15 years in prison for "endangering a fetus"? Then giving birth only for that child to not have a mommy during childhood, adolescence, and teenage years?
And this is considered good policy by those who create these laws?
wtf
The cruelty is the point. The well-being of the fetus is the excuse.
This is about forcing women to live in fear and under control of the patriarchy.
And punishing women for having sex.
With someone besides me. I mean, how could she? Send her to prison!
conservatives dont create logical policies. there is absolutely nothing logical about their 'platform'... except maybe 'brainwash masses to accumulate wealth'
The conservatives' platform is entirely logical:
Removing education, opportunities, and social safety nets keeps people ignorant, poor, and vulnerable.
Without government willing to help, people in need are forced to turn to the church.
Religion breeds more conservatives.
(Forced-birth polices not only take step #3 literally, but also enhance step #1 by burdening young people with kids they aren't ready for.)
Its not about creating healthy environments or being concerned about the sanctity of life.
its about punishing the "other" for reproducing and dictating everything a woman can do.
These are people who believe in generational punishment. You should be punished for what your parents did.
Remember, we're all paying for what Adam and Eve did.
You'd think so, but try bringing up reparations and see how quickly they change their tune about the sins of their fathers.
Oh it's always "different" when it's me being judged...
I thought god forgave us for that when our ancestors nailed his son to a cross?
But only if you say you love Jesus forever and will follow the church.
It's about control over women, none of the pedo conservatives care about the well being of kids at all.
I think it was for previous charges after she violated probation. But yeah, if we're going to talk about endangering a fetus, then everyone who had a hand in her jail conditions and who ignored her when she went in to labor should also be in prison because every one of them is guilty of endangerment.
No she was one of several women imprisoned under a new Alabama statute for "chemical endangerment of a fetus." You know, a "crime" that already can't be committed again by the time the imprisoned reach trial for it because of the way our "justice" system works.
Those women aren't allowed to endanger a fetus, but the all-knowing authorities are, apparently. (Yes, let's forcibly cold-turkey detox a pregnant person who was using. Great idea.)
Oh I read the article last week and misremembered what the 15 years was for. Either way, not one person was actually interested in protecting her fetus.
Alabama is a conservative confederate state. This is their preferred political outcome, yes, exactly.
Did you read the article?
accusations that she’d tested positive for methamphetamine while pregnant
Pretty sure a child being raised in foster care is safer than one dying in the womb from narcotics poisoning.
Who conducted the tests? What is the false positive rate? Was retesting done to ensure accuracy? Does CPS get to choose the testing labs, maybe the ones that get the results that they want? Did the sample have identification on it that a manager at the testing center could trace to the person?
I will start believing the criminal justice system the day I don't read weekly stories of missing body cam footage.
I don't know but none of that is what we were discussing.
I see. Well clearly this police department deserves your blind faith.
What does any of this have to do with the police department? Do you have a response that is actually tangentially related to my comment?
Lmao pretend you can't even fathom what he meant, that the system is rigged and that they got the result they wanted because the US is seemingly inherently corrupt.
Nonetheless it's no surprise, this woman would've needed help and care. There's only speculation that could be done regarding circumstances, but I think it boils down to the "pro life" - laws being ironic
I know exactly what they meant. What I don't know is how it's related to what I said.
We can have a conversation about how our prison systems treat prisoners. Which we'll likely agree on
Or we can have a conversation about police abuse of power, which we'll probably also agree on.
Or we can have a conversation about our broken criminal justice system, which seems boring because again, we'd probably just agree.
Or we can have a conversation about whether pregnant mothers, in general, should be allowed to be imprisoned for attempting to kill their unborn children, but it seems like people just want to derail the conversation with irrelevant arguments.
But you go on with ya bad self, Mr. Straw Man.
No, your "red thread" was that it was just to take the baby away with cps(?) because she either did or does narcotics. And somehow you feel it is derailing to even take any question outside the narrow scope of it.
It is what people are discussing, it is a health issue. Both addiction and abortion are.
I don't know what a "red thread" is.
was that it was just to take the baby away with cps(?) because she either did or does narcotics
Yes that's correct, good job.
And somehow you feel it is derailing to even take any question outside the narrow scope of it.
Except it's not "outside the narrow scope", it's got nothing to do with my statement. And you know that you can't argue with my statement so the only way you can "win" is to argue about something else entirely.
It is what people are discussing
It is not what I was discussing, nor was it what the person I replied to was discussing.
Not interested in winning, is this projection? If so, change the mindset. Why are you so belittling? Read of the appeal to ridicule.
And if you're not interested, not answering only means one part simply cba
Jesus, what a nightmare story. That entire article is filled with horror. She must have felt so terrified and alone.
"After Caswell delivered her baby alone and lost consciousness, staff still refused to render aid and instead took photos of her baby without her consent, her lawyers allege. When she returned to the jail from the hospital, staff denied her access to her prescribed breast pump and ibuprofen."
Wtf is wrong with people? It's so fucking petty and mean. I'm gonna assume that none of the staff will actually face any consequences..?
Do they ever?
But over the next seven months of incarceration for “chemical endangerment” in the Etowah county detention center (ECDC), Caswell was denied regular access to prenatal visits, even as officials were aware her pregnancy was high-risk due to her hypertension and abnormal pap smears, according to a lawsuit filed on Friday against the county and the sheriff’s department. She was also denied her prescribed psychiatric medication and slept on a thin mat on the concrete floor of the detention center for her entire pregnancy.
It’s never been about protecting the fetus, it’s always been about punishing the woman for being a “slut”
Conservatism is a plague of oppression, misery and death. It always has been.
If a conservative can find a way to cause harm, they must do it. That is simply who they are at their core.
Don't need to do any better when I can just keep everybody else down
They have no plan for building or creation. Nothing about taking care of citizens. It’s misery and lashing out at the other and these motherfuckers build a whole personality around simply objecting to progress. They are a cancer and we need to cut it out before the whole world is metastasized out of existence
what a "pro-life" move right? letting a mother and a newborn baby almost fucking die in prison
Yeah, at this point, they're just being terrible humans.
But excellent capitalists!
U.S.A. The country where sociopathy is celebrated as a virtue by about half the population.
If you had any doubts, the half is of course mainly Republicans.
Probably much less than half, but general apathy and the two party system distorts how that looks.
Don't forget gerrymandering.
And lack of term limits!
More than half.
Unbounded Greed is sociopathy (quite literally doing what's best for oneself without any consideration for others) and even a Deadly Sin according to the Old Testament and the normalization of sociopathy is a countrywide phenomenon (worldwide even).
What we see here goes beyond the 'mere' "have no consideration for the suffering of others when acting in self interest" into an actual "make others suffer to serve some petty personal psychological need" - it goes beyond tyhe not caring about the suffering others when acting for personal upside maximization of sociopathy and into the actual vilany of harming others for personal enjoyment.
I like to believe that it's not close, and that most of the republican voters have other strong opinions that align with the party. And thus the pro-quantity approach to birth rights is just something that follows the party even though they don't agree with it.
I like to believe that.
In reality, I haven't really spoken with or heard about any republicans who haven't shaped their opinion in order to align with the party they are voting for.
I think women should maybe leave these places if they can. I wouldn’t even let a man think about having kids with me if I were a woman in any of those shit states.
...maybe leave these places if they can.
These laws are targeted towards poor women who can't fight back. This one is making the news because she's suing. I guarantee that if an attorney hasn't taken up the fight, you'd never hear about it.
This seems like a good place for a charity… although the cost isn’t just a bus ticket but also probably temporary housing/income as well.
Shit. I just realized I’m suggesting a refugee agency for US states.
Yeah it’s increasingly needed, the problem is that they want all this national
Sounds like a good idea
Less a refugee agency and more of an underground railroad considering some of the laws that states are passing.
I completely agree with your statement. The issue with OPs statement is that it's ideal for those with means but unrealistic for those without.
In some ways the opposite. When I left my shit tier flyover village I had nothing. Nothing was connecting me back home and there was no backup plan. It would be a lot more difficult for me to move now given all the roots I have put down.
What we think we control ends up controlling us. That mortgage that was supposed to make us free of landlords, that house we can't sell, that car that we struggle to find parking for, that career we worked so hard on building. I am not advocating giving anything up I am pointing out you have absolute freedom when you have nothing to lose and can't stay where you are.
You make a very good point.
If you are poor, wouldn’t it make more sense to be poor somewhere else? Starting over when you never had much would be my top priority rather than stay in these places.
those people are so incredibly brainwashed by conservatives, they will happily vote to their own detriment. but yay. fox news. free market. yay.
Minorities and vulnerable populations are in the best position to not be brainwashed. And if they leave those states hopefully they can go to a state that respects them as humans
Minorities in these places are typically facing poverty levels that most people in the US can't imagine. How are they supposed to move when they can barely afford rent? As for the other women, the white women in these places genuinely don't believe that these laws will affect them. There is this sense that they think that their adjacency to white men will prevent them from being treated the same as others, that somehow it will make them immune. They are getting a massive wakeup call that white men in power only care about other white men. It's a tale as old as time. White women are and have always been our barrer to equality. Once things get bad enough for them they will jump on the side of minorities and equality again. They just don't usually view themselves as one of us, they always think that this time will be different.
Yeah… I know. I just hope their lives can change for the better and they can exit these places. I just want people to have equal rights and be happy. It’s apparently asking a lot of religious old people, but fuck them
How? How are they supposed to leave? I lived in southern Louisiana and I was desperately poor then. Nobody I knew could afford to leave.
Whether we like it or not, it's going to take widespread class solidarity and a generation of grassroots activism to undo this shit. The politically active will never give a shit about the politically inactive until they're outnumbered. It sucks that people just trying to make ends meet have to start becoming grassroots activists on top of their already demanding jobs and lives, but rights were never freely given to the disenfranchised. They were taken.
reminds me of an old sam kinison bit regarding people who live in deserts and then suffer droughts. but agreed... those most in need of relocation are least capable.
The true detriment is a two party system. You are like a dog being thrown scraps by whichever party you vote for, and things are only getting worse while people continue to pick one side or the other and don't overthrow the entire system they keep supporting.
No, the true detriment is civic illiteracy and widespread apathy. If people voted in droves and stayed engaged in the decisions that affect their lives, the institutional power of political parties would be nullified. The parties are powerful specifically because most people don't give a shit. There's a vacuum, and the party apparatus fills it.
Perhaps it's different in other places, but in my experience people do give a lot of shits. The system is just built against us in such a way that it's almost impossible to either have any hope of changing anything or see any changes that do happen. A huge cause of that disparity is the party system with it's incessant bickering and corrupt propaganda.
Fifty-four percent of eligible voters sat out the 2022 midterms where Republicans took control of the House. Thirty-four percent sat out in 2020. Half of the country either doesn't give a shit about the problems that could be fixed through active political engagement, or they don't give a shit about active political engagement. Both forms of apathy lead to the same conclusion.
A significant portion of that apathy is driven by people who look at these numbers and somehow still come away with "it's rigged@!!" as a conclusion. And that goes for both sides of the political spectrum. If the other 80 million people showed up to participate both during elections and afterwards while local, state, and federal decisions are being made (like, for example, at city council meetings), then the shockwaves that would send through the system would register on the Richter scale
People who think like you are part of the reason 80 million people sit on the sidelines and complain when shit doesn't go their way. You know how Republicans completely changed the course of history in 2010? By showing up in numbers. You know how women changed the course of history in the early 20th century? By showing up in numbers. You know how black Americans changed the course of history in the 1960s? By showing up in numbers.
Nobody is going to do a damn thing for you if you sit on your ass and complain that change is impossible.
Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter are pretty recent examples of where "showing up in numbers" just wasn't enough. The system is rigged and blaming victims isn't getting us anywhere. Anecdotally throughout my life, I have seen uncountable numbers of people come to work/school/etc. with an "I voted" sticker, and my conspiracy theory is that the numbers are meaningless and the people who rigged the system already decide who is winning before the first vote is cast, unless they abandon the plan because their polling shows an absolute landslide that would reveal their fuckery.
Occupy Wall Street lasted 59 days, and BLM lasted 1 year in total, while most of the protests lasted little more than 5 months. Women's suffrage groups started their organized resistance in the 1840s, roughly eighty years before they earned the right to vote, with significant violence erupting at their events in the 1850s and organizations forming at a rapid clip in the decades after the Civil War. Many women's suffrage activists died of old age before they saw significant progress.
Civil Rights era activists campaigned in the streets for fourteen years. Hundreds were killed, thousands were injured, and tens of thousands were imprisoned. Cops sprayed peaceful protesters with fire hoses and had police dogs rip the flesh from their bodies. But still they showed up, they marched, and they fought as a group.
What you're describing are part time slacktivists who showed up until it got uncomfortable and they got bored, at which time they let their apathy take back over and buried their noses in their cell phones. What you're talking about is a bunch of virtue signaling, and it amounted to nothing precisely because there was no class solidarity or significant grassroots organization.
And fuck off with your "it's rigged and votes are counted by the lizard people Illuminati" nonsense. You sound like a Proud Boy wannabe, and you're eroding the faith people have in their own nation. Shame on you.
No true Scotsman and Godwin's law, nice. Anyways, BLM is an obvious continuation of the civil rights movement, and calling them "slacktivists" is derisive and reductionist.
Protesting until you die of old age is not what it used to be. The surveillance of the modern world makes protestors into easy targets if they ever become a true threat. The powers that be have learned plenty from the civil rights era.
Nobody should have faith in any nation to erode in the first place. Every single one has fucked over their neighbors and their own populations to further the ambitions of the rich and powerful. Look to the erosion of antitrust and privacy laws to see where we are headed. Look at how SOPA and other protests have gone. You seriously think nobody knows how to protest anymore, and it's just a generational failing? Despite the obvious ways the oppressors have adapted to the modern world?
BLM is an obvious continuation of the civil rights movement
1 year. They organized for one year and then went home. The rest of the country completely fucking forgot about whatever it was they were asking for about 5 months in. If they're the new generation of the Civil Rights Movement, then they're inept crybabies who don't actually know anything about what Civil Rights leaders went through, were imprisoned for, and died for, before they came along.
Protesting until you die of old age is not what it used to be. The surveillance of the modern world makes protestors into easy targets if they ever become a true threat. The powers that be have learned plenty from the civil rights era.
Excuses. Either you give a shit enough to put up a fight, or you don't for [insert reason here].
Nobody should have faith in any nation to erode in the first place. Every single one has fucked over their neighbors and their own populations to further the ambitions of the rich and powerful.
Or....they've succumbed to outrage du jour and voted to put representatives in office who only care about what keeps the outrage going. If the average citizen is dumb enough to turn politics off in favor of the Real Housewives of [insert stupid place] then they deserve the elected representatives they keep sending to office over and over and over again.
Look to the erosion of antitrust and privacy laws to see where we are headed. Look at how SOPA and other protests have gone. You seriously think nobody knows how to protest anymore, and it’s just a generational failing? Despite the obvious ways the oppressors have adapted to the modern world?
I absolutely do think our generation has lost its grip on what it means to a) have nothing to lose, and b) put up a fight. People are comfortable, fat, and lazy, and they find more solace in their smartphones than they do in talking to their neighbors and organizing groups of powerful citizens. Know why Moms for Liberty gets so much awful shit done? Because they're organized and motivated. It's crazy how lunatic conservatives somehow find a way to stay plugged in and show up at every local school board meeting even when it's just to cause drama, and the rest of the community who has a sincere stake in the outcomes of its decisions can't do more than complain that they have to pick the kids up at soccer practice or can't miss their yoga class. MLK Jr. wrote "Letters from a Birmingham Jail"....from a jail cell.
You want something? GO FUCKING GET IT AND STOP COMPLAINING. Nobody is going to give you what you don't take.
I'm not really interested in arguing this kind of stuff and I don't disagree with you that a lack of voter engagement is a problem. But, I would encourage you to try and understand exactly why it seems like people don't give a shit about the state of politics.
I'd be willing to bet that it's not actually a lack of giving a shit, just a feeling that our time is better spent on other things in life. Those 80 million people "sitting on the sidelines" aren't complaining for the fun of it, they are busy trying to live their lives and deal with their own problems. People feel like the system is rigged, not because of some ambiguous statistics, but because every time they try to work with the system they get shit on and forgotten. How can it not feel rigged when the majority of the country votes for one president and gets a different one instead? Or how about when states, without ever asking its citizens, take away a persons right to choose what happens to their own body? How is a system with an archaic electoral college, gerrymandering, corrupt politicians, and a parties that only represents the top 1% not a rigged system?
It's not that we don't know that showing up in numbers is a good way to enact change, nor are we just sitting on our collective asses complaining and expecting things will just magically change. We just aren't holding out hope that enough numbers will show up to make a dent in our lifetimes, or that the changes will even be ones that benefit us.
The majority party in this country is the party that doesn't vote.
The second major party is the party that complains endlessly about "both sides".
The third major party is the party that votes one way because that's what they've been told to do their whole life.
The fourth major party is the one that actually does research and engages that's being driven mad by the other three.
All revolutions have hurt poor people the most.
Lol sure. So why try and improve things? You'll only make it worse. Enjoy the scraps.
Please show me where I said to do nothing. Why don't you try imagining new ways of improving things rather than repeating the mistakes of the past? Of the revolutions in the 18th-20th centuries, I think only the American revolution accomplished anything close to what it was intending. And that's because it didn't destroy all the existing institutions while in the process of implementing new ones.
(Not that I agree with what the American revolution was intending, but we did get mostly what they set out to do without thousands of poor civilians starving to death in the process.)
The american revolution upheld slavery in America so yeah you're not wrong.
Our current institutions are the problem. Why should we keep them?
Our institutions are not the problem, our policies are the problem. I want to see a transition to UBI, but a dramatic overhaul that dismantled WIC and SNAP before we got UBI in place would be an unmitigated disaster for the very people we were intending to help.
It's not the reform that I'm skeptical of. It's the lust for revolutionary destruction as a path to reform that I'm skeptical of. It's emotionally satisfying without regard to its actual efficacy in accomplishing the proposed reforms. Because history does not show us evidence that this works out well in the short nor the long run.
I'm proposing a revolution entirely led by the people, as that is the only true kind of revolution. The people who would then rule themselves with no intermediaries. Real grassroots organisation.
Well, it better have some kind of mechanism in place to keep the grocery stores full or it's going to fail on its face.
Couple things for you to look up:
Farming
Transport
These two things would likely do it.
They didn't have farming and transport in Bolshevik Russia?
Do what? Just saying "we'll have farming and transport" is not a plan.
I'm not saying there isn't any other way to accomplish food production and distribution. I'm saying that just overthrowing our current systems without an explicit plan to keep food on the shelves is going to result in regular working class people starving. That has happened in every revolution except the American, and that's because the American revolutionaries already had the Continental Congress in place making plans about how to administrate the country, if they managed to win the war.
But most revolutions were just pure chaos with no plan that resulted in regular people starving to death. I 100% agree we need new systems. But I'm not terribly interested in living through a violent revolution.
By starving millions of them? Because that's exactly what transpired during most of those revolutions. And the long term outcomes have not turned out to be better for poor people than the American revolution was. Show me the ideal communist state that resulted.
Revolutions often happen because of starvation. Not the other way around.
And I can tell you this... Billionaires and their conservative minions are making many of us extremely hungry.
Well they solved starvation by dramatically increasing it and then replaced old systems with new ones that have all those same old problems. So consider me unconvinced. I think we need to find a new way to change these systems that's more resilient for the future
We could move if we wanted to. We aren't, at least right now, because we'd leave behind our entire social network. Even if we moved where we know people, they wouldn't help as much with our two young children. I know and understand and accept that. They don't have to help with our kids, but we'd lose the people who can. We'd lose our kids friends and the network we are building in the neighborhood, which of course can be rebuilt, but that's also a consideration. I'd probably only see my sister once a year if that because she can't leave the state due to a custody agreement. Funds would also be an issue.
I also worry about too many democratic people leaving and making the state more red as a result and leaving behind those who can't move, like my sister and her kids, who will suffer as a result of increasingly authoritarian laws. Some regressive politicians have outright said that it's their goal to make it miserable for democratic and liberal people to force them to move, make the state redder, and thereby gain even more power.
Most Americans can't afford a $500 emergency. Transplanting to a new state is off the table for a lot of people, especially women. If you have enough money to move, you probably also have enough money to take a weekend trip to get an abortion in a neighboring state.
Unless these things in the US seriously changes, I will never step foot there. I used to want to see all of the beautiful landscapes, animals, and buildings. I really did. Now, not so much.
If I have a medical emergency, I don't want to be somewhere where they'll delay necessary life saving treatment to first check if there might be a fetus.
Nope. Tbh, that also kind of sounds very similar to the things that they get angry at other countries for doing to women.
If you are a woman, voting republican, you should be fucking ashamed of yourself. This is what this party thinks of you and your kind.
"your kind"
they just think she deserves it for using meth
Agreed, but then again, let's say you don't like democrats either, for whatever reason. What choices do you have? Any other party has zero chances. It's time the US changes its voting laws to allow more than 2 parties to meaningfully exist, so people don't have to always choose the lesser of the two evils.
Yeah okay, but if you're a woman voting republican, you're clearly choosing the more evil of two choices? I fully agree with the flawed two party system, but there's an obvious better choice here. We're talking about a singular issue: female reproductive rights.
Yep, you're right, I'm just pointing out that for some, it's not such clear cut. Ranked voting (or you know, a proportional system like in some European countries) would fix this.
I get it. But sometimes you've got to put out the fire before you start repainting the house.
So they're losing maternity wards and jailing pregnant people. What a shithole.
Addicted to meth? That's jail time. Wait, you're a mother and you're pregnant? That's super jail time, 15 years for you. Have to fuck over your kids' lives as much as possible. You also don't get medical care and you have to give birth in a fungus-infested jail shower. Definitely ethical treatment under law here!
Caswell, who has faced several chemical endangerment charges over the years, is now in state prison, serving a 15-year sentence.
Not to take away from your comment but this woman clearly has major mental issues too. Why is she keep getting pregnant?
Lack of healthcare
Because "sterilization in lieu of prison" is too "eugenics" to be allowed as an option from the justice system.
She needed someone to explain to her that semi-permanent birth control measures demonstrate "rehabilitation" and "low risk of recidivism" after (or preferably, before) her first charge.
How anyone could vote for any republican is beyond reason. On top of being worthless traitor filth, they actively oppress women and endanger our future generations. Simply unfathomable.
Must own the libs!
A sizable number of them are simply glad about articles like this. It's not about protecting children or anything. It's about punishing women. I think a lot of GOP supporters don't even explicitly think "I want to punish women", but they implicitly enjoy when it happens. It's more about imposing their religious beliefs than about anyone's life or the likes.
And another sizable chunk are just apathetic. They'll be willing to ignore stuff like this because it's worth it in their mind to hurt LGBT people or whichever other GOP policy drives them. They'll tell themselves this is just a tragic accident in their quest for the greater good, never viewing this as an entirely foreseeable consequence or even the outright goal.
Jesus masturbates to this
Current republicans, probably
It's never been about the children. It has always been about controlling and dehumanizing women as this story so clearly demonstrates.
Yep, I thought everybody knew that already. They only care about the children as long as they're inside the woman, the second she pushes that baby out they don't have a care in the world anymore.
On the other hand, I DO believe some sort of intervention is needed when a drug addict gets pregnant, but I'm talking a locked rehab and not prison.
What about the risk for the mother? Holy shit, she didn't even have access to a basic maternity ward. America is fucked.
The mother? Conservatives view women as objects to be controlled and used. To them, she got put in her place. They view it as a good thing.
The baby can sue the state and the mother. It was trapped by the mother first.
Unlawful detention.
And that's why we don't punish that shit with jail time.
Toss ALL jail employees of the past 7 months in jail for torture, and toss the jailers.for that birth night in jaolmfor torture, and attempted murder of mother and child. I'm heavily against the death penalty but I'd make an exception for these religious fuckers.
If they believe they're right about it all, they also believe they'll live eternally in happiness when they die. They should welcome it.
What. The. Fuck. There are men who beat the absolute shit out of their girlfriends and spouses, for the 5th time, sometimes nearly kill them, and never see the inside of a jail cell or any charges at all. Or they get a few months and when they get the cops called on them for beating the shit out of another woman, they don't even get a parole or probation violation. Sometimes women get arrested, bloody with black eyes, while the person who did it walks away with barely a scratch and zero charges. I'm just speaking from personal here, but this happens with tons of other things. Sexual assault specifically. The supreme court just made it legal for people who have been charged with domestic violence to own/buy a fucking gun while out on bail.
I'm not defending using drugs while pregnant, and it's stupid I feel I even have to say that. But this sentence just shows, clear as day, the utter contempt the US has for women. And that the US prison system, and entire criminal justice system, constitutes actual torture - as they said in the article. I'm ashamed be an American, what an absolute Gilead shithole of a country.
The consequences of letting literal illiterates get into power.
Republicans, at least the ones calling the shots, don't give a shit about "the children" and never have. They just care about controlling women. It's sickening.
The elected Republicans want more control in general. Reproductive rights is just a means to force our population to stabilize but it is increasingly becoming more tyrannical which causes this scenario.
Well that tracks.
Were we supposed to be surprised? Most people called this.
...it exposes the consequences of the “fetal personhood movement”, which seeks to legally define fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as people. The concept, enshrined in expanding anti-abortion laws, has led to increased surveillance and criminalization of pregnant people, with women punished for the outcomes of their pregnancies or other actions that police claim endangered their fetuses.
The way the detention staff acted in this is frankly disgusting. That being said, I don't think it is entirely fair to equate Alabama's frankly stupid abortion legislation with assigning a certain level of rights to a foetus. If a mother intends to carry to full term and is using drugs, I don't think it is fair to the foetus-soon-to-be-person to ignore this.
Who here would like to try and explain to a victim of foetal alcohol syndrome or prenatal opioid exposure that their suffering is morally acceptable because their mother had the right to choose?
It doesn't always need to be one extreme or another, there is a middle ground.
There's some legal murkiness I could see coming from that, but in principle it seems like something you would have to prosecute after the individual was born.
If a fetus isn't a person, then there's no victim. The potential of a victim isn't the same as a victim. The intention for there to be a victim doesn't even create a victim.
I think about the closest thing you could argue for would be that if a person knew they were pregnant, could have aborted but chose not to, and engaged in behavior that demonstrably caused harm once there was a live person, then maybe you could argue some type of negligence. But even that feels really close to a slippery slope to me, and makes me too uncomfortable.
If for no other reason than it could create a situation where someone is prosecuted for knowingly reproducing while having a measurable statistical chance of a heritable birth defect, or just being above the age where down syndrome becomes more likely.
If a fetus isn't a person, then there's no victim. The potential of a victim isn't the same as a victim. The intention for there to be a victim doesn't even create a victim.
Except this is precisely the opposite of the logic used if some third party causes the harm. If, say, a pregnant woman gets shot in a mugging gone wrong and her fetus dies as a consequence, were more than willing to count that as a homicide and for some reason this line of reasoning vanishes.
It's either a person or not, not whichever is more convenient to the mother in whatever situation occurs.
Personally, I wouldn't be in favor of classifying that as a homicide, but would rather it be an aggravating factor attached to the crime of shooting the actual person.
There is a cost, morally and emotionally, to a fetus dying, but it's not a crime against the fetus but the mother.
The existence of a law written in a way I disagree with doesn't obligate me to agree with another one I disagree with.
I can't boobietrap my own home because there's the potential of a firefighter, or someone innocent hurting themselves.
First, those people, although unspecified, actually exist. Creating a hazard for real people is different from taking an action that could hurt a person who does not exist.
Secondly, creating a device with the intent to hurt someone regardless of circumstance or actual threat is pretty morally different from typical home defense, to say nothing of engaging in behavior that could incidentally harm a fetus.
It seems weird to me that you're trying to create a disconnect when cause and effect is cause and effect.
I can't work on my own electrical for my home without getting it inspected. If my house burnt down and harmed someone I could be held responsible. Even without harm I could be liable.
We're in the comments on an article about a woman being thrown in jail for endangering her fetus, and you're arguing that because a fetus could turn into a person that's fine.
I'm not saying fetuses don't turn into people, I'm saying that at most you can look at actual damage done once the person actually exists.
Women aren't houses, so criminalizing their behavior because of the impact it might have in a person who does not yet exist is not great.
We're in the comments on an article about a woman being thrown in jail for endangering her fetus, and you're arguing that because a fetus could turn into a person that's fine.
I'm an antinatalist, I just find your arguments bad.
Women aren't houses, so criminalizing their behavior because of the impact it might have in a person who does not yet exist is not great.
Women "not being houses" is irrelevant to the point I made. We criminalize actions all the time when harm isn't actual, only potential.
So is your point that because we've done something before, we should do it again?
If not, I'm not sure what "we've done it before" has to do with "we should not do it now".
Criminalizing otherwise legal behavior because of the impact it might have on a person who might exist in the future is a not good thing to do.
Considering both of your arguments against not doing that centered around how we regulate houses, it seems like it might have been relevant to point out that women aren't houses, and so maybe we should use a different criteria for judging laws that impact them.
I disagree whole heartedly. Criminalizing things like using drugs during pregnancy leads to criminalizing miscarriages for natural reasons which has absolutely happened. There's not a ton of cases, but women have gone to jail for having a miscarriage after saying they wanted an abortion based on the idea that they must have killed their fetus.
I don't care about prosecuting or criminalising in this case. There is already precedent for rehabilitation both voluntary, and in the case where a person's safety is at risk, involuntary.
I don't see why this could not be expanded to include the safety of an unborn child.
Noting specifically that I am talking about drug abuse where a woman intends to carry to term, not about locking women up to force them to give birth. I hate that I even have to clarify, but if experience had taught me anything, people on social media get positively orgasmic when they find something they can willfully misinterpret.
Disgusting but not surprising
I agree. If your goal is to give birth, it feels like the fetus becomes a person. Otherwise, 20 to 24weeks, in my opinion, is the reasonable time a fetus could become a person as it is in that period that the conscious experience starts to appear.
