is not harm.

    Luckily those in her country are more knowledgeable.

    No, it's not hyperbole... you seem to think that a woman having a body part taken out without her permission is fine and dandy....so then can I assume if YOU having a body part taken out without your consent is fine and dandy with YOU?
     
  15. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never said anything of the sort. Do try to take your head out of your backside long enough to stop attributing falsehoods to me.

    I suppose a fingernail could be considered a body part - claiming that clipping someones fingernails in ones sleep - is akin to taking a kidney - or that losing a pregnancy is akin to someone taking a kidney - is hyperbolic gibberish.
     
  16. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    OK, so you don't think a woman losing a wanted fetus through miscarriage with potentially dangerous drugs , having a miscarriage, is not harm.

    Luckily those in her country are more knowledgeable.

    No, it's not hyperbole... you seem to think that a woman having a body part taken out without her permission is fine and dandy....so then can I assume if YOU having a body part taken out without your consent is fine and dandy with YOU?



    You indicated everything I said in my post .


    You dismiss the woman's harm because YOU don't think it's so bad.....the law disagrees and rightly so, it was an ATTACK on her and caused bodily harm.


    You seem to think that it is OK to take part of a woman's body without her consent...that is what you repeatedly keep saying..

    A miscarriage is hardly comparable to having fingernails clipped...OH YOUR hyperbole!!!! Ask a doctor.
     
  17. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,627
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously that fine would have been a bit excessive if it had only been based on the woman's pain and suffering.

    (Unless we're talking about psychological suffering from losing her fetus, but again that's not actually her physical body, and the sexist double standards would still apply because no one would care about the man's psychological suffering in these sorts of cases)

    I think it's a pretty standard abortion pill scenario.
    It's not exactly comfortable and nice, but we have a good idea of what it's like when a woman takes an abortion pill. Some bad cramps and an especially heavy period.
    Miscarriages, of course, are never pleasant.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2019
  18. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    NO, no one should care about a "man" so low he would assault a woman that way.
     
  19. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,627
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We could debate whether it's really 'assault'. Women 'assault' themselves all the time, isn't this this true? You argue it's her right to do it.
    What this is really about is consent, isn't it?
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2019
  20. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,627
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And therein lies the core of this thread.

    Obviously it is seen as human. Or at least somewhat human.

    The man was being punished for more than just inflicting suffering on the woman.


    If the man had just administered an abortion pill to a woman who was not pregnant, and then killed her dog, the fine would not have been as high.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2019
  21. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, we have the technology to keep a brain-dead human "alive" until the body literally decomposes around the tubes. If a person is unable to consent to having that life support, is there any time you can see it being legal to end said life support?
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2019
  22. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,627
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it was completely brain-dead (hypothetical, since this is not easy to prove), I would not argue it is a person.

    But again, you seem to try to be changing the argument here.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2019
  23. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No - I'm not. Who makes the decision to pull the plug on a person who is not able to make that decision for themselves? Family or doctors do.
     
  24. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,627
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet you believe the mother should have all the decision-making power.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2019
  25. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Considering she is the only one who could die if there are complications - yes. Why should she hand that decision-making to you? You have absolutely zero skin in the game. You will be in no way impacted, financially or mentally, by the pregnancy.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.

Share This Page