Man charged with trying to abort his pregnant girlfriend
LIBERTY – A 20-year-old Liberty man has been charged with felony abortion in the second degree and other charges for allegedly punching his 17-year-old pregnant girlfriend in the stomach in an effort to abort the pregnancy.
Travis Mervine was also charged with third-degree assault, fourth-degree criminal mischief, second-degree unlawful imprisonment, criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, and harassment in the second degree.
The girlfriend called police on May 22 from her mother’s house to report she had been held prisoner by Mervine at his home from May 21 through May 22 and while there, he punched her in the stomach.
Mervine was located and arrested on Lake Street in the Village of Liberty and while police were taking him to court for arraignment, he fled from an officer on foot, while handcuffed.
After a four hour manhunt, Liberty Police, assisted by a Fallsburg Police K-9 unit, State Police and the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office, he was located at his father’s home in Liberty. He was also charged with felony escape in the second degree.
Mervine was arraigned and remanded to the Sullivan County Jail without bail.
Right off the bat I have a problem with this article. I don't know if it is just an error in reporting or not, but why is he being charged with felony abortion if it was only an attempt? We'll leave that technical question alone from here on out though, and focus instead on the deeper issues here.
Clearly we see a young man, trapped by circumstance, desperately thrashing about in vain to keep his freedom. Not only freedom from incarceration after his violent outburst, but to maintain his freedom of choice and his own economic freedom. To that extent, I certainly can empathize with him even if I don't condone his actions. This system of hypocrisy breeds this sort of violence and rebellion.
If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, there is nothing the father can do about it. He can not insist that the child be born, cannot sue the woman if she chooses to kill the unborn against his wishes. She does not even have to tell him that she is pregnant or going for an abortion in the first place.
Yet when it serves the purposes of women, children suddenly becomes a "mutual" choice and responsibility. If the man decides he does not want to be father, or simply can't be a father under his current circumstances for any reason, he's shit out of luck. Not only does he have no say in whether or not that child is brought into the world, but then he is also forced to pay for it against his will, quite often literally beyond his financial means to do so even if he wanted to. Other men simply may not want to fill the role of a father, which every child certainly should have. Single parent homes are far from ideal despite what we as a society have been brainwashed to believe. If a man does not want to be a father, then he should not be forced to be. When you do force him, you wind up with situations like this one reported above, maybe worse. Or, more commonly, men who begrudgingly and halfheartedly try to meet "their responsibility" as women and the government become loathed, and even his own children become objects of pain and hatred rather than love and pride.
Of course, there is the tired old excuse that the man should wear a condom if he does not want to be a father. Sorry folks, that shit don't fly with me. Women have far more choices when it comes to birth control, up to and including termination of a pregnancy (or simply insisting that the man wear a condom in the first place.) With rights comes responsibility. Why should the man be responsible for the WOMAN'S CHOICE? It is not a shared responsibility, it is not a mutual decision, it is the woman's choice, plain and simple, as this news article makes abundantly clear. The woman is responsible for her own body, and the man has NO RIGHTS over whether or not "his" child is brought into the world.
Can I sue a woman who transmits some disease to me, knowing that she had a disease, because I chose to not wear a condom? Certainly not. And the same should go the opposite way. A woman should not be able to sue a man financially, for the consequences of the transmission of biological material, which she knew full well the potential consequences of. She could have gone on the pill, patch, shot, used the ring, foam, sponge, spermicide, diaphragm, implant, or female condom, insisted that the man wear a condom or simply elected to not have sex with a man who had no intention of being a father to a child. (Here's a hint ladies, if he didn't put a ring on it, he doesn't wanna be your baby-daddy.) A woman can also choose to abstain when she is most fertile and ovulating, and obviously much more likely to become pregnant. Short of that, the woman can still resort to the morning-after pill, and ultimately it is her choice, the woman's choice alone, whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
So long as it is "her body, her choice" then it is also her responsibility. She should have no right whatsoever to insist that a man participate in any way, financially or otherwise, with the rearing of that offspring that was the product of her choice, and her choice alone. Unless of course, we want to make it a truly mutual responsibility, and outlaw abortion without the consent of the father as well. With freedom comes responsibility.
Technically, in some instances a woman can also be guilty of illegal abortion under NY Penal Code. But basically, those amount to abortions that are done outside of a clinical setting under the care of a sanctioned physician. You will also notice too though, the gender bias applied to such cases. Keep in mind here too, that these laws make no distinction as to the willingness of the female to participate in an abortional act perpetrated by a man. In other words, even if the woman does not want the baby, but the man commits the abortional act on her behalf, he is STILL guilty of a felony.
S 125.40 Abortion in the second degree.
A person is guilty of abortion in the second degree when he commits an
abortional act upon a female, unless such abortional act is justifiable
pursuant to subdivision three of section 125.05.
Abortion in the second degree is a class E felony.
S 125.45 Abortion in the first degree.
A person is guilty of abortion in the first degree when he commits
upon a female pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks an abortional act
which causes the miscarriage of such female, unless such abortional act
is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three of section 125.05.
Abortion in the first degree is a class D felony.
S 125.50 Self-abortion in the second degree.
A female is guilty of self-abortion in the second degree when, being
pregnant, she commits or submits to an abortional act upon herself,
unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three
of section 125.05.
Self-abortion in the second degree is a class B misdemeanor.
S 125.55 Self-abortion in the first degree.
A female is guilty of self-abortion in the first degree when, being
pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks, she commits or submits to an
abortional act upon herself which causes her miscarriage, unless such
abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three of section
Self-abortion in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor.