• 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]

I hope your posting extreme flaming yourself is not then followed up with you then claiming those were my words.

I read your message as urgently wanting to close down the topic and shift it to male pro-life raging at women for getting pregnant in the first place in pro-lifers now wishing to derail the thread to fury against women who become pregnant, al of which has exactly nothing to do with this topic.

Under most such laws in most states, even if the woman stops using any substances upon learning she is pregnant, she is still liable to criminal prosecution akin to murder or manslaughter if it determined substance abuse even may have caused a birth defect. Maybe all threads on the abortion board should just be changed to debating "How evil are women who have sex?" That is how virtually every thread devolves.

You may have hit on something there. Women who have sex are evil and the term 'teabagger' has sexual connotations to Zyphellin. That's not something he would prefer people not to know.
 
And how stupid does a person have to be to not be able to understand that what I was talking about was being proactive and socially responsible before the fact? Nothing of which was understood by you as evidenced by your insults toward me which were completely off the topic I addressed.

I sent no insult your way and my comments are directly related to this topic.

It's evidence that the average libertarian is not interested in the least with the maintaining or furthering of people's rights, only that they have signed on lock, stock, and barrel to the teabagger ideology of obscuring the real issue.

And now you're taking it in a partisan direction. Libertarians value balancing the rights of one against the rights of others. The goal is to maximize liberty without allowing some to be directly harmed by the actions of others. That's what this is about. A woman's liberty to abuse opiates is less important than a fetus (that will be carried to term) to not be permanently brain damaged.
 
There are lots of incidences of people being imprisoned and sentenced before a trial. America made itself infamous for doing just that. The slippery slope of disregard for international norms in law is coming home to roost.

The system of bail has evolved to prison prior to being found guilty as a method of extreme pressure to plea out since you'll get out jail faster pleading guilty than waiting for trial in jail and found not guilty. Even if a person can make the bail bond 10% fee (plus putting up car and house as collateral), that fee is a fine the person never recovers even if found not guilty. People are jailed before trial, pay a "bond fine" for pleading not guilty, and most jailed longer as punishment for pleading not guilty - whether or not ultimately found not guilty.

For all but the most serious offenses, a person will serve more time in jail and spend more money if the outcome is the person is found not guilty, than pleading guilty.

There are also some BAD Supreme Court rulings in such regards. For example, imprisoning a person for only 364 is considered so minor as to not warrant many rights including no jury. In fact, being put in jail for 364 days would destroy most people's lives.
 
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.

You make no sense.

My stance is that assaults on the body of an innocent human being (by his or her own parents, no less) should be illegal and should result in punishment under the rule of law.

I do not encourage assault to progress to homicide, which warrants an more severe penalty.
 
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.

Again, you've afforded only two choices to a situation in which there are multiple of past and current choices that formed the situation. Removing all of the other variables is a ploy to make your point. Its akin to saying I'm drunk, and I have to get home to care for my child, so I have two choices: Drive drunk or let my child suffer.

joko104 said:
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.
 
You make no sense.

My stance is that assaults on the body of an innocent human being (by his or her own parents, no less) should be illegal and should result in punishment under the rule of law.

I do not encourage assault to progress to homicide, which warrants an more severe penalty.

I have stated the obvious. The law tells pregnant girls and females: "If you abort you have no legal risks. if you don't you do." A person does not have to have done anything wrong at all to be arrested and put on trial, sitting in jail waiting for trial. Any woman who had a child who is birth defective in any way which MIGHT have caused it could be subject to arrest and imprisonment merely by anyone - true or false - claiming she used some illegal substance or had a glass of wine under these type laws.
 
You make no sense.

My stance is that assaults on the body of an innocent human being (by his or her own parents, no less) should be illegal and should result in punishment under the rule of law.

I do not encourage assault to progress to homicide, which warrants an more severe penalty.

Translation: you view the woman as a lesser vs the ZEF and also her legal and human rights are not as important to you when comparing them to the ZEF.
An opinion that you are free to have and that many people do have but it doesnt change the fact or foundation of your stance.
 
Again, you've afforded only two choices to a situation in which there are multiple of past and current choices that formed the situation. Removing all of the other variables is a ploy to make your point. Its akin to saying I'm drunk, and I have to get home to care for my child, so I have two choices: Drive drunk or let my child suffer.

You example doesn't work. The woman can call a taxi. So try again.

I understand you are making the case that forcing a woman to abort to avoid criminal prosecution is the woman's fault. No surprise. But your's is a pro-abortion position - only you then placing blame for it on the woman.
 
Translation: you view the woman as a lesser vs the ZEF

That's not a translation, it's a bastardization. Also known as a straw man argument.

The woman's right to abuse opiates is lesser than the fetuses' right to not be permanently brain damaged.
 
1.)That's not a translation, it's a bastardization. Also known as a straw man argument.

2.)The woman's right to abuse opiates is lesser than the fetuses' right to not be permanently brain damaged.

1.) actually its a fact proven by many of his posts and reality. If you disagree by all means PLEASE PLEASE factually prove that you can either ban abortion or make abortion unlimited with out violating the current legal and human rights of the woman or the ZEF. Id love to hear it.

2.) thats not happening in this case so THATS the only strawman. If you would like to ask me what i think about a active junkie who is pregnant and chooses to abuse drugs anyway feel free to do so.

Please focus on what i actually said and what im addressing instead of making up your own.

It is factually impossible for the woman and ZEF to have equal rights and that was the point of my post and what i was addressing that he got factually wrong.
 
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.

See, here's where we both agree and disagree...

I agree with you about "shadoes gray". That's why I don't buy your argument that it's "pro-abortoin".

I don't see a law like this necessarily being "pro-life" or "pro-choice"...those two terms are directly tied to abortion. This, to me, doesn't tie to abortion, though it is within the same general area. While I think more "pro-life" types are going to support something like this than "pro-choice" people. However, think that your people who align with either of those two sides...but who don't let it DEFINE them in some monumental way...could absolutely support something like this in theory. I think where the tie to "pro-life" and "pro-choice" come into play is the fact that laws rarely stand on their own, and part of the rationale for how this law likely came to pass can also then be piggy backed upon to make the "pro-life" argument.

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."

The problem is HOW should the laws encourage women in those situations? that's the hard question.
 
1.) actually its a fact proven by many of his posts and reality. If you disagree by all means PLEASE PLEASE factually prove that you can either ban abortion or make abortion unlimited with out violating the current legal and human rights of the woman or the ZEF. Id love to hear it.

Rights are being suspended, not violated. Rights are suspended when people try to use them to abuse others. I'm not talking about banning abortion.

2.) thats not happening in this case

Yes it most certainly is. Scoring opiates on the street and using them while pregnant is abuse (of the substance and the fetus).

It is factually impossible for the woman and ZEF to have equal rights and that was the point of my post and what i was addressing that he got factually wrong.

I'm not arguing for equal rights. I'm arguing for the right of the fetus to not be brain damaged by substances to supersede the right of pregnant women to abuse substances.
 
1.)Rights are being suspended, not violated. Rights are suspended when people try to use them to abuse others.
2.)I'm not talking about banning abortion.
3.)Yes it most certainly is. Scoring opiates on the street and using them while pregnant is abuse (of the substance and the fetus).



I'm not arguing for equal rights. I'm arguing for the right of the fetus to not be brain damaged by substances to supersede the right of pregnant women to abuse substances.

1.) per what im actually discussing they are being factually violated
2.) i was hence your mistake
3.) nope didnt happen in this case, there were no drugs in her system
4.) again hence your mistake since i wasnt talking about that
 
Yes, I understand you want people to have an attorney and trial AFTER than have been sentenced and served their time. :doh
Do'h! Is right to what you said.
That was not the time for such an action.


Secondly, the law isn't about woman in general.
This is specifically about those pregnant woman who habitually lack self-control in the use of alcohol beverages, controlled substances or controlled substance analogs, exhibited to a severe degree.


How it is being applied is what is wrong.
The law is a good one. Sorry you don't like it.
 
Last edited:
And how stupid does a person have to be to not be able to understand that what I was talking about was being proactive and socially responsible before the fact? Nothing of which was understood by you as evidenced by your insults toward me which were completely off the topic I addressed.

It's evidence that the average libertarian is not interested in the least with the maintaining or furthering of people's rights, only that they have signed on lock, stock, and barrel to the teabagger ideology of obscuring the real issue.

Obscuritiy is when posts like the above are allowed to place all ove a board. How about something besides talking points and finger pointing? Liberals love killing babies, always have, always will.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Moderator's Warning:
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.
 
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?
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom