Pregnant Girlfriend Forced To Abortio...

Pregnant Girlfriend Forced To Abortion Clinic; 6 Counts For Accused

There are 148 comments on the News Channel 11 story from Oct 19, 2010, titled Pregnant Girlfriend Forced To Abortion Clinic; 6 Counts For Accused. In it, News Channel 11 reports that:

COLUMBUS , Ohio -- A local man is indicted on six counts after he is accused of kidnapping the mother of his unborn baby and forcing her to go to an abortion clinic at gunpoint.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News Channel 11.

First Prev
of 8
Next Last

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#1 Oct 19, 2010
And that is why a woman can not be forced to have an abortion...
Dan

Omaha, NE

#2 Oct 20, 2010
kathwynn wrote:
And that is why a woman can not be forced to have an abortion...
What is "why a woman can not be forced to have an abortion....."?

I'm not sure you're supposed to force anyone to do anything at gunpoint, are you?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#3 Oct 20, 2010
kathwynn wrote:
And that is why a woman can not be forced to have an abortion...
Question for you, as you're less "knee jerk" than some I try to engage on this topic.

What do you think of fetal homicide laws? Do you think they're "valid"?

I'm asking as my opinion, personally, is that it's working both sides of the street. It's (the fetus) either an entity that enjoys legal protection or does not. It can't be accorded legal protection based solely upon the whim of another. No other law works that way. I can't decide, myself, if any other entity/person should be protected based upon my desire or based upon a point in a timeline. They're protected or they're not, period.

Do you have an opinion one way or the other?

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#4 Oct 20, 2010
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Question for you, as you're less "knee jerk" than some I try to engage on this topic.
What do you think of fetal homicide laws? Do you think they're "valid"?
I'm asking as my opinion, personally, is that it's working both sides of the street. It's (the fetus) either an entity that enjoys legal protection or does not. It can't be accorded legal protection based solely upon the whim of another. No other law works that way. I can't decide, myself, if any other entity/person should be protected based upon my desire or based upon a point in a timeline. They're protected or they're not, period.
Do you have an opinion one way or the other?
Ok, here's my opinion.

The laws we do have in place seem schizophrenic. They acknowledge the difference between a "wanted" and an "unwanted" pregnancy.

Many states (I believe it's 35) do distinguish this in some way. Fetal homocide laws have been enforced in instances of a viable fetus that had been killed in the event of auto accident or commission of a crime. I find this to be logically consistent. If you are pregnant and decide to carry the child to term, something IS taken from you if that child dies at the hands or due to the actions of someone else. A father has the right to his child as well. Pregnant women refer to their child as in the present while carrying the child. They don't say "my future child." They say "the child I am carrying."

This is in direct contrast though with the fact that abortion is a legal procedure. Abortion is legal through most of the pregnancy for the most part, meaning viable near-term fetuses can be aborted.

Many take the notion that a "fetus" is a "blob of tissue" or "bunch of cells" and that life does not occur until birth or some other pre-determined time OTHER than conception. The problem with this argument is those who disagree that life begins at conception have never once come up with a viable agreement to when life DOES begin--at birth? at the point of viability? At some other time?

That makes plenty of room for debate. A cell IS life. It contains life. The fact that the fetus requires a "host" or a mother to survive its first nine lives does not IMHO diminish its "personhood".

That said, there does need to be some "gray" area if abortion is to remain legal.(And I think it should. I think there are moral areas that simply cannot be legislated, this is one of them--although I refuse to be swayed into thinking that abortion IS necessarily the answer to such situations as teenage pregnancies, unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, etc.)
Dan

Omaha, NE

#5 Oct 20, 2010
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, here's my opinion.
The laws we do have in place seem schizophrenic. They acknowledge the difference between a "wanted" and an "unwanted" pregnancy.
Many states (I believe it's 35) do distinguish this in some way. Fetal homocide laws have been enforced in instances of a viable fetus that had been killed in the event of auto accident or commission of a crime. I find this to be logically consistent. If you are pregnant and decide to carry the child to term, something IS taken from you if that child dies at the hands or due to the actions of someone else. A father has the right to his child as well. Pregnant women refer to their child as in the present while carrying the child. They don't say "my future child." They say "the child I am carrying."
This is in direct contrast though with the fact that abortion is a legal procedure. Abortion is legal through most of the pregnancy for the most part, meaning viable near-term fetuses can be aborted.
Many take the notion that a "fetus" is a "blob of tissue" or "bunch of cells" and that life does not occur until birth or some other pre-determined time OTHER than conception. The problem with this argument is those who disagree that life begins at conception have never once come up with a viable agreement to when life DOES begin--at birth? at the point of viability? At some other time?
That makes plenty of room for debate. A cell IS life. It contains life. The fact that the fetus requires a "host" or a mother to survive its first nine lives does not IMHO diminish its "personhood".
That said, there does need to be some "gray" area if abortion is to remain legal.(And I think it should. I think there are moral areas that simply cannot be legislated, this is one of them--although I refuse to be swayed into thinking that abortion IS necessarily the answer to such situations as teenage pregnancies, unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, etc.)
Thanks for the reply.

I share your opinion on abortion as you stated (with the addenda RE: using it as post facto birth control).

Concerning the fetal homicide laws, I'd do away with them, as it leaves the matter of whether the being is accorded legal protection up to the whims of an individual. You can't have legal protection if the individual person "wants" AND simultaneously have it be legal for that same person to terminate the being of their own volition sans penalty.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#6 Oct 20, 2010
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
What is "why a woman can not be forced to have an abortion....."?
I'm not sure you're supposed to force anyone to do anything at gunpoint, are you?
There is a current argument among the extremists here on topix that women have been forced to go to a PP clinic to have an abortion..

What this article shows is the lie that the extremists have been saying is real.

A woman being forced can open her mouth or let a wrker know what is really going on..

As for your other question..

They have been found Constitutional and stand..

The reason it seems is that it is not the fetus has actual rights, but the woman civil rights have been violated.. Yes even if she were going to a clinic to have an abortion and is gunned down.. The criminal still violated her civil rights.

And while that might not make much sense to some. The fact remains that a woman has the right to make a choice for herself. Not have a medical procedure done in a street and certainly not by a criminal with a gun.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#7 Oct 21, 2010
kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a current argument among the extremists here on topix that women have been forced to go to a PP clinic to have an abortion..
What this article shows is the lie that the extremists have been saying is real.
A woman being forced can open her mouth or let a wrker know what is really going on..
As for your other question..
They have been found Constitutional and stand..
The reason it seems is that it is not the fetus has actual rights, but the woman civil rights have been violated.. Yes even if she were going to a clinic to have an abortion and is gunned down.. The criminal still violated her civil rights.
And while that might not make much sense to some. The fact remains that a woman has the right to make a choice for herself. Not have a medical procedure done in a street and certainly not by a criminal with a gun.
With all due respect, I think you may be incorrect RE: the fetal homicide laws. The charge isn't levied due to a civil rights violation; it's a homicide charge, meaning that sopmeone's been killed in a criminal act. The woman isn't dead, the fetus is.
PastorBob666

Centreville, VA

#8 Oct 21, 2010
<<The woman isn't dead, the fetus is. >>

and the dead fetus still has zero civil rights!

However, if a born person is killed, it is THEIR rights that have been violated.

Born persons have the right to life, due process, the right to be left alone, etc..... Fetuses have no rights at all.
PastorBob666

Centreville, VA

#10 Oct 21, 2010
Those negative ratings are abundant proof I have struck a raw nerve!

Bull's eye!
Dan

Omaha, NE

#11 Oct 21, 2010
PastorBob666 wrote:
<<The woman isn't dead, the fetus is. >>
and the dead fetus still has zero civil rights!
However, if a born person is killed, it is THEIR rights that have been violated.
Born persons have the right to life, due process, the right to be left alone, etc..... Fetuses have no rights at all.
Then please elaborate as to the identity of the victim of the "fetal homicide". I assumed it was the fetus on whose behalf the state pressed the charge, not the mom, as she's not the homicide victim.

Thanks.
PastorBob666

Centreville, VA

#13 Oct 21, 2010
<<The fact that the fetus requires a "host" or a mother to survive its first nine lives does not IMHO diminish its "personhood".> >

Our legal system says only people who are born are "persons."

To test this, try having a fetus counted in the US census. Or, try claiming a fetus as a dependent child on your taxes.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#14 Oct 21, 2010
PastorBob666 wrote:
<<The fact that the fetus requires a "host" or a mother to survive its first nine lives does not IMHO diminish its "personhood".> >
Our legal system says only people who are born are "persons."
To test this, try having a fetus counted in the US census. Or, try claiming a fetus as a dependent child on your taxes.
Good luck with the last.. As the IRS might be banging on his door fairly quickly..

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#15 Oct 21, 2010
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, but how does this information vitiate the fact that the homicide victim in these cases is the fetus, not the woman?
Are you just being clueless? Or are you just having a stupid moment..

In order for the fetus to have been harmed.. The pregnant woman herself must have been harmed.. You can not hurt a fetus with out having an all too often fatal effect on both the woman and the fetus..
PastorBob666

Centreville, VA

#16 Oct 21, 2010
<<Then please elaborate as to the identity of the victim of the "fetal homicide". >>>

Homicide charges are not pressed on behalf of the victim. They are pressed on behalf of the government!

You merely need a "victim" to meet one of the elements of a charge of murder.

If you ever read a homicide charging document, you would see it will say something like: "State of California vs. Simpson," for example. Not, "Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman vs. Simpson."

<<<I assumed it was the fetus on whose behalf the state pressed the charge, not the mom, as she's not the homicide victim.>>

My state fetal homicide law says: "no rights or personhood for a fetus.":

MD Code § 2-103. Murder or manslaughter of viable fetus. See section (g):

(a) "Viable" defined.- For purposes of a prosecution under this title, "viable" has the meaning stated in § 20-209 of the Health - General Article.

(b) Prosecution authorized.- Except as provided in subsections (d) through (f) of this section, a prosecution may be instituted for murder or manslaughter of a viable fetus.

(c) Intent.- A person prosecuted for murder or manslaughter as provided in subsection (b) of this section must have:

(1) intended to cause the death of the viable fetus;

(2) intended to cause serious physical injury to the viable fetus; or

(3) wantonly or recklessly disregarded the likelihood that the person's actions would cause the death of or serious physical injury to the viable fetus.

(d) Inapplicable to termination of pregnancy.- Nothing in this section applies to or infringes on a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy as stated in § 20-209 of the Health - General Article.

(e) Inapplicable to medical professionals administering lawful care.- Nothing in this section subjects a physician or other licensed medical professional to liability for fetal death that occurs in the course of administering lawful medical care.

(f) Inapplicable to actions of woman carrying fetus.- Nothing in this section applies to an act or failure to act of a pregnant woman with regard to her own fetus.

(g) Section does not confer personhood on fetus.- Nothing in this section shall be construed to confer personhood or any rights on the fetus.

(h) Crime not considered "aggravating circumstance".- The commission of first degree murder of a viable fetus under this section, in conjunction with the commission of another first degree murder arising out of the same incident, does not constitute an aggravating circumstance subjecting a defendant to the death penalty under § 2-303(g)(ix) of this title.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#17 Oct 21, 2010
kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you just being clueless? Or are you just having a stupid moment..
In order for the fetus to have been harmed.. The pregnant woman herself must have been harmed.. You can not hurt a fetus with out having an all too often fatal effect on both the woman and the fetus..
Before you call me "clueless", please, please tell me that your extensive experience "arguing" this has availed you of the definition of the term.

Fetal homicide refers to the death of the mom or the death of the fetus? Do I really need to get the building blocks out like this? If you're not clear, just check the link you sent me and report back.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#18 Oct 21, 2010
PastorBob666 wrote:
<<Then please elaborate as to the identity of the victim of the "fetal homicide". >>>
Homicide charges are not pressed on behalf of the victim. They are pressed on behalf of the government!
You merely need a "victim" to meet one of the elements of a charge of murder.
If you ever read a homicide charging document, you would see it will say something like: "State of California vs. Simpson," for example. Not, "Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman vs. Simpson."
<<<I assumed it was the fetus on whose behalf the state pressed the charge, not the mom, as she's not the homicide victim.>>
My state fetal homicide law says: "no rights or personhood for a fetus.":
MD Code § 2-103. Murder or manslaughter of viable fetus. See section (g):
(a) "Viable" defined.- For purposes of a prosecution under this title, "viable" has the meaning stated in § 20-209 of the Health - General Article.
(b) Prosecution authorized.- Except as provided in subsections (d) through (f) of this section, a prosecution may be instituted for murder or manslaughter of a viable fetus.
(c) Intent.- A person prosecuted for murder or manslaughter as provided in subsection (b) of this section must have:
(1) intended to cause the death of the viable fetus;
(2) intended to cause serious physical injury to the viable fetus; or
(3) wantonly or recklessly disregarded the likelihood that the person's actions would cause the death of or serious physical injury to the viable fetus.
(d) Inapplicable to termination of pregnancy.- Nothing in this section applies to or infringes on a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy as stated in § 20-209 of the Health - General Article.
(e) Inapplicable to medical professionals administering lawful care.- Nothing in this section subjects a physician or other licensed medical professional to liability for fetal death that occurs in the course of administering lawful medical care.
(f) Inapplicable to actions of woman carrying fetus.- Nothing in this section applies to an act or failure to act of a pregnant woman with regard to her own fetus.
(g) Section does not confer personhood on fetus.- Nothing in this section shall be construed to confer personhood or any rights on the fetus.
(h) Crime not considered "aggravating circumstance".- The commission of first degree murder of a viable fetus under this section, in conjunction with the commission of another first degree murder arising out of the same incident, does not constitute an aggravating circumstance subjecting a defendant to the death penalty under § 2-303(g)(ix) of this title.
Yes, the state proffers charges.

Is there a homicide victim here or not, Bob?

