America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 10 years ago by tailgater. 34 replies replies.
Florida Man Tricks Girlfriend into Taking Abortion Pill
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Gene363 Offline
#1 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2014, 6:06 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,850
The dark side of male paternity rights. John Andrew Welden gavr his pregnant girlfriend the morning after pill when she was six weeks into her pregnancy, she loses the baby and he get 12+ years convicted of murder under the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act."

Quote:
John Andrew Welden admitted to giving his girlfriend the abortion drug Cytotec, telling her it was instead amoxicillin for an infection she didn’t really have. Within hours, his girlfriend, Remee Jo Lee, miscarried the 6-week-old embryo that she had already named Memphis.

According to the facts of the case, Welden had forged the name of his father, Dr. Stephen Welden, on a prescription for Cytotec. He took Lee to his father’s medical offices for an ultrasound. The next day, he filed any identifying marks off of the Cytotec, making them look as close to amoxicillin as he could. Welden then admitted to giving Lee the pills, telling her it was for an infection and she needed to take it. He even called her as he drove to work to ensure her compliance.

Unfortunately for her, she did as she was told. Lee miscarried, and said she bled for a month. All she has of the child she had been so eagerly awaiting is a framed ultrasound image. The judge concurred that Lee had an “absolute, constitutional right to decide whether to take that baby to term.”

According to information from interviews with sheriff’s investigators, Welden’s reasons had included having another girlfriend, and being overwhelmed by the notion of having a child when he didn’t intend to marry the mother. In a statement made at his sentencing hearing, Welden voiced a beaten remorse and begged the mercy of the court..

The prosecution had allowed Welden back in September to plead guilty to lesser charges of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tampering with a consumer product instead of charging him with murder under the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act”, which would have involved a mandatory life sentence. With the lesser charges, the maximum sentence would have been 15 years.

Welden has now been sentenced to 13 years and eight months in a federal prison (likely a minimum-security work camp) for the crime. He has also been ordered to pay $28,000 in restitution to Lee. Welden will serve three years of probation after his future release.


http://crimefeed.com/2014/01/florida-man-tricks-girlfriend-taking-abortion-pill-gets-13-years/
ZRX1200 Offline
#2 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2014, 6:09 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,630
And if she aborted it without his consent it would just be women's health.
Brewha Offline
#3 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2014, 6:17 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
This was a case of assault, and the boy should do some jail time.

The prolifers will try to call this legal proof of abortion as murder.
ZRX1200 Offline
#4 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2014, 6:27 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,630
Assault?

So a potential father to be can file charges as well.
Brewha Offline
#5 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2014, 6:30 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
ZRX1200 wrote:
Assault?

So a potential father to be can file charges as well.

Not in da eyes o de law me bro, not in da eyes o de law . . .
Gene363 Offline
#6 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2014, 6:31 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,850
ZRX1200 wrote:
And if she aborted it without his consent it would just be women's health.


Brewha wrote:
This was a case of assault, and the boy should do some jail time.

The prolifers will try to call this legal proof of abortion as murder.


IMO, you are both correct.

If the mother wanted an abortion and the father does not, it's still not a crime, and the father has no rights.

In this case the father obviously did not want a child, but again has no rights and will be compelled to lay to support the child.

Behold the dangers of that little magic place.
Brewha Offline
#7 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2014, 6:34 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
I think you just have to be on board with the idea that justice and the law are not defined in the same book . . .
ZRX1200 Offline
#8 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2014, 6:58 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,630
Truth ^
wheelrite Offline
#9 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2014, 7:09 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
He deserves to be in Prison,,,,


wheel,
bloody spaniard Offline
#10 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2014, 7:33 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
ZRX1200 wrote:
Truth ^

Think
vanilla rice?
Brewha Offline
#11 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2014, 8:06 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
wheelrite wrote:
He deserves to be in Prison,,,,


wheel,

That's not what they said in my arraignment . . .
rfenst Offline
#12 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2014, 1:47 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,379
Brewha wrote:
That's not what they said in my arraignment . . .


It is not assault; it is battery.

Assault= putting one in fear for their life or threat of great bodily harm
Battery= unpermitted touching

She consented to taking an antibiotic, but did not consent to taking the abortion pill he gave her. Therefore, her consumption of it (under false pretense) is a battery.

The mofo belongs in jail!
ZRX1200 Offline
#13 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2014, 1:53 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,630
He should be celebrated by planned parenthood.


Wait.




Wrong plumming, he's ****ed.
gryphonms Offline
#14 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2014, 6:39 AM EST
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
How much jail time could he get for battery? What he did was horrific.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#15 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2014, 6:55 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,516
gryphonms wrote:
How much jail time could he get for battery? What he did was horrific.



The article that was posted said 13 years.
HockeyDad Offline
#16 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2014, 8:03 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,164
gryphonms wrote:
How much jail time could he get for battery? What he did was horrific.



None.

He was not convicted of assault or battery.
gryphonms Offline
#17 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2014, 8:19 AM EST
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
I was referencing 12.
HockeyDad Offline
#18 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2014, 8:23 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,164
gryphonms wrote:
I was referencing 12.



He wasn't charged or convicted with anything mentioned in post 12.

He coulda got 20 years for counterfeiting. (He wasn't charged or convicted of that either)
gryphonms Offline
#19 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2014, 8:36 AM EST
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
My bad, should have read the post closer.
HockeyDad Offline
#20 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2014, 8:50 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,164
The lesson learned here is don't conspire to commit mail fraud or tampering with a consumer product. They'll lock you up and throw away the key!

....and under Roe vs Wade a fetus is not a person but under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act a fetus is a person, unless the mother doesn't think so.



If a woman was driving to an abortion clinic and got in a wreck which resulted in a miscarriage, I'm not sure if that is murder or a free abortion performed by an unlicensed medical practitioner.
DrafterX Offline
#21 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2014, 9:56 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,566
HockeyDad wrote:



If a woman was driving to an abortion clinic and got in a wreck which resulted in a miscarriage, I'm not sure if that is murder or a free abortion performed by an unlicensed medical practitioner.



would they still charge her an office visit for not cancelling her apointment.>?? Huh
sd72 Offline
#22 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2014, 10:05 AM EST
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
Whatever happened to a push down the stairs, or a well placed combo to the body??
victor809 Offline
#23 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2014, 11:53 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
free abortion performed by an unlicensed medical practitioner.


Probably be fined for practicing without a license.

I don't know why this is particularly confusing.

A fetus is only viable if the host is willing, just like any other parasite.

If a host is interested in keeping said fetus, then there is no reason to presume it will not eventually develop into a human being.

On the other hand, if unwanted, it's just a parasite.

Just like how a gardener differentiates flowers and weeds. One is intentional, the other isn't, although they both may bloom.

Burner02 Offline
#24 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2014, 12:36 PM EST
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
rfenst wrote:
The mofo belongs in jail!






+1
tailgater Offline
#25 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2014, 3:06 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:


I don't know why this is particularly confusing.

It's confusing because you see only one side of the issue.

victor809 wrote:

A fetus is only viable if the host is willing, just like any other parasite.

Not true. A fetus is completely viable, even to an "unwilling" host. As long as that host doesn't take extreme actions against the fetus, then it will ferment into a little person.

victor809 wrote:

If a host is interested in keeping said fetus, then there is no reason to presume it will not eventually develop into a human being.

On the other hand, if unwanted, it's just a parasite.

Just like how a gardener differentiates flowers and weeds. One is intentional, the other isn't, although they both may bloom.



Calling a fetus a parasite does nothing to strengthen your argument. It is the liberal equivalent of calling RU486 a murder pill.
victor809 Offline
#26 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2014, 3:39 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
It's confusing because you see only one side of the issue.

Oh tail... I see everything, everywhere, all the time. I'm like a deity, if deities liked to waggle their pen!s out a car window while driving slowly by retirement homes....

Quote:

Not true. A fetus is completely viable, even to an "unwilling" host. As long as that host doesn't take extreme actions against the fetus, then it will ferment into a little person.

But only at a cost (in energy, lifespan... overall health, and a non-zero risk of death at the time it decides to burst out. It seems fair to ask the host whether it wants to pay that cost, since we have the technology necessary to stop the process.

Quote:

Calling a fetus a parasite does nothing to strengthen your argument. It is the liberal equivalent of calling RU486 a murder pill.


Hmmm... I thought I was being kind. An ex of mine used to refer to them as drooling sacks of blood.
tailgater Offline
#27 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2014, 11:58 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:



But only at a cost (in energy, lifespan... overall health, and a non-zero risk of death at the time it decides to burst out. It seems fair to ask the host whether it wants to pay that cost, since we have the technology necessary to stop the process.



The mother is "host" right up until birth.
At what point do you (honestly) think it's OK to use our "technology" to terminate?
tailgater Offline
#28 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2014, 11:59 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:



.... drooling sacks of blood.


Sounds like more than a few liberals I know.
victor809 Offline
#29 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2014, 12:15 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
The mother is "host" right up until birth.
At what point do you (honestly) think it's OK to use our "technology" to terminate?


So this is a much more complicated question. First, does anyone actually WANT the thing? I mean, if someone wants it then I'm comfortable with drawing the line at up to the point where our technology can make them viable without a host. If they are viable without the host, then remove them and place them in an incubator (assuming another individual has the desire and resources to keep said fetus alive).

An alternative would be to minimize the total amount of pain/discomfort across all parties. At this moment however, there isn't any conclusive evidence of fetal pain in time frames at which premature birth isn't feasible, so at this time it cannot be ascertained as earlier than the above.

When more/better/different information and technology is available that time can be shifted.

If no one wants it... well, then I'm not sure what the purpose would be to have it.
tailgater Offline
#30 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2014, 3:39 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
So this is a much more complicated question. First, does anyone actually WANT the thing? I mean, if someone wants it then I'm comfortable with drawing the line at up to the point where our technology can make them viable without a host. If they are viable without the host, then remove them and place them in an incubator (assuming another individual has the desire and resources to keep said fetus alive).

An alternative would be to minimize the total amount of pain/discomfort across all parties. At this moment however, there isn't any conclusive evidence of fetal pain in time frames at which premature birth isn't feasible, so at this time it cannot be ascertained as earlier than the above.

When more/better/different information and technology is available that time can be shifted.

If no one wants it... well, then I'm not sure what the purpose would be to have it.


It's a more complicated question, but it is the crux of the issue for most.
The religious right feel that pulling-out too soon is against god's will.
Meanwhile, planned parenthood never met a pregnancy they didn't want to abort, and I hear they're pushing for 4th trimester abortions some day soon.

You have chosen to use technology to determine if a human life is worth saving.
So an unborn child of tomorrow is more important than those of 50 years ago.

And the unborn in America are more worthy than those in Zimbabwe.

You do see, don't you, how you're using YOUR beliefs to set the standard?

And as far as "nobody wanting" the unborn child?
The father in the first post apparently DID want the child.
victor809 Offline
#31 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2014, 5:37 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
It's a more complicated question, but it is the crux of the issue for most.
The religious right feel that pulling-out too soon is against god's will.
Meanwhile, planned parenthood never met a pregnancy they didn't want to abort, and I hear they're pushing for 4th trimester abortions some day soon.

You have chosen to use technology to determine if a human life is worth saving.
So an unborn child of tomorrow is more important than those of 50 years ago.

you mistake importance with "salvageable". But probably anyway. :)

Quote:

And the unborn in America are more worthy than those in Zimbabwe.

again, you've mistaken importance with "salvageable". but one could make an argument that value of a life can be quantified (based off contribution to the GDP, or some other measure of contribution to society)... with that in mind the answer could clearly be "yes" (given averages, since individual lives cannot be quantified until they are done).

Quote:

You do see, don't you, how you're using YOUR beliefs to set the standard?

I never said I don't....

Quote:

And as far as "nobody wanting" the unborn child?
The father in the first post apparently DID want the child.


he had a funny way of showing it... trying to abort it and everyhting.
Brewha Offline
#32 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2014, 6:00 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
tailgater wrote:
Sounds like more than a few liberals I know.


Shame on you
tailgater Offline
#33 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2014, 11:47 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:



he had a funny way of showing it... trying to abort it and everyhting.


Oh yeah. Kinda mixed that one up.
Don't stop me when I'm on a roll.
tailgater Offline
#34 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2014, 11:48 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
Shame on you


Be happy.
Usually I refer to them as sackless.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top