An Alabama woman was imprisoned for ‘endangering’ her fetus. She gave birth in a jail shower
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/13/alabama-pregnant-woman-jail-lawsuitOpen linkView original on lemmy.world1407
Comments312https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/13/alabama-pregnant-woman-jail-lawsuitOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
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.
Excuse, more like sales pitch. You get together a bunch of old men who want to control women they will come up with the idea of being cruel to them when they disobey. Sounds pretty fucked up, how would you get people to agree? Don't worry about that, they will sell the idea abortion is murder. You wouldn't feel sorry for a murderer would you?
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.
It's only good for the private prison industry that funds their campaigns, and bad for pretty much everyone else.
Alabama is a conservative confederate state. This is their preferred political outcome, yes, exactly.
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 see. Well clearly this police department deserves your blind faith.
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
So weird that you replied so many hours before my post.
Safer physically? Maybe. Questionable give the state of our foster care system. It's almost never a better alternative. 15 years for that is vile.
I highly encourage you to talk to some of them and educate yourself. Go read some threads about the abuse they experience.
I don't know why I'm still engaging with someone that thinks 15 years for doing drugs while pregnant is even remotely acceptable. Especially since it's clear they didn't give a shit about the baby at the end of the day. I guess I just hope that some of you will still come around and realize that women are humans who fuck up and we don't deserve to be held ransom every time some dipshit knocks us up.
If you do feel this strongly about babies then I hope we can at least agree that child support starts at conception and men that endanger babies by impregnating drug addicts should be in prison with them.
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!
No, it was full-blown torture. There's no room for interpretation here.
Geez. I don't even know what to say. Miscarriages are way more common than people realize. In fact, it's possible that miscarriages out number full-term pregnancies. There are so many NORMAL biological factors that could trigger a miscarriage.
It's an incredibly complex and nuanced field of biology, and this simplistic mindset of "miscarriage means bad woman" is both disturbing and alarming.
I've read estimates that miscarriages make up as much as 75% of all pregnancies, but many are early so women just think their period was late.
Ya, I was going to mention that also, but I didn't want to write too much in my comment.
Edit: I mean about the late period thing. It's incredibly common.
Off topic but which country and what demographic ?
Earth and human.
The high rate comes from estimating the number of miscarriages that happen in the first 6 weeks, often before someone knows they are pregnant and the miscarriage is dismissed as a heavy or late period.
The traditional miscarriage stat comes from only looking at known pregnancies, and even it is likely higher than most people realize.
Regardless which stat you use, miscarriages are way more common than most people think.
I see so mothers of age 20-30yrs in Germany have same chance of miscarriage as 50-60 years olds North Korean mothers, that is 75%. Since evidently demographics doesn't matter.
Now seriously, why i asked that: No source stated. Every age, country etc has this ratio different. Some countries have problem due to late pregnancies (35+yrs) due their culture. Other have trouble because of malnutrition. Some have better conditions.
So before i take number as fact and start to spread it as such, i want to know it's a fact or at least narrow it down to the demographics and possibly the source.
Otherwise tomorrow there will be new expert say it's actually 1% or 99% and according to this logic we would have to update our knowledge every-time.
You missed the whole point. We don't have good statistics from miscarriages, because everyone counts the numbers differently, and when you add in the fact that some people don't really realize they've had a miscarriage, you have a very nebulous stat.
The point is that certainly miscarriages are more common than most people think, and likely even more common than that.
My comment was not to prove that their stat was correct, but to explain why the stat varies so much. Your comment about demographics, although I'm sure it was meant innocently, can be taken as looking to blame a certain demographic for doing something wrong that causes their miscarriage numbers to be higher.
I have not disproved the part that say unknown percentage of miscarriages takes place. It's logical.
However if someone places exact number, it should be based on aomething. If the number has no base, as such it has no value l, at least for me.
As for second part about hatespeech accusations.
I don't see how statistics can blame someone for doing something wrong .
To me the logic is vise versa. If some demographic group is not doing so well or is doing very well. It will be reflected in statistics if measured. If given source stats can be compared and differences in measurement methods reduced or highlighted.
