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

Maybe just feticide (which is a type of murder, albeit to a lesser degree).

 

Is that it?

 

Why? Aren't Anti-Choicers against women having abortions because they think abortion is MURDER? THEY call it murder.

 

Not going do discuss that here. You're trying to cloud the issue now.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Why? Aren't Anti-Choicers against women having abortions because they think abortion is MURDER? THEY call it murder.

Ya, those facty things sure "cloud the issues"....

Uh, did ya read the OP...….why isn't it the issue?


BTW, YOU were discussing it....

 

Who is responsible for the unwanted pregnancy?

And no, they're not separate. Either women have SOLE responsibility, or they don't. You can't pick and choose.

 

Why not? It's not like he caused something to the woman's body that wasn't going to happen anyway.

(at birth)

 

You're trying to double up on the word "responsible".

There is no doubt that both parties were involved in the pregnancy.

But, that doesn't mean the male has a right to dictate ANYTHING concerning the woman's person. She retains full rights to her healthcare decisions.

And, that doesn't mean the male gets to dodge on financial responsibility for care during and following pregnancy.

I don't know why you disagree with this. It's the way it has been for a very long time.

 

It's they who are trying to make exceptions (special pleading, to suit some objective yet to be admitted to) for SOME autonomous acts - therefore doubling up on the idea of autonomy/responsibility. In this case, attempting to assign some part of the responsibility for the sex act leading to an unwanted pregnancy, on the man. Clearly, unless the woman was raped, then she was alone in the decision to risk an unwanted pregnancy by agreeing to unprotected sex. This isn't about what happens later (child care etc), this about the DECISION she made in relation to HER body, in that first instance.

For whatever reason, our friends do not want that responsibility assigned to the woman. I suspect it's because they don't want to have to admit that the pregnancy was a choice. Which it patently is, when you engage in an act which produces that very result. Of course, they (our friends) could simply think that women are so deeply stupid that they don't know that sex makes babies, and therefore can't be held responsible.

 

Oh, where's your argument for that?
She made her choice, she had his baby. (fetus, if you prefer to call it that)

Even if you can argue that the woman should overall still have the choice, the argument can still be made that the man's choice here (to terminate the pregnancy) still constitutes a mitigating factor in the amount of punishment he should receive.

 

OK, this diatribe fails on the grounds that you fail to recognize that EVERY form of birth control has a failure rate, that you fail to account for the fact that rape exists, and thus your argument includes unsupportable assumptions.

 

I don't accept the claim that all pregnant women chose to be pregnant.

I don't accept the notion that ANY punishment is warranted.

 

It depends how you define "choose".
Imagine a drunk driver who runs over some people. Did he "choose" to do that?
Maybe crank was right in framing this in terms of responsibility.

 

No.

My point is that you stated that ALL pregnant women CHOSE pregnancy.

And, we know for certain that is NOT the case. There is rape. There is incest. There is a failure rate on every method of birth control. And, I would also note that there are a wide range of techniques of coercion and subterfuge that may not be chargeable as rape, but deprecate or eliminate the possibility of choice.

There's no point in debating this. You know it's true.

 

Correct, she has NEVER proved that I said what she claimed....never gave an example....never had any proof whatsoever...

 

WillReadmore said: ↑
There is no doubt that both parties were involved in the pregnancy.

But, that doesn't mean the male has a right to dictate ANYTHING concerning the woman's person. She retains full rights to her healthcare decisions.

Where's the argument for women having the right to their own bodies...well, they get the same rights everyone else has....

Where's YOUR argument that they shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else????

DUHHHHHHHHHHHH, if she HAD the it , it's a BABY....it's a fetus BEFORE it's born....how many times do I have to tell you to look up "BORN" in the dictionary!??

The man had NO choice in the woman's pregnancy...he committed ASSAULT even if YOU think anyone can do anything to a woman because it's "only" a woman TOO BAD FOR YOU because they can't

 

Only Complete Idiots would think women can CHOOSE to become pregnant...it is IMPOSSIBLE...

They could have sex a thousand times all the while CHOOSING to get pregnant and still not get pregnant...

 

WHY can't you say what that responsibility is???


You: "" then she was alone in the decision to risk an unwanted pregnancy by agreeing to unprotected sex."


SHOW WHERE ANYONE SAID DIFFERENTLY ….you haven't yet...,.haven't produced ONE piece of evidence of anything you claim...nothing...

It isn't.


A woman could sex a thousand times each time "choosing" to get pregnant and yet never getting pregnant...woman cannot choose to become pregnant .

Women having sex RISK getting pregnant, they do NOT choose to get pregnant..

You have friends here??

It's stupid to think women can choose to become pregnant and it happens,....

 

In a certain sense, they do.

And let's talk about women who specifically chose to get pregnant but then chose to change their minds.
Like for example the ones who got pregnant through a fertility clinic.

 

OP

It was a double assault on the woman, physical because of the incident itself, and mental because of the trauma of the miscarriage: so what he did was to interfere her secondary basic human right, the primary one being the right to self-determination.

 

I believe that pregnancy is a human right, but not her human right.

You're talking about her right to self-determination over someone else.
Obviously the fetus is not a part of her body, therefore any self-determination she has stops at where her body is no longer being affected.

Many Pro-Choicers seem to feel the woman has the right to determination over not only her own body, but the fetus. This is the legal equivalent of ownership over another person.

If it's okay for her to kill it, I don't see why it would be all that terrible if the father killed it.

 

The "trauma of miscarriage" isn't any more severe than the trauma of birth, now is it? Therefore he didn't cause any trauma to be inflicted on her that wouldn't have been inflicted on her anyway.

Or are we talking about emotional distress?

 

Something else interesting I'll point out here: Some pro-choicers had been asking "How would we know if a woman had an abortion?" as way to argue why it shouldn't be illegal. Well, how would we know that a man slipped a woman an abortion pill? By that same type of argument one could argue that we shouldn't make that illegal either.

 

Amusing how duplicitous Pro-Choicers are about abortion when the woman isn't choosing it.

Suddenly it's no longer sunshine and roses anymore, but "trauma" and "harm".

 

I don't subscribe to your belief - pregnancy isn't a right, it's a privilege, and shouldn't be abused by having too many of them.

To abort or not abort isn't 'self-determination' per se, it's a considered decision to be acted upon or not by the decision-maker, ie the pregnant woman.

With respect I suggest you confuse exercising human rights (which affects other parties?), and self-determination, which affects only the individual in the matter of life and death.

That's a very contentious and emotive expression for 'to terminate the pregnancy'. If for whatever reason a woman doesn't want her pregnancy to go full term, I believe it to be her right to abort it. In other words it is her right and nobody else's.