Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 135

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

  1. #41
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    According to the OP article, fetus gets a state appointed lawyer, mother does not.
    Come on.

    "would not be provided for her at that time"

    This was just the beginning of the process.





    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    You are right, this case shows how the radical religious right goes way to far and actually destroys lives for no reason under some notion that it is for the greater good. Really, how is it in the child's best interest that their parent has been fired from their job, will have a felony conviction, and will not be able to raise the child in a good environment because they were so hell bent on punishing a woman for having sex. It is sick and depraived. The people who did this to that mother should be ashamed of themselves, but they are not. They are proud of what they have done. They have destroyed one life, and severely set back the life they were trying to protect. That is not compassion, love, or anything noble and good. It is pure spiteful bossiness.
    As the law is written, it can clearly be seen that it intends to stop a mother from destroying the child's life with her drug use.
    To do so is not sick, depraved or spiteful, but a compassionate, noble and honorable act. Nor is it punishing a woman for having sex as you absurdly and ridiculously assert.

    The Law.
    48.133  Jurisdiction over unborn children in need of protection or services and the expectant mothers of those unborn children. The court has exclusive original jurisdiction over an unborn child alleged to be in need of protection or services which can be ordered by the court whose expectant mother habitually lacks self-control in the use of alcohol beverages, controlled substances or controlled substance analogs, exhibited to a severe degree, to the extent that there is a substantial risk that the physical health of the unborn child, and of the child when born, will be seriously affected or endangered unless the expectant mother receives prompt and adequate treatment for that habitual lack of self-control. The court also has exclusive original jurisdiction over the expectant mother of an unborn child described in this section.
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/48/III/133

    What is wrong here is that it does not appear that the mother's actions meet the underlined criteria.
    There is nothing indicating she habitually lacks self control, especially not exhibited to a severe degree, as required. The opposite appears to be what is true.

    So it seems it is more a misapplication of the law, or deliberate overreach.


    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    I got to experience it from the defendant's side.
    Which does not allow you to speak for those states in which you have no experience.





    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    This will be struck down in the courts, that's not what bugs me.
    This case may be struck down, but not the law.


    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    What bothers me is that no matter how extreme this non-sense gets, there are still people who come to the defense of the state.
    The law is a good law with good intent, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be defended or the state if the state properly applies it.
    It's application in this case is what I question.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  2. #42
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,332

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law - U.S. News

    This is the logical conclusion of the misguided belief that fetuses have rights. It is impossible to give rights to a being growing inside a person's body without violating that person's rights.
    So seconds before a natural birth it's still a "thing" and has NO rights ?

    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??
    The New Democratic Party Slogan :

    " Return to Power By Any Means Necessary "

  3. #43
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Wait a minute so you are ok with rights being violated as long as it is something you agree with?
    Well, to be fair...EVERYONE who is okay with a legal system that allows for imprisonment is okay to some degree with rights being violated as long as it's something they (society) agree's with.

    I may not even necessarily agree with this particular instance of it happening, but I get ecofarm's point. The very basis of our legal system is weighing one persons rights against another and determining whose over rules the others, and then punishing the offender through legally violating their rights.

  4. #44
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

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

    Looking over this, I have a much larger issue with the gross over reach by the state in regard to their interpritations of the law rather than the intent of the law itself.

    In regards to the law itself, an argument for it can actually piggy back off at typical liberal argument against abortion and for health care. IF the woman is going to abort, then abort. However, if the women is current functionally under an intent to keep the child but is habitually undertaking actions that have a high probability of leaving the child handicapped...and thus a burden on society and on tax payers...then it's reasonable for the state to step in. A common liberal argument thrown towards the pro-life crowd is that if they make abortions illegal, than it is the governments responsability to deal with a child potentially brought into a low income situation where assistance is going to be needed and that such a thing would be a burden and a drain and thus it's better to allow such things to be dealt with prior to that point. A child with something like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is also a burden upon society.

    The general notion of the state monitoring the pregnancy of a woman whose indicated no intent to abort and who has shown wanton and habitural abuse of alcohol or drugs so as to help assure the child is born with the best chance to be healthy isn't something that, off hand (never really thought of it much before now), doesn't bother me too much. If while being monitored she decides she just wants to abort, and that's legal in the state, then she should be able to. But if she's intent on having it then I don't think it's out of line for the state to take action if she's significantly and continually endangering the health of the child.

    However this situation, in no way shape or form, looks like that. I can see critics complaints with the lack of medical terminology in the law, and perhaps that'd help it from being abused in the future. But this looks more like an issue of an abuse of a law as opposed to the just and faithful execution of it.

  5. #45
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 12:34 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,888

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law - U.S. News

    This is the logical conclusion of the misguided belief that fetuses have rights. It is impossible to give rights to a being growing inside a person's body without violating that person's rights.
    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?

    I belive the intent of the law in question is for this type of situation. I'm not a doctor, so I don't understand the dependancy/non-dependancy, nor the affects, under the situation.
    Last edited by Samhain; 10-25-13 at 10:58 AM.

  6. #46
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

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

    It's a good law.

    I don't agree with the particulars of this case as it is reported.

    If you deliberately consume a teratogen while pregnant then you are assaulting another human being, no different and no better than if you were to abuse a born child.

    A Category C is not a known teratogen, but that doesn't make it safe either. When you're dealing with a Category C a doctor needs to be carefully weighing the risks vs. rewards - it was stupid and irresponsible, but there are degrees, of course, of stupidity and irresponsibility.

    This is the logical conclusion of the misguided belief that fetuses have rights.
    It is not misguided to know the fact that all human beings have rights.

    It is impossible to give rights to a being growing inside a person's body without violating that person's rights.
    It is impossible to give rights. If you had stopped the sentence there, you would have been correct.

    It is not impossible for a human parent and a human offspring to have rights.

    It is not impossible for the state to protect the rights of the offspring against aggression.

    Punishing aggression against human offspring by human parents protects the rights of the offspring and does not violate the rights of the parents. Parents don't have a right to aggressively harm their own kids.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    11-12-13 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    433

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law - U.S. News

    This is the logical conclusion of the misguided belief that fetuses have rights. It is impossible to give rights to a being growing inside a person's body without violating that person's rights.
    America's corrupt society in flames. This is the ugly extremism the teabagger party has brought ya'all.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    11-12-13 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    433

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

    And the teabaggers support this sort of treatment of a human being! How can that be when it's they who are continually screaming about rights being violated by Obama?

    Clearly an indication that they aren't what they pretend to be but are hating racists who are out to destroy everything they touch.

  9. #49
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    This woman was arrested and is now imprisoned at basically a mental institution without any legal representation, which the court denied her. The sicko judge said the woman may hire her own attorney for the next hearing - knowing she can't afford one and after-the-fact of her imprisonment anyway.

    Basically, the view is that ONLY women who are pregnant can be summarily imprisoned with no attorney and then after sentencing and imprisonment may have a hearing without any attorney for that same judge to decide if the judge was wrong in summarily imprisoning the woman. There are no other criminal cases where sentencing comes before the trial or where a person does not get an attorney prior to being sentenced and imprisoned.

  10. #50
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    The covert purpose of these laws is to pressure women to have abortions if they are poor or involved in substances.

    There is one way - and only one way - for that woman to get out of the mental institution. That is to have an abortion.


    Then the law becomes irrelevant. MANY so-called pro-life legislators are passing laws that have the purpose and effect of forcing women to have abortions to avoid criminal prosecution. The actual purpose and effect of such laws is to tell women "have an abortion or we will send you to prison." - while at the same time calling it pro-life legislation.

    And all the pro-life men whose real agenda is just shoving women around love such mandatory abortion laws.

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •