Illegally Detained Fetus

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

Which reality am I ignoring by highlighting that I feel that both sides have resorted to absurdity in trying to make a point?

One side says they want to ban all/most abortion under the pretense that they claim they believe a 5 week fetus is a full fledged human being (when it's pretty clear that's not the case as most wouldn't be able to differentiate between a human fetus and a dolphin fetus at that stage), when it's pretty apparent that much of the aim is just about punishing behavior that they associate with "sexual impurity"

The other side typically replies with pretending the whole thing is about rape/incest/health issues (when it's not), attempts to tie in racial implications, and resorts to reductio ad absurdum responses like "well, if you see a fetus as a human, wouldn't that mean that a pregnant woman can't go to jail since technically that means the baby is getting jailed without due process?"

When the argument devolves to that stage, that means a good faith debate (on the actual point of conflict) is a long way back in the rear view mirror.

When you actually boil this whole thing down (if people on both sides were being honest), it's a conflict rooted in "I think women should have the ability to have an easy-out if they engage in a risky behavior" vs. "I want my personal religious code with regards to sex to be followed by everyone, and I want people who don't to have to deal with fallout for that, because I want everyone else to feel like there's consequences for not doing thing ours way"



It actually reminds me of how dishonest the early marijuana debates were. The actual point of conflict was "I think it should be allowed because I like it" vs. "I don't like it, so nobody should be allowed to do it". It basically devolved into the dishonest "Team: Reefer Madness Mindset" vs. "Team: 'what about the cancer patients?'"

 

[Yttrium]

The other side typically replies with pretending the whole thing is about rape/incest/health issues (when it's not), attempts to tie in racial implications, and resorts to reductio ad absurdum responses like "well, if you see a fetus as a human, wouldn't that mean that a pregnant woman can't go to jail since technically that means the baby is getting jailed without due process?"

Person, not human. A fetus is a human, but not legally a person. If the fetus legally becomes a person, then a lot of laws suddenly apply to them, which could make things get legally complicated. Although the jail situation is laughable, it does point out that legislators have to carefully consider the consequences of personhood for a fetus, because there will be legal issues if they don't deal with them in advance.

 

[durangodawood]

Which reality am I ignoring by highlighting that I feel that both sides have resorted to absurdity in trying to make a point?
....

There it is right off the bat^^^. The people in my state didn't put fetal personhood on the ballot to "make a point". The put it up there to make it the law of the land.

So its natural for the rest of us to inquire what precisely that means in real life situations. Quite probably the stress of prison on a pregnant woman is unhealthy for a developing fetus. Is it correct to subject an innocent person to that? Maybe it is ok. I dunno. But its not ridiculous to ask about what exactly people intend by the laws they propose we live under. If it sounds ridiculous thats only because the proposed law is ridiculous.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There it is right off the bat^^^. The people in my state didn't put fetal personhood on the ballot to "make a point". The put it up there to make it the law of the land.

So its natural for the rest of us to inquire what precisely that means in real life situations. Quite probably the stress of prison on a pregnant woman is unhealthy for a developing fetus. Is it correct to subject an innocent person to that? Maybe it is ok. I dunno. But its not ridiculous to ask about what exactly people intend by the laws they propose we live under. If it sounds ridiculous thats only because the proposed law is ridiculous.

People propose ridiculous "laws of the land" to "make a point" on a pretty regular basis these days. "Law of the land" doesn't preclude something from being a petty attempt of "making a point" or "sticking it to the other side"

Politicians aren't above being petty anymore than voters are.

Case in point, take a look at this gem of a bill that got introduced a few days ago:
"George Santos has co-sponsored legislation introduced in the House last week that would name the AR-15 the “National Gun of the United States.”

...last Friday by Rep. Barry Moore (R-Ala.), more specifically seeks to declare that an “AR-15 style rifle chambered in a .223 Remington round or a 5.56x45mm NATO round [would be] the National Gun of the United States,” according to a summary of the legislation."


Or how about this one from a few years back:
The Standardizing Testing and Accountability Before Large Elections Giving Electors Necessary Information for Unobstructed Selection (STABLE GENIUS) Act was introduced by Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) in 2018, poking fun at then-President Trump’s claim to reporters that he was a “very stable genius.”


I wish I had your level of optimism in thinking that the people who rule over us actually cared about governance more than "owning" the people in the other party.

 

[durangodawood]

People propose ridiculous "laws of the land" to "make a point" on a pretty regular basis these days. "Law of the land" doesn't preclude something from being a petty attempt of "making a point" or "sticking it to the other side"

Politicians aren't above being petty anymore than voters are.

