Illegally Detained Fetus

[rambot]

Florida Woman Seeks Jail Release On Behalf Of Illegally Detained Fetus

You will notice the date on this tweet.


It sounds pretty reasonable....in an age of unreasonableness.

 

[Yttrium]

If a state gives personhood status to a fetus, it stands to reason that the fetus should not be jailed without due process. Similarly, if the fetus commits a crime, even a heinous one, the mother shouldn't be jailed along with the fetus if she didn't knowingly contribute to the crime.

 

[durangodawood]

The fetus could go into foster custody for the duration of the sentence.

 

[rambot]

The fetus could go into foster custody for the duration of the sentence.

That's a good point! They ARE viable!

 

[Tuur]

Women prison inmates bearing children isn't unknown. I don't know who ends up rearing the child, but foster homes (your "foster custody" ) is an option. They don't rear the children in jail.

I'm rather surprised that none of the reports I've seen of this have brought up an old legal term, at least an old legal term used in English courts. I don't know if the term can be used on this forum. Basically, the women pled they were pregnant, and, if they were, that was considered in sentencing. In England, that seems to have led to "transportation:" being sent to a colony with provisions not to return for a given number of years or ever.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I guess it shows how "off the rails" the national conversation has become surrounding this topic.

Both sides of this debate seem to have given up all hope at a good faith debate, and instead are grasping ad reductio ad absurdum style arguments and "appeal to emotion" fallacy in order to "prove a point about the other side".

 

[durangodawood]

I guess it shows how "off the rails" the national conversation has become surrounding this topic.

Both sides of this debate seem to have given up all hope at a good faith debate, and instead are grasping ad reductio ad absurdum style arguments and "appeal to emotion" fallacy in order to "prove a point about the other side".

It's not as absurd as you suggest.

I have voted on a fetal personhood amendment to my state's constitution. The proposal granted full legal personhood without going into any details. It's natural and not at all ridiculous that the citizens would want to explore what the details would entail.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's not as absurd as you suggest.

I have voted on a fetal personhood amendment to my state's constitution. The proposal granted full legal personhood without going into any details. It's natural and not at all ridiculous that the citizens would want to explore what the details would entail.

Meh, I still say it's absurd, and it's followed a particular progression pattern of escalation in terms of absurdity.

Neither side "wanting to give an inch" has led to people appealing to more and more extreme scenarios in order to make their case in efforts to deflect from the fact that their own side's positions are largely rooted in some pretty selfish reasons.

 

[NxNW]

Meh, I still say it's absurd, and it's followed a particular progression pattern of escalation in terms of absurdity.

Either it's a full-fledged human being with all the rights and responsibilities thereof, or it's not. If it is, it has no right to attach itself without permission because no human being has the right to attach itself to another like a parasite. At the very least it can be compared to an intruder into your home if you left the door unlocked. And if it's not a human being, it can be removed without question. Either way, removal seems to be a logical option.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Either it's a full-fledged human being with all the rights and responsibilities thereof, or it's not. If it is, it has no right to attach itself without permission because no human being has the right to attach itself to another like a parasite. At the very least it can be compared to an intruder into your home if you left the door unlocked. And if it's not a human being, it can be removed without question. Either way, removal seems to be a logical option.

To be clear, I wasn't levying that "absurdity" remark at one particular side of this debate.

Both sides have appealed to extreme scenarios to try to make their point.

One side wants it 100% restricted, the other side want's next to no restrictions, and both sides carve out rather extreme talking points to support their position.

One side has appealed to a scenario that only accounts for <2% of abortions to attempt to justify their position of "unrestricted, tax payer funded, abortions, on demand"...and have rejected & refused to discuss the reality that the overwhelming majority of abortions are due to reasons relating to irresponsibility.

The other side has appealed to equating it "infanticide" as to pretend that anyone honestly believes that they'd look at 5 week fetus and a 5 month old baby and see them as the same thing. (Charlie Kirk got tricked by that on his show when he couldn't even tell the difference between a human fetus and a dolphin fetus after saying "I definitely see that as a human being" when looking at the latter picture)


The disingenuousness coming from both angles is a pretty easy charade to to poke holes through.

When a hardcore pro-choice person brings up rape/incest/health, simply reply with "okay, we can carve out an unrestricted exemption for those 3 scenarios in particular, but for the other 98%, those will be limited to 12 weeks, you cool with that?" See what kind of response you get.

When a hardcore pro-life person says "no matter what, the important thing is to make sure we protect the well-being of that baby", simply ask the follow-up question "Okay, so then are you cool with raising taxes a little bit in order to make sure she can afford to care for that child and start collecting any benefits during pregnancy that a mother of 1 already-born child would collect today since you claim they are the same thing?" See what kind of response you get.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

To be clear, I wasn't levying that "absurdity" remark at one particular side of this debate.

Both sides have appealed to extreme scenarios to try to make their point.

One side wants it 100% restricted, the other side want's next to no restrictions, and both sides carve out rather extreme talking points to support their position.

One side has appealed to a scenario that only accounts for <2% of abortions to attempt to justify their position of "unrestricted, tax payer funded, abortions, on demand"...and have rejected & refused to discuss the reality that the overwhelming majority of abortions are due to reasons relating to irresponsibility.

The other side has appealed to equating it "infanticide" as to pretend that anyone honestly believes that they'd look at 5 week fetus and a 5 month old baby and see them as the same thing. (Charlie Kirk got tricked by that on his show when he couldn't even tell the difference between a human fetus and a dolphin fetus after saying "I definitely see that as a human being" when looking at the latter picture)


The disingenuousness coming from both angles is a pretty easy charade to to poke holes through.

When a hardcore pro-choice person brings up rape/incest/health, simply reply with "okay, we can carve out an unrestricted exemption for those 3 scenarios in particular, but for the other 98%, those will be limited to 12 weeks, you cool with that?" See what kind of response you get.

When a hardcore pro-life person says "no matter what, the important thing is to make sure we protect the well-being of that baby", simply ask the follow-up question "Okay, so then are you cool with raising taxes a little bit in order to make sure she can afford to care for that child and start collecting any benefits during pregnancy that a mother of 1 already-born child would collect today since you claim they are the same thing?" See what kind of response you get.

The 12 week ban isn’t worth talking about because the pro-life side will call you a “baby murdered” to your face for offering it. If I believed for one second that the prolife side would accept 12 weeks and not push for more restrictions I would entertain it but there is no way they will accept that compromise. So why should the pro-choice side be willing to make that compromise?

 

[MotoToTheMax]

I was under the impression that Roe v Wade was already kind of the compromise. No bans before 2nd trimester, after that each state has its own rules.

Once one side decided that wasn't good enough, what am I suppose to do on the other side? The compromise is effectly over, so now we have to recompromise again? The trust is broken at that point.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The 12 week ban isn’t worth talking about because the pro-life side will call you a “baby murdered” to your face for offering it. If I believed for one second that the prolife side would accept 12 weeks and not push for more restrictions I would entertain it but there is no way they will accept that compromise. So why should the pro-choice side be willing to make that compromise?

But that's already the laws that are being put in place by the side that everyone calls "vehemently pro-life" and that they're labelling as "an infringement"

State Laws and Policies Status

www.guttmacher.org

Take, for instance, the "dreaded Florida"

Post Roe, they cap it at 15 weeks weeks for elective, but have exemptions for rape/incest/health (and even provide public funding for those 3 scenarios)

Florida and Utah basically have the same abortion policies as Switzerland, Sweden, and Finland. (actually, they're a little more lax, Florida will allow elective up until 15 weeks, Finland has the rule "An abortion may not be performed after the twelfth week of pregnancy on any grounds other than a disease or physical defect in the woman."

If the pro-choice activists are already claiming that Florida is waging a "war on women" for enacting a limit that's basically on par with Scandinavian countries, then perhaps they're tipping their hand too early with regards to concealing their own true intent.

Given that, it would seem that it's not worth people trying to compromise with the hardcore pro-choice side either...as they've already shown that they refuse to accept what most of Western Europe would see as reasonable.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

But that's already the laws that are being put in place by the side that everyone calls "vehemently pro-life" and that they're labelling as "an infringement"

State Laws and Policies Status

www.guttmacher.org

Take, for instance, the "dreaded Florida"

Post Roe, they cap it at 15 weeks weeks for elective, but have exemptions for rape/incest/health (and even provide public funding for those 3 scenarios)

Florida and Utah basically have the same abortion policies as Switzerland, Sweden, and Finland. (actually, they're a little more lax, Florida will allow elective up until 15 weeks, Finland has the rule "An abortion may not be performed after the twelfth week of pregnancy on any grounds other than a disease or physical defect in the woman."

If the pro-choice activists are already claiming that Florida is waging a "war on women" for enacting a limit that's basically on par with Scandinavian countries, then perhaps they're tipping their hand too early with regards to concealing their own true intent.

Given that, it would seem that it's not worth people trying to compromise with the hardcore pro-choice side either...as they've already shown that they refuse to accept what most of Western Europe would see as reasonable.

And are the pro-life people satisfied with what has happened in Florida and Utah or are they pushing for tighter restrictions?

