# Man tricks woman into taking pills to abort fetus. What should he be charged with? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 29, 2014, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074 "2014-01-29T22:07:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/41 "2014-01-31T05:38:23Z")
Aggravated assault requires either that there’s a serious risk of death, or a permanent disability. Abortion doesn’t do either of those things. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/42 "2014-01-31T05:48:57Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Aggravated assault requires either that there’s a serious risk of death, or a permanent disability. Abortion doesn’t do either of those things. Cytotoc can, though. It’s got a boxed warning against use in pregnancy outside of a hospital setting. > [@](#): > > WARNING > > CYTOTEC (MISOPROSTOL) ADMINISTRATION TO WOMEN WHO ARE PREGNANT CAN CAUSE BIRTH DEFECTS, ABORTION, OR PREMATURE BIRTH. UTERINE RUPTURE HAS BEEN REPORTED WHEN CYTOTEC WAS ADMINISTERED IN PREGNANT WOMEN TO INDUCE LABOR OR TO INDUCE ABORTION BEYOND THE EIGHTH WEEK OF PREGNANCY (see also PRECAUTIONS and LABOR AND DELIVERY). CYTOTEC SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN BY PREGNANT WOMEN TO REDUCE THE RISK OF ULCERS INDUCED BY NONSTEROIDAL ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DRUGS (NSAIDs) (see CONTRAINDICATIONS, WARNINGS, and PRECAUTIONS). > > PATIENTS MUST BE ADVISED OF THE ABORTIFACIENT PROPERTY AND WARNED NOT TO GIVE THE DRUG TO OTHERS. > > Cytotec should not be used for reducing the risk of NSAID-induced ulcers in women of childbearing potential unless the patient is at high risk of complications from gastric ulcers associated with use of the NSAID, or is at high risk of developing gastric ulceration. In such patients, Cytotec may be prescribed if the patient > > ``` > has had a negative serum pregnancy test within 2 weeks prior to beginning therapy. > is capable of complying with effective contraceptive measures. > has received both oral and written warnings of the hazards of misoprostol, the risk of possible contraception failure, and the danger to other women of childbearing potential should the drug be taken by mistake. > will begin Cytotec only on the second or third day of the next normal menstrual period. > > ``` > **[Cytotec (Misoprostol): Side Effects, Uses, Dosage, Interactions, Warnings](https://www.rxlist.com/cytotec-drug.htm)** > > Cytotec (Misoprostol) may treat, side effects, dosage, drug interactions, warnings, patient labeling, reviews, and related medications including drug comparison and health resources. Uterine rupture comes with a high risk of death. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/43 "2014-01-31T06:39:59Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Aggravated assault requires either that there’s a serious risk of death, or a permanent disability. Abortion doesn’t do either of those things. That obviously depends on the precise wording of the criminal statutes in the jurisdiction concerned. But, in the US, the FBI compiles its “aggravated assault” statistics on a basis which includes assaults that occasion, or may occasion, “great bodily harm” - but no necessarily permanent harm, still less permanent disability. Is an induced miscarriage “great bodily harm”? I’d say yes. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/44 "2014-01-31T06:49:43Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > **adaher** For the same reason, I’m not in favour of allowing men to dodge child support by saying they deserve a choice too. I’m curious. Why _don’t_ men deserve a choice? ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/45 "2014-01-31T07:00:24Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > I’m curious. Why _don’t_ men deserve a choice? It’s not a matter of deserving, it’s that we can’t figure out how to give them a choice that isn’t a burden on other people. If we give them the literal choice of abortion, that’s a significant burden on the woman, physically and emotionally, and most civilized people are appalled at the notion of forced abortion, whether they identify as pro-life or pro-choice. If we give them the financial choice to say, “uh, don’t want to be a parent, sorry” (which is what I can theoretically get behind) we burden the taxpayers with a much higher risk of having to provide financial support to the child - single moms who don’t get child support are more likely to need food stamps, cash assistance, WIC and other forms of publicly funded assistance. If you can figure out a way to give him “choice” that doesn’t potentially harm others, I’m all ears. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/46 "2014-01-31T07:30:22Z")
I think that’s perfectly correct. But it would also be nice if the response to a man being upset at what’s being pushed on him wasn’t “you should have thought of that before dropping your pants.” If it’s callous to say the equivalent to a female, then it’s callous to say it to a male. And sexist, since it assumes that men have better judgment than women. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/47 "2014-01-31T07:36:26Z")
It may be callous, but it’s factual. A woman who is faced with a difficult choice about abortion or having a child as a single parent, just like a man who is faced with an unwelcome obligation to pay child support, is facing a choice which in most cases could have been avoided by not having sex. It’s true that a man and a woman in this situation face _different_ unwelcome and unintended consequences. But I don;t think that makes any difference to the question of whether it is (a) callous, or (b) justified, or © possibly both, to point out that the unwelcome and unintended consequences that each of them faces were also avoidable consequences. ---
**Author:** ![Mississippienne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d2c977/32.png) [@Mississippienne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mississippienne)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/48 "2014-01-31T07:39:59Z")
Children are entitled to support. Our society has determined that support should be provided by the parents, if at all possible. Women have the right to decide to bring a pregnancy to term or not. You should not be able to force a woman into an abortion any more than you should be able to force her NOT to have an abortion. She should have the right to bodily dignity/determination. This may cause a financial burden on the man in the scenario. He may or may not want to be a father. Sometimes, life is not fair. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/49 "2014-01-31T07:42:51Z")
Shouldn’t that be a discussion for another thread? > [@LinusK](#): > > Aggravated assault requires either that there’s a serious risk of death, or a permanent disability. Abortion doesn’t do either of those things. When done by a professional in the right setting, no it doesn’t. But abortion and/or miscarriages can indeed be deadly, when not peformed properly. Any medical process can. Perhaps forcible miscarriage, or something like that? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/50 "2014-01-31T14:40:31Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Was the pill was a deadly weapon, or did serious bodily injury? Certainly. Giving someone a drug against their will to induce a miscarriage is inflicting serious bodily injury - not only is miscarriage a possibly excruciating procedure, fraught with both physical and emotional harms that essentially amount to torture if undertaken unwillingly, he’s risking the imposition of potentially serious adverse effects (remembering that the drug was not administered knowingly, so the miscarriage and other adverse effects would be unexpected and attributed to other causes). The person administering the drug isn’t a health professional and has no idea whether the victim is taking other medications or is otherwise contra-indicated for this drug. He is recklessly endangering her life. I have no qualms about punishing fraudulent administration of such drugs severely. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/51 "2014-01-31T14:50:46Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Certainly. Giving someone a drug against their will to induce a miscarriage is inflicting serious bodily injury - not only is miscarriage a possibly excruciating procedure, fraught with both physical and emotional harms that essentially amount to torture if undertaken unwillingly, he’s risking the imposition of potentially serious adverse effects (remembering that the drug was not administered knowingly, so the miscarriage and other adverse effects would be unexpected and attributed to other causes). > > The person administering the drug isn’t a health professional and has no idea whether the victim is taking other medications or is otherwise contra-indicated for this drug. He is recklessly endangering her life. > > I have no qualms about punishing fraudulent administration of such drugs severely. No doubt that the drug has the _potential_ to cause serious bodily injury (although, being unfamiliar with the relevant law, I’m not certain that “emotional harms” or even “excruciating” pain constitutes serious bodily injury). The question, though, is: was there serious bodily injury here? Other than the actual miscarriage, I don’t get the sense that there was. So, then you have to ask whether a miscarriage is “serious bodily injury”? And I’m not sure what the answer to that is. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/52 "2014-01-31T15:12:09Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > No doubt that the drug has the _potential_ to cause serious bodily injury (although, being unfamiliar with the relevant law, I’m not certain that “emotional harms” or even “excruciating” pain constitutes serious bodily injury). The question, though, is: was there serious bodily injury here? Other than the actual miscarriage, I don’t get the sense that there was. So, then you have to ask whether a miscarriage is “serious bodily injury”? And I’m not sure what the answer to that is. I would argue that inflicting torment on someone by misuse of their body is “serious bodily harm”. Imagine in you will that the woman was kidnapped and in the power of this guy, who tells her “I’m going to forcibly abort your pregnancy”. Anyone who has been a parent would view that as torture, without a doubt - many (including myself) would prefer having some fingers chopped off. Though I’m a father rather than a mother, if the guy had both of us in his power and offered me the choice “some fingers or I abort your wife’s pregnancy”, I’d have chosen the fingers. A miscarriage is inflicting a wound on a person - it causes bleeding and pain. The wound in internal rather than external, but why should that make it less significant? The “serious” part comes from two sources: (a) the risk of serious complications; and (b) the emotional trauma that such a wound inflicts. So objectively it causes physical damage, and subjectively that damage is severe. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/53 "2014-01-31T15:39:10Z")
The safety of the drug gives us an easy out here. But even if the drug was 100% safe, this would be an egregious offense. > [@UDS](#): > > Even if there’s no complications or risk of complications, it’s poisoning. Pregnancy is a natural bodily process; drugging somebody (without their consent) to prevent their body from working in any respect is poisoning; this is no different from drugging her to render her unconscious, or drugging her to impair her physical performance in a race. > [@UDS](#): > > […]Agreed. The precise charge is going to depend on the terms of the criminal statutes in the jurisdiction concerned, but “assault resulting in serious injury” is the guts of the charge. I like your attempt here, but I’d change “no different” to “no better than”. Forcing an abortion could be considered significantly worse than assault. I’m pro-choice. The law shouldn’t impose any religion on anyone. However, if a woman believes that a soul is created at conception and that terminating pregnancy, it should be her right to treat her pregnancy that way. > [@nearwildheaven](#): > > In Iowa, if a fetus of any age dies as a result of the commission of a crime, the perpetrator can be charged with, and convicted of, “nonconsensual termination of a human pregnancy”. This makes sense. > [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > My biggest problem with this story is the idea that it isn’t murder if a [mother] aborts a fetus\*, but it is if [the father] does. That strikes me as a big ol’ double standard. I agree there’s a double standard here. Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s a reasonable way to avoid it. I think this is just one of those cases where men get screwed (oh pooooooor men). > [@adaher](#): > > Personhood is granted by the reality of biology, not the whims of another person. More specifically, since this is a legal question, it’s granted by law. “Personhood” can be defined in many ways for many purposes: ethcics, religion, etc. However, regarding legal matters, it’s only the legal definition that matters. As a democracy, we have to come to some kind of agreement on this legal definition, informed by diverse ideas on the ethical and religious definitions. > [@WhyNot](#): > > It’s not a matter of deserving, it’s that we can’t figure out how to give them a choice that isn’t a burden on other people. … If you can figure out a way to give him “choice” that doesn’t potentially harm others, I’m all ears. Thanks: you put this better than I was able to. Radio-controlled self-destructing sperm? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/54 "2014-01-31T16:08:51Z")
> [@Mississippienne](#): > > Sometimes, life is not fair. But that should not be used as an excuse to perpetuate evil. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/55 "2014-01-31T16:13:31Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > More specifically, since this is a legal question, it’s granted by law. “Personhood” can be defined in many ways for many purposes: ethcics, religion, etc. However, regarding legal matters, it’s only the legal definition that matters. As a democracy, we have to come to some kind of agreement on this legal definition, informed by diverse ideas on the ethical and religious definitions. That’s not exactly correct. The concept of personhood isn’t something we decide on as a democracy. It’s a question of natural rights, and thus in the bailiwick of the judicial branch. Who is and is not a person should be decided by said judicial branch based on science. At a certain point of development, a fetus becomes a person, regardless of the intent of the mother. And before that, it’s not a person, regardless of the intent of the mother. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/56 "2014-01-31T16:18:49Z")
Florida does not require bodily harm as an element of aggravated assault. It requires an assault involving the use of a deadly weapon or intent to kill (§784.021, Fla. Stat.) The definition of the underlying charge of assault - §784-011 - is “…an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.” There was no threat, and hence no assault. We have a number of poisoning statutes, but they all refer to adulterating other substances (chiefly food and water) with poisons. There doesn’t seem to be one covering nonlethal administration of harmful substances directly. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/57 "2014-01-31T18:54:19Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Florida does not require bodily harm as an element of aggravated assault. It requires an assault involving the use of a deadly weapon or intent to kill (§784.021, Fla. Stat.) The definition of the underlying charge of assault - §784-011 - is “…an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.” There was no threat, and hence no assault. We have a number of poisoning statutes, but they all refer to adulterating other substances (chiefly food and water) with poisons. There doesn’t seem to be one covering nonlethal administration of harmful substances directly. This is a truly bizzare definition of assault. If I punch someone in the back of the head, it isn’t “assault” because they never saw it comming, and so no “threat”? Perhaps something is missing here. In Canada at least, that definition is only the second part of the definition of “assault”. > [@](#): > > 1. (1) A person commits an assault when > > (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; > > (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or > > (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs. In Canada at least, I think this section would have been appropriate: > [@](#): > > Administering noxious thing > > 1. Every one who administers or causes to be administered to any person or causes any person to take poison or any other destructive or noxious thing is guilty of an indictable offence and liable > > (a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, if he intends thereby to endanger the life of or to cause bodily harm to that person; or > > (b) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, if he intends thereby to aggrieve or annoy that person. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/58 "2014-01-31T19:00:29Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > This is a truly bizzare definition of assault. If I punch someone in the back of the head, it isn’t “assault” because they never saw it comming, and so no “threat”? It’s the distinction between assault and a battery. Yes, if you punch somone in the back of the head, it’s quite possibly a battery without an assault. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/59 "2014-01-31T19:23:37Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > It’s the distinction between assault and a battery. Yes, if you punch somone in the back of the head, it’s quite possibly a battery without an assault. Heh, learn something new every day. Here in Canada, it appears the two are combined for criminal purposes, which makes more sense of the non-technical definition of the word - when I think of an “assualt” I think of actually hitting someone, not just threatening to do so. In Florida, is there a crime of “battery”? If so, perhaps that, rather than “assault”, would be the appropriate charge. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/60 "2014-01-31T20:16:22Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s not exactly correct. The concept of personhood isn’t something we decide on as a democracy. It’s a question of natural rights, and thus in the bailiwick of the judicial branch. > > Who is and is not a person should be decided by said judicial branch based on science. At a certain point of development, a fetus becomes a person, regardless of the intent of the mother. And before that, it’s not a person, regardless of the intent of the mother. That’s an interesting viewpoint, but I disagree. Science cannot answer such a question. There is no “true” answer, nor an objective one. Instead, we have to rely on what we agree to as a society. However, you could be correct in that courts could make the decision for us. If they do, and if we as a nation disagree, we’d have to rely on laws or constitutional amendments. Of course, no matter what the “agreement” is, there will be (at least) a substantial minority who disagree. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074.md?page=4)