• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

No, I believe that someone who is using someone else's (an "acquaintance's") script to self medicate is breaking the law and possibly endangering the life of the fetus. The women does not appear to intend to have an abortion.

Did you read the article?

I'm sorry let me rephrase. It's the woman's choice. She shouldn't have rights removed from her regardless.
 
I'm sorry let me rephrase. It's the woman's choice. She shouldn't have rights removed from her regardless.

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.
 
I don't understand this never-ending feud to begin with. If the fetus has a soul, well to the religious it's with god now, so who cares? To anyone else, it keeps population less catastrophically out of control.
 
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.

Yes, the woman should be charged with using a script unauthorized, not with anything else. She should receive the same punishment as anyone else abusing a script. Nothing else.

Let me ask you, if you think the woman should be charged, do you think the father should be charged to, because after all where was he?
 
If someone goes to trial for a murder are you seriously saying if they can pay and don't get a lawyer they just sit there in trial without one? I don't think so. ( I will error and say if I am wrong I haven't seen one personally)

Yes, this has and will continue to happen. In wisconsin, i think it's $3000 salary means you "can afford an attorney." Well good luck finding one to take a murder trial with say $4000. In this case, they have to defend themselves. The system is that ****ed.
 
If someone goes to trial for a murder are you seriously saying if they can pay and don't get a lawyer they just sit there in trial without one? I don't think so. ( I will error and say if I am wrong I haven't seen one personally)

Well most things do not end up at trial. What would probably happen is the DA would try to strike a deal with the person to avoid trial in that case. If you want to go to trial on the public dime they do make sure you are legitimately poor. The arraignment process and deal making without a trial are different matters which could be handled without a lawyer, or even with the public defender just explaining things to the defendant right in court. I am just telling yopu how it works in the real world as I have been through the system a few times. And no I am not a lawyer. I got to experience it from the defendant's side.
 
I don't understand this never-ending feud to begin with. If the fetus has a soul, well to the religious it's with god now, so who cares? To anyone else, it keeps population less catastrophically out of control.

False dichotomy.
 
Yes, the woman should be charged with using a script unauthorized, not with anything else. She should receive the same punishment as anyone else abusing a script. Nothing else.

Let me ask you, if you think the woman should be charged, do you think the father should be charged to, because after all where was he?

It seems that you have not read the article and that you have no idea what I'm referring to.
 
Yes, this has and will continue to happen. In wisconsin, i think it's $3000 salary means you "can afford an attorney." Well good luck finding one to take a murder trial with say $4000. In this case, they have to defend themselves. The system is that ****ed.

?

938.23(3)

(3) Power of the court to appoint counsel. Except as provided in this subsection, at any time, upon request or on its own motion, the court may appoint counsel for the juvenile or any party, unless the juvenile or the party has or wishes to retain counsel of his or her own choosing.

- See more at: 938.23 Right to counsel. - Wisconsin Statutes

.
 
I don't understand this never-ending feud to begin with. If the fetus has a soul, well to the religious it's with god now, so who cares? To anyone else, it keeps population less catastrophically out of control.

Population control arguments only damage your cause. If we assume that all religions are false, and that this life is all there is, it is still reasonable to value the life of the unborn and be pro-life. If the individuals are religious the argument you presented lacks all merit, as someone ending the life of another is going against the will of god, and of course that is a sin.
 
Last edited:
If we assume that all religions are false, and that this life is all there is, it is still reasonable to value the life of the unborn and be pro-life.

Except when we do so, inevitably, at the expense of the life and the liberty of born women.
 
The state really does believe in socialized medicine, just as long as they get to lock you away first.

Wouldn't it be cheaper if the state simply paid for her meds/physician supervision without incarcerating her ?

She couldn't afford insurance/proper treatment, now she will get it all free along with room and board, courtesy of taxpayers.

WTG.
 
This will be struck down in the courts, that's not what bugs me.

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.

There is NO HOPE for our country. It's going up in smoke thanks to extremism, and at this point we ****ing deserve it.
 
If a fetus is found to be causing harm to its mother, will it be tried as an adult or a minor? If it is tried as a minor and found guilty, will it be sent to a juvenile detention center? If it is tried as an adult, is execution on the table if the transgression is severe enough? Will it exercise its right to choose counsel? I'm just asking - considering a fetus is a person and all. I'd like to know just how a fetus, being a person and all, is supposed to be punished if it is found to be harming its mother.


Here's one that'll blow your mind.

What if someone has twins or triplets, and one fetus starts physically abusing the other?

Or in the case of triplets, one fetus takes the other two hostage with an AR-15?, would that be considered a "barracaded suspect".

When do police intervene in those cases?
 
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.





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/statutes/statutes/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.


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.





This will be struck down in the courts, that's not what bugs me.
This case may be struck down, but not the law.


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.
 
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??
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom