Yet another example of the "war" on women (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

erieangel -> Yet another example of the "war" on women (3/18/2012 1:44:19 PM)

I know this is alternet (for which I'll undoubtedly get bashed for using) but when a good story comes along, does it really matter the source.

quote:

Numerous organizations and leaders who identify themselves as pro-life have assured the public that their efforts to re-criminalize abortion and establish the unborn as separate legal persons will not result in the prosecution and imprisonment of women. Yet, in Alabama alone, the claim that eggs, embryos and fetuses have separate legal rights has provided the basis for arresting approximately 60 women.


The '06 AL law under which these 60 women have been prosecuted is titled "Endangerment of Exposing a Child to an Environment in Which Controlled Substances are Produced and Distributed". It makes no mention of pregnancy, pregnant women, fetuses, drug use or any other words that would make it applicable to women who are pregnant, addicts and decide to try to bring the pregnancy to term.

And the AL court of Criminal Appeals has agreed with the lower court that "child" includes a viable fetus and therefore may be used to prosecute pregnant women who go to term and try to bring life into this world despite having used a controlled substance.

Worst yet, if the word "child" in this law means "viable fetus" surely it would extend to all other laws, including the state's child abuse and related laws. Since cigarette smoking can be dangerous to a fetus, will it now mean that a woman who continues to smoke cigarettes during her pregnancy could be accused of, prosecuted for child abuse? And what about many health problems which are treated by controlled substances?

This law and the way it is being applied is opening up a very slippery slope for women of child bearing years. I envision a future where specific laws for pregnant women--what they can and can not do/what they should eat/how they should behave--are laid out. Erasing freedom for women of child bearing age and during pregnancy in particular. Because, you know, yes women are just too stupid to know what is best for ourselves, our families and our unborn children.


http://www.alternet.org/story/154586/how_the_%22pro-life%22_movement_puts_women_behind_bars?akid=8429.286161.dUc1KG&rd=1&t=8

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/alcode/26/15/26-15-3.2




Arturas -> RE: Yet another example of the "war" on women (3/18/2012 4:36:51 PM)

quote:

This law and the way it is being applied is opening up a very slippery slope for women of child bearing years. I envision a future where specific laws for pregnant women--what they can and can not do/what they should eat/how they should behave--are laid out. Erasing freedom for women of child bearing age and during pregnancy in particular. Because, you know, yes women are just too stupid to know what is best for ourselves, our families and our unborn children.



First, let's remember what "freedom" is. "Freedom" is the ability to do whatever you wish as long as it does not hurt someone else. Is the law intended to treat women like they are objects of control for controls sake or is this intended to protect someone from the irresponsible actions of another, in this case their mother. Do you think all women act responsiblity and so must not be controlled by such a law?

Think "Jerry Springer" before you answer.

In conclusion, and this is the real post, does this law protect some one else from what are clearly irresponsible and selfish actions? If so, I think it is a good law.

P.S. I don't "bash" women. I do bash men sometimes, true enough, but that is just a guy to guy thing.



farglebargle -> RE: Yet another example of the "war" on women (3/18/2012 4:45:22 PM)

quote:

Do you think all women act responsiblity and so must not be controlled by such a law?


The problem here is that you're making the mistake of thinking that people are 'controlled by such a law'.

The subtext as we're talking about women is chilling.

Just think about the way you framed that for a few moments.



GotSteel -> RE: Yet another example of the "war" on women (3/18/2012 4:58:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel
And the AL court of Criminal Appeals has agreed with the lower court that "child" includes a viable fetus and therefore may be used to prosecute pregnant women who go to term and try to bring life into this world despite having used a controlled substance.