Looks like "yes" to me. Can you confirm? If so, is it the mom or the fetus, Bob?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#19 Oct 21, 2010
kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you just being clueless? Or are you just having a stupid moment..
In order for the fetus to have been harmed.. The pregnant woman herself must have been harmed.. You can not hurt a fetus with out having an all too often fatal effect on both the woman and the fetus..
"Harmed" = "killed"? "all too often" = "in all instances"?

Fetal homicide charges are filed only if the mom is killed?

Can you cite that?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#20 Oct 21, 2010
kathwynn wrote:
And that is why a woman can not be forced to have an abortion...
Teenagers, and even grown adults, are forced to do by their parents all the time. And men love abortion to avoid their irresponsible behavior, and have all kinds of ways of getting women to abort. What is this nonsense? The first feminists were staunchly Pro-Life because of the abuses of abortion pushed by men.

And now, it's society pushing it, expecting women, along with men, to be worker bees and support Big Business and ignore their womanhood, and their motherhood, that puts them above the working class.

This is why abortion should be illegal again. It is abused, like drug use, that effects the women that get them and society as a whole.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#21 Oct 21, 2010
PastorBob666 wrote:
Those negative ratings are abundant proof I have struck a raw nerve!
Bull's eye!
Oh here you are, Pastor! You keep disappearing from other abortion threads. Have I driven you off? LOL!

Aren't you suppose to be a lawyer or something?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#22 Oct 21, 2010
PastorBob666 wrote:
<<Then please elaborate as to the identity of the victim of the "fetal homicide". >>>
Homicide charges are not pressed on behalf of the victim. They are pressed on behalf of the government!
You merely need a "victim" to meet one of the elements of a charge of murder.
If you ever read a homicide charging document, you would see it will say something like: "State of California vs. Simpson," for example. Not, "Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman vs. Simpson."
<<<I assumed it was the fetus on whose behalf the state pressed the charge, not the mom, as she's not the homicide victim.>>
My state fetal homicide law says: "no rights or personhood for a fetus.":
MD Code § 2-103. Murder or manslaughter of viable fetus. See section (g):
(a) "Viable" defined.- For purposes of a prosecution under this title, "viable" has the meaning stated in § 20-209 of the Health - General Article.
(b) Prosecution authorized.- Except as provided in subsections (d) through (f) of this section, a prosecution may be instituted for murder or manslaughter of a viable fetus.
(c) Intent.- A person prosecuted for murder or manslaughter as provided in subsection (b) of this section must have:
(1) intended to cause the death of the viable fetus;
(2) intended to cause serious physical injury to the viable fetus; or
(3) wantonly or recklessly disregarded the likelihood that the person's actions would cause the death of or serious physical injury to the viable fetus.
(d) Inapplicable to termination of pregnancy.- Nothing in this section applies to or infringes on a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy as stated in § 20-209 of the Health - General Article.
(e) Inapplicable to medical professionals administering lawful care.- Nothing in this section subjects a physician or other licensed medical professional to liability for fetal death that occurs in the course of administering lawful medical care.
(f) Inapplicable to actions of woman carrying fetus.- Nothing in this section applies to an act or failure to act of a pregnant woman with regard to her own fetus.
(g) Section does not confer personhood on fetus.- Nothing in this section shall be construed to confer personhood or any rights on the fetus.
Bob-Q for you and I am absolutely deferring to you as I believe you are an attorney.

I'm not riding this "fetal homicide law" bus as a means to somehow redefine personhood or anything. I have a real question on it, and it has no bearing on how one views abortion.

It appears to me, the layman, that fetal homicide laws are working both sides of the street.

How can an entity be accorded legal protection based simply on the identity of the person taking an action against it?

If it's the pregnant woman who takes the action against the fetus, the entity is a non-person and is accorded no legal protection at all, before and after the act. In fact, until the very moment that the "other than pregnant woman individual" takes the action against it, it has this "non-status"; somehow it is accorded legal status only after the act by the "other than pregnant woman" individual. Only after the act does the fetus attain legal standing (I'm assuming "standing" as the word "homicide" is employed-you can't commit "homicide" against anything other than an human being).

How does that happen? Is there a legal term for the entity reverting from a non-person with no legal proection to something other than that only after it's been killed at the behest of someone (anyone) other than the pregnant woman?

How does the fetus "switch" legal status so quickly? On what basis, legally, does this or can this happen?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Wasserman Schultz to step down amid uproar over... 18 min Duke for Mayor 64
Trump and Putin have ties..... 41 min Pale Rider 23
How stupid is Hillary? 1 hr UTrashy 11
News Discount Tire tops 920 store mark 2 hr Posting as myself 9
Open season on Cops 2 hr Male 105
Pig farming indoors or outdoors? 3 hr Slim Pickens 86
Thousands Hit Philadelphia's Steamy Streets to ... 4 hr d pants 22

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages