Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 135

Thread: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

  1. #91
    Sage

    Scrabaholic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,580

    re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    It's the woman's choice to use other people's scripts without consulting a doctor? Sure. And it's breaking the law and perhaps endangering the life/health of the fetus that she intends to carry to birth.

    No one is forcing her to carry. The concern is her use of someone else's script and refusal to heed her doctor's advice.
    No, the use of someone else's script has not been mentioned as a concern. She was not charged with doing so, and they are trying to force her to take the exact same medication, so obviously there isn't a concern about it harming the fetus.

  2. #92
    Sage

    Scrabaholic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,580

    re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Quick question: why would the woman in the story refuse physician-supervised Suboxone treatment, and insist on continuing to feed her addiction from the streets?
    She couldn't afford to renew the script and she got the suboxone from a friend, I presume for free.

  3. #93
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,136

    re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Moderator's Warning:
    Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]Talking about other posters is likely to get you points and a thread ban. It would be wise to stick to OP from here on out.

  4. #94
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by Scrabaholic View Post
    She couldn't afford to renew the script and she got the suboxone from a friend, I presume for free.
    not to mention what dishonest language does "feed her addiction from the streets" mean?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #95
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    So seconds before a natural birth it's still a "thing" and has NO rights ?
    Go ahead, then. Explain to me how the fetus can have rights without denying the mother rights.

    If it has the right not to be exposed to chemicals that are dangerous to it, the mother loses her right to expose herself to those chemicals-- whether they are dangerous to her or not. That's central to this case, and people are generally supporting the principle behind the law-- if not the execution-- because in this case the "dangerous chemicals" are illegal drugs. But not all teratogenics are illegal drugs, and not all of them are harmful to the mother; if the fetus has the right not to be deformed in the womb, the mother loses the right to use helpful and sometimes even necessary prescription drugs. She loses the right to work in jobs that might expose her to those chemicals. If the fetus has the right not to be exposed to unnecessary risks, the mother loses the right to expose herself to unnecessary risks.

    Until you can explain to me how a fetus can have rights without denying rights-- basic human rights-- to the mother, the answer is an absolute, unqualified "yes": until the moment the umbilical cord is cut, the fetus is a "thing" with no rights whatsoever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    If it has no rights how can someone be charged with its murder in cases of domestic violence that wind up in the death of the wanted "baby??
    Because the law is schizophrenic and hypocritical and written by people with no regard for consistent moral principles. It's written by people with agendas, to push those agendas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    Hypothetical: A woman uses narcotics, legally or illegally obtained, while pregnant. The child is born with a dependency on said narcotics as well as kidney problems.

    Since, in your opinion, the child is now born and has rights, who is responsible for the child abuse?
    Your first error is assuming that I believe the child has rights once it is born. It has rights when it is named, when it becomes a member of someone's family.

    Your second is assuming that anyone needs to be responsible for the "child abuse" in the first place. Not every terrible thing that happens is a crime and not everyone responsible for it is a criminal.

    Children who are born addicted to narcotics and with serious organ damage should be euthanized.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    It's a good law.
    You would think that, but you've established on multiple occasions that you don't understand how enslaving women to the interests of fetuses could possibly violate their rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    It is not impossible for a human parent and a human offspring to have rights.
    It is when one of them is growing entirely within the other and is solely dependent on the other's metabolism to provide nutrients.

    The only way for an unborn person to have rights is to force another person-- one specific person-- to provide for those rights at their own expense.

    There's a word for people who believe that you can have a right to someone else's body.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    It is not impossible for the state to protect the rights of the offspring against aggression.
    Neither ingesting whatever chemicals one chooses nor removing unwanted organisms from one's own person is aggression. Locking women up for doing these things is.

  6. #96
    Professor Hypersonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    11-04-13 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    1,379

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    I wrote a thread on this in the abortion section...

    What disturbs me is the mother had no lawyer but the fetus did. The mother was not given due process and spent 78 days in a drug treament facility. The obstetrician was definitely wrong for this.
    “Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.”

    -Arthur Schopenhauer

  7. #97
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Your first error is assuming that I believe the child has rights once it is born. It has rights when it is named, when it becomes a member of someone's family.
    yikes

    Do you honestly expect anyone to debate a position that's so far out in left field it's inhumane?

  8. #98
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Do you honestly expect anyone to debate a position that's so far out in left field it's inhumane?
    What is inhumane about it?

  9. #99
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    What is inhumane about it?
    All life deserves respect. A born child is a human being.

  10. #100
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    All life deserves respect. A born child is a human being.
    So is an unborn child. Doesn't mean it has rights.

Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •