Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 135

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

  1. #61
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:48 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    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.



    It is not misguided to know the fact that all human beings have 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.

    In this, your stance is that pregnant women should either be put on trial and possibly sent to prison OR pursue the safe legal route of aborting. Blackmailing women to force them to abort means your focus isn't about "aggressive homicide" against "human offspring." It is about controlling the behavior of women.

  2. #62
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Pro-life legislatures passing laws demanding women decide between risking being imprisoned or aborting. Yeah, that's "pro-life."
    Well, thank you for the amazingly propogandized and stereotypical hyper emotional blathering response, but spare me if I think it's one giant load of crap born from the mirror image of the typical fanatical pro-life side. I'd personally suggest it's more like a law suggesting that if a woman is planning on carrying the child to birth, to not habiturally intake substances that have a significant chance of causing dabilitating abnormalities to occur causing the child's life to be substantially negatively impacted and potentially placing an additional burden upon the public. one that, in this particular instance, was horribly and erroniously applied to an individual who had CEASED taking drugs and showed now sign of habitural use and thus continued potential harm.

    The reality is that an unborn child can neither be treated fully like a born child NOR can it be simply treated as some kind of inanimate object. It is a unique and distinct situation that needs to be dealt with in an honest and realitic measure. This is seen in other laws, such as those that allow a person who kills a pregnant woman to potentially also be found liable for the death of the unborn child. I disagree with a notion that a woman should be charged with murder, or something of the such, for having an abortion because I do think the situaiton is unique and can't be compared to a woman doing something like stabbing a newborn. On the flip side, I also don't necessarily disagere with a notion that a woman showing no intent other than to carry a child to term and bring it into this word CAN be subject to state action if they are acting in a way that is extremely reckless and gravely endangers the health of the prospective child. The issue is that in this particular case, based on the admittedly one sided information we have at the moment, there is little...if any...way one could make a case that it would fall into such a category.

  3. #63
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    In this, your stance is that pregnant women should either be put on trial and possibly sent to prison OR pursue the safe legal route of aborting. Blackmailing women to force them to abort means your focus isn't about "aggressive homicide" against "human offspring." It is about controlling the behavior of women.
    So just out of curiosity, since you seem to be speaking in generaliaties about the law since you keep going after people who are saying that this particular case was a poor application of the law...

    If a woman is pregnant, and plans to carry to term, and proceeds to go out killing bottles of Jack Daniels every few nights for the full 9 months, you believe that the state should take no action?

    If the child comes out with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, should the state then have a responsability to help the mother if she ends up needing government assistsance with health care? What if she can't work as much because she's having to care for the child whose disability she directly cause; shall society foot the bill if she has to start applying for food stamps and welfare? Is it "fair" to the child to be brought into a world handicapped and damaged because his mother chose to knowingly and wantonly endanger his health?

    What would your solution be in such a situation? Pro-Lifers are often asked this type of hypothetical when suggesting abortion be outlawed.

  4. #64
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:48 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Well, thank you for the amazingly propogandized and stereotypical hyper emotional blathering response, but spare me if I think it's one giant load of crap born from the mirror image of the typical fanatical pro-life side. I'd personally suggest it's more like a law suggesting that if a woman is planning on carrying the child to birth, to not habiturally intake substances that have a significant chance of causing dabilitating abnormalities to occur causing the child's life to be substantially negatively impacted and potentially placing an additional burden upon the public. one that, in this particular instance, was horribly and erroniously applied to an individual who had CEASED taking drugs and showed now sign of habitural use and thus continued potential harm.

    The reality is that an unborn child can neither be treated fully like a born child NOR can it be simply treated as some kind of inanimate object. It is a unique and distinct situation that needs to be dealt with in an honest and realitic measure. This is seen in other laws, such as those that allow a person who kills a pregnant woman to potentially also be found liable for the death of the unborn child. I disagree with a notion that a woman should be charged with murder, or something of the such, for having an abortion because I do think the situaiton is unique and can't be compared to a woman doing something like stabbing a newborn. On the flip side, I also don't necessarily disagere with a notion that a woman showing no intent other than to carry a child to term and bring it into this word CAN be subject to state action if they are acting in a way that is extremely reckless and gravely endangers the health of the prospective child. The issue is that in this particular case, based on the admittedly one sided information we have at the moment, there is little...if any...way one could make a case that it would fall into such a category.
    Your words do not change the fact that such laws give women the choice between abortion or possible imprisonment.

    The adoption industry is the money behind pro-life. Their profits do not come from children being adopted. It comes from the huge fees people pay to be approved to be put on the eligibility list. The inducement is to advertise an upcoming birth of a desirable newborn - which is of course determined by the nature of the mother and the likelihood of the perfect baby - not just health but race, eye color, hair color etc.

    A birth defected baby is only an expense to such crisis-pregnancy centers. They pay the cost of pre-natal care and birthing - only to have an unmarketable product. Thus, they either want a health baby from a pregnancy or no pregnancy at all. We are personally very familiar with the HUGE amounts of money at stake even just for one pregnancy.

    It is money that defines the 2 sides. For-profit adoption companies and organizations on the "pro-life" side, and facilities that do abortions on the "pro-choice" side. The "pro-life" money side does not want birth defected babies to be born. They want abortions to avoid them, though have to frame it any possible way as "pro-life." "Get an abortion or go to prison because your fetus might be birth defected by your actions" is NOT "pro-life." It is not "pro-choice." It is "pro-abortion."

    You can post all the hyperbole and moralizing slogans you wish, and categorize me however you wish. But the obvious reality is such laws give women who do engage in substance abuse a very clear choice 1.) have an abortion or 2.) go to prison. No words or diversions change that obvious fact of such laws. It is not pro-choice passing laws that make having an abortion a get-out-of-jail card, it is so-called pro-life.

    Declaring women should have thought of that before getting pregnant is worthless, isn't it? Since most abortions are for unwanted and unplanned pregnancies that excuse for laws pressuring women to abort doesn't work as a pro-life position.

  5. #65
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:48 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    So just out of curiosity, since you seem to be speaking in generaliaties about the law since you keep going after people who are saying that this particular case was a poor application of the law...

    If a woman is pregnant, and plans to carry to term, and proceeds to go out killing bottles of Jack Daniels every few nights for the full 9 months, you believe that the state should take no action?

    If the child comes out with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, should the state then have a responsability to help the mother if she ends up needing government assistsance with health care? What if she can't work as much because she's having to care for the child whose disability she directly cause; shall society foot the bill if she has to start applying for food stamps and welfare? Is it "fair" to the child to be brought into a world handicapped and damaged because his mother chose to knowingly and wantonly endanger his health?

    What would your solution be in such a situation? Pro-Lifers are often asked this type of hypothetical when suggesting abortion be outlawed.
    I'll give you my most honest answer. I do have a real problem with anyone taking actions that harm a fetus if the intention is bringing it to full term, whether the birth mother or otherwise. So I am actually unsure what I think should be "law" in such regards. That is my honest answer.

    BUT it also is "truthful" that such laws are NOT pro-life. Having a law that gives a woman the choice between having an abortion or maybe going to prison (even possibly for life) is not pro-life. It is not pro-choice. It is pro-abortion.

    Despite how these debates are framed as 2 diametric sides of absolute positions, personally I don't think it is, just like little in life is not a question of endless absolute yes-no decisions. Most of life and issues are about shades of gray.

    Maybe laws should encourage women who are substance addicts in ways that harm to the fetus - both due to potential severe birth defects and the inability of the mother to care for it either way. If I have made ANYTHING clear on these topics is my opposition to ANY bio-parent being legally able to just dump children on "the system" and "we the people."

    What I will NOT do is do anything but recognize such laws are NEITHER 'pro-life" nor "pro-choice." They are pro-abortion by giving the ultimate incentives to abort - ie stay out of prison. In severe cases I might actually agree with that, but sure wouldn't call it pro-life or pro-choice.

  6. #66
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:37 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,884

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    You can post all the hyperbole and moralizing slogans you wish, and categorize me however you wish. But the obvious reality is such laws give women who do engage in substance abuse a very clear choice 1.) have an abortion or 2.) go to prison. No words or diversions change that obvious fact of such laws. It is not pro-choice passing laws that make having an abortion a get-out-of-jail card, it is so-called pro-life.
    Funny how not abusing substances or not getting pregnant weren't available choices.

  7. #67
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Your words do not change the fact that such laws give women the choice between abortion or possible imprisonment.
    Incorrect, it does not give "women" that.

    It gives women who wish to routinely habitually take illegal drugs or drink excessive amounts of alcohol while pregnent the choice between abortion or possible imprisonment.

    Women who don't wish to habiturally take illegal drugs or drink significant quantities of alcohol while pregnant aren't faced with that choice at all.

    So phrasing it that it's giving "women" that choice is dishonest and a misrepresentation. The law does not affect the vast majority of pregnant women in the state, unless you're suggesting women...in general...routinely take illegal drugs or drink excessively while pregnant?


    But the obvious reality is such laws give women who do engage in substance abuse a very clear choice 1.) have an abortion or 2.) go to prison.
    See, had to wade through all of your tin-foil hat cabal of evil shady adoption masterminds garbagge....but at least you finally get closer to an accurate portrayal of what the law does.

    Yes, you're right. Itgives women who do engage in substance abuse a very clear choice...abortion or incarceration (did I read that wrong that she was in a rehab facility, not a prison?)

    No words or iversions change that obvious fact of such laws. It is not pro-choice passing laws that make having an abortion a get-out-of-jail card, it is so-called pro-life.
    No, it's you proclaiming it's a "get out of jail free card". The "get out of jail free card" to pro-choicers would likely be don't abuse substances likely to cause significant health defects in the child. The veyr nature of "pro-life" would seem to indicate that having an abortoin wouldn't be getting out of jail "free".

  8. #68
    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]

    Both Zyphellin and joko's problem is that neither of them have the slightest idea of what being proactive and socially responsible means. Rather, they like typical americans will clutter up the conversation that could yield an understanding of what's facing people in their irrational and dysfunctional society.

    Punishing the woman and throwing her in jail is the norm. Being proactive and addressing the problem before the problem becomes impossible to deal with would never enter either of their minds.

    Here's an example of how one can ignore addressing the problem and insult another while saying inside the rules of this forum:

    Well, thank you for the amazingly propogandized and stereotypical hyper emotional blathering response, but spare me if I think it's one giant load of crap born from the mirror image of the typical fanatical pro-life side.
    Or then the issue becomes on of money while completely ignoring the fact that the US jail system is overflowing with people who are examples of the lack of social responsibility in government:

    It is money that defines the 2 sides. For-profit adoption companies and organizations on the "pro-life" side, and facilities that do abortions on the "pro-choice" side. The "pro-life" money side does not want birth defected babies to be born.
    Keep it up boys, you're sure to find some common ground one of these days!

  9. #69
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael66 View Post
    In normal first world societies the woman's rights are important and people look with disdain and disgust at those who presume they have a right to interfere. But in America the rabid extreme right want to take the woman's right away.
    The ethical dilemma is yours. The woman's right to abuse drugs should not supersede a dependent's right not to be given static encephalopathy by the abusive addict. We're talking about the lesser infringement here. In this case, infringing on an addict's drug consumption liberty is less infringing than permanent brain damage on the part of the fetus.

    Advocating absolute liberty for the woman and absolute zero legal protection for the fetus is the rabid extremist position, in this case.

  10. #70
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:48 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    Funny how not abusing substances or not getting pregnant weren't available choices.
    That has exactly nothing to do with the issue. They are plenty of other threads were you can moralize down at women.

    This topic, like all abortion topics, will degrade almost immediately to the typical might-as-well-cut-and-paste two absolute opposite sides and all their slogans. Since the girl/woman is already pregnant and the question "now what?", your message is just derailment.

Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •