Man pleads guilty to killing his unborn child after tricking his girlfriend into taking abortion pil
161 replies, posted
[quote]
The son of a Florida fertility doctor faces up to 13 years in prison after tricking his pregnant girlfriend into taking an abortion pill, causing her to lose their baby.
John Andrew Welden, 29, pleaded guilty to "tampering with a consumer product" and "conspiracy to commit fraud" in Tampa court. He accepted a plea bargain which meant he avoided being charged under the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a murder charge carrying a life sentence.
Welden's lawyer told reporters of the bargain: "The possibility of a mandatory life sentence, no discretion to the judge, obviously is a big factor.
"Obviously it's tragic all around from every angle, and I think that's recognised."
Welden was reluctant to be a father when his then girlfriend, Remee Lee, told him she was pregnant. After a sonogram at his father's clinic, Welden told Ms Lee her blood tests had shown that she had an infection and needed to take amoxicillin.
He gave her pills, which he said were the antibiotic amoxicillin. But they were actually Cytotec, a drug that causes contractions, which he got his hands on by forging his father's signature. He told her to take three of them a day.
After she took the first, Lee was rushed to the hospital with abdominal pain and bleeding, and lost the baby.
[/quote]
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/man-pleads-guilty-to-killing-his-unborn-child-after-tricking-his-girlfriend-into-taking-abortion-pill-8806853.html[/url]
I know it's not quite the same but if this was the other way round, the woman had aborted without the permission of the husband, she would have faced no charges.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42147039][url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/man-pleads-guilty-to-killing-his-unborn-child-after-tricking-his-girlfriend-into-taking-abortion-pill-8806853.html[/url]
I know it's not quite the same but if this was the other way round, the woman had aborted without the permission of the husband, she would have faced no charges.[/QUOTE]
So why exactly do you want to a take a tragic story and spin it into a "male's rights" thing?
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42147039]I know it's not quite the same but if this was the other way round, the woman had aborted without the permission of the husband, she would have faced no charges.[/QUOTE]
It's the woman's body so ultimately the decision is hers and she doesn't really need to include the father in the decision however morally wrong it maybe to not.
What the fuck. I was just thinking if someone were to do this today, for like, no reason.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42147039]if this was the other way round, the woman had aborted without the permission of the husband, she would have faced no charges.[/QUOTE]
Did you just fucking
um
Yeah mate the difference is taking a drug yourself vs. being drugged by someone else
[QUOTE=Camundongo;42147059]So why exactly do you want to a take a tragic story and spin it into a "male's rights" thing?[/QUOTE]
I didn't. My comment was a factual accurate observation.
I'm not suggesting anything needs to be changed. The title of the article includes the phrase "killing his unborn child", how can you kill what is unborn? It's not a crime to wear a condom or pull out without prior consent but it is to induce an abortion, these things are different I'm not disputing that it just made me think about what it actually means to be alive and what ownership does anyone have over a fetus.
My comment in the OP was clumsy and ill thought out, I didn't mean it to sound the way it did.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42147122]The title of the article includes the phrase "killing his unborn child", how can you kill what is unborn? It's not a crime to wear a condom or pull out without prior consent but it is to induce an abortion, these things are different I'm not disputing that it just made me think about what it actually means to be alive and what ownership does anyone have over a fetus.[/QUOTE]
It's life that belongs to the mother and someone killed it without her permission, the wording seems fine to me.
There are two key points there - a) the life inside the mother is the mother's, because it's part of her; and b) the lack of permission part. (The difference between a lawful and unlawful termination of a pregnancy)
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42147217]It's life that belongs to the mother and someone killed it without her permission, the wording seems fine to me.
There are two key points there - a) the life inside the mother is the mother's, because it's part of her; and b) the lack of permission part. (The difference between a lawful and unlawful termination of a pregnancy)[/QUOTE]
Surely the ownership is shared between the mother and the father. Both are required for creation, DNA from both is within the fetus. Exactly what the ratio of ownership should be is complicated, but to outright say that the male partner has 0 rights over his child seems unfair. The fact that the woman carries the child is effectively a quirk of evolution, in seahorses for example the male carries the child, surely equal rights would be the best solution.
I think he is wrong for what he did.
However, if I was liable for a child that from the very moment I came to know had been conceived I had not wanted, I wouldn't just trick someone into aborting it, I'd kill them.
I think OP is picking on the wrong argument. As Zeke pointed out there is a difference between using drugs on yourself with your own consent and using drugs on another person with their consent.
If you wish to pick an argument over this, you should point out that in a lot of places a father has an obligation to pay child support even if he does not consent to the child. A woman can choose between not having the child and having the child whereas a man cannot. If a woman chooses to have a child while the father does not want it she should be obligated to take full responsibility for it and absolve the father of any responsibility for it.
[QUOTE=Riutet;42147341]I think he is wrong for what he did.
However, if I was liable for a child that from the very moment I came to know had been conceived I had not wanted, I wouldn't just trick someone into aborting it, I'd kill them.
I think OP is picking on the wrong argument. As Zeke pointed out there is a difference between using drugs on yourself with your own consent and using drugs on another person with their consent.
If you wish to pick an argument over this, you should point out that in a lot of places a father has an obligation to pay child support even if he does not consent to the child. A woman can choose between not having the child and having the child whereas a man cannot. If a woman chooses to have a child while the father does not want it she should be obligated to take full responsibility for it and absolve the father of any responsibility for it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that actually makes a lot of sense and would probably be a lot easier to enforce than equal abortion laws. There would have to be some sort of legal document that could be signed to wave any parental rights or obligations during pregnancy.
Although it doesn't address cases in which the father wants to keeps his child but the mothers wants to abort her child.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42147217]It's life that belongs to the mother and someone killed it without her permission, the wording seems fine to me.
There are two key points there - a) the life inside the mother is the mother's, because it's part of her; and b) the lack of permission part. (The difference between a lawful and unlawful termination of a pregnancy)[/QUOTE]
The life does not belong to the mother, it belongs to the child. The only reason the mother has any say in the matter is because:
A: It is her genetic material that has contributed to the child.
B: The child inside of her affects her directly too; additionally the life of someone who is already fully and objectively alive is of more objective value than the life which is neither of those things.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42147260]Surely the ownership is shared between the mother and the father. Both are required for creation, DNA from both is within the fetus. Exactly what the ratio of ownership should be is complicated, but to outright say that the male partner has 0 rights over his child seems unfair. The fact that the woman carries the child is effectively a quirk of evolution, in seahorses for example the male carries the child, surely equal rights would be the best solution.[/QUOTE]
"Seahorse males carry the children, therefore men should be able to prevent women from getting abortions."
Way to go, champ.
It's not a "quirk of evolution", it's a major part of what makes mammals mammals: the female carries the baby until birth. You do know that seahorses are the 'quirk of evolution', right? Not the norm?
Yes, the man contributes to the child's DNA too. But the woman is the one who has to carry it for 9 months, giving it her nutrients and often feeling sick, before going through a painful birth. All the guy does is give the sperm.
The woman is the one carrying the baby. Therefore, it's her choice whether to carry the baby or not. You can't force someone else to do something else for you, even if you contributed a small part.
-nevermind-
[QUOTE=Riutet;42147341]I think he is wrong for what he did.
However, if I was liable for a child that from the very moment I came to know had been conceived I had not wanted, [I]I wouldn't just trick someone into aborting it, [B]I'd kill them[/B][/I].[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, WHAT!?
[QUOTE=Last or First;42147400]"Seahorse males carry the children, therefore men should be able to prevent women from getting abortions."
Way to go, champ.
It's not a "quirk of evolution", it's a major part of what makes mammals mammals: the female carries the baby until birth. You do know that seahorses are the 'quirk of evolution', right? Not the norm?
Yes, the man contributes to the child's DNA too. But the woman is the one who has to carry it for 9 months, giving it her nutrients and often feeling sick, before going through a painful birth. All the guy does is give the sperm.
The woman is the one carrying the baby. Therefore, it's her choice whether to carry the baby or not. You can't force someone else to do something else for you, even if you contributed a small part.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure why which method, male or female gestation, is most common is relevant to the discussion.
The fact that pregnancy is a significant inconvenience to a woman does not, to me, justify killing a person's offspring against their will.
[QUOTE=Last or First;42147431]I'm sorry, WHAT!?[/QUOTE]
Saves time.
[QUOTE=Riutet;42147507]Saves time.[/QUOTE]
Are you saying you'd kill someone if they refused to kill a child for you?
That may be the most horrible thing I've ever heard.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42147560]Are you saying you'd kill someone if they refused to kill a child for you?
That may be the most horrible thing I've ever heard.[/QUOTE]
Not if they refused to have an abortion, I don't care about my genetic material contributing to a child, they can have it so long as they leave me out of it.
If they used the state to enforce an obligation upon me for a child I did not want, then yes, granted it would not be my first course of action.
What he did was fucked up, but a life sentence would be blowing it out of proportion so much
[QUOTE=Riutet;42147591]Not if they refused to have an abortion, I don't care about my genetic material contributing to a child, they can have it so long as they leave me out of it.
If they used the state to enforce an obligation upon me for a child I did not want, then yes, granted it would not be my first course of action.[/QUOTE]
That's like saying "If someone stole my dog, I'd kill them", and leaving out:
"assuming I already tried talking to them about it, having them arrested, and taking the dog back myself, and they were torturing my dog, stealing more of my stuff, and threatening to kill me".
[I]Excuse me[/I] for not reading your mind and knowing that it wouldn't be your 'first course of action' even though it's the only thing you said.
And even then, it shouldn't be [I]any[/I] course of action you would take for this situation.
[QUOTE=Riutet;42147591]Not if they refused to have an abortion, I don't care about my genetic material contributing to a child, they can have it so long as they leave me out of it.
If they used the state to enforce an obligation upon me for a child I did not want, then yes, granted it would not be my first course of action.[/QUOTE]
Just a heads up mate, you're insane
[QUOTE=Last or First;42147646]That's like saying "If someone stole my dog, I'd kill them", and leaving out:
"assuming I already tried talking to them about it, having them arrested, and taking the dog back myself, and they were torturing my dog, stealing more of my stuff, and threatening to kill me".[/quote]
I apologise, I assumed that would be a given, as it is unreasonable to fly off the handle without first taking peaceful steps to resolve an issue.
[quote]And even then, it shouldn't be [I]any[/I] course of action you would take for this situation.[/QUOTE]
Seems reasonable to me. Easier to deal with one person than it is to deal with an entire Government backed by a large police force.
[QUOTE=Riutet;42147712]Seems reasonable to me. Easier to deal with one person than it is to deal with an entire Government backed by a large police force.[/QUOTE]
It really seems reasonable to you to murder someone for refusing to abort their child
Really
Like, you're dangerous dude, if I knew you in person I'd report you to someone
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;42147738]It really seems reasonable to you to murder someone for refusing to abort their child[/quote]
You should re-read the post of mine you quoted, I am not opposed to someone keeping a child I have had a hand in conceiving, only forcing me to be involved either directly or indirectly when I have expressed from the outset I want nothing to do with it.
[quote]Like, you're dangerous dude, if I knew you in person I'd report you to someone[/QUOTE]
It is not illegal to be a tough guy on the internet.
[QUOTE=Riutet;42147769]You should re-read the post of mine you quoted, I am not opposed to someone keeping a child I have had a hand in conceiving, only forcing me to be involved either directly or indirectly when I have expressed from the outset I want nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE]
Still not a reason to kill someone, by a looong shot.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;42147785]Still not a reason to kill someone, by a looong shot.[/QUOTE]
Is for me, obviously not for you.
Do we really have to have this discussion? You don't fucking murder someone because they expect you to pay child support, holy shit
[QUOTE=Riutet;42147790]Is for me, obviously not for you.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, judging on your posts I don't really think you should involved in any child's upbringing, whether you wanted to be or not.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;42147822]Do we really have to have this discussion? You don't fucking murder someone because they expect you to pay child support, holy shit[/QUOTE]
I think murder is excessive but forcing someone with a low paying job to pay child support for 18 years would effectively ruin a person's life. It's a pretty a fucked up thing to do to someone.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;42147827]To be fair, judging on your posts I don't really think you should involved in any child's upbringing, whether you wanted to be or not.[/QUOTE]
I'm actually pretty good with kids, I did not expect to be but me and my nephew have a ball when I'm looking after him. But I agree I should not be involved with children I do not want.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.