We had three before we brought my son to term.
Sorry to hear that. We were in a similar situation. It's rough. My wife still breaks down emotionally on the projected delivery date of the first one we lost. All the what could have beens. 😭
I do think about it every so often, the only reason I don't get as emotional is because I have terrible memory for remembering specific dates. Took me almost 10 years to get my wife's birthday right. Still get it wrong sometimes.
A lot of miscarriages happen because something is wrong with the fetus. The "what might have been" would likely have been a lower quality of life than anyone deserves.
In their minds, women have one job. And if the baby dies, then the girl obviously did a bad job.
I've never heard of it, but now I'm disturbed and alarmed about the people who hold that opinion.
Yeah, but god and Jesus and stuff, let’s punish women because we believe in Bronze Age myths.
Iron age. You can be dismissive but at least be accurate
The books are from the Iron Age, the myths are from the Bronze Age.
Actually, even in Bronze Age myths, life begins when the baby takes its first breath. If anyone wants, you can listen to an in-depth (and often very funny) discussion on Data Over Dogma's "Abortion and the Bible" episode here.
Sure, but we still need to punish women for having sex. (Genesis 38:24, Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:21, Leviticus 19:20, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Leviticus 20:18)
This (and policies of not naming a child until it's lived a certain length of time) are direct consequences of high rates of prenatal and neonatal mortality. That is, life begins at the first breath because otherwise you have to consider an outright crushing number of dead babies. And when you are arguing divine justice is a thing, that gets real hard real fast.
Absolutely. I'm sure high infant mortality rates had a huge influence on the parts of Hammurabi's Code that got adapted into laws in the Bible. Until it could survive on its own, a fetus was basically the property of the would-be father (though so was the would-be mother, yuck), so they were obviously quite desensitized.
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.
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.
With what money? You can't just travel across the country for free lol. Getting to another state alone is a good chunk of money for gas a lot of the time. Then what? Sleep in their car? Alone? In a place completely bereft of any kind of support or familiarity?
Why can’t you travel the country for free? Or at least bus tickets are very cheap.
Yeah, you just don't get it and I don't know how to explain how difficult it would be to do that alone with nothing. I don't know if it's something that can be explained to someone that hasn't struggled.
I’m literally speaking from experience. And I also don’t own a car because it’s a money sink. I left everything behind I couldn’t fit in a box and moved across my country because I figured if I was going to struggle anyway, it may as well be where the grass is green. And while I have left all my family support behind, I have actual social support. There is so much more to where you live than what you have.
Are you a dude? I'm not asking this to be argumentative I just need you to understand that it is extremely different when you have to worry about if you'll be molested or worse when you sleep. I'm not saying it isn't hard for men to strike out on their own at all. I'm also absolutely not saying that men don't also get assaulted. I promise, I know it can be so difficult for anyone. Women have so many additional hurdles on top of that. I was homeless at 17 and the amount of people that "helped me out" but then expected sexual favors in return was fucking gross. No Kevin, you don't get a blow job because you brought me some stale ass donuts from your convenience store job ffs 🙄
I've been there too and the fact that men can just sleep on a bus stop, out in the open, in relative safety automatically gives them a privilege we simply don't have. Women's shelters can be great if you can find one with space. Even then some of them are grossly religious and as stifling as the situations these women want to escape from. A woman got kicked out of one of the shelters I stayed in because she had condoms in her dresser drawer. I guessing men don't get kicked out of anywhere because someone found out that they might be having sex.
those people are so incredibly brainwashed by conservatives, they will happily vote to their own detriment. but yay. fox news. free market. yay.
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.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
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
These people don't have the right to call themselves Christian. They just use that word to back up their actions with unchallengeable authority.
And yet that's how the Christian majority chooses to vote.
Being a majority doesn't automatically make a group right. But unfortunately it does make them the loudest.
How is that not Christian exactly?
The Bible doesn't teach dominating and torturing people, for one.
Tell us you haven't read the Bible without telling us you haven't read the Bible.
Just in case you think that's all OT, Eternal torture was a NT invention. At least when OT God ordered you tortured and killed, that was the end of it.
I have read the Bible. In extreme detail, many times. "Hell" isn't a biblical teaching. It wasn't even a concept to the ancient Jews and Israelites. It's not OT or NT.
Show me something that directly supports a literal eternal torture from the Bible. And parables from Jesus aren't supporting scriptures, because of their very nature being parables, which are figurative stories to convey a lesson or point for teaching.
First off it was. Secondly the Romans had a concept of it and Christianity is basically paganism with a Jewish accent.
Oh, if it is to convey a message then why did Jesus say this?
Let me repeat the moneyshot because I think you will ignore it
Jesus is very very clear here that he speaks in parables so people who are not worthy won't understand and won't be able to repent or even stop what they are doing wrong.
It isn't a command, since humans don't have that ability. Hell is described by Jesus in Luke 16. Humans being human, all sorts of temperal tortures have been justified as doing the victim a favor by potentially saving them from eternal torture, but I don't think that is explicit in the text.
As an aside, over half of Christians (Catholics and Eastern Orthodox primarily) consider the teachings of the church to be the primary root of the faith, not "sola scriptura" as came in with protestantism. All sorts of religiously justified torture arose on both sides of that divide though.
Jesus is pretty clear in Mark that he talks in parables so some people won't understand and go to hell.
Mark 4:11-12
🤣 What do you think hell is exactly?
Hell is not in the Bible.
The words often translated as hell are She'ol and Ge'henna.
She'ol is translated 31 times as hell, 31 times as grave, and 3 times as pit in the King James version.
The word itself is derived from sha'al which means "ask" or "request" because "the grave is always asking for more". Implying that death is always waiting. (Death in this context being the state of death, not "Death" the horseman, which itself is figurative).
She'ol is not a specific grave, but rather the "common grave of mankind". It refers to the state of being dead. As in "everyone goes 6ft under".
It doesn't refer to a "place of hell" and sure as hell (heh) doesn't refer to a place of torture.
Ge'henna is a short form for "Valley of Hinnom". It was a place outside of Jerusalem where Kings Ahaz and Manasseh engaged in idolatrous worship which included child sacrifices. Those Kings and their followers were executed and had their bodies dumped in that valley, left to rot and not buried, so that carrion eaters would desecrate their bodies and deprived from an honourable burial. And then the place was turned into a garbage dump to further dishonour them.
Jeremiah 7:31 - "They have built the high places of Toʹpheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinʹnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, something that I had not commanded and that had never even come into my heart."
So saying someone went to Ge'henna was akin to saying someone displeased God so badly that they will not be honoured by Him and he finds their actions "detestable".
Nothing to do with a place of torture.
“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)”
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)”
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
Timothy 2:12
"But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head. For if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should cover her head."
Corinthians 11:5-6
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
Colossians 3:22-24
"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them"
Titus 2:9-10
“Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.”
Peter 2:18
You're cherry picking without context.
For example, the quote about slaves in Exodus was not a teaching. It's historical context about law at that time. That verse was intended to prevent brutalities towards slaves (which at the time were either hired labourers or in indebted servitude who literally sold themselves to pay off a debt, they were freed or "released" when the monetary value of their debt was paid off. It's not the same as the term for slavery we commonly associate with the it today). The only time a slave was to be beaten was for punishment, like attacking another person, stealing, raping, etc. It's not like they had the local Sheriff's office they could call, so land owners (who were often days away from nearby settlements) would be the legal authority of that area.
The wording that if a slave survives for a day or two was used to determine intent, as it was considered that if someone survives for a couple days after being punished then something else was also the cause of death, and not a direct result of the punishment enacted.
Ultimately the point here is that this isn't a "teaching" in any way. Some things in the Bible are just historical facts and context.
Timothy 2:12 (I know you mean 1 Timothy even though you didn't specify, because there's a 1 Timothy and a 2 Timothy) also needs context, because that scripture is about spiritual matters. It's like a chain of command for the purposes of order. This is something that you cannot pull a single scripture out and use only that as an example. There are many other scriptures that expand on this. For example, a man/husband is supposed to treat his wife like his own body and like a "weaker vessel" (implying a delicate and gentle approach), and anyone who does not hates himself and God.
Corinthians 11:5-6 - (which Corinthians? There's two of them) how is this torture? It's just about head coverings, and one that's often taken out of context. Verse 11 and 12 say *"Besides, in connection with the Lord, neither is woman separate from man nor is man separate from woman. 12 For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God."
Verse 15 also says "For her hair is given to her instead of a covering"
Basically neither man or women are better than the other, both are from God and that's all that matters.
Titus 2:9-10 - You could literally replace "slave" with employee and "master" with boss or CEO, and then no one would say boo. As I mentioned earlier, the term slave is not the dehumanizing one we often use. Its modern counterpart is very close to "employee".
Colossians 3:22-24, Leviticus 25:44-46, Peter 2:18 - same argument, because the term slave in these verses are not what you are attributing to it.
Edit: clarified about indebted servitude being about paying off a debt
This is probably the worst abuse of the "but context!" argument I have ever seen. Consideration of context is one thing, but you are just making up a more palatable meaning because that's what you want to see. There is no actual context that changes what these verses mean, and your charitable interpretation of the word 'slave" is actually removing the true historical context.
Context is king.
Absolutely not. The meaning of a single verse is meaningless without the broader context. Something that says "you must obey Jesus" means nothing until you understand *who" Jesus is.
I think you're mis-applying a different historical context.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery
"Broadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner."
It's not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.
Hired laborers and indentured servants whom you could beat and abuse, and had no freedom of their own. Hmm, I wonder if there's a word for that...
The wording that if a slave survives for a day or two was used to determine intent, as it was considered that if someone survives for a couple days after being punished then something else was also the cause of death, and not a direct result of the punishment enacted.
It's not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.
You're very clever, congratulations.
You can give all the context you want, that's sexism, plain and simple.
A chain of command you cannot change, that is not based on knowledge or experience, but on what's between your legs.
Or not so clever, I guess.
We have this wonderful new technology called google. Feel free to use it.
Or not, since it was created by the devil of science.
Forcing women to shave their heads sure sounds like dominating to me...
Men aren't forced to shave their hair, and using your analogy, they are always higheron the chain of command than women.
Except CEOs aren't allowed to beat up employees, and employees are free to leave.
"Employees, be subject to your CEOs with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse."
And all of this not even talking about the rampant homophobia, genocide, etc commanded in the bible
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery
"Broadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner."
"Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another was not permitted.[16][17] Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude.[15] Slaves were seen as an essential part of a Hebrew household.[18] In fact, there were cases in which, from a slave's point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom."
"Although not prohibited, Jewish ownership of non-Jewish slaves was constrained by Rabbinic authorities since non-Jewish slaves were to be offered conversion to Judaism during their first 12-months term as slaves. If accepted, the slaves were to become Jews, hence redeemed immediately. If rejected, the slaves were to be sold to non-Jewish owners. Accordingly, the Jewish law produced a constant stream of Jewish converts with previous slave experience. Additionally, Jews were required to redeem Jewish slaves from non-Jewish owners, making them a privileged enslavement item, albeit temporary. The combination has made Jews less likely to participate in enslavement and slave trade."
"The Torah forbids the return of runaway slaves who escape from their foreign land and their bondage and arrive in the Land of Israel. Furthermore, the Torah demands that such former slaves be treated equally to any other resident alien."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude
"Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an "indenture", may be entered "voluntarily" for purported eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed "involuntarily" as a judicial punishment. "
Yes, there's a lot more in that Wikipedia page, but Jewish history expands well past the Bible and the 1st century. I'm just focusing on the Biblical period.
Slavery pre-American colonial settlement is far more nuanced than people realize. Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast goes into immense detail in the Humane Resources episode (and that's "humans as resources" in the title).
Is it though? Because 1 Corinthians says "For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.” Which is to say neither men or women are above the other, they are equal to God.