‘We will sign:’ Florida Gov. DeSantis champions potential 6-week abortion bill

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he would sign a six-week abortion ban if and when it came to fruition during a news briefing Wednesday discussing the proposed “Framework for Freedom” 2023-24 state budget.

www.clickorlando.com

Utah abortion clinics will close in 2024 if new bill is passed

bortion Changes, proposed by Rep. Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield, and sponsored by the same senator who put forward the 2020 trigger law that is currently on hold, would stop licensing abortion clinics in May, and would ban the operation of all abortion clinics starting in January.

www.sltrib.com

Where are you telling pro-life people if they don’t compromise and allow a 12-15 week window they’ll end up with more lax restrictions? Why aren’t you telling pro-life people to compromise from their “baby murderer” screech?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Where are you telling pro-life people if they don’t compromise and allow a 12-15 week window they’ll end up with more lax restrictions? Why aren’t you telling pro-life people to compromise from their “baby murderer” screech?

Because doing so would violate forum rules...I have in the past, and caught temporary bans for it. That's where I'll leave it.

But without being too specific, I'm a moderate on a number of issues that may or may not include issues being discussed in this thread.

Sufficed to say, both sides are being disingenuous in their approach to this issue (as I noted before). If forum rules prohibit me from "crossing certain lines" then I have to play by their rules and am limited to how far I can take my "evenhandedness"

However, if you look at my previous post:
"The other side has appealed to equating it "infanticide" as to pretend that anyone honestly believes that they'd look at 5 week fetus and a 5 month old baby and see them as the same thing. (Charlie Kirk got tricked by that on his show when he couldn't even tell the difference between a human fetus and a dolphin fetus after saying "I definitely see that as a human being" when looking at the latter picture)"

...while that's not me "telling people to compromise their pro-life position in favor of abortion" because that would be against the rules...I feel like that gives some insight into my position.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Because doing so would violate forum rules...I have in the past, and caught temporary bans for it. That's where I'll leave it.

But without being too specific, I'm a moderate on a number of issues that may or may not include issues being discussed in this thread.

Sufficed to say, both sides are being disingenuous in their approach to this issue (as I noted before). If forum rules prohibit me from "crossing certain lines" then I have to play by their rules and am limited to how far I can take my "evenhandedness"

However, if you look at my previous post:
"The other side has appealed to equating it "infanticide" as to pretend that anyone honestly believes that they'd look at 5 week fetus and a 5 month old baby and see them as the same thing. (Charlie Kirk got tricked by that on his show when he couldn't even tell the difference between a human fetus and a dolphin fetus after saying "I definitely see that as a human being" when looking at the latter picture)"

...while that's not me "telling people to compromise their pro-life position in favor of abortion" because that would be against the rules...I feel like that gives some insight into my position.

Sorry I was so harsh. Your position holds a nuance that Lindsey Graham’s bill to Congress didn’t. His bill required a federal 12 week ban but states could go with tighter restrictions and I remember seeing pro-choice people being told they should be happy to accept this compromise like there wasn’t pro-life people demanding and in the states enacting more stringent laws. It was insanely dishonest and your proposal reminded me of that. I’m sorry I jumped to that conclusion.

A lot of pro-choice would be willing to go to a Netherlands type model but that means the other side has to meet then there meaning they have to dump their TRAP laws and harassment of people entering abortion clinics. They’re not taking a step to the middle just for them to demand me take another step and in America, that is exactly what would happen right now. If pro-choice gives an inch, pro-life will take a mile.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Florida Woman Seeks Jail Release On Behalf Of Illegally Detained Fetus

View attachment 328412
You will notice the date on this tweet.


It sounds pretty reasonable....in an age of unreasonableness.

She's locked up.

The fetus is exactly where it was before and after the crime.

Now, she may have an argument once it's born....and I would agree, if she has someone who can care for it....it should be released to their care. Otherwise, she can turn it over to the state and they should find a home for it.

I don't see how it changes the fact that she is to be incarcerated on what looks like murder charges eventually.

 

[rambot]

She's locked up.

The fetus is exactly where it was before and after the crime.

What does that have to do with it? Squatters rights?
It wasn't given a trial.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What does that have to do with it? Squatters rights?
It wasn't given a trial.

Is this a serious response?

The baby isn't going to be charged. It's not going to be punished. Why would it be given a trial?

 

[durangodawood]

Meh, I still say it's absurd.....

So I describe actual constitutional amendment on statewide ballot that would require us to consider all aspects of fetal personhood. And your response is to stick your fingers in your ears.

Sure, the measure failed. But not without a good chunk of citizens voting for it - who still want it.

Youre just ignoring reality.