It's easy to conclude that a single celled orgasm like a zygote isn't a human being but pointing to exactly when it does become a human being is difficult because it's an analog not a binary process. It slowly becomes more human like over time. We've as in our government have taken the position of viability. I can't really agree with that but I also don't have a simple clear line to replace it with so [sm=dunno.gif]

However, as a practical matter it does seem like forcing women to detox by locking them up is better for both parties than doing nothing. At the very least I hope we can agree that, being a crack baby is bad.



erieangel -> RE: Yet another example of the "war" on women (3/18/2012 8:23:48 PM)

quote:

being a crack baby is bad.



True enough. But it also opens the door for potential abuse, as with prescription medication, or even legal drugs like cigarettes, alcohol. Even caffeine is said to be unhealthy for a developing fetus. And factory work, which requires heavy lifting isn't optimal, yet my daughter did that (at a factory that manufactures fire hoses) up until 3 days before my granddaughter was born.

Are we really stepping into an era in which pregnancies are now closely monitored, not by a doctor but by the state and any woman doing anything that might be unhealthy to the developing fetus is arrested and charged? Just because a woman is pregnant does not mean she gives up her rights as a human being. We are more than incubators.




GotSteel -> RE: Yet another example of the "war" on women (3/20/2012 6:16:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel
The '06 AL law under which these 60 women have been prosecuted is titled "Endangerment of Exposing a Child to an Environment in Which Controlled Substances are Produced and Distributed".


Here's the thing, even in one of the crazy states like Alabama this has been around for years and only actually effects about 10 people a year. The same sort of thing happens in my state, a google search isn't immediately showing me which law it happens under but I know one of the people who provides health care to such women so I can tell you that it's been happening in NH for years.

Personally, I'd be really surprised if it wasn't happening across the US, I suspect that things have effectively worked like that regardless of whether or not there's a special law for it for quite some time and the world hasn't ended.

I really don't think that law is putting us on the brink of some dystopian future where women are nothing more than incubators. You don't need to engage in slippery slope fallacies or conspiracy theories on this one, the war on women is so damning to the Republican party that all you need to do, all you should do, is talk about what they are actually doing at the moment.



Moonhead -> RE: Yet another example of the "war" on women (3/20/2012 6:30:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
At the very least I hope we can agree that, being a crack baby is bad.

There's no question of that.
The debate comes in when you start propounding enforced rehab as a solution to the problem. To put it in conservatese for you: it'd be a lot quicker and easier to terminate the pregnancy then let the skank get back to whoring herself to buy more rock...



hlen5 -> RE: Yet another example of the "war" on women (3/20/2012 9:54:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

quote:

being a crack baby is bad.


Are we really stepping into an era in which pregnancies are now closely monitored, not by a doctor but by the state and any woman doing anything that might be unhealthy to the developing fetus is arrested and charged? Just because a woman is pregnant does not mean she gives up her rights as a human being. We are more than incubators.




Yes, the US is moving to Romania.



hlen5 -> RE: Yet another example of the "war" on women (3/20/2012 9:56:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
At the very least I hope we can agree that, being a crack baby is bad.

There's no question of that.
The debate comes in when you start propounding enforced rehab as a solution to the problem. To put it in conservatese for you: it'd be a lot quicker and easier to terminate the pregnancy then let the skank get back to whoring herself to buy more rock...


You forgot to mention the obligatory sterilization!



GotSteel -> RE: Yet another example of the "war" on women (3/20/2012 9:58:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
There's no question of that.
The debate comes in when you start propounding enforced rehab as a solution to the problem. To put it in conservatese for you: it'd be a lot quicker and easier to terminate the pregnancy then let the skank get back to whoring herself to buy more rock...


Um...we don't just let crack addicts who aren't pregnant "get back to whoring herself to buy more rock".



Moonhead -> RE: Yet another example of the "war" on women (3/20/2012 9:59:11 AM)

Mea culpa.
[;)]



hlen5 -> RE: Yet another example of the "war" on women (3/20/2012 10:02:43 AM)

Just don't let it happen again[sm=oops.gif][;)][;)][;)]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125