Man who tricked gf into taking abortion pill gets nearly 14-year sentence

[green73]

The Florida man accused of tricking his (now ex) girlfriend into taking an abortion inducing drug to cause her to miscarry their unborn child has been sentenced to nearly 14 years behind bars.

U.S. District Judge Richard A. Lazzara sentenced 29-year-old John Andrew Welden Monday, saying that while he did not think Weldon was an evil person, his action was evil.

“[A]nd for that he is going to have to pay the consequences,” Lazzara said, according to the Tampa Bay Times, sentencing Welden to 13 years and eight months in prison.

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.

Welden found himself facing a possible life sentence after his girlfriend Remee Jo Lee refused to abort their baby and he tricked her into taking a Cytotec pill, resulting in her miscarriage.

She was nearly seven weeks pregnant.

“He took away the most precious thing I ever had.” Lee said during the sentencing, according to Bay News 9. “This isn’t just a case to me. This is the death of my child.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/27/man-who-tricked-girlfriend-into-taking-abortion-pill-sentenced-to-nearly-14-years-in-prison/

[tod evans]

So a woman can abort their baby without the fathers consent and receive no legal consequence.

But if a man does the exact same thing he's imprisoned for 14 years.

How can anyone twist this scenario into any form of justice?

[puppetmaster]

So fucked up....I so many ways

[mrsat_98]

So a woman can abort their baby without the fathers consent and receive no legal consequence.

But if a man does the exact same thing he's imprisoned for 14 years.

How can anyone twist this scenario into any form of justice?

I am thinking this might be an example of what "man or other animals" means.

[aGameOfThrones]

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.


http://www.cinemablend.com/images/sections/59534/_1380640257.gif


Hope he appeals

[tod evans]

Hope he appeals

He accepted a plea, there is no appeal.

[Christian Liberty]

So a woman can abort their baby without the fathers consent and receive no legal consequence.

But if a man does the exact same thing he's imprisoned for 14 years.

How can anyone twist this scenario into any form of justice?

You can't. I'm still glad the murderer is behind bars, but it is not just that women can do it.

[aGameOfThrones]

He accepted a plea, there is no appeal.

Forgot that. Then I hope for something else.

[Christian Liberty]

Forgot that. Then I hope for something else.

I just wish he got more time. 14 years isn't nearly enough for child murder.

[belian78]

I just wish he got more time. 14 years isn't nearly enough for child murder.
14 years in a min/max, 7 with good time and up for parole after 4...or...financially broken for 18.

[Origanalist]

14 years in a min/max, 7 with good time and up for parole after 4...or...financially broken for 18.

That sounds really bad, you may want to rephrase that.

[belian78]

That sounds really bad, you may want to rephrase that.
I know it sounds bad, and I'm not saying I agree with it, but the rationale is there.

[Christian Liberty]

14 years in a min/max, 7 with good time and up for parole after 4...or...financially broken for 18.

This only reenforces my point, doesn't it?

[belian78]

This only reenforces my point, doesn't it?
Abortion should in no way be used as birth control, but I also don't consider voiding a mass of cells from your body as murder either. I was merely pointing out the rationale that might have been running through that guys' head. That's all I'll say on the abortion issue, because frankly I find it to be a needless waste of time when there are many other pressing issues that need our attention. Many of which would inadvertently have a huge impact on how people felt about abortion.

[Christian Liberty]

Abortion should in no way be used as birth control, but I also don't consider voiding a mass of cells from your body as murder either. I was merely pointing out the rationale that might have been running through that guys' head. That's all I'll say on the abortion issue, because frankly I find it to be a needless waste of time when there are many other pressing issues that need our attention. Many of which would inadvertently have a huge impact on how people felt about abortion.

How?

With regards to that whole thing, I don't view it as a waste of time, but I do recognize that the GOP is not pro-life and that even the pro-choice libertarians are more pro-life in practice than most Republicans ("pro-life" Rick Santorum voted to fund planned parenthood, which a libertarian would never do). But I don't see murder of the unborn as unimportant.

If you don't see abortion as murder, why do you care if its used as birth control? That seems illogical to me.

[Origanalist]

I know it sounds bad, and I'm not saying I agree with it, but the rationale is there.

Fair enough. Sorry for the knee jerk.

[Czolgosz]

And he actually showed up to be railroaded? lol

[kcchiefs6465]

And he actually showed up to be railroaded? lol
He ended their baby's life without so much as a care.

Railroaded? He deserved more.

The blatant hypocrisy aside.

[tod evans]

14 years in a min/max, 7 with good time and up for parole after 4...or...financially broken for 18.

