A Violation Against A Woman’s Right To Choose
Posted by Catherine Morgan on December 4, 2007
This is truly a heinous crime and an affront to a woman’s right to choose. A woman’s reproductive rights are sacred, and just as no man should be aloud to force a woman to have a child if she is not ready, no man should be able to force her to lose a child if she is choosing to keep it.
This man (and I use that term lightly) should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, sending a clear message to any man or woman who would consider poisoning a pregnant woman for the purpose of having her miscarry.
Since Wisconson is one of 37 states that has a fetal homicide law, one of many charges this [sorry excuse for a] man will face is attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child.
However, I think the main focus of this case should be the violation of the woman, although I have no problem with this man being charged with murder since the state already has a law that allows for that. Since there are many other charges as well as murder here, I would leave it up to the judge or jury to decide the extent of this person’s punishment. Regardless of the charges, I would hope that this case be treated very seriously, and have serious consequences.
It seems odd to me, but many are taking this clear criminal violation of a woman, and turning it into a debate over abortion. For example…If a woman has the right to terminate her own pregnancy…Why shouldn’t a man be able to secretly and maliciously terminate a woman’s pregnancy if that’s what he wants to do? No, I’m not making this stuff up…
This is from a post at Homeaker’s Guide to the Galaxy…
What truly bothers me, is that the man is being charged with intentional homicide for giving his girlfriend an abortion pill. Why is it, that when a woman willingly chooses to abort her baby by taking that same pill, is it alright, and perfectly legal? Why is it, that a woman can choose to have her baby murdered by a “doctor”, and it is perfectly legal? Yet, a man, who is the father of that same child, cannot have the same say in the child’s life?
And this is what Milwaukeean Rhapsody thinks…
I guess I don’t understand how this man can be charged with homicide if it is abortion is considered legal, and fetuses are not considered real people.
Don’t get me wrong – I am completely Pro-Life. And I’m quite satisfied that this man could potentially could be charged with homicide.
But if he is indeed charged with first-degree intentional homicide, shouldn’t every other woman who chooses to kill her unborn child also be charged with the same? This seems to be a double standard of incredible proportions.
Also See Jill Stanek‘s take on this case.
Although I respect all of these women and their right to their opinion on the subject of abortion, I think the premise of their posts are somewhat flawed. Let me explain…
This is not a case of…If she can do it why can’t he? It’s a case of…A personal violation against a woman, not unlike rape. I woman can choose to have sex with as many men as she likes, but that doesn’t mean she loses the right to to say no. Also, if a woman has sex with a man for ten nights in a row, and on the eleventh night he drugs her and has sex with her without her knowledge…that is rape not consent.
Are ya with me?
A woman has the right to tell her doctor to tie her tubes after having a cesarean to prevent future pregnancies. However, her husband can not have the doctor secretly perform the procedure without the woman’s consent, nor can the husband stop the woman from having the procedure. This is all part of that pesky thing called reproductive rights, as well as the fact that there is a law that prevents both men and women from having procedures done on them without written consent. And yes…This RU-486 drug is consider a procedure.
The life of a fetus cannot be separated from the life of the pregnant woman. This is unique in medicine and law. No one can create a set of medical principles or legal principles giving a right to life to the fetus, because by doing so, inevitably the woman’s rights become limited. — from the FWHC
This is from a post at Feministing…
The proposal would require doctors to extensively review the medical literature on abortion and investigate each patient’s background and lifestyle. It would require doctors to certify that the abortion was better for the woman than a full-term pregnancy.
Because when deciding what’s best for a woman, the idea of actually trusting the woman herself is silly-talk. That’s what doctors, legislators, and men are for. I suppose we shouldn’t be shocked that they’re going the “women are too stupid to know that when they get abortions, they’re getting abortions” route, but it’s still frigging infuriating. The proposal would also allow women to sue doctors if they later regretted their decision to terminate a pregnancy and would offer no rape or incest exception.
I know I can not be the only one that feels that this case is not an issue of abortion…but rather a case of a man violating a woman in a horrific way. What do you think about this issue?