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

Yes, but I think we can agree that what happens to the fetus is not directly related to action upon the woman, at least not in an automatic inextricable sense.

Yes, but it is a very accurate one, and to the point.

But you do believe if she waits too long she looses that right.​

 

A miscarriage is an unwanted event and is a a highly emotional feeling of profound loss, hence traumatic; birth is - well, exactly the opposite?

 

The fact that it is unwanted doesn't change what it is. Either it causes harm and trauma to the woman, or it doesn't.

As for "emotional feeling of profound loss", you're entering into a very nebulous subjective legal area.

The law takes into account physical damages, I don't think it should take into account emotions.

 

Sorry, I don't quite understand that phrase.

I believe that provided the abortion is done before the child has awareness, and pre-supposing that the pregnant woman has her reason(s), then it is acceptable.

 

I would think that all miscarriages are traumatic, and as far as I know, and whilst appreciating that it must be a most unpleasant experience for the female, I don't think she would feel pain. But I don't know for sure - only a woman would know that? I guess it would be commensurate upon what phase the pregnancy is in when it happens.

Well that's a separate issue isn't it? I'm only talking about the physicality and morality of the topic, not the legal implications.

 

Thanks for showing yet again you have no interest in the people once they are born! No assault charge, women do not matter they are just a vessel for the beloved un born who can go **** off once it is actually born!

 

I mean doing something to the fetus is not the same thing as doing something to the woman's body, although doing something to the fetus could end up causing an effect on the woman's body.

 

And couldn't it be said that abortion is a form of miscarriage, in that sense?
(i.e. abortion is traumatic)

 

I'm not sure if you're talking about miscarriage or abortion here?

 

He should not be charged with assault against the woman unless he caused assault against the woman.
Now, are you going to admit he assaulted the fetus?

 

I'm talking about in general, without the woman's permission.

 

I don't know much about this subject, but I'd guess that an unexpected miscarriage is a much worse event than a planned surgically performed abortion.

 

Physically the two are rather similar, in terms of effects on the woman's body.
Wouldn't you agree?

 

I believe that the woman should have every entitlement to do what she feels is the right thing to do in the circumstances.

 

I think you've lost the context of what we were originally talking about here.


Let's go back to my original quote that started this line of discussion:

 

It wouldn't surprise me - our posts have got out of sync.

 

Now, the question is, do you think the woman should have choice over something because of specific factors that don't affect her own body?

Yes, we are talking about the choice over something that will have some effect over her own body, but it seems like pro-choicers are trying to make the argument that she should have the choice for reasons that do not involve the effect on her body.

 

If that's for me, I don't want to generalise; to use the hackneyed phrase - 'One size doesn't fit all', and all instances should be considered and then judged according to their merit.

 

It's just absurd to say the woman should have the choice over whether to kill the fetus, but if the father makes that choice then there's all hell to pay.

Whatever the father should be punished for should only be for the physical effect he caused on the woman's body (if you believe in abortion).

Otherwise abortion proponents are really really inconsistent. (or crazy Pro-Woman)

 

The father in this case cynically forced his will on an unknowing and unsuspecting woman, and that's assault in anybody's language.

 

But the fetus is not the woman.

A woman cynically forces her will when she gets an abortion.

He should only be punished for the effect he had on her body, yes?

(And that just involves her uterus opening and expelling it's contents a few months early)

 

All I'm saying is the woman should not have a right to her pregnancy greater than what the connection is between her body and that pregnancy.

To say otherwise is to be Pro-Woman and Anti-Father.

 

As I've said - that is her decision, and hers alone?

He should be prosecuted and sanctioned for bodily assault/assault against the person. I would imagine the result (the miscarriage itself) would be a separate matter. In that case, I'd hazard a guess that she would have to instigate a private prosecution against him.

 

As I said you are not interested in people, it takes more than sanctimonious morals to actually care! Tell me if I gave you a very strong laxative that took all the **** out of you, would you consider it assault, or would you say it did not harm you to take a dump?

 

You're just angry that the choice to have a baby was taken away from her. Just like the choice to have a baby was taken away from the father when a woman chose to have an abortion.