Federal time is 85%.........

[Czolgosz]

He ended their baby's life without so much as a care.

Railroaded? He deserved more.

The blatant hypocrisy aside.

7 weeks prego, nah. Punishment for the decption, probably.

[kcchiefs6465]

7 weeks prego, nah. Punishment for the decption, probably.
Was there a heart beat?

Poisoning someone is not deception, either. It is a serious offense. Now you can be deceptive in getting someone to ingest your poison, but nonetheless the act of poisoning is still there.

He got off light.

I have no doubt it was a stupid mistake on his part. He sees or hears of this culture of abortion and figures that life is cheap. Well, you poisoned someone. You murdered their, and your, baby. I have no sympathy for his stupidity. Even if countless people do the same thing "legally." That is, mothers kill the fetus all the time (and many times without consulting or even informing the father) without consequence. That just shows there is something fundamentally wrong with our society. Not in the fact that he was given fourteen years, by the way. If anything, that he was only given fourteen years is evidence of our society's immorality.

[Philhelm]

Was there a heart beat?

Poisoning someone is not deception, either. It is a serious offense. Now you can be deceptive in getting someone to ingest your poison, but nonetheless the act of poisoning is still there.

He got off light.

I have no doubt it was a stupid mistake on his part. He sees or hears of this culture of abortion and figures that life is cheap. Well, you poisoned someone. You murdered their, and your, baby. I have no sympathy for his stupidity. Even if countless people do the same thing "legally." That is, mothers kill the fetus all the time (and many times without consulting or even informing the father) without consequence. That just shows there is something fundamentally wrong with our society. Not in the fact that he was given fourteen years, by the way. If anything, that he was only given fourteen years is evidence of our society's immorality.

How many years should the women get?

[eduardo89]

Hope he appeals

Me too, because the codifying of the unborn as persons essentially brings into play Roe v Wade's 'collapse clause' which the majority opinion of the Supreme Court ruled that if the unborn are classified as persons then abortion would be illegal.

Personally, I wish this guy would have been given the death penalty for murdering his child.

[kcchiefs6465]

How many years should the women get?
The same as anyone else, no doubt. Life.

How long would you get for murdering a one day old?

Babies are often born premature. If six months is the law they enact, that is, that up until six months abortions are legal, a baby born before exiting the second trimester prematurely, what ought be done with it? What can (legally speaking) be done with it? Can the mother kill it (or have someone kill it) on her authority alone? If she consults with the father first, and he doesn't want it either, does it then become morally permissible to kill the baby? If not, why not? And if so, one needs only consider they are advocating one to have the authority to kill a baby. Generally speaking, I consider a detectable heartbeat to be the cut off on what is, or isn't, a murder. The "10 gram rule," if you will.

No doubt it is a complicated issue that is not going to go away with legislation.

I think I would prefer more if mothers, and fathers, quit murdering their children. I suppose I'm only dreaming to consider the world could, or will, ever change. And if God were to throw this planet off its axis, cause waters to rise, and attempt a new experiment, I can't much say I'd blame Him. Or at the least, I simply wouldn't be surprised. This culturally accepted evil is discouraging.

I have no sympathy for a man who could callously poison the mother of his child with the intention of killing the child secretly.

[Philhelm]

Generally speaking, I consider a detectable heartbeat to be the cut off on what is, or isn't, a murder.

That's more strict than my mating standards.

[acptulsa]

Who's to say he was callous? Who's to say what his motivation was? Was she addicted to crack or some other form of coke, or meth or some other form of speed? Was she kind? Was she sane?

Did he seriously consider his act, and seriously consider it merciful? Was he right?

Half of the comments here are strictly anti-abortion. Fair enough. You ignore the double standard and rejoice that somebody gets the punishment you figure everybody deserves. But where is the justice? And who's to say where his heart lay? The feminists rejoice that men don't have this power, the pro lifers rejoice that someone is being stuffed in an overcrowded prison, and no one can believe these two groups agree on something. Very amusing, but where's the justice?

[eduardo89]

Who's to say he was callous? Who's to say what his motivation was? Was she addicted to crack or some other form of coke, or meth or some other form of speed? Was she kind? Was she sane?

How does her being kind or not affect the child's right to life?


Did he seriously consider his act, and seriously consider it merciful? Was he right?
When is murder ever right?

[aGameOfThrones]

Who's to say he was callous? Who's to say what his motivation was? Was she addicted to crack or some other form of coke, or meth or some other form of speed? Was she kind? Was she sane?

Did he seriously consider his act, and seriously consider it merciful? Was he right?

Half of the comments here are strictly anti-abortion. Fair enough. You ignore the double standard and rejoice that somebody gets the punishment you figure everybody deserves. But where is the justice? And who's to say where his heart lay? The feminists rejoice that men don't have this power, the pro lifers rejoice that someone is being stuffed in an overcrowded prison, and no one can believe these two groups agree on something. Very amusing, but where's the justice?


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Wn-xS06E09Q/UnAMnXYMjKI/AAAAAAAAVc0/iL5vQD1N8SI/s1600/Aint-Nobody-Got-Time-for-That.gif

[acptulsa]

How does her being kind or not affect the child's right to life?

Some look only at life. Some look at quality of life. Some have enough brain cells to be able to consider both. At the same time, even.


When is murder ever right?

Depends on who you ask, doesn't it? In this case, society seems to judge that it's right when a female potential parent does it, but not when a male potential parent does it--even though the law generally gives the female potential parent a lot more ability to make the child's life hell on earth than the male potential parent. Of course, ask many of your fellow pro-lifers, and they'll tell you, when it's a convicted murderer, a convicted rapist, an abortion doctor, or some random Syrian who's between a Marine and his or her target, murder is absolutely right...

Not saying you agree with them. Just sayin'...

So I ask again. Where's the justice?


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Wn-xS06E09Q/UnAMnXYMjKI/AAAAAAAAVc0/iL5vQD1N8SI/s1600/Aint-Nobody-Got-Time-for-That.gif

Ah, yes. Besides, justice doesn't make for such a hot-button news story, does it?

[eduardo89]

Some look only at life. Some look at quality of life. Some have enough brain cells to be able to consider both. At the same time, even.

So does a child with Down Syndrome have less of a right to life because their 'quality of life' might not be up to your standards?

[acptulsa]

So does a child with Down Syndrome have less of a right to life because their 'quality of life' might not be up to your standards?

I believe I could provide a child with Down's as good a quality of life as any other child, myself. Why are you trying to change the subject?

Just because you want to argue doesn't mean I'm willing to indulge you while you distract, dissemble and misdirect the conversation. There's no indication that this child had Down's. That doesn't enter into it. Drop the irrelevancy.

[eduardo89]

I believe I could provide a child with Down's as good a quality of life as any other child, myself. Why are you trying to change the subject?

Just because you want to argue doesn't mean I'm willing to indulge you while you distract, dissemble and misdirect the conversation. Drop it.

I'm not trying to change the subject, just trying to see if to you the right to life (and therefore every other right) is as subjective and conditional as you made it seem in your earlier post.

[kcchiefs6465]

Very amusing, but where's the justice?
Where's the justice for the aborted fetus?

Where's the justice for the mother?

That he only got 14 years is the injustice.

[James Madison]

So a woman can abort their baby without the fathers consent and receive no legal consequence.

But if a man does the exact same thing he's imprisoned for 14 years.

How can anyone twist this scenario into any form of justice?

Don't forget 18 years of child support payments.

[acptulsa]

I'm not trying to change the subject, just trying to see if to you the right to life (and therefore every other right) is as subjective and conditional as you made it seem in your earlier post.

You are trying to change the subject. You're trying to drag this thread onto ground where your past anti abortion ranting and raving will serve you all over again. But this isn't about abortion, much as you'd like it to be. As far as I'm concerned, it's about the discrepancy between the rights 'given' by the state to fathers and mothers. Certainly my comments were. And I consider this subject very important, and have no intention whatsoever of participating in some inflammatory, brainless hijack of your malicious invention.

I made the point I made and I will now let it stand, no matter what bait you dangle before me.

Have I made myself clear? Thank you.

[eduardo89]

You are trying to change the subject. You're trying to drag this thread onto ground where your past anti abortion ranting and raving will serve you all over again. But this isn't about abortion, much as you'd like it to be. As far as I'm concerned, it's about the discrepancy between the rights 'given' by the state to fathers and mothers. Certainly my comments were. And I consider this subject very important, and have no intention whatsoever of participating in some inflammatory, brainless hijack of your malicious invention.

Have I made myself clear?

If you find that subject so important, start a thread about it.

This thread very much is about the right to life, and whether murdering an unborn child deserves a paltry 14 years in prison or a punishment fitting the crime.

[acptulsa]

If you find that subject so important, start a thread about it.

This thread very much is about the right to life, and whether murdering an unborn child deserves a paltry 14 years in prison or a punishment fitting the crime.

Opinions are like hemorrhoids. Every you-know-what gets one sooner or later.

Hijack all the OP mods will allow you to do. Just don't expect me to participate. I can see what this thread's about with my own eyes, thank you very much.

[eduardo89]

Opinions are like hemorrhoids. Every you-know-what gets one sooner or later.

Well get them, here are some natural treatments you might want to try:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?425683-Home-Remedies-for-Hemorrhoids-%96-6-Natural-Treatments&highlight=hemorrhoids


Hijack all the OP mods will allow you to do. Just don't expect me to participate. I can see what this thread's about with my own eyes, thank you very much.

I fail to see how I'm 'hijacking' this thread, I was responding directly to your post.

But since you asked "where's the justice," I have to say no justice was served here. This man got a pathetically low sentence for premeditated murder as well as assault.

[LibForestPaul]

As far as I'm concerned, it's about the discrepancy between the privileges 'given' by the state to fathers and mothers.

[angelatc]

So you guys think men should have the right to force a woman to terminate her pregnancy?

That's some special sort of sick.

[Origanalist]

So you guys think men should have the right to force a woman to terminate her pregnancy?

That's some special sort of sick.
//

[green73]

Where's the justice for the aborted fetus?

Where's the justice for the mother?

That he only got 14 years is the injustice.

Tax slaves have to feed and house him for the next 14 years. That's the real injustice.

[Origanalist]

Who's to say he was callous? Who's to say what his motivation was? Was she addicted to crack or some other form of coke, or meth or some other form of speed? Was she kind? Was she sane?

Did he seriously consider his act, and seriously consider it merciful? Was he right?

Half of the comments here are strictly anti-abortion. Fair enough. You ignore the double standard and rejoice that somebody gets the punishment you figure everybody deserves. But where is the justice? And who's to say where his heart lay? The feminists rejoice that men don't have this power, the pro lifers rejoice that someone is being stuffed in an overcrowded prison, and no one can believe these two groups agree on something. Very amusing, but where's the justice?


Did he seriously consider his act?

What does that have to do with anything? If somebody shot a member of your family would you be asking that?


Was she kind? Was she sane?

Again, how does this change anything. Are we now to go around aborting babies subject to whether the mothers are kind or even sane? Depending on who makes the standards, we could wipe out the human race in one generation.


But where is the justice? And who's to say where his heart lay?

It is the action that is to be considered. Who cares what noble motives you would like to attribute to it?

[kcchiefs6465]

Tax slaves have to feed and house him for the next 14 years. That's the real injustice.
The couple million there that have committed no crime ought be freed. As far as cost is concerned, it is a shame that anyone needs to be incarcerated. And while I do not necessarily fear this person walking the streets, that is, I doubt he is going to kill again, he has committed a couple serious crimes. In this instance, restitution is not fitting a punishment.

It was a stupid move on his part. The cost of life is cheap, but not that cheap. He probably didn't think what he was doing was that bad. As many here would agree with him. I find what he did to be criminal, immoral, and despicable. And while I do not take pleasure from anyone being incarcerated, if for nothing else the cost, though more importantly I yearn to live in a better society where perhaps people could behave morally, I nonetheless find myself lacking any sympathy for the fellow. (Even if women abort babies all the time without consequence and often times without consent of the father.) It's a sad situation all the way around. Most sad, I'd say, for the child who otherwise would have lived.

[Origanalist]

So you guys think men should have the right to force a woman to terminate her pregnancy?

That's some special sort of sick.

Absolutely not, anymore than I think women should have the right to terminate their pregnancy, whether the father agrees or not. If you're aging parent is reduced to wearing diapers and no longer can care care for themselves without assistance, do you have the right to terminate them?

[green73]

As the self-appointed judge of RPF, I would in this case order restitution (i.e. blood money). I would take into consideration that the two were not wed, among other things. Therefore, based on what I know, my judgement would be that he pay her ¥1,000,000.

[angelatc]

Absolutely not, anymore than I think women should have the right to terminate their pregnancy, whether the father agrees or not. If you're aging parent is reduced to wearing diapers and no longer can care care for themselves without assistance, do you have the right to terminate them?


Uh, no.

[Brian4Liberty]

Sad story. There could be a million scenarios in this case, and we'll never know the truth.


So a woman can abort their baby without the fathers consent and receive no legal consequence.

But if a man does the exact same thing he's imprisoned for 14 years.

How can anyone twist this scenario into any form of justice?

War on women? :toady:

[tod evans]

So you guys think men should have the right to force a woman to terminate her pregnancy?

That's some special sort of sick.

Right there is where your query fails.

It is their pregnancy.

Unless or until you acknowledge that both parents contribute equally to creating life/the fetus, there is nothing else to discuss.

Sick is failing to acknowledge the fathers rights.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Right there is where your query fails.

It is their pregnancy.

Unless or until you acknowledge that both parents contribute equally to creating life/the fetus, there is nothing else to discuss.

Sick is failing to acknowledge the fathers rights.

Slight counterpoint:

Women typically only have somewhere in the ballpark of 250 or so eggs. Men release 200 million+ sperm per ejaculation. Eggs are certainly more valuable than sperm, and because of this and other factors, like the fact that the fetus is housed in the woman's body, and that they're the weaker sex, women get the keys to relationships.

Men shouldn't be shut out of decisions with regards to this issue (they do, after all, typically provide resources for the woman to go through this process), but the ball is definitely in women's court. As the child becomes less dependent on the mother for sustenance, the scale should certainly slide back towards men - to what degree, I can't tell you, but it does seem reasonable that the relationship shouldn't be skewed solely towards women.

[tod evans]

Slight counterpoint:

Women typically only have somewhere in the ballpark of 250 or so eggs. Men release 200 million+ sperm per ejaculation. Eggs are certainly more valuable than sperm, and because of this (and the fact that the fetus is housed in the woman's body), women get the keys to relationships.

Regardless of quantity it takes one egg and one spermatozoa to create life.

Should women be penalized for being less productive?

I don't think so.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Regardless of quantity it takes one egg and one spermatozoa to create life.

Should women be penalized for being less productive?

I don't think so.

In the workforce? Absolutely. It's why it's fine for women to receive less pay for the same job and position that men have, since men are less likely to leave the position for myriad reasons, least of which is having children.

[tod evans]

In the workforce?

Nah, just referencing your previous post where they can potentially put out 250 eggs vs millions of sperm.....

It's unfair to hold that against them, they should have equal rights with the father.

[aGameOfThrones]

Abortion Equality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tod evans]

Abortion Equality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personally I'm against abortion, however there's a fairly large segment of society that isn't.

So, to me, it's a logical argument to promote both parents having an equal say regarding the life/fetus they create.

I don't buy the "she's got a uterus" argument for even a moment, she had that uterus when she spread her legs and knew full well there was a chance of being impregnated.

Both parents conspired to create the life/fetus in question and giving only the woman power over its life is morally and ethically wrong.

[enhanced_deficit]

So a woman can abort their baby without the fathers consent and receive no legal consequence.

But if a man does the exact same thing he's imprisoned for 14 years.

How can anyone twist this scenario into any form of justice?

Seems like unjust application of "justice".

[acptulsa]

Right there is where your query fails.

It is their pregnancy.

Unless or until you acknowledge that both parents contribute equally to creating life/the fetus, there is nothing else to discuss.

Sick is failing to acknowledge the fathers rights.

This. Last I heard, women terminate preagnancies without a word or a second thought toward the father pretty much every day. But one guy tries it and gets fourteen years.

And it's a 'special kind of sick' to say this imbalance could stand to be looked at and discussed? Sounds like a way to use emotion to short-circuit rational, free and fair discourse to me.

[Schifference]

What about the woman that tricks her man and becomes pregnant? Or the one that takes his used condom and self induces herself without his knowledge and then he is mandated to years of child support?

[acptulsa]

What about the woman that tricks her man and becomes pregnant? Or the one that takes his used condom and self induces herself without his knowledge and then he is mandated to years of child support?

Or the sixty-three percent of Florida 'fathers' who were found not to be the biological fathers of 'their' children, but got the honor of continuing to pay child support anyway?

[phill4paul]

Or the sixty-three percent of Florida 'fathers' who were found not to be the biological fathers of 'their' children, but got the honor of continuing to pay child support anyway?

:eek: WTF?

[kcchiefs6465]

Or the sixty-three percent of Florida 'fathers' who were found not to be the biological fathers of 'their' children, but got the honor of continuing to pay child support anyway?
Source?

[Pericles]

If the guy had been an MD ......

[acptulsa]

Source?

Well, Cox News Service seems to have scrubbed it and flushed it down the old memory hole. But Chuch Shepherd still has it archived:

http://www.newsoftheweird.com/archive/nw991227.html


Fun With DNA Tests

Cox News Service reported in August that Florida state-agency DNA paternity tests on child-support-resisting men found that 36 percent of 1,025 "fathers" in four counties were not the fathers after all. However, Florida courts are split on whether even a negative DNA test will relieve men of support responsibilities once they voluntarily begin paying.