The mother in this story was 2 months pregnant when she was arrested, so about eight weeks. I've searched for every other news story on this I could find and none of them say when she became aware she became pregnant and whether or not she used drugs after that, so it's quite likely she didn't have a goal of giving birth here.
The voting that gave us a super majority in SCOTUS. That continues to put people in power who want to rule instead of represent.
Who could have known ahead of time that would happen?
Anyone with half a brain.
TIL Americans are awful at judging someone's character.
Fortress has arrived
Least brain rotted US government:
What?
So… why are the guards not being arrested for child endangerment? Why is this a lawsuit and not a criminal matter?
There is a German proverb: Every people has the government it deserves.
Interesting proverb for Germans. I wonder how long it's been around
I just checked and: Its actually from france, coming from an opponent of the revolution and is dated 1811.
oh so that's why it's a shitty quote, it's for bootlickers
Joseph Marie de Maistre
! 01.04.1753 Chambéry, Rhône-Alpes (Frankreich)
† 26.02.1821 Turin (Italien)
"Every nation has the government it deserves."
Letter from 15.VIII.1811
seems like a shitty quote. what made you think of it?
Whover you allow to rule you: You are getting exactly what you have earned yourself. In a Democracy this is even more evident than in a dictatorship.
For all those fine upstanding people who soabox about fetal life, this is the world you created for these women and their childfen.
Alabama is a shithole
So basically we're throwing women in a pit and throwing stones at them for 'giving men the urge'.
Where was this free world I heard so much about?
To lock her the drug addict to protect fetus is good.
To deny mto-be-mother proper conditions and medical care equals to endangering the fetus thus responsible people should be judged as such as well.
I don't think this to be religious question but rather legal question. Mother should sue the hell out of that prison and live from the half of the money ever after. But without drugs. Other half of the money should belong to the kid and used for kid's education etc.
To lock her the drug addict to protect fetus is good
do you really think putting her in jail is going to prevent her from using?
Do you REALLY think that?
do you really think that's a GOOD way, better than other options, to keep her sober?
Yeah i do.
From where i come, if you leave drug addict on streets, they will continue their path of self-destruction regardless of their or others' well-being.
So most effective solution is to isolate the drug addict from the source of addiction.
That your prisons sucks at upholding basic human rights, it's not my fault. It's yours for not giving a damn about it.
There are places where prisoners get chance to work, own pet, study to become doctors, programmers and most importantly they get good healthcare as not everywhere around the globe people don't give a damn about people behind bars.
Also Locking her up doesn't inevitable mean in the prison. Again difference of my background i guess. There are specialized institutions that hold drug addicts and keeps them sober long enough to give them chance to get out of the habit. I know people who went through that. I've visited such a place. It might be a farm with animals or house kinda reminding of those for abused women (house with multiple affected who share their experiences and live together for limited time.
Your blinding rage just prevents you to see what's really wrong and what should be fixed.
Okay first of all, there are drugs in prison. That is a fact. That's what I was talking about and what you failed to acknowledge.
Second, I'm not the one blinded here. You are talking about "shoulds" and "ifs". I am talking about the way things are NOW. You are advocating for sentencing her to one thing, and telling yourself it's another.
The reality of HER situation NOW is that incarceration is going to make things worse. You can acknowledge this and advocate for a better outcome FOR HER while still championing reform of our systems.
Nah,
I'm saying that locking her up to isolate her from drugs is better then letting her live on streets intoxicated from morning to evening. And I don't even want to start what people desperate for the next dose do to get it.
Also those who wronged her are working in that prison.
And as last, don't tell me you got no forced detox that is not in prison in Alabama - that's where judge failed if your prison system is such anarchy and it's supposed to be known fact.
You are quick to rage however you fail to see what part of the equation is not working. You would make situation worse just to prove yourself. That why you are blind.
That's too logical. Even more logical would be putting money toward social reform programs, instead of blanketing everything under a prison system that does nothing to rehabilitate, and exists solely to punish
Surprised they didn't throw more charges for "endangering her newborn" by giving birth in a jail shower.
Edit: I guess the prison system doesn't exist "solely" to punish. It also exists to suppress any challenge to the status quo, extort money from vulnerable populations, and probably a whole list of other neat little "features"
Please read this> my respond to some one else, It's also in this tread.
I wasn't really disagreeing with you, just being a bit sarcastic saying your response is "too logical". I'm in the US (which is where the article is from), and is why I mentioned needing better social reform... because our prison system is an atrocity. But I was honestly agreeing with you overall
Oh sorry for misunderstanding, my bad.
I agree, it's a problem in the jail system, at least in this case or in general.
No, it's not good at all. This leads to and has led to women being jailed for natural miscarriages or charged with endangering a fetus for taking prescribed medication or for eating everyday things like sushi and lunch meat. You may think I'm making a slippery slope argument. I'm not. This things have really happened. Women were charged with manslaughter for expressing a possibility of having an abortion, keeping the pregnancy, falling down the stairs, and having a miscarriage. The moment you criminalize a woman's actions during pregnancy that relate to a fetus is the moment any action that could have any possible negative outcome is suspect. Suddenly women who have had miscarriages are all crime scenes unless proven otherwise. It's not a slippery slope. Women have and are being jailed for having miscarriages.
Please read this my respond to some one else basically saying the same as you, It's also in this tread.
I support some common sense restrictions on abortion... I don't think anyone should be able to just up and demand the death of what is arguably a human life without a good reason.
This is not that, hell it couldn't be anymore obvious that the GOP doesn't care about life or the safety of the child, they just want as many rules on the books as possible to let them punish "Enemies of the party"
See, what you call "common sense" restrictions is just you sticking your nose in a woman's reproductive business.
Mind your own business. Leave a woman's health care up to a woman and her doctor. That's common sense.
I don't care what spin you put on it pal. No one should be allowed to kill a human being on a whim.
Now if there's something medically wrong with the fetus or the pregnancy is too taxing to be safely brought to term, that's different.
But the fact that you're being upvoted and I'm being downvoted shows that the wackos from Reddit have finally discovered Lemmy
No, it shows that most people are reasonable and understand that a woman who decides for whatever reason that she isn't ready for the commitment of parenthood, that is her business.
You know what's better than murder? Safe Surrender Laws
Wacko spin, eh? Thank you for so clearly identifying yourself as a reproductive authoritarian for all the women on Lemmy. If you think many women get an abortion "on a whim," then you have bought into the right-wing propaganda.
BTW, saying that the decision to abort should be made between a woman and her doctor means that medical ethics becomes the guiding framework, as opposed to criminal law. The state has no business criminalizing reproductive health.
Canada has the best abortion law, which is to say it has no law on abortion. And yet, Canadian doctors are somehow not killing babies at 36 weeks "on a whim." Hmmm, what could possibly explain that?
Gee-wiz, Cletus, maybe we don't have to criminalize abortion in order to get "common sense" behavior.
Actually I vote Democrat exclusively because I'm aware that the GOP are domestic terrorists acting on behalf of Russian Homophobes, nice try.
See while I think just letting ANYONE get an abortion is morally wrong and that the procedure should only be done in extreme cases, like rape, ectopic pregnancy, incest, major deformity, and the like, etc....
I also realize Republicans are the opposite extreme in that they want NO ABORTIONS AT ALL and aren't big on the concept of gender equality.
So I vote Democrat despite the Abortion issue, as I realize neither party has a satisfactory answer to it, but the Democrat Answer causes less problems.
It's called "Don't let Perfect be the enemy of Good"
Do you think people (in particular, yourself) should be forced by state violence to donate their organs to someone who needs it to survive? Especially when the forced donation process involves significant risk to your own life and health (though i do not think that aspect particularly important for my own reasoning, personally ^.^).
Because advocating for """reasonable""" restrictions on abortion is advocating for forcing someone to act as, essentially, a breeding pod, forced to donate their body and organs.
I think Organ Donation should be an Opt Out rather than an Opt In.
Also Organ Donation isn't done till after the person is dead, so your argument makes no sense.
Anyway, that aside, if you are in a position to save another person or prevent their death, and either don't or even just expedite what was already going to happen... You're a killer in my eyes.
How many kidneys have you donated?
3
So you haven't donated any, you're trying to evade the question.
Anyway, that aside, if you are in a position to save another person or prevent their death, and either don't or even just expedite what was already going to happen... You're a killer in my eyes
That means, by your own logic, you're a killer.
I told you, I donated three
Whatever, I really don't care about thr opinions of some hypocrite killer.
I'm not a hypocrite, I am merely not suicidal. If I were to donate my organs while I was still alive, I would be putting myself into unnecessary risk. Meaning I cannot blindly give them away, if I were to give them away at all, I would have to do so specifically because someone needed them and came to me for help with the understanding that if I refused they would die.
If you were paying attention, you would know that I do not advocate for a total ban on abortion, if bringing the human child to term is a non-negligible threat to the owner of the womb than an abortion isn't just fine, it should be encouraged by a medical profession.
However if that is not the case, then an abortion would child murder.
Kinda like how if someone dying of kidney failure asked for my kidneys and I said no, I'm basically telling them to drop dead.
My logic isn't inconsistent, you merely belong to a vocal minority of people who value self freedom over the lives of others. A vocal minority that was quite loud on reddit but seems to have migrated to Lemmy.
The kind of nut who would compare licenses to drive to licenses to use a toaster
Kinda like how if someone dying of kidney failure asked for my kidneys and I said no, I'm basically telling them to drop dead.
Currently, 17 people die each day on the organ transplant list. I'm representing one of them, and coming directly and specifically to you. Will you donate a kidney?
I've said it before and I will say it again. This is democracy in action. Her community and loved ones want their society to be that way. If that's what they want, well, it sure doesn't affect me.
You have to be brain dead to think there's democracy in the US. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, two senators per state, the electoral college... Wake up.
I used to live in Alabama. This is a version of what they want. But I also agree with the chump who said "it doesn't affect me". Because that's what allowed all the atrocities of history to happen. Sometimes you have to stop evil people from being evil.
I hear you. But looking around, the ratio of fools to wise people in government looks proportional to the population at large. Have you considered that direct democracy would just be the 4chan version of government?
And I'm only half kidding. Egalitarian political movements, even before Marx, have found "the people" to be much less noble and wise than anticipated. I believe this is a partial explanation for the revolution to authoritarian pipeline problem. Be it Bolivar, Lenin, or Castro, what do you do if the people vote for the old system, even when it's contrary to their interests? Well, the historical answer seems to be: force them bitches to be free.
Keep saying it everywhere, sooner or later someone with a less closed mind than yours and with a bad day will hear it and will have no choice but to beat the shit out of you.
It affects you if you're a baby just being born. What even is this take, world immature cup?
Alabamans want their society to be this fucked up. I'm happy they are allowed to do this to themselves. "never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake" and what not.
How are babies just being born your opponent?????
Do they intimidate you with their brain power?
This statement doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain?
Alabamans want their society to be this fucked up. I'm happy they are allowed to do this to themselves. "never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake" and what not.
15 years in prison for "endangering a fetus"? Then giving birth only for that child to not have a mommy during childhood, adolescence, and teenage years?
And this is considered good policy by those who create these laws?
wtf
The cruelty is the point. The well-being of the fetus is the excuse.
This is about forcing women to live in fear and under control of the patriarchy.
And punishing women for having sex.
With someone besides me. I mean, how could she? Send her to prison!
conservatives dont create logical policies. there is absolutely nothing logical about their 'platform'... except maybe 'brainwash masses to accumulate wealth'
The conservatives' platform is entirely logical:
Removing education, opportunities, and social safety nets keeps people ignorant, poor, and vulnerable.
Without government willing to help, people in need are forced to turn to the church.
Religion breeds more conservatives.
(Forced-birth polices not only take step #3 literally, but also enhance step #1 by burdening young people with kids they aren't ready for.)
Its not about creating healthy environments or being concerned about the sanctity of life.
its about punishing the "other" for reproducing and dictating everything a woman can do.
These are people who believe in generational punishment. You should be punished for what your parents did.
Remember, we're all paying for what Adam and Eve did.
You'd think so, but try bringing up reparations and see how quickly they change their tune about the sins of their fathers.
Oh it's always "different" when it's me being judged...
I thought god forgave us for that when our ancestors nailed his son to a cross?
But only if you say you love Jesus forever and will follow the church.
It's about control over women, none of the pedo conservatives care about the well being of kids at all.
I think it was for previous charges after she violated probation. But yeah, if we're going to talk about endangering a fetus, then everyone who had a hand in her jail conditions and who ignored her when she went in to labor should also be in prison because every one of them is guilty of endangerment.
No she was one of several women imprisoned under a new Alabama statute for "chemical endangerment of a fetus." You know, a "crime" that already can't be committed again by the time the imprisoned reach trial for it because of the way our "justice" system works.
Those women aren't allowed to endanger a fetus, but the all-knowing authorities are, apparently. (Yes, let's forcibly cold-turkey detox a pregnant person who was using. Great idea.)
Oh I read the article last week and misremembered what the 15 years was for. Either way, not one person was actually interested in protecting her fetus.
All cops and judges have qualified immunity🤷
Not quite. Judges and prosecutors typically have absolute immunity: https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2021/06/Keller-73-Stan.-L.-Rev.-1337.pdf
It's never ever about protecting children.
Alabama is a conservative confederate state. This is their preferred political outcome, yes, exactly.
Did you read the article?
Pretty sure a child being raised in foster care is safer than one dying in the womb from narcotics poisoning.
Who conducted the tests? What is the false positive rate? Was retesting done to ensure accuracy? Does CPS get to choose the testing labs, maybe the ones that get the results that they want? Did the sample have identification on it that a manager at the testing center could trace to the person?
I will start believing the criminal justice system the day I don't read weekly stories of missing body cam footage.
I don't know but none of that is what we were discussing.
I see. Well clearly this police department deserves your blind faith.
What does any of this have to do with the police department? Do you have a response that is actually tangentially related to my comment?
Lmao pretend you can't even fathom what he meant, that the system is rigged and that they got the result they wanted because the US is seemingly inherently corrupt.
Nonetheless it's no surprise, this woman would've needed help and care. There's only speculation that could be done regarding circumstances, but I think it boils down to the "pro life" - laws being ironic
I know exactly what they meant. What I don't know is how it's related to what I said.
We can have a conversation about how our prison systems treat prisoners. Which we'll likely agree on
Or we can have a conversation about police abuse of power, which we'll probably also agree on.
Or we can have a conversation about our broken criminal justice system, which seems boring because again, we'd probably just agree.
Or we can have a conversation about whether pregnant mothers, in general, should be allowed to be imprisoned for attempting to kill their unborn children, but it seems like people just want to derail the conversation with irrelevant arguments.
But you go on with ya bad self, Mr. Straw Man.
No, your "red thread" was that it was just to take the baby away with cps(?) because she either did or does narcotics. And somehow you feel it is derailing to even take any question outside the narrow scope of it.
It is what people are discussing, it is a health issue. Both addiction and abortion are.
I don't know what a "red thread" is.
Yes that's correct, good job.
Except it's not "outside the narrow scope", it's got nothing to do with my statement. And you know that you can't argue with my statement so the only way you can "win" is to argue about something else entirely.
It is not what I was discussing, nor was it what the person I replied to was discussing.
Not interested in winning, is this projection? If so, change the mindset. Why are you so belittling? Read of the appeal to ridicule.
And if you're not interested, not answering only means one part simply cba
Jesus, what a nightmare story. That entire article is filled with horror. She must have felt so terrified and alone.
"After Caswell delivered her baby alone and lost consciousness, staff still refused to render aid and instead took photos of her baby without her consent, her lawyers allege. When she returned to the jail from the hospital, staff denied her access to her prescribed breast pump and ibuprofen."
Wtf is wrong with people? It's so fucking petty and mean. I'm gonna assume that none of the staff will actually face any consequences..?
Do they ever?
It’s never been about protecting the fetus, it’s always been about punishing the woman for being a “slut”
Conservatism is a plague of oppression, misery and death. It always has been.
If a conservative can find a way to cause harm, they must do it. That is simply who they are at their core.
Don't need to do any better when I can just keep everybody else down
They have no plan for building or creation. Nothing about taking care of citizens. It’s misery and lashing out at the other and these motherfuckers build a whole personality around simply objecting to progress. They are a cancer and we need to cut it out before the whole world is metastasized out of existence
what a "pro-life" move right? letting a mother and a newborn baby almost fucking die in prison
Yeah, at this point, they're just being terrible humans.
But excellent capitalists!
U.S.A. The country where sociopathy is celebrated as a virtue by about half the population.
If you had any doubts, the half is of course mainly Republicans.
Probably much less than half, but general apathy and the two party system distorts how that looks.
Don't forget gerrymandering.
And lack of term limits!
More than half.
Unbounded Greed is sociopathy (quite literally doing what's best for oneself without any consideration for others) and even a Deadly Sin according to the Old Testament and the normalization of sociopathy is a countrywide phenomenon (worldwide even).
What we see here goes beyond the 'mere' "have no consideration for the suffering of others when acting in self interest" into an actual "make others suffer to serve some petty personal psychological need" - it goes beyond tyhe not caring about the suffering others when acting for personal upside maximization of sociopathy and into the actual vilany of harming others for personal enjoyment.
I like to believe that it's not close, and that most of the republican voters have other strong opinions that align with the party. And thus the pro-quantity approach to birth rights is just something that follows the party even though they don't agree with it.
I like to believe that.
In reality, I haven't really spoken with or heard about any republicans who haven't shaped their opinion in order to align with the party they are voting for.
I think women should maybe leave these places if they can. I wouldn’t even let a man think about having kids with me if I were a woman in any of those shit states.
These laws are targeted towards poor women who can't fight back. This one is making the news because she's suing. I guarantee that if an attorney hasn't taken up the fight, you'd never hear about it.
This seems like a good place for a charity… although the cost isn’t just a bus ticket but also probably temporary housing/income as well.
Shit. I just realized I’m suggesting a refugee agency for US states.
Yeah it’s increasingly needed, the problem is that they want all this national
Sounds like a good idea
Less a refugee agency and more of an underground railroad considering some of the laws that states are passing.
I completely agree with your statement. The issue with OPs statement is that it's ideal for those with means but unrealistic for those without.
In some ways the opposite. When I left my shit tier flyover village I had nothing. Nothing was connecting me back home and there was no backup plan. It would be a lot more difficult for me to move now given all the roots I have put down.
What we think we control ends up controlling us. That mortgage that was supposed to make us free of landlords, that house we can't sell, that car that we struggle to find parking for, that career we worked so hard on building. I am not advocating giving anything up I am pointing out you have absolute freedom when you have nothing to lose and can't stay where you are.
You make a very good point.
If you are poor, wouldn’t it make more sense to be poor somewhere else? Starting over when you never had much would be my top priority rather than stay in these places.
those people are so incredibly brainwashed by conservatives, they will happily vote to their own detriment. but yay. fox news. free market. yay.
Minorities and vulnerable populations are in the best position to not be brainwashed. And if they leave those states hopefully they can go to a state that respects them as humans
Minorities in these places are typically facing poverty levels that most people in the US can't imagine. How are they supposed to move when they can barely afford rent? As for the other women, the white women in these places genuinely don't believe that these laws will affect them. There is this sense that they think that their adjacency to white men will prevent them from being treated the same as others, that somehow it will make them immune. They are getting a massive wakeup call that white men in power only care about other white men. It's a tale as old as time. White women are and have always been our barrer to equality. Once things get bad enough for them they will jump on the side of minorities and equality again. They just don't usually view themselves as one of us, they always think that this time will be different.
Yeah… I know. I just hope their lives can change for the better and they can exit these places. I just want people to have equal rights and be happy. It’s apparently asking a lot of religious old people, but fuck them
How? How are they supposed to leave? I lived in southern Louisiana and I was desperately poor then. Nobody I knew could afford to leave.
Whether we like it or not, it's going to take widespread class solidarity and a generation of grassroots activism to undo this shit. The politically active will never give a shit about the politically inactive until they're outnumbered. It sucks that people just trying to make ends meet have to start becoming grassroots activists on top of their already demanding jobs and lives, but rights were never freely given to the disenfranchised. They were taken.
reminds me of an old sam kinison bit regarding people who live in deserts and then suffer droughts. but agreed... those most in need of relocation are least capable.
The true detriment is a two party system. You are like a dog being thrown scraps by whichever party you vote for, and things are only getting worse while people continue to pick one side or the other and don't overthrow the entire system they keep supporting.
No, the true detriment is civic illiteracy and widespread apathy. If people voted in droves and stayed engaged in the decisions that affect their lives, the institutional power of political parties would be nullified. The parties are powerful specifically because most people don't give a shit. There's a vacuum, and the party apparatus fills it.
Perhaps it's different in other places, but in my experience people do give a lot of shits. The system is just built against us in such a way that it's almost impossible to either have any hope of changing anything or see any changes that do happen. A huge cause of that disparity is the party system with it's incessant bickering and corrupt propaganda.
Fifty-four percent of eligible voters sat out the 2022 midterms where Republicans took control of the House. Thirty-four percent sat out in 2020. Half of the country either doesn't give a shit about the problems that could be fixed through active political engagement, or they don't give a shit about active political engagement. Both forms of apathy lead to the same conclusion.
A significant portion of that apathy is driven by people who look at these numbers and somehow still come away with "it's rigged@!!" as a conclusion. And that goes for both sides of the political spectrum. If the other 80 million people showed up to participate both during elections and afterwards while local, state, and federal decisions are being made (like, for example, at city council meetings), then the shockwaves that would send through the system would register on the Richter scale
People who think like you are part of the reason 80 million people sit on the sidelines and complain when shit doesn't go their way. You know how Republicans completely changed the course of history in 2010? By showing up in numbers. You know how women changed the course of history in the early 20th century? By showing up in numbers. You know how black Americans changed the course of history in the 1960s? By showing up in numbers.
Nobody is going to do a damn thing for you if you sit on your ass and complain that change is impossible.
Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter are pretty recent examples of where "showing up in numbers" just wasn't enough. The system is rigged and blaming victims isn't getting us anywhere. Anecdotally throughout my life, I have seen uncountable numbers of people come to work/school/etc. with an "I voted" sticker, and my conspiracy theory is that the numbers are meaningless and the people who rigged the system already decide who is winning before the first vote is cast, unless they abandon the plan because their polling shows an absolute landslide that would reveal their fuckery.
Occupy Wall Street lasted 59 days, and BLM lasted 1 year in total, while most of the protests lasted little more than 5 months. Women's suffrage groups started their organized resistance in the 1840s, roughly eighty years before they earned the right to vote, with significant violence erupting at their events in the 1850s and organizations forming at a rapid clip in the decades after the Civil War. Many women's suffrage activists died of old age before they saw significant progress.
Civil Rights era activists campaigned in the streets for fourteen years. Hundreds were killed, thousands were injured, and tens of thousands were imprisoned. Cops sprayed peaceful protesters with fire hoses and had police dogs rip the flesh from their bodies. But still they showed up, they marched, and they fought as a group.
What you're describing are part time slacktivists who showed up until it got uncomfortable and they got bored, at which time they let their apathy take back over and buried their noses in their cell phones. What you're talking about is a bunch of virtue signaling, and it amounted to nothing precisely because there was no class solidarity or significant grassroots organization.
And fuck off with your "it's rigged and votes are counted by the lizard people Illuminati" nonsense. You sound like a Proud Boy wannabe, and you're eroding the faith people have in their own nation. Shame on you.
No true Scotsman and Godwin's law, nice. Anyways, BLM is an obvious continuation of the civil rights movement, and calling them "slacktivists" is derisive and reductionist.
Protesting until you die of old age is not what it used to be. The surveillance of the modern world makes protestors into easy targets if they ever become a true threat. The powers that be have learned plenty from the civil rights era.
Nobody should have faith in any nation to erode in the first place. Every single one has fucked over their neighbors and their own populations to further the ambitions of the rich and powerful. Look to the erosion of antitrust and privacy laws to see where we are headed. Look at how SOPA and other protests have gone. You seriously think nobody knows how to protest anymore, and it's just a generational failing? Despite the obvious ways the oppressors have adapted to the modern world?
1 year. They organized for one year and then went home. The rest of the country completely fucking forgot about whatever it was they were asking for about 5 months in. If they're the new generation of the Civil Rights Movement, then they're inept crybabies who don't actually know anything about what Civil Rights leaders went through, were imprisoned for, and died for, before they came along.
Excuses. Either you give a shit enough to put up a fight, or you don't for [insert reason here].
Or....they've succumbed to outrage du jour and voted to put representatives in office who only care about what keeps the outrage going. If the average citizen is dumb enough to turn politics off in favor of the Real Housewives of [insert stupid place] then they deserve the elected representatives they keep sending to office over and over and over again.
I absolutely do think our generation has lost its grip on what it means to a) have nothing to lose, and b) put up a fight. People are comfortable, fat, and lazy, and they find more solace in their smartphones than they do in talking to their neighbors and organizing groups of powerful citizens. Know why Moms for Liberty gets so much awful shit done? Because they're organized and motivated. It's crazy how lunatic conservatives somehow find a way to stay plugged in and show up at every local school board meeting even when it's just to cause drama, and the rest of the community who has a sincere stake in the outcomes of its decisions can't do more than complain that they have to pick the kids up at soccer practice or can't miss their yoga class. MLK Jr. wrote "Letters from a Birmingham Jail"....from a jail cell.
You want something? GO FUCKING GET IT AND STOP COMPLAINING. Nobody is going to give you what you don't take.
I'm not really interested in arguing this kind of stuff and I don't disagree with you that a lack of voter engagement is a problem. But, I would encourage you to try and understand exactly why it seems like people don't give a shit about the state of politics.
I'd be willing to bet that it's not actually a lack of giving a shit, just a feeling that our time is better spent on other things in life. Those 80 million people "sitting on the sidelines" aren't complaining for the fun of it, they are busy trying to live their lives and deal with their own problems. People feel like the system is rigged, not because of some ambiguous statistics, but because every time they try to work with the system they get shit on and forgotten. How can it not feel rigged when the majority of the country votes for one president and gets a different one instead? Or how about when states, without ever asking its citizens, take away a persons right to choose what happens to their own body? How is a system with an archaic electoral college, gerrymandering, corrupt politicians, and a parties that only represents the top 1% not a rigged system?
It's not that we don't know that showing up in numbers is a good way to enact change, nor are we just sitting on our collective asses complaining and expecting things will just magically change. We just aren't holding out hope that enough numbers will show up to make a dent in our lifetimes, or that the changes will even be ones that benefit us.
The majority party in this country is the party that doesn't vote.
The second major party is the party that complains endlessly about "both sides".
The third major party is the party that votes one way because that's what they've been told to do their whole life.
The fourth major party is the one that actually does research and engages that's being driven mad by the other three.
All revolutions have hurt poor people the most.
Lol sure. So why try and improve things? You'll only make it worse. Enjoy the scraps.
Please show me where I said to do nothing. Why don't you try imagining new ways of improving things rather than repeating the mistakes of the past? Of the revolutions in the 18th-20th centuries, I think only the American revolution accomplished anything close to what it was intending. And that's because it didn't destroy all the existing institutions while in the process of implementing new ones.
(Not that I agree with what the American revolution was intending, but we did get mostly what they set out to do without thousands of poor civilians starving to death in the process.)
The american revolution upheld slavery in America so yeah you're not wrong.
Our current institutions are the problem. Why should we keep them?
Our institutions are not the problem, our policies are the problem. I want to see a transition to UBI, but a dramatic overhaul that dismantled WIC and SNAP before we got UBI in place would be an unmitigated disaster for the very people we were intending to help.
It's not the reform that I'm skeptical of. It's the lust for revolutionary destruction as a path to reform that I'm skeptical of. It's emotionally satisfying without regard to its actual efficacy in accomplishing the proposed reforms. Because history does not show us evidence that this works out well in the short nor the long run.
I'm proposing a revolution entirely led by the people, as that is the only true kind of revolution. The people who would then rule themselves with no intermediaries. Real grassroots organisation.
Well, it better have some kind of mechanism in place to keep the grocery stores full or it's going to fail on its face.
Couple things for you to look up:
Farming
Transport
These two things would likely do it.
They didn't have farming and transport in Bolshevik Russia?
Do what? Just saying "we'll have farming and transport" is not a plan.
I'm not saying there isn't any other way to accomplish food production and distribution. I'm saying that just overthrowing our current systems without an explicit plan to keep food on the shelves is going to result in regular working class people starving. That has happened in every revolution except the American, and that's because the American revolutionaries already had the Continental Congress in place making plans about how to administrate the country, if they managed to win the war.
But most revolutions were just pure chaos with no plan that resulted in regular people starving to death. I 100% agree we need new systems. But I'm not terribly interested in living through a violent revolution.
It also helped them the most.
By starving millions of them? Because that's exactly what transpired during most of those revolutions. And the long term outcomes have not turned out to be better for poor people than the American revolution was. Show me the ideal communist state that resulted.
Revolutions often happen because of starvation. Not the other way around.
And I can tell you this... Billionaires and their conservative minions are making many of us extremely hungry.
Well they solved starvation by dramatically increasing it and then replaced old systems with new ones that have all those same old problems. So consider me unconvinced. I think we need to find a new way to change these systems that's more resilient for the future
We could move if we wanted to. We aren't, at least right now, because we'd leave behind our entire social network. Even if we moved where we know people, they wouldn't help as much with our two young children. I know and understand and accept that. They don't have to help with our kids, but we'd lose the people who can. We'd lose our kids friends and the network we are building in the neighborhood, which of course can be rebuilt, but that's also a consideration. I'd probably only see my sister once a year if that because she can't leave the state due to a custody agreement. Funds would also be an issue.
I also worry about too many democratic people leaving and making the state more red as a result and leaving behind those who can't move, like my sister and her kids, who will suffer as a result of increasingly authoritarian laws. Some regressive politicians have outright said that it's their goal to make it miserable for democratic and liberal people to force them to move, make the state redder, and thereby gain even more power.
Most Americans can't afford a $500 emergency. Transplanting to a new state is off the table for a lot of people, especially women. If you have enough money to move, you probably also have enough money to take a weekend trip to get an abortion in a neighboring state.
Unless these things in the US seriously changes, I will never step foot there. I used to want to see all of the beautiful landscapes, animals, and buildings. I really did. Now, not so much.
If I have a medical emergency, I don't want to be somewhere where they'll delay necessary life saving treatment to first check if there might be a fetus.
Nope. Tbh, that also kind of sounds very similar to the things that they get angry at other countries for doing to women.
Another proud moment for Christianity
"Do unto others", and all that.
If you are a woman, voting republican, you should be fucking ashamed of yourself. This is what this party thinks of you and your kind.
"your kind"
they just think she deserves it for using meth
Agreed, but then again, let's say you don't like democrats either, for whatever reason. What choices do you have? Any other party has zero chances. It's time the US changes its voting laws to allow more than 2 parties to meaningfully exist, so people don't have to always choose the lesser of the two evils.
Yeah okay, but if you're a woman voting republican, you're clearly choosing the more evil of two choices? I fully agree with the flawed two party system, but there's an obvious better choice here. We're talking about a singular issue: female reproductive rights.
Yep, you're right, I'm just pointing out that for some, it's not such clear cut. Ranked voting (or you know, a proportional system like in some European countries) would fix this.
I get it. But sometimes you've got to put out the fire before you start repainting the house.
Sorry but no.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/3-hospitals-closing-maternity-labor-delivery-units-alabama-rcna111374
So they're losing maternity wards and jailing pregnant people. What a shithole.
Addicted to meth? That's jail time. Wait, you're a mother and you're pregnant? That's super jail time, 15 years for you. Have to fuck over your kids' lives as much as possible. You also don't get medical care and you have to give birth in a fungus-infested jail shower. Definitely ethical treatment under law here!
Caswell, who has faced several chemical endangerment charges over the years, is now in state prison, serving a 15-year sentence.
Not to take away from your comment but this woman clearly has major mental issues too. Why is she keep getting pregnant?
Lack of healthcare
Because "sterilization in lieu of prison" is too "eugenics" to be allowed as an option from the justice system.
She needed someone to explain to her that semi-permanent birth control measures demonstrate "rehabilitation" and "low risk of recidivism" after (or preferably, before) her first charge.
How anyone could vote for any republican is beyond reason. On top of being worthless traitor filth, they actively oppress women and endanger our future generations. Simply unfathomable.
Must own the libs!
A sizable number of them are simply glad about articles like this. It's not about protecting children or anything. It's about punishing women. I think a lot of GOP supporters don't even explicitly think "I want to punish women", but they implicitly enjoy when it happens. It's more about imposing their religious beliefs than about anyone's life or the likes.
And another sizable chunk are just apathetic. They'll be willing to ignore stuff like this because it's worth it in their mind to hurt LGBT people or whichever other GOP policy drives them. They'll tell themselves this is just a tragic accident in their quest for the greater good, never viewing this as an entirely foreseeable consequence or even the outright goal.
Current republicans, probably
It's never been about the children. It has always been about controlling and dehumanizing women as this story so clearly demonstrates.
Yep, I thought everybody knew that already. They only care about the children as long as they're inside the woman, the second she pushes that baby out they don't have a care in the world anymore.
On the other hand, I DO believe some sort of intervention is needed when a drug addict gets pregnant, but I'm talking a locked rehab and not prison.
What about the risk for the mother? Holy shit, she didn't even have access to a basic maternity ward. America is fucked.
The mother? Conservatives view women as objects to be controlled and used. To them, she got put in her place. They view it as a good thing.
Can the baby sue for false imprisonment?
The baby can sue the state and the mother. It was trapped by the mother first.
Unlawful detention.
And that's why we don't punish that shit with jail time.
Toss ALL jail employees of the past 7 months in jail for torture, and toss the jailers.for that birth night in jaolmfor torture, and attempted murder of mother and child. I'm heavily against the death penalty but I'd make an exception for these religious fuckers.
If they believe they're right about it all, they also believe they'll live eternally in happiness when they die. They should welcome it.
Under His Eye
blessed be the fruit
Caswell, who has faced several chemical endangerment charges over the years, is now in state prison, serving a 15-year sentence.
What. The. Fuck. There are men who beat the absolute shit out of their girlfriends and spouses, for the 5th time, sometimes nearly kill them, and never see the inside of a jail cell or any charges at all. Or they get a few months and when they get the cops called on them for beating the shit out of another woman, they don't even get a parole or probation violation. Sometimes women get arrested, bloody with black eyes, while the person who did it walks away with barely a scratch and zero charges. I'm just speaking from personal here, but this happens with tons of other things. Sexual assault specifically. The supreme court just made it legal for people who have been charged with domestic violence to own/buy a fucking gun while out on bail.
I'm not defending using drugs while pregnant, and it's stupid I feel I even have to say that. But this sentence just shows, clear as day, the utter contempt the US has for women. And that the US prison system, and entire criminal justice system, constitutes actual torture - as they said in the article. I'm ashamed be an American, what an absolute Gilead shithole of a country.
The consequences of letting literal illiterates get into power.
Republicans, at least the ones calling the shots, don't give a shit about "the children" and never have. They just care about controlling women. It's sickening.
The elected Republicans want more control in general. Reproductive rights is just a means to force our population to stabilize but it is increasingly becoming more tyrannical which causes this scenario.
Well that tracks.
Were we supposed to be surprised? Most people called this.
The way the detention staff acted in this is frankly disgusting. That being said, I don't think it is entirely fair to equate Alabama's frankly stupid abortion legislation with assigning a certain level of rights to a foetus. If a mother intends to carry to full term and is using drugs, I don't think it is fair to the foetus-soon-to-be-person to ignore this.
Who here would like to try and explain to a victim of foetal alcohol syndrome or prenatal opioid exposure that their suffering is morally acceptable because their mother had the right to choose?
It doesn't always need to be one extreme or another, there is a middle ground.
There's some legal murkiness I could see coming from that, but in principle it seems like something you would have to prosecute after the individual was born.
If a fetus isn't a person, then there's no victim. The potential of a victim isn't the same as a victim. The intention for there to be a victim doesn't even create a victim.
I think about the closest thing you could argue for would be that if a person knew they were pregnant, could have aborted but chose not to, and engaged in behavior that demonstrably caused harm once there was a live person, then maybe you could argue some type of negligence. But even that feels really close to a slippery slope to me, and makes me too uncomfortable.
If for no other reason than it could create a situation where someone is prosecuted for knowingly reproducing while having a measurable statistical chance of a heritable birth defect, or just being above the age where down syndrome becomes more likely.
Except this is precisely the opposite of the logic used if some third party causes the harm. If, say, a pregnant woman gets shot in a mugging gone wrong and her fetus dies as a consequence, were more than willing to count that as a homicide and for some reason this line of reasoning vanishes.
It's either a person or not, not whichever is more convenient to the mother in whatever situation occurs.
Personally, I wouldn't be in favor of classifying that as a homicide, but would rather it be an aggravating factor attached to the crime of shooting the actual person.
There is a cost, morally and emotionally, to a fetus dying, but it's not a crime against the fetus but the mother.
The existence of a law written in a way I disagree with doesn't obligate me to agree with another one I disagree with.
I can't boobietrap my own home because there's the potential of a firefighter, or someone innocent hurting themselves.
First, those people, although unspecified, actually exist. Creating a hazard for real people is different from taking an action that could hurt a person who does not exist.
Secondly, creating a device with the intent to hurt someone regardless of circumstance or actual threat is pretty morally different from typical home defense, to say nothing of engaging in behavior that could incidentally harm a fetus.
It seems weird to me that you're trying to create a disconnect when cause and effect is cause and effect.
I can't work on my own electrical for my home without getting it inspected. If my house burnt down and harmed someone I could be held responsible. Even without harm I could be liable.
We're in the comments on an article about a woman being thrown in jail for endangering her fetus, and you're arguing that because a fetus could turn into a person that's fine.
I'm not saying fetuses don't turn into people, I'm saying that at most you can look at actual damage done once the person actually exists.
Women aren't houses, so criminalizing their behavior because of the impact it might have in a person who does not yet exist is not great.
I'm an antinatalist, I just find your arguments bad.
Women "not being houses" is irrelevant to the point I made. We criminalize actions all the time when harm isn't actual, only potential.
So is your point that because we've done something before, we should do it again?
If not, I'm not sure what "we've done it before" has to do with "we should not do it now".
Criminalizing otherwise legal behavior because of the impact it might have on a person who might exist in the future is a not good thing to do.
Considering both of your arguments against not doing that centered around how we regulate houses, it seems like it might have been relevant to point out that women aren't houses, and so maybe we should use a different criteria for judging laws that impact them.
I disagree whole heartedly. Criminalizing things like using drugs during pregnancy leads to criminalizing miscarriages for natural reasons which has absolutely happened. There's not a ton of cases, but women have gone to jail for having a miscarriage after saying they wanted an abortion based on the idea that they must have killed their fetus.
I don't care about prosecuting or criminalising in this case. There is already precedent for rehabilitation both voluntary, and in the case where a person's safety is at risk, involuntary.
I don't see why this could not be expanded to include the safety of an unborn child.
Noting specifically that I am talking about drug abuse where a woman intends to carry to term, not about locking women up to force them to give birth. I hate that I even have to clarify, but if experience had taught me anything, people on social media get positively orgasmic when they find something they can willfully misinterpret.
Disgusting but not surprising
I agree. If your goal is to give birth, it feels like the fetus becomes a person. Otherwise, 20 to 24weeks, in my opinion, is the reasonable time a fetus could become a person as it is in that period that the conscious experience starts to appear.
The mother in this story was 2 months pregnant when she was arrested, so about eight weeks. I've searched for every other news story on this I could find and none of them say when she became aware she became pregnant and whether or not she used drugs after that, so it's quite likely she didn't have a goal of giving birth here.
Every one cares now.
Where were you when the voting was happening?
what voting?
The voting that gave us a super majority in SCOTUS. That continues to put people in power who want to rule instead of represent.
Who could have known ahead of time that would happen?
Anyone with half a brain.
TIL Americans are awful at judging someone's character.
Fortress has arrived
Least brain rotted US government:
What?
So… why are the guards not being arrested for child endangerment? Why is this a lawsuit and not a criminal matter?
There is a German proverb: Every people has the government it deserves.
Interesting proverb for Germans. I wonder how long it's been around
I just checked and: Its actually from france, coming from an opponent of the revolution and is dated 1811.
oh so that's why it's a shitty quote, it's for bootlickers
Joseph Marie de Maistre
! 01.04.1753 Chambéry, Rhône-Alpes (Frankreich)
† 26.02.1821 Turin (Italien)
"Every nation has the government it deserves."
Letter from 15.VIII.1811
seems like a shitty quote. what made you think of it?
Whover you allow to rule you: You are getting exactly what you have earned yourself. In a Democracy this is even more evident than in a dictatorship.
For all those fine upstanding people who soabox about fetal life, this is the world you created for these women and their childfen.
Alabama is a shithole
So basically we're throwing women in a pit and throwing stones at them for 'giving men the urge'.
Where was this free world I heard so much about?
To lock her the drug addict to protect fetus is good. To deny mto-be-mother proper conditions and medical care equals to endangering the fetus thus responsible people should be judged as such as well.
I don't think this to be religious question but rather legal question. Mother should sue the hell out of that prison and live from the half of the money ever after. But without drugs. Other half of the money should belong to the kid and used for kid's education etc.
do you really think putting her in jail is going to prevent her from using?
Do you REALLY think that?
do you really think that's a GOOD way, better than other options, to keep her sober?
Yeah i do. From where i come, if you leave drug addict on streets, they will continue their path of self-destruction regardless of their or others' well-being.
So most effective solution is to isolate the drug addict from the source of addiction.
That your prisons sucks at upholding basic human rights, it's not my fault. It's yours for not giving a damn about it.
There are places where prisoners get chance to work, own pet, study to become doctors, programmers and most importantly they get good healthcare as not everywhere around the globe people don't give a damn about people behind bars.
Also Locking her up doesn't inevitable mean in the prison. Again difference of my background i guess. There are specialized institutions that hold drug addicts and keeps them sober long enough to give them chance to get out of the habit. I know people who went through that. I've visited such a place. It might be a farm with animals or house kinda reminding of those for abused women (house with multiple affected who share their experiences and live together for limited time.
Your blinding rage just prevents you to see what's really wrong and what should be fixed.
Okay first of all, there are drugs in prison. That is a fact. That's what I was talking about and what you failed to acknowledge.
Second, I'm not the one blinded here. You are talking about "shoulds" and "ifs". I am talking about the way things are NOW. You are advocating for sentencing her to one thing, and telling yourself it's another.
The reality of HER situation NOW is that incarceration is going to make things worse. You can acknowledge this and advocate for a better outcome FOR HER while still championing reform of our systems.
Nah,
Also those who wronged her are working in that prison.
And as last, don't tell me you got no forced detox that is not in prison in Alabama - that's where judge failed if your prison system is such anarchy and it's supposed to be known fact.
You are quick to rage however you fail to see what part of the equation is not working. You would make situation worse just to prove yourself. That why you are blind.
That's too logical. Even more logical would be putting money toward social reform programs, instead of blanketing everything under a prison system that does nothing to rehabilitate, and exists solely to punish
Surprised they didn't throw more charges for "endangering her newborn" by giving birth in a jail shower.
Edit: I guess the prison system doesn't exist "solely" to punish. It also exists to suppress any challenge to the status quo, extort money from vulnerable populations, and probably a whole list of other neat little "features"
Please read this> my respond to some one else, It's also in this tread.
I wasn't really disagreeing with you, just being a bit sarcastic saying your response is "too logical". I'm in the US (which is where the article is from), and is why I mentioned needing better social reform... because our prison system is an atrocity. But I was honestly agreeing with you overall
Oh sorry for misunderstanding, my bad.
I agree, it's a problem in the jail system, at least in this case or in general.
No, it's not good at all. This leads to and has led to women being jailed for natural miscarriages or charged with endangering a fetus for taking prescribed medication or for eating everyday things like sushi and lunch meat. You may think I'm making a slippery slope argument. I'm not. This things have really happened. Women were charged with manslaughter for expressing a possibility of having an abortion, keeping the pregnancy, falling down the stairs, and having a miscarriage. The moment you criminalize a woman's actions during pregnancy that relate to a fetus is the moment any action that could have any possible negative outcome is suspect. Suddenly women who have had miscarriages are all crime scenes unless proven otherwise. It's not a slippery slope. Women have and are being jailed for having miscarriages.
Please read this my respond to some one else basically saying the same as you, It's also in this tread.
I support some common sense restrictions on abortion... I don't think anyone should be able to just up and demand the death of what is arguably a human life without a good reason.
This is not that, hell it couldn't be anymore obvious that the GOP doesn't care about life or the safety of the child, they just want as many rules on the books as possible to let them punish "Enemies of the party"
See, what you call "common sense" restrictions is just you sticking your nose in a woman's reproductive business.
Mind your own business. Leave a woman's health care up to a woman and her doctor. That's common sense.
I don't care what spin you put on it pal. No one should be allowed to kill a human being on a whim.
Now if there's something medically wrong with the fetus or the pregnancy is too taxing to be safely brought to term, that's different.
But the fact that you're being upvoted and I'm being downvoted shows that the wackos from Reddit have finally discovered Lemmy
No, it shows that most people are reasonable and understand that a woman who decides for whatever reason that she isn't ready for the commitment of parenthood, that is her business.
You know what's better than murder? Safe Surrender Laws
Wacko spin, eh? Thank you for so clearly identifying yourself as a reproductive authoritarian for all the women on Lemmy. If you think many women get an abortion "on a whim," then you have bought into the right-wing propaganda.
BTW, saying that the decision to abort should be made between a woman and her doctor means that medical ethics becomes the guiding framework, as opposed to criminal law. The state has no business criminalizing reproductive health.
Canada has the best abortion law, which is to say it has no law on abortion. And yet, Canadian doctors are somehow not killing babies at 36 weeks "on a whim." Hmmm, what could possibly explain that?
Gee-wiz, Cletus, maybe we don't have to criminalize abortion in order to get "common sense" behavior.
Wow, strawman much?
Welcome to the consequences of your actions.
Actually I vote Democrat exclusively because I'm aware that the GOP are domestic terrorists acting on behalf of Russian Homophobes, nice try.
See while I think just letting ANYONE get an abortion is morally wrong and that the procedure should only be done in extreme cases, like rape, ectopic pregnancy, incest, major deformity, and the like, etc....
I also realize Republicans are the opposite extreme in that they want NO ABORTIONS AT ALL and aren't big on the concept of gender equality.
So I vote Democrat despite the Abortion issue, as I realize neither party has a satisfactory answer to it, but the Democrat Answer causes less problems.
It's called "Don't let Perfect be the enemy of Good"
Do you think people (in particular, yourself) should be forced by state violence to donate their organs to someone who needs it to survive? Especially when the forced donation process involves significant risk to your own life and health (though i do not think that aspect particularly important for my own reasoning, personally ^.^).
Because advocating for """reasonable""" restrictions on abortion is advocating for forcing someone to act as, essentially, a breeding pod, forced to donate their body and organs.
I think Organ Donation should be an Opt Out rather than an Opt In.
Also Organ Donation isn't done till after the person is dead, so your argument makes no sense.
Anyway, that aside, if you are in a position to save another person or prevent their death, and either don't or even just expedite what was already going to happen... You're a killer in my eyes.
How many kidneys have you donated?
3
So you haven't donated any, you're trying to evade the question.
That means, by your own logic, you're a killer.
I told you, I donated three
Whatever, I really don't care about thr opinions of some hypocrite killer.
I'm not a hypocrite, I am merely not suicidal. If I were to donate my organs while I was still alive, I would be putting myself into unnecessary risk. Meaning I cannot blindly give them away, if I were to give them away at all, I would have to do so specifically because someone needed them and came to me for help with the understanding that if I refused they would die.
If you were paying attention, you would know that I do not advocate for a total ban on abortion, if bringing the human child to term is a non-negligible threat to the owner of the womb than an abortion isn't just fine, it should be encouraged by a medical profession.
However if that is not the case, then an abortion would child murder.
Kinda like how if someone dying of kidney failure asked for my kidneys and I said no, I'm basically telling them to drop dead.
My logic isn't inconsistent, you merely belong to a vocal minority of people who value self freedom over the lives of others. A vocal minority that was quite loud on reddit but seems to have migrated to Lemmy.
The kind of nut who would compare licenses to drive to licenses to use a toaster
Currently, 17 people die each day on the organ transplant list. I'm representing one of them, and coming directly and specifically to you. Will you donate a kidney?
So you think a corpse should have more morphological autonomy than a living person?
People can also organ donate while alive lol ;p
So you're a forced birther. Got it.
No I just am one of the people who don't think it's Misogynistic to have a problem with literal murder.
I've said it before and I will say it again. This is democracy in action. Her community and loved ones want their society to be that way. If that's what they want, well, it sure doesn't affect me.
You have to be brain dead to think there's democracy in the US. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, two senators per state, the electoral college... Wake up.
I used to live in Alabama. This is a version of what they want. But I also agree with the chump who said "it doesn't affect me". Because that's what allowed all the atrocities of history to happen. Sometimes you have to stop evil people from being evil.
I hear you. But looking around, the ratio of fools to wise people in government looks proportional to the population at large. Have you considered that direct democracy would just be the 4chan version of government?
And I'm only half kidding. Egalitarian political movements, even before Marx, have found "the people" to be much less noble and wise than anticipated. I believe this is a partial explanation for the revolution to authoritarian pipeline problem. Be it Bolivar, Lenin, or Castro, what do you do if the people vote for the old system, even when it's contrary to their interests? Well, the historical answer seems to be: force them bitches to be free.
Keep saying it everywhere, sooner or later someone with a less closed mind than yours and with a bad day will hear it and will have no choice but to beat the shit out of you.
It affects you if you're a baby just being born. What even is this take, world immature cup?
Alabamans want their society to be this fucked up. I'm happy they are allowed to do this to themselves. "never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake" and what not.
How are babies just being born your opponent?????
Do they intimidate you with their brain power?
This statement doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain?
Alabamans want their society to be this fucked up. I'm happy they are allowed to do this to themselves. "never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake" and what not.