Man Sentenced to Ten Years of Prison for an Abortion
#1

Editor: someone's going to suggest that the Doctor wasn't actually sentenced for murdering his child but for endangering the life of his illicit sex partner, presumably to keep the information from his wife and colleagues. So be it.

Germany in 2007 a married German Doctor 41 wanted to abort his child with a another woman at home. He mixed blood thinner in her tea, in order to induce a premature birth. Because of nasal and bleeding gums the mother went into the hospital. There the doctors noticed the life threatening low blood pressure and managed to save the her but not her child. On Monday the Court of Coburg condemned the Doctor to ten years of prison and 20,000 Euros damages, for attempted murder. The condemned man has challenged the deed to the last and will appeal the case.

Link to original, kreuz.net...

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2011...rison.html
Reply
#2

If your statement "On Monday the Court of Coburg condemned the Doctor to ten years of prison and 20,000 Euros damages, for attempted murder" is correct, then he is not "Sentenced to Ten Years of Prison for an Abortion" as you said in your subject line.

So it's rather odd that you say "someone's going to suggest that the Doctor wasn't actually sentenced for murdering his child but for endangering the life of his illicit sex partner," as if "someone" would be making a false suggestion about the facts of the case in saying that.

All who believe in the sanctity of life and hear about this case will think he should be going to prison for two terms, one for attempted murder of the woman and one for the murder of their unborn child but the fact is that the court has ignored the murder of the unborn child.  It is a terrible evil that the child's life is viewed as nothing but a widespread evil protected by law in many countries. 

If the woman had objected to his causing the death of her unborn baby, could he have been charged for the child's death under German law?




Reply
#3
(03-23-2011, 12:59 PM)Revixit Wrote: If your statement "On Monday the Court of Coburg condemned the Doctor to ten years of prison and 20,000 Euros damages, for attempted murder" is correct, then he is not "Sentenced to Ten Years of Prison for an Abortion" as you said in your subject line.

So it's rather odd that you say "someone's going to suggest that the Doctor wasn't actually sentenced for murdering his child but for endangering the life of his illicit sex partner," as if "someone" would be making a false suggestion about the facts of the case in saying that.

All who believe in the sanctity of life and hear about this case will think he should be going to prison for two terms, one for attempted murder of the woman and one for the murder of their unborn child but the fact is that the court has ignored the murder of the unborn child.  It is a terrible evil that the child's life is viewed as nothing but a widespread evil protected by law in many countries. 

If the woman had objected to his causing the death of her unborn baby, could he have been charged for the child's death under German law?

Did I say anywhere, anywhere at all that someone would be making a false statement?  I just anticipated that some dork, geek, doofus, half-wit or other would want to waste time talking about THAT rather than the story itself, and I also wanted to make sure that possibly mentally challenged readers wouldn't get lost on the way. 
Reply
#4

You said:

"Editor: someone's going to suggest that the Doctor wasn't actually sentenced for murdering his child but for endangering the life of his illicit sex partner, presumably to keep the information from his wife and colleagues. So be it."

What is the point of that statement?  It makes no sense because the doctor actually was "sentenced for endangering the life of his illicit sex partner" according to your next paragraph in your OP, though the court didn't call it "endangering the life of his illicit sex partner" but "attempted murder."  He was not sentenced for abortion.

Saying " I just anticipated that some dork, geek, doofus, half-wit or other would want to waste time talking about THAT rather than the story itself, and I also wanted to make sure that possibly mentally challenged readers wouldn't get lost on the way" shows you have a pretty low opinion of the intelligence of posters here at Fisheaters but clarifies nothing. 

What do you mean by "the story itself"?  The story itself is that the doctor nearly killed his mistress in trying to get rid of their unborn baby, did kill the baby, and is going to prison for attempted murder of the woman, not for killing the child.  What story do you want to talk about instead?








Reply
#5
(03-23-2011, 01:39 PM)Revixit Wrote: You said:

"Editor: someone's going to suggest that the Doctor wasn't actually sentenced for murdering his child but for endangering the life of his illicit sex partner, presumably to keep the information from his wife and colleagues. So be it."

What is the point of that statement?  It makes no sense because the doctor actually was "sentenced for endangering the life of his illicit sex partner" according to your next paragraph in your OP, though the court didn't call it "endangering the life of his illicit sex partner" but "attempted murder."  He was not sentenced for abortion.

Saying " I just anticipated that some dork, geek, doofus, half-wit or other would want to waste time talking about THAT rather than the story itself, and I also wanted to make sure that possibly mentally challenged readers wouldn't get lost on the way" shows you have a pretty low opinion of the intelligence of posters here at Fisheaters but clarifies nothing. 

What do you mean by "the story itself"?  The story itself is that the doctor nearly killed his mistress in trying to get rid of their unborn baby, did kill the baby, and is going to prison for attempted murder of the woman, not for killing the child.  What story do you want to talk about instead?

I don't care.  That's what it says in German, and that's what the kreuz.net commentator wrote.  I just wanted to point out something that I knew would probably be a stumbling block for some people on here, because I have a sense for some people's literalism when it comes to these headlines.

The title is true, it's just that the courts didn't throw him in prison for the crime of abortion, he was trying to kill the child, but managed to almost murder the mother too, and he may have been attempting to do that as well.

That's all there is.

And that's also quite apart from the fact that the title is actually a true statement.

I think this is part of the reason why you have such a hard time accepting that Bishops like Williamson are part of the solution and why you seem, correct me if I'm wrong, to be such a neo-Con.
Reply
#6
(03-23-2011, 01:43 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(03-23-2011, 01:39 PM)Revixit Wrote: You said:

"Editor: someone's going to suggest that the Doctor wasn't actually sentenced for murdering his child but for endangering the life of his illicit sex partner, presumably to keep the information from his wife and colleagues. So be it."

What is the point of that statement?  It makes no sense because the doctor actually was "sentenced for endangering the life of his illicit sex partner" according to your next paragraph in your OP, though the court didn't call it "endangering the life of his illicit sex partner" but "attempted murder."  He was not sentenced for abortion.

Saying " I just anticipated that some dork, geek, doofus, half-wit or other would want to waste time talking about THAT rather than the story itself, and I also wanted to make sure that possibly mentally challenged readers wouldn't get lost on the way" shows you have a pretty low opinion of the intelligence of posters here at Fisheaters but clarifies nothing. 

What do you mean by "the story itself"?  The story itself is that the doctor nearly killed his mistress in trying to get rid of their unborn baby, did kill the baby, and is going to prison for attempted murder of the woman, not for killing the child.  What story do you want to talk about instead?


I don't care.  That's what it says in German, and that's what the kreuz.net commentator wrote.  I just wanted to point out something that I knew would probably be a stumbling block for some people on here, because I have a sense for some people's literalism when it comes to these headlines.


The title is true, it's just that the courts didn't throw him in prison for the crime of abortion, he was trying to kill the child, but managed to almost murder the mother too, and he may have been attempting to do that as well.

That's all there is.

And that's also quite apart from the fact that the title is actually a true statement.

I think this is part of the reason why you have such a hard time accepting that Bishops like Williamson are part of the solution and why you seem, correct me if I'm wrong, to be such a neo-Con.

If the title is true, and he was sentenced "for abortion" why does the first paragraph say he was sentenced for "attempted murder"?  Both statements cannot be true.  It's not "literalism" to point out statements contradicting one another.  We aren't dealing with metaphors in literature here but with straight-forward statements in a news report, statements which contradict each other.  Any rational person should see that.  Perhaps the problem is that you're reading it in German and the English translation is missing something, some je ne sais quoi.

Isn't abortion legal in Germany?  Apart from abortion, is it illegal to kill an unborn child?  If so, I can see that he could have been charged with killing the unborn child and with attempted murder of the woman and the court sentenced him only on attempted murder.  But if that's the case, why does the headline say he was sentenced for abortion? 

There's a discrepancy here and you have not explained it.  Implying that I'm intellectually inferior to you is not an explanation and is rude as well.  I have asked perfectly logical, polite questions and been met with accusations of being "such a neo-Con", and having "such a hard time accepting that Bishops like Williamson are part of the solution" as well as the comment about "literalism" and the other words you threw around, such as "geek" and "half-wit." 

Is it possible for you to reply in a civil manner to my civil questions?

Reply
#7
(03-23-2011, 02:43 PM)Revixit Wrote:
(03-23-2011, 01:43 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(03-23-2011, 01:39 PM)Revixit Wrote: You said:

"Editor: someone's going to suggest that the Doctor wasn't actually sentenced for murdering his child but for endangering the life of his illicit sex partner, presumably to keep the information from his wife and colleagues. So be it."

What is the point of that statement?  It makes no sense because the doctor actually was "sentenced for endangering the life of his illicit sex partner" according to your next paragraph in your OP, though the court didn't call it "endangering the life of his illicit sex partner" but "attempted murder."  He was not sentenced for abortion.

Saying " I just anticipated that some dork, geek, doofus, half-wit or other would want to waste time talking about THAT rather than the story itself, and I also wanted to make sure that possibly mentally challenged readers wouldn't get lost on the way" shows you have a pretty low opinion of the intelligence of posters here at Fisheaters but clarifies nothing. 

What do you mean by "the story itself"?  The story itself is that the doctor nearly killed his mistress in trying to get rid of their unborn baby, did kill the baby, and is going to prison for attempted murder of the woman, not for killing the child.  What story do you want to talk about instead?


I don't care.  That's what it says in German, and that's what the kreuz.net commentator wrote.  I just wanted to point out something that I knew would probably be a stumbling block for some people on here, because I have a sense for some people's literalism when it comes to these headlines.


The title is true, it's just that the courts didn't throw him in prison for the crime of abortion, he was trying to kill the child, but managed to almost murder the mother too, and he may have been attempting to do that as well.

That's all there is.

And that's also quite apart from the fact that the title is actually a true statement.

I think this is part of the reason why you have such a hard time accepting that Bishops like Williamson are part of the solution and why you seem, correct me if I'm wrong, to be such a neo-Con.

If the title is true, and he was sentenced "for abortion" why does the first paragraph say he was sentenced for "attempted murder"?  Both statements cannot be true.  It's not "literalism" to point out statements contradicting one another.  We aren't dealing with metaphors in literature here but with straight-forward statements in a news report, statements which contradict each other.  Any rational person should see that.  Perhaps the problem is that you're reading it in German and the English translation is missing something, some je ne sais quoi.

Isn't abortion legal in Germany?  Apart from abortion, is it illegal to kill an unborn child?  If so, I can see that he could have been charged with killing the unborn child and with attempted murder of the woman and the court sentenced him only on attempted murder.  But if that's the case, why does the headline say he was sentenced for abortion? 

There's a discrepancy here and you have not explained it.  Implying that I'm intellectually inferior to you is not an explanation and is rude as well.  I have asked perfectly logical, polite questions and been met with accusations of being "such a neo-Con", and having "such a hard time accepting that Bishops like Williamson are part of the solution" as well as the comment about "literalism" and the other words you threw around, such as "geek" and "half-wit."   

Is it possible for you to reply in a civil manner to my civil questions?

If you read the article, my explanation, you'd know that abortion is legal in Germany, or at least that I and the authors of kreuz.net as I have rendered them in English understand it.  You're really working too hard here.

Where did I say I was intellectually superior? Once again, you're looking for things that aren't there.  You've got some real problems with rationality and logic, I'll grant you that...

There's no discrepancy, it's a direct causal, if not legal, link between procuring the abortion, using blood thinners as it turns out, and going to prison.

It's simply a true statement.  It's not even misleading.
Reply
#8
It's probably also a crime for practicing medicine unofficially too.  I expect that his illicit abortion will also cost him his license to practice medicine in Germany. 
Reply
#9
(03-23-2011, 02:49 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: If you read the article, my explanation, you'd know that abortion is legal in Germany, or at least that I and the authors of kreuz.net as I have rendered them in English understand it.  You're really working too hard here.

Where did I say I was intellectually superior? Once again, you're looking for things that aren't there.  You've got some real problems with rationality and logic, I'll grant you that...

:laughing:  I'm not the one making irrational and illogical claims.

[/quote]

There's no discrepancy, it's a direct causal, if not legal, link between procuring the abortion, using blood thinners as it turns out, and going to prison.

It's simply a true statement.  It's not even misleading.
[/quote]

Of course it's misleading. He's not going to prison for abortion but for attempted murder of his mistress.   But you keep on thinking whatever it is you're thinking, it's clear that you're unable to see my point so I'll cease trying to make it.


Reply
#10
(03-23-2011, 03:07 PM)Revixit Wrote:
(03-23-2011, 02:49 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: If you read the article, my explanation, you'd know that abortion is legal in Germany, or at least that I and the authors of kreuz.net as I have rendered them in English understand it.  You're really working too hard here.

Where did I say I was intellectually superior? Once again, you're looking for things that aren't there.  You've got some real problems with rationality and logic, I'll grant you that...

:laughing:  I'm not the one making irrational and illogical claims.

There's no discrepancy, it's a direct causal, if not legal, link between procuring the abortion, using blood thinners as it turns out, and going to prison.

It's simply a true statement.  It's not even misleading.
[/quote]

Of course it's misleading. He's not going to prison for abortion but for attempted murder of his mistress.   But you keep on thinking whatever it is you're thinking, it's clear that you're unable to see my point so I'll cease trying to make it.



[/quote]

Yes, you're leaving out part of the equation, "for abortion", which I even took some pains to explain because I knew champion breeds like yourself were on the watch,  but I'm not going to argue with you any more.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)