Court Anomaly?
Ran into this article the other day, I found it very interesting as it truly is an anomaly in the court system in the United States where abortions are legal. Not to start the whole abortion debate again, been there done that. Just wanted to draw your attention to this man who refused to pay for an abortion, stepped on his girlfriend's stomach to induce an abortion. The man subsequently has been charged with two counts of murder (he's done this before), where his girlfriend was not charged because "of her legal right to abortion", yet she was the one that asked her boyfriend to help her. So, what do you guys think of this and what do you think should have happened?
PS. The image above is about the same time period of the fetus' involved in the incident.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, June 11 at 12:54 p.m..
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Posted by
Yes she has a right to an abortion, she could have had one, but the thing is, he shouldn't have been charged with murder. Either a fetus has rights, or doesn't have rights. He should have received a charge of practicing medicine without a license.
As for the US education system, I fully support abstinance programs as long as safe sex is taught along with it. This was the sex education I received and it makes a lot of sense to do so. The goal of sex ed is not to get kids sexually active or assume this is the inevitable. Showing kids that abstinance is not just a church/religious thing but can be done for one's own self health, people can start to see sex as a responsibility.
You ask why she didn't get an abortion and list off all these reasons (religion, country, president) but fact is, she DID get an abortion, this was not a morality issue, if anything, I see it as being less moral than going to a clinic. One consideration I would mention is that Texas only funds abortions for rape victims, but this is not unexpected with the emphasis on individuals for medical costs.
Posted by
Either a fetus has rights, or doesn't have rights.
It's technically not that simple - the fetus can be considered to have rights, but the rights of the woman supercede them.
As for abstinence programs - abstinence programs in the U.S. are not similar to what we receive here in Canada. While it indeed does vary from state to state and school district to school district, American programs are renowned for spreading misinformation about STDs and birth control in an effort to scare the kids into abstinence. And I don't think there's a single safe-sex program that has ever been taught in any school that actually actively encourages students to have sex. Ever.
Posted by
So you think the fetus should have rights in this situation? Do you think the mother should share the responsibility (as the father would actually be better off just ditching her, which is obviously wrong)?
I don't think any school sex program should encourage kids to have sex. This is just going to increase chances of birth control failure, pregnancy, STDs. However I am also very critical of abstinance only programs, this is probably one of the dumbest things i've ever heard.
Posted by
No, I never said that. I was simply pointing out that your statement was technically untrue.
I completely disagree with the charge, and the conviction. For one thing, the law this guy was charged under seems to have been completely twisted in order to do so. (Also, I suspect if his name was distinctly more WASPy and affluent-sounding than "Gerardo Flores", it might not have come to that charge either, but that's a whole other kit'n'caboodle.) If anything, I agree that he ought to have been charged with practicing without a license. My strongest feeling about the whole thing is that I'm sad that Basoria did not have the access and/or means to obtain a legal abortion - you have to be pretty desperate to resort to that sort of action.
I don't think any school sex program should encourage kids to have sex. This is just going to increase chances of birth control failure, pregnancy, STDs.
1) Did anyone say otherwise?
2) Name me one specific school or program that encourages kids to have sex. You seem to be spending a lot of time ideologically fighting against something that doesn't actually occur.
this is probably one of the dumbest things i've ever heard.
What is?
Posted by
Yes, the racial issue is a totally different issue. I agree with practise without a license charge (as stated above). My strongest feeling about the whole thing is that this happened twice, you'd think after going through something as emotional as a self induced abortion, they'd take better precautions.
1) No. Just making a statement (not everything is a debate)
2) I can't think of any (what am i fighting?)
Abstinance only campaigns are the dumbest thing i've ever heard.
Posted by
1) No. Just making a statement (not everything is a debate)
2) I can't think of any (what am i fighting?)
It's just that you keep reiterating it again and again. Not only is no one disagreeing with you (encouraging children to have sex = bad, education = good; hurrah, for once everyone agrees!) but no program or school is doing what you're against. Why keep repeating that you are against programs that encourage children to have sex, when there aren't any schools that are encouraging children to have sex?
It just seems that you're so wrapped up in your opinion (or expressing your opinion) on the matter, you don't realize that pretty much everyone is on the same page, if not a chapter or two ahead. :)
Posted by
I was asking your views on the subject (I'm interested), so no I'm not wrapped up in my opinion.
» Post a CommentWe were discussing sex education, if you look back I didn't reiterate anything, merely giving my thoughts on the matter just as you and stef are. And I do not define "a lot of time" as a sentance.
But yes we are on the same page, so you can ease off the personal attacks and assumptions. :)