Case in point, take a look at this gem of a bill that got introduced a few days ago:
"George Santos has co-sponsored legislation introduced in the House last week that would name the AR-15 the “National Gun of the United States.”

...last Friday by Rep. Barry Moore (R-Ala.), more specifically seeks to declare that an “AR-15 style rifle chambered in a .223 Remington round or a 5.56x45mm NATO round [would be] the National Gun of the United States,” according to a summary of the legislation."


Or how about this one from a few years back:
The Standardizing Testing and Accountability Before Large Elections Giving Electors Necessary Information for Unobstructed Selection (STABLE GENIUS) Act was introduced by Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) in 2018, poking fun at then-President Trump’s claim to reporters that he was a “very stable genius.”


I wish I had your level of optimism in thinking that the people who rule over us actually cared about governance more than "owning" the people in the other party.

Yes there are some pure politics gotcha style proposals out there. Fetal personhood is not among those. The proponent are serious. I dont know how that could possibly escape you if youve spent any time discussing abortion right here at CF. The evidence has been laid at your feet.

Same goes for abortion bans with no exceptions. You implied that pro-choice discussion of the issue in terms of rape, incest, and maternal health was somehow disingenuous. Nonsense. The legal threats in those terms are real and 100% serious.

None of that implies somehow that I think every proposal out there is about earnest good governance. Ive given you no basis for thinking I do.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Same goes for abortion bans with no exceptions. You implied that pro-choice discussion of the issue in terms of rape, incest, and maternal health was somehow disingenuous. Nonsense. The legal threats in those terms are real and 100% serious.

Brining it up isn't disingenuous, making it the cornerstone of one's argument is disingenuous given the stats.

If something that accounts for fewer than 2% of abortions, is the talking point used in over 75% of debates, sorry, that's just an emotional appeal.
"If you don't give us what we want, then that means you don't care about rape victims"

And it should be noted, the "unlimited exceptions for rape/incest/health, but varying caps on elective abortions" was an arrangement that most of the country was willing to tolerate even if some didn't like it. The right didn't start seriously pushing for stronger restrictions until the left started giving lip service to the "no-limits, on-demand, taxpayer-funded" ideas.

When "safe, legal, and rare" morphed into "shout your abortion", that's when the US-right really started ramping up their counter-measures.


Like I said, it resembles the original marijuana debates from a few years back. Even though only a tiny faction of people using it were actually cancer patients using it to get an appetite (while the majority of people were folks who just like getting high), every time there was a debate, someone trotted out the "it's great for people undergoing chemotherapy because it helps them eat, do you want to deprive them of that comfort?!?!"

It's disingenuous... Much like I told my fellow marijuana advocates back in the day "don't appeal to cancer patients, just be honest and say I'm an adult, and I should be allowed to smoke weed in my living room if I'm not hurting anyone else", I've suggested the same thing to pro-choice advocates on a number of occasions. "Just be honest about the reasons you really want it, and you're probably have a better outcome than the gaslighting approach aimed at people who clearly know you're trying to subvert them via emotional manipulation"

 

[durangodawood]

Brining it up isn't disingenuous, making it the cornerstone of one's argument is disingenuous given the stats.

If something that accounts for fewer than 2% of abortions, is the talking point used in over 75% of debates, sorry, that's just an emotional appeal.
"If you don't give us what we want, then that means you don't care about rape victims"

And it should be noted, the "unlimited exceptions for rape/incest/health, but varying caps on elective abortions" was an arrangement that most of the country was willing to tolerate even if some didn't like it. The right didn't start seriously pushing for stronger restrictions until the left started giving lip service to the "no-limits, on-demand, taxpayer-funded" ideas.

When "safe, legal, and rare" morphed into "shout your abortion", that's when the US-right really started ramping up their counter-measures.


Like I said, it resembles the original marijuana debates from a few years back. Even though only a tiny faction of people using it were actually cancer patients using it to get an appetite (while the majority of people were folks who just like getting high), every time there was a debate, someone trotted out the "it's great for people undergoing chemotherapy because it helps them eat, do you want to deprive them of that comfort?!?!"

It's disingenuous... Much like I told my fellow marijuana advocates back in the day "don't appeal to cancer patients, just be honest and say I'm an adult, and I should be allowed to smoke weed in my living room if I'm not hurting anyone else", I've suggested the same thing to pro-choice advocates on a number of occasions. "Just be honest about the reasons you really want it, and you're probably have a better outcome than the gaslighting approach aimed at people who clearly know you're trying to subvert them via emotional manipulation"

Medical cannabis discussion: real
Reefer madness panic: fake.

There's no automatic guaranteed pathway from medical legalization to recreational legalization. You have to legislate for each on its own merits, which is what happened in various states. So there was nothing absurd or disingenuous about advocacy for the medical position.

Same with abortion. Rape-incest-health exceptions force nothing re other so called elective reasons. Those have to be argued for on their own merits.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There's no automatic guaranteed pathway from medical legalization to recreational legalization. You have to legislate for each on its own merits, which is what happened in various states. So there was nothing absurd or disingenuous about advocacy for the medical position.

Same with abortion. Rape-incest-health exceptions force nothing re other so called elective reasons. Those have to be argued for on their own merits.

There's a difference between advocating with specificity, and someone using the emotional appeal to unfortunate circumstances as a means to get the much broader version privilege that they actually want that has nothing to do with those circumstances.

A sincere advocation for medicinal use isn't absurd or disingenuous. A person using that as their primary talking point (when the only reason they really wanted it is because they wanted to legally get high while watching Tim & Eric on Adult Swim via making up some intangible ailment to a doctor operating out of a strip mall) was disingenuous. How I know this? Because when some states did pass medicinal laws (but strictly limited it to a few key conditions unlike other states that made it pretty broad, and didn't allow prescriptions to be handed out like candy), the people who said "what about the cancer patients?" were still upset.

A similar thing is happening with the abortion debate. How I know this? Florida and Utah passed legislation, post Roe, that did leave exceptions in place, specifically for the 3 aforementioned scenarios (and even allowed state funding for people getting one for one of those 3 reasons), but then capped elective ones at 15 weeks. All of the same people making the "rape/incest/health" arguments before, got that concession from the other side and had that position accommodated, and yet they still went out and protested with "bans off our bodies signs" and declared it a "war on women".

If someone said those 3 things were the aspects that were central to their argument, for states that accommodated those, they should have no further complaints, right?


A good way to tell if a person who's advocating based on specific outlier scenarios isn't being sincere, is if, after giving them what they claimed they wanted in that specific limited scope, they still claim "no! that's not good enough!"


I'd almost equate it to a teenager asking for limited exemption to their curfew. (when you really know they want their curfew totally lifted)
- "I should be allowed to stay out past 11... because, what if I need to stay at my friend's house a little past that to cram for the mid-terms next week?".
- "Okay, you can take the car and stay out past 11, but just this once and only for that specific purpose, and you can't stay out past 11 any other time"
- "No fair!!! Why do you hate me!!!"

 

[Diamond72]

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.

They sent them to Australia. The "provisions" were seeds so they had to grow their own food. They got off to a very; rough beginning because they did not know how to grow their own food or take care of themselves.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Florida court dismisses pregnant inmate’s petition to be released over fetus’ being ‘deprived of liberty’​

A judge called the wrongful incarceration argument “illogical” and “nothing more than an attempt for the mother to leverage her unborn child as a basis to be released from lawful detention.”

The 3rd District Court of Appeal dismissed the petition without prejudice to be decided in circuit court, arguing, in part, that it is unclear whether the fetus of Natalia Harrell, 24, has the right to file the petition in the first place, and that its unborn status makes it too difficult to determine the facts in the case.

"Among other things, we do not believe we can properly resolve whether the unborn child has the standing to file the petition before us given the inadequate record in this matter," the Friday opinion said.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why aren’t you telling pro-life people to compromise from their “baby murderer” screech?

You know, I used to look at those people outside of abortion clinics with a mixture of disgust and amazement in their own ignorance about how hard they are making the process on women....but then complaining about how hard the process is on women.

They were one of my least favorite protesters.

Now though? Compared the the idiotic gaggle that destroyed their own police departments because of what happened hundreds or thousands of miles away?

Comparatively, they're downright civil.

 

[NxNW]

The 3rd District Court of Appeal dismissed the petition without prejudice to be decided in circuit court, arguing, in part, that it is unclear whether the fetus of Natalia Harrell, 24, has the right to file the petition in the first place, and that its unborn status makes it too difficult to determine the facts in the case.

"Among other things, we do not believe we can properly resolve whether the unborn child has the standing to file the petition before us given the inadequate record in this matter," the Friday opinion said.

I guess it's only a child under certain circumstances.