Pregnant girlfriend tricked into taking abortion pill; 'The baby was lost
TAMPA - John Andrew Welden did not want to be a father, authorities say.
So when his girlfriend got pregnant, prosecutors say, Welden faked a prescription for an abortion pill, switched a label so the medication appeared to be a common antibiotic, and gave her the drug.
snip
The woman didn't have medical insurance so Welden arranged for her to see his father, Stephen Welden, a practicing OB/GYN doctor. On March 28, the woman had a sonogram and learned her unborn baby was viable and healthy, Muldrow said.
"In a cold, premeditated fashion," Muldrow said, Welden forged his father's signature to obtain a prescription for the abortion drug Misoprostol, also known as Cytotec. On March 29, Welden obtained the drug from a local pharmacy and removed the label, replacing it with one that said Amoxicillin, a common antibiotic, and the woman's name.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-pregnant-girlfriend-tricked-abortion-pill-20130516,0,3219897.story
= new reply since forum marked as read
Just because she's good enough to fool around with doesn't mean you want her to be the mother of your children.
It sounds like assault, tho. Terrible story. She was a fool for sleeping with such a scummy, scummy man.
I brought up "Plan B" because it is widely mis characterized as an "abortion drug".
Please do not mistakenly think I agree; it is something that we will have to deal with tho - the consequences of the mis characterization, coupled with the abundance of Idiots.
My point was that I expect this type of assault to become very common place in the next few years (specifically, "tricking" women into taking things to prevent a completed pregnancy).
Many women (who one would assume would be very vested in being educated) do not realize that the effectiveness of birth control pills may be impacted by taking other medications; idiots rarely read the instructions, and therefore I suspect this type of assault is likely to increase.
And yes, I still support "Plan B" being released. I think we need to make sure that education/information is clear on what it does/does not do.
Sigh. It won't fix everything, tho.
has that got to do with the price of rice? 
I would expect nothing less from the Orlando Sentinel, one of the most noxious RW rags in the land.
should it not be mutual? Having sex is a mutual decision (with the obvious exception of rape). Let's say a couple has sex and the woman becomes pregnant accidentally. The man in this case does not want a baby, but the woman wants to keep it. Who should suffer? I see two sides of this argument:
a) the woman gets to make the ultimate decision because the baby is carried inside of her body, and as such, plays a more important role in the pregnancy.
b) the decision is mutual because "it takes two to tango". While the mother has an obviously stronger connection to the child, the decision and resulting accident was a mutual mistake. Why does one half of the couple become more important in the decision making process? Coercing the male to take care of the child -- financially and otherwise -- for the rest of his life seems unfair as well. In your post, you assert that the man should've taken precautions; why isn't that a mutual responsibility? In a perfect world, it should be mutual and thus responsibility for the accident should also be shared mutually.
I tend to lean towards (b) simply because I see that as the more equitable decision. Again, this is in a perfect world where the two partners are equal members. I don't think in the real world this happens often.
Just musing on the subject.
Edit: although I should be clear: I am against forcing a woman to either have an abortion or bear a child unwillingly. Coercing a woman into either against her will is disgusting and objectively wrong. Is there a middle ground, such as adoption?
Congratulations! 
But looking at that pyramid, I see that Maslow doesn't agree with you either. See how he makes it a hierarchy of needs? Food and oxygen are a basic need. "Security of the body" comes after that (which is the foundation of woman's right to choose). Physical intimacy is in third place -- and there are many forms of that. Vaginal sexual intercourse is only one possibility.
Here's the biggest problem with your theory of basic "needs." People are entitled to water and air. Are you saying men are entitled to vaginal sex with women? So they get all their primal needs met?
