# 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:** 5\ **Page:** 4
**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, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/61 "2014-01-31T20:28:54Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > In Florida, is there a crime of “battery”? If so, perhaps that, rather than “assault”, would be the appropriate charge. Yes. In relevant part: > [@](#): > > (1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or 2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person. §784.03, Fla. Stat. The problem is that virtually all case law on battery focuses on “harmful or offensive touching” (the common law formulation of the act defined under subsection 1) rather than type 2. ---
**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, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/62 "2014-01-31T22:03:26Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > But that should not be used as an excuse to perpetuate evil. Ah, good ol’ **ZPG Zealot**. How’s that humanity thing working out for ya? Not so good at it yet, huh? (for those who are a little confused, **ZPG Zealot** has… unique, some might say psychotic, views on child support/paternity. Namely, that a man should not have to support any child if he is not married to the mother, and that adopted children are always inferior to biological children, and should always be reminded of that fact). ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/63 "2014-01-31T22:22:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Yes. In relevant part: > > The problem is that virtually all case law on battery focuses on “harmful or offensive touching” (the common law formulation of the act defined under subsection 1) rather than type 2. It would seem type 2 would be an appropriate pigeon-hole to classify this crime under, perhaps for just that reason - not much case-law. Inducing a miscarriage would I think readily classify as “Intentionally cause[ing] bodily harm to another person”. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/64 "2014-01-31T22:25:22Z")
Re: I’m curious. Why don’t men deserve a choice? I don’t think _women_ deserve a choice, either (beyond ‘adoption’ vs. ‘keep the baby’). I’m pro-life. But that battle is a lost cause for the time being. Punishing men who dodge child support or illegally administer abortifacient are causes that can appeal to the broad middle of the political spectrum. I’d rather settle for half a loaf rather than none. Re: 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. In principle, that’s right. But for better or worse, we live in a liberal-democratic society where the judicial branch answers (in the last analysis) to the electorate. If the American electorate has inconsistent intuitions about fetal personhood, that might not be my ideal world, but I’d rather we inconsistently protect fetal life than consistently fail to protect it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-tricks-woman-into-taking-pills-to-abort-fetus-what-should-he-be-charged-with/680074/65 "2014-02-01T04:46:25Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > 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. > > . Well no, science cannot answer that question definitively, but if we have a definition of what constitutes a person, then science can give us an approximate answer as to when a fetus becomes a person. Personhood is an objective thing, even if we cannot agree on exactly when it occurs. To just decide that the mother grants personhood may be legally convenient, but it’s a rather capricious way to decide who is and who is not a person. the mother’s choice does not bequeath anything to a fetus. It’s heart will beat or not beat regardless of the mother’s wishes, it’s brain will form correctly or not form correctly regardless of the mother’s wishes. Roe v. Wade also establishes that a fetus is not a person, and therefore you cannot treat injury to a fetus with the same severity as injury to the mother. and no, calling it something other than murder but treating it with the same seriousness while calling it something else isn’t valid either. [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=3)