Letters to the Editor
-
If only...
..people would show some maturity.
Ok, so I am male, and I am 100% shocked by the implications of these charges.
But I have to say, it is foolish people like this that ruin things for everyone. If i read this correctly, she had his child, and then got pregnant 3 more times?
If this guy does not want her to have his children, hasn't he ever heard of a condom (or a vasectomy)?
And after being shown a complete lack of responsibility by her lover (e.g refusal to support his progeny), shouldn't this woman stop seeing him?
Do they live somewhere birth control has been effectively eliminated (seems to be the only logical explanation to me)?
I know I am singing the right-wing responsibility "line". And you will just have to take my word I am about as left as they come (read my other letters for at least some indication).
Still, this situation, where two adults are both acting like 16 year olds really does turn my stomach.
Of ocurse the charges turn my stomach even more.
-
yep, the charges are not good
But I'm also fixated on why this woman would actually want to be bearing and raising three bastards with this guy? Didn't she learn the first time arounde? And yes,next time try using a condom, idiot.
-
Hmm...
I found the story sickening. I suppose these fetal homicide laws could be seen as a slippery slope toward abortion bans, but I think there is also a clear line between choosing to terminate one's own pregnancy and that of someone else. The statute should be different from 'regular' murder, though.
At any rate, I don't understand why he wasn't charged with something more serious than battery when it came to the woman - there was a (slim but real) possibility of death or significant complications. Maybe this doesn't rise to attempted murder, but surely there's something in between?
-
weird law
If you look at the text of the law, the part which would apply refers to the killing of a "quick child." (Insert joke here about neither parent seeming too swift.) What does that even mean? Definitions I've found include "living," which doesn't really help, or an archaic definition meaning, roughly, "old enough to be felt kicking." RU486 won't actually work, if memory serves, on an embryo/fetus old enough "to be felt kicking."
Also, she miscarried "mysteriously?" Aren't most miscarriages "mysterious," or, if you want less hyperbole, with no known cause?
And here's a question for the peanut gallery: so, do you think they'll get back together after the trial?
-
but....
putting aside the charges,reading about these 2 continuing to have this affair,no-one seeming to want to take any responsibility for irresponsible actions they keep doing over and over....can't we charge them both with being too stupid to walk the earth fertil?God,i hate to say it because it sounds so bad,but it sure seems like the stupid are reproducing alot faster than the smart.........
-
This reminds me of a discussion I've had regarding the killing of pets
Killing either a fetus or a pet is both an offense to it and an offense to the owner. And while the offense to the creature may not carry a steep penalty, the offense to the owner definitely should.
-
Veronica Mars
Well, I would just like to congratulate Veronica Mars again on putting forth a plausible storyline that plenty of Broadsheet readers said was impossible, that no one can be slipped an abortificant. That it is only given to the woman and she has to take it in the doctor's presence, apparently not.
I am highly disturbed with the murder charge though. Aren't there charges for drugging her, assault on her person, there are reasons you need a prescription for the drug. I don't want to have to make the distinction when a woman does it it's not murder and it's her right, but when a man does it it's murder.
Either we are murdering fetuses or we're not and he should just be convicted of assault or some similar charge taking into account her emotional loss maybe.
But the stupitity and carelessness of these people astounds me. He's having an affair, she gets pregnant 4 times! She still sees him after refusing to accept the first child. He doesn't bother to wear condoms? Find a new mistress?
Idiots.
-
Now you know...
"If the charge is for action against the fetus, not the mother, then what is the difference between him slipping her the pill and her taking the pill of her own volition?"
That's why the so-called "pro-life" faction is so anxious to get laws like this passed.
-
Tannit, here's the thing.
The woman is barely relevant, except as a vessel to hold the Holy Grail itself: the fetus!
-
what is the difference...
The question at the end of the article ("what is the difference between him slipping her the pill and her taking the pill of her own volition?") is an odd one. The difference is the same as that in almost any other type of criminal prosecution: one of consent.
What is the difference between someone else killing me and me killing myself?
What is the difference between somone taking $100 from me by force (or taking it when I'm not paying attention) and me gifting someone with $100?
Sure, the feticide thing is frightening, but not because of these specific circumstances. This guy did something unforgivible (assault with intent to cause bodily harm, at the very least) and should be punnished severely.
-
This woman needs an IUD
If she devoted 10% of the effort preventing pregnancy as she did entrapping him all of this could be avoided.
-
Battery, $, and Obnoxious Phrase
Should just be battery, of course. If he'd succeeded, I'd think she deserved civil damages for the effort she'd put into the pregnancy to that point (gestational surrogates are about $30k, so pro-rate that).
Also, "she gave birth to his child"? No genetic involvement on her part, huh? What an obnoxious phrase. I expect better of Salon, even in the pink ghetto of Broadsheet.
-
The reader's an idiot...
"If the charge is for action against the fetus, not the mother, then what is the difference between him slipping her the pill and her taking the pill of her own volition?"
There exists a 'special' relationship between mother and fetus. The fetus can't live without the mother's consent, period. The action of someone other than the mother, without her consent is violating that 'special' relationship as it is 'robbing' both the mother and the fetus of the life of the fetus.
If the mother consent, how can it be 'theft'? There would be no crime.