• 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]

Real Korimyr #9

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
20,120
Reaction score
16,169
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
When Alicia Beltran was 12 weeks pregnant, she took herself to a health clinic about a mile from her home in Jackson, Wis., for a prenatal checkup. But what started as a routine visit ended with Beltran eventually handcuffed and shackled in government custody – and at the center of a first-of-its-kind federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state’s fetal protection law.

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.
 
It is impossible to give rights to a being growing inside a person's body without violating that person's rights.

Rights are commonly weighed against each other and violated. That's how it works. Are you under the impression that rights are never justly violated?
 
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.
 
This is one of the most insane things I've ever seen. The mindset that a woman has an obligation to breed just makes no sense whatsoever. That fetuses have any value on their own makes no sense whatsoever. That anyone has the right to control another person in something so fundamental and personal as carrying a child makes no sense whatsoever.

The disrespect for women that this sort of thing demonstrates is just plain depressing.
 
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.

According to the OP article, fetus gets a state appointed lawyer, mother does not.

And damn, every time I thought the story was as ridiculous as it could get, it got worse.
 
Rights are commonly weighed against each other and violated. That's how it works. Are you under the impression that rights are never justly violated?

Wait a minute so you are ok with rights being violated as long as it is something you agree with?
 
If she had taken responsiblity and ceased her addiction, how could she be harming her baby? I believe that a pre-born human does have rights and it appears to me that she was doing what she thought was best for herself and her baby, so I fail to see the problem. I also don't understand how she was not given a court-appointed lawyer as I thought, from watching American shows, that this is an essential part of your justice system. I guess I was wrong. Australians do not have an automatic right to have a lawyer provided by the court, but a judge (I think) has to postpone a case until a person can find legal representaion.
We also don't have a Bill of Rights (thank goodness).
 
Wait a minute so you are ok with rights being violated as long as it is something you agree with?

Justly "violated". For example, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.
 
Justly "violated". For example, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.

So you think it's "justily" to violate the rights of a woman and force her to carry to term with physical and mental changes that a man does not have to endure?
 
So you think it's "justily" to violate the rights of a woman and force her to carry to term with physical and mental changes that a man does not have to endure?

I do not support a ban on abortion.

I do, however, point out that pretending the "violation" of rights is something terrible is nonsense, as the balancing of rights and thus restriction of them is inherent to society and the basis of our justice system. People's rights are "violated" (read: restricted) all the time, it's nothing new.
 
I do not support a ban on abortion.

I do, however, point out that pretending the "violation" of rights is something terrible is nonsense, as the balancing of rights and thus restriction of them is inherent to society and the basis of our justice system. People's rights are "violated" (read: restricted) all the time, it's nothing new.

Well you have to admit those on the right are quick to point to "violation" of rights when it comes to laws that come from the left. So did you expect differently from the left to point to violations from the right in that same regard?

I actually agree with you especially in abortion cases, you are going to violate one's side rights. Either the right of the fetus or the right of woman. Which one is greater? That is the eternal argument.
 
I actually agree with you especially in abortion cases, you are going to violate one's side rights. Either the right of the fetus or the right of woman. Which one is greater? That is the eternal argument.

The balancing (and restricting) of rights is the basis of every justice system. Of course, someone who sees a fetus as less than an animal and without any rights would have a hard time recognizing the exercise therein.
 
Of course, someone who sees a fetus as less than an animal and without any rights would have a hard time recognizing the exercise therein.

I don't see the fetus as less than an animal, but at the same time I don't think it's greater than the woman's right who has to go through the mental and physical changes either. I see the woman as having the greater right over the fetus since she has to go through the mental and physical changes of childbirth possibly against her will while the man doesn't.
 
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.

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.

I hope this woman gets off and comes back and sues the town, state, and any organization that encouraged and supported this action for a good hefty sum. She deserves it.
 
If she had taken responsiblity and ceased her addiction, how could she be harming her baby? I believe that a pre-born human does have rights and it appears to me that she was doing what she thought was best for herself and her baby, so I fail to see the problem. I also don't understand how she was not given a court-appointed lawyer as I thought, from watching American shows, that this is an essential part of your justice system. I guess I was wrong. Australians do not have an automatic right to have a lawyer provided by the court, but a judge (I think) has to postpone a case until a person can find legal representaion.
We also don't have a Bill of Rights (thank goodness).

You are not automatically given a lawyer, you have to file and be approved to be represented by the pathetic court appointed lawyers.
 
I think we should all be allowed to use other people's scripts and no one should be able to do anything about it.
 
I think we should all be allowed to use other people's scripts and no one should be able to do anything about it.

You have said some insane things, but please justify how your comments here legally should happen?
 
You are not automatically given a lawyer, you have to file and be approved to be represented by the pathetic court appointed lawyers.

I think you are mistaken here, because I do believe someone who has been deemed "possibly" unstable is given someone automatically to defend them in some cases.
 
Waiting for your justification since you claimed it.

The woman detained had used someone else's script to self-medicate off of percs that she was addicted to.
 
I think you are mistaken here, because I do believe someone who has been deemed "possibly" unstable is given someone automatically to defend them in some cases.

It is a matter of finances when it goes to trial. At the arraignment you can easily get the public defender to speak on your behalf, but when it requires they actually go through a trial they check to make sure you are actually poor before they let you have a public defender.
 
The woman detained had used someone else's script to self-medicate off of percs that she was addicted to.

So you think because she used someone elses meds she should be required to carry to term a baby?
 
It is a matter of finances when it goes to trial. At the arraignment you can easily get the public defender to speak on your behalf, but when it requires they actually go through a trial they check to make sure you are actually poor before they let you have a public defender.

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)
 
So you think because she used someone elses meds she should be required to carry to term a baby?

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom