academiccompositionab
Empowerment Equalizer
SSaragian
Antony Sammeroff
Ann Sterzinger
Rodney
RJ
busterjames
cainusmaxus
Craig FitzGerald
David Heleniak
Caity & Dan Greene
keirmartland
Keith Preston
Bill the Butcher
ljp711
MRDA
Jack Donovan
Rachel Haywire
comrade hermit
Michael
Vince
robertstark2014
Noonan
S E Pearson
Rachel Haywire
Nexus X HumectressFrom the Inferno. Been getting quite the backlash from this one from (other) “pro-choicers” (who seem to miss the point entirely).
________________
Of all the court cases the press have pored over recently, none have fascinated me more than that of John Welden, who recently started a 14-year prison sentence for drugging his girlfriend into a miscarriage. If memory serves me well, I first heard about the case last spring, when Welden first entered the dock on a charge of no less than murder.
According to the Mail (emphasis mine):
[Remee Jo Lee] was six or seven weeks pregnant when she miscarried.
Welden pleaded guilty in September to tampering with a consumer product and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. He had faced a possible life sentence if convicted of his original charge, killing an unborn child.
Welden admitted in a plea agreement that he forged the signature of his father, who is esteemed Tampa-area fertility expert Dr. Stephen Weldon.
Welden’s father had no role in the heinous crime, but was in the courtroom in the weeks preceding sentencing as prosecutors sought to prove that the single dose of Cytotec had caused Lee’s miscarriage.
Prosecutors succeeded after expert witnesses for the state testified that any amount of the drug also known as misoprostol could cause miscarriage.
Now, with the announcement of a verdict, these gears in my head set themselves turning once more. While the thoughts generated don’t apply to all particulars in this trial, I think them worth at least a few paragraphs contemplation.
The first thing that hit me in the face about this case was the initial charge levelled against him: where the flying fuck did the whole murder thing spring from? After all, the alleged ‘victim’ amounted to little more than a cell clump, baking in the brine of Lee’s uterine oven prior to its expunction: a procedure she could legally opted for up to 21 weeks later. What gives?
Daily Caller reporter Caroline May gives more of an insight into things; according to her (emphasis again mine), “Welden accepted a plea deal last year to avoid a possible life sentence if convicted of murder under the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, instead pleading to product tampering and mail fraud”. Under this frankly puzzling piece of legislation, an involuntarily terminated embryo assumes a posthumous personhood for the purposes of prosecution, a personhood otherwise denied it by the inclusion of Roe vs Wade on the same law tablets.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”
[…]
Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 38 states also recognize the fetus or “unborn child” as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[2]
The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not “be construed to permit the prosecution” “of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf”, “of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child” or “of any woman with respect to her unborn child.”
This effective compromise between the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” positions results in a Frankenstein gestalt of legalistic white-knighting, under which the legally protected “personhood” of a certain demographic lies at the mercy of a woman’s whim. In other words, that fledgling womb growth has rights/no rights, dammit…unless m’lady says otherwise, of course! It reminds of those soldiers in the “pro-life” brigade who make an exception in their otherwise strident position for rape, placing female feelings above “the sanctity of life” and the decrees they profess to observe.
Not that those of a “pro-choice” persuasion uphold higher standards of consistency. Whilst cheerfully championing the “right to choose” of the womb-bearer, they sing a different song in regard to that of the sperm-donor, who is required to donate more than his genetic material should Little Miss Incubator choose to carry his tadpole to term. In fact, bringing up Mr Inseminator’s lack of choice over his financial contributions tends to elicit responses along the lines of “Shoulda kept it in his pants!” and “Boo-fucking-hoo!”, flavours of response that would be boo-hooed at by the “choicers” were they levelled against reluctant mums-to-be. Under the ostensible “best interests of the child” (Where have I heard that before?), the female’s legally-protected “right to choose” childbirth imposes a legally-enforced 18-year duty on the male to be a walking wallet, whether or not he consents to the arrangement; all this with special-pleading approval and scant contest from those who claim to champion choice.
To her credit—and Welden’s disgrace—Lee had professed her lack of complicity in this state of affairs:
Federal prosecutors said Welden never wanted Lee to have his baby – even though she was determined to keep the pregnancy and raise the child on her own.
After she lost the fetus in the hospital, she went to police and agreed to have her conversations with Welden recorded.
‘I was hoping that this was some sort of horrible mistake,’ Lee said. ‘He told me what the medication was, and it was Cytotec.’
Authorities released a transcript of a conversation Lee had with Welden.
Welden told Lee that Tara Fillinger, his other girlfriend, had found out about their relationship and was ‘furious’.
Lee says: ‘If you wanted to go be with Tara, that’s fine. Go be with Tara.
‘I woulda had my kid and I woulda been fine with that… woulda told my parents it was someone else’s. I wouldn’t have bothered you for money. I wouldn’t have bothered you at all.’
‘I didn’t want to be that guy,’ Welden replies.
Nevertheless, under a legal system which rigs “reproductive rights” as a white-knighting, rent-seeking, zero-sum game, I can conceive contexts where a slip of Cytotec to the womb wouldn’t be such a contemptible act.
(Thanks to Meat Curtain of Doom for the womb/wallet pic.)
~MRDA~
“The first thing that hit me in the face about this case was the initial charge levelled against him: where the flying fuck did the whole murder thing spring from? After all, the alleged ‘victim’ amounted to little more than a cell clump”
Troll harder, MRDA.
I might add the same sentiment here:
http://attackthesystem.com/2013/03/29/the-death-penalty-for-marijuana-possession/
Where did you guys get the murder charge for Judge Judith Retchin? After all Magbie was just a clump of cells, aren’t we all? You just invented some BS and artificial distinction between fetus, children and adults. At least be man to embrace Peter Singer and Richard Dawkin’s view that children are less valuable than adult pigs.
Like a parasite killing its host you accept Christian morals when it suits you, but reject them when they doesn’t. For someone who claims Nietzsche as his homeboy you really don’t seem to get him:
“When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. For the latter is absolutely not self-evident: one must make this point clear again and again, in spite of English shallow-pates.”
Yeah when will you learn?
“A man who held a newborn child in his hands approached a holy man. “What shall I do with this child?” he asked; “It is wretched, misshapen, and does not have life enough to die,” “Kill it!” shouted the holy man with a terrible voice; “and then hold it in your arms for three days and three nights to create a memory for yourself: never again will you beget a child this way when it is not time for you to beget.” — When the man had heard this, he walked away, disappointed, and many people reproached the holy man because he had counseled cruelty; for he had counseled the man to kill the child. “But is it not crueler to let it live?” asked the holy man.”
I suppose if you were run over by a truck the truck driver might say: “After all, the alleged ‘victim’ amounted to little more than a cell clump.” At least what was left of you.
Someone’s riled.
If you read the news report, you’ll see that the embryo was “six or seven weeks” old at the time of the termination; so, yes, “cell clump” is hardly an inaccurate description of its state of being, regardless of one’s stance on the issue.
“Like a parasite killing its host you accept Christian morals when it suits you, but reject them when they doesn’t. For someone who claims Nietzsche as his homeboy you really don’t seem to get him…”
Nice strawman you built there, but it only stands up if you assume I accept what you approve of on your premises – big mistake. Perhaps your aim could better be directed at the pew-dodging members of your flock?
As for the Nietzsche thing, you make the mistake of thinking I assume the same attitude to him as you do to Christ and Yahweh.
I suppose the abortion issue involves consent. While the murder charge is debatable, something ought to be done if your body is injured by another without your consent. Like, if a woman cut off one of my testicles, I might not charge her with murder, but this sort of disfigurement requires some sort of action.
“If you read the news report, you’ll see that the embryo was “six or seven weeks” old at the time of the termination; so, yes, “cell clump” is hardly an inaccurate description of its state of being, regardless of one’s stance on the issue.”
I did read the report, it’s not my reading comp that needs improvement it is yours, since you would likely flunk logic 101 and don’t know hyperbole from a reductio ad absurdum. If a human can be killed if he is composed of x number of cells how many cells does he have to have before he cannot be murdered? Where does the threshold lie? For example how many cells do I have to lose before I its open season on Todd? Maybe x – 1,000? The yeah I can then be murdered right? Who knows since you don’t even have a coherent standard of judgment.
“Nice strawman you built there, but it only stands up if you assume I accept what you approve of on your premises – big mistake. Perhaps your aim could better be directed at the pew-dodging members of your flock?”
It’s not a strawman since you have some residual morality, such as do not murder. When ever you see a Cop assault or even kill an innocent civilian you get up set. Why? You as do most contributors to ATS that murdering is wrong (unless it is Children), lying is wrong, stealing is wrong and raping is wrong. Why? You have no rational reason to believe that. I agree that all of those things are wrong, but you can provide no rational reason why are could even be considered wrong. In short you are using Christian morality without Christianity.
“As for the Nietzsche thing, you make the mistake of thinking I assume the same attitude to him as you do to Christ and Yahweh.”
My assessment of you has nothing to do with your alleged view fealty toward Nietzsche, you still accept the basic view of Zarathustra that you are the slayers of God. Nietzsche is not making a statement of moral value here, but a statement of fact. God’s morality dies with him, since His morality is anything but self evident. Man up and live like God is dead. Stop bitching and whining about injustice. There is no such thing as injustice. There is no such thing as good and evil.
“Perhaps your aim could better be directed at the pew-dodging members of your flock?”
Dido why complain about Cops, the police state, the courts etc, perhaps your aim could better be directed the pew dodging members of your flock? Just like the hypocrite you are you have no standards and lack the most basic courage to live out your nihilism with any sort of consistency.
Stirner states: “I am entitled to murder if I myself do not forbid it to myself, if I myself do not
fear murder as a “wrong.” … There is no right outside me. If it is right for me,
it is right.”
So if judges see “reproductive rights” as a white-knighting, rent-seeking, zero-sum game as right for them, it is right for them since there is no right or wrong outside of them.
As usually you completely missed the whole point.
“As usually you completely missed the whole point.”
Projection is obviously your guilty pleasure.
On second thought, the “guilt” part assumes too much.
Oh, and of course, let me not overlook this glaring example of self-obliviousness:
> “It’s not a strawman….”
> Goes on to build another with the rest of the paragraph.
Have fun with that.
This is where I, the tone policeman, come in and urge us to practice the same diplomacy with each other that we’d be forced to practice in a post-state, pan-anarchist world. I call it “prefigurative pan-anarchy”.
I suppose we can all be reduced to a “clump of cells” if one wants to indulge in such reductionism. The fact of the matter is that at the point of conception, a seperate life is created that is mind boggling complex and has the potential to be an adult the same way a child has if he is allowed to live. This fact should not be forgotten when discussing the so called right to choose.