True, but an employee at a large company cannot become the CEO (yes, I know it's "technically" possible, but how often does that happen?). I know you'll disagree on this, and that's fine, we can disagree. But my position is that this "order" isn't oppressive in any way. There's no privilege or power in the role (there isn't supposed to be, but we know that it has been abused countless times). It's only meant to be a role to be assign leadership to a clearly defined person in the family. A "leader" doesn't control the people they are leading, they simply the person that gives guidance for the group as a whole. Anyways, we're going to disagree on this.
I knew which Corinthians was being referenced. I was pointing out that OP keeps referencing scriptures without giving all the details. Which matters because they've been touting their expertise and deep knowledge in the topic.
Men (in ancient Israel) are required to do other things, like cut the tip of their genitals off.
Taking a single example is cherry-picking. There are many things that were required of both men and women, and people in all different stations.
Because in modern days we have extensive and well established legal codes and policing infrastructures. Back in the Bible on a farm being worked by many people, the closest settlement would have been many hours, if not days away. There was no local police station, no 911 or emergency services. Land owners were thus expected to be the ones enforcing the law on their land. We also have extensive and meticulous laws covering all kinds of topics, scenarios, and conditions that are recorded in explicit detail. Back then most people didn't read, and if they did they definitely didn't have any access to a copy of the law. As such laws were often simple and not complex so that the average person could grasp and remember them.
That being said, slavery in the Bible isn't what you think it is (as I mentioned earlier in my comment). A slave would only receive such punishment if they did something extremely heinous, like murder someone.
Edit: formatting, clarification
Book of Revelations, read it, and get back to me.
I have read it. No hell. Can you cite specifics?
.....yeah the whore of Babylon made out perfectly fine.
So no specifics then.
Tell me you’ve never actually read the Bible without telling me you never read the Bible
Tell me you've never really studied the Bible without telling me.
I have read the Bible, in detail, for decades. Go look at my other comments in this thread for an idea of what I'm talking about.
Haha, are you high?! The Bible is full of torture! Look at the story of Job, or the commandment to rape young girls after slaughtering their families (Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.” Numbers 31: 17-18)
If that isn’t enough for you, what about all of the various times god commands his people to stone each other for everything from cheating (Deuteronomy 17:2-7) to talking back to your parents (Proverbs 13:24; Proverbs 19:18; Proverbs 22:15)?
Or how about allowing torture with slaves? Check out Exodus 21:20-21 to learn more.
And before you go all “the Old Testament doesn’t count” on me like Christian’s are wont to do (as though picking and choosing various bits out is ok while ignoring all the fucked up bullshit instead of owning it and saying that yeah, women are worthless and deserve to be raped for no reason at all (Lot’s daughters, in case that wasn’t clear to you)) Jesus was tortured during his crusifiction, because I guess god wanted it that way?
So yeah, the god of your bible absolutely promotes torture. And if you’ve actually read it like you claim you have, you’d know that.
https://lemmy.world/comment/4605883
So as I said in my original comment: the Bible doesn't teach torture, not "torture is nevet mentioned in the Bible".
This wasn't torture, it was literally punishment or execution. And I know you'll come up with some excuse like "why didn't a soldier just do it?" or "why did those things merit execution?" You would be missing the point. We're not talking about the differences in modern culture to theirs or societal laws. We're talking about torture.
The article was about a disadvantaged pregnant woman who was tortured. Someone mentioned something about Christianity, and all I said "the Bible doesn't teach torture".
On the other hand the christians that are ashamed of this are not doing enough to show their disapproval
"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.
Where did you read that? It's literally nowhere in the article. Unless you have another source that states as much?
Maybe, but saying "psychiatric medication" is a far cry from "serious mental issues".
It’s right there in the article. She has issues. Still doesn’t deserve what she got but she definitely needs proper help
I just checked. The word "mental" is nowhere in that page or article. So where are you getting this from?
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.
Because the act of driving drunk is, itself, illegal. Drunk driving isn't framed as vehicular manslaughter of a non-person. If a person is hurt, that's a separate offense.
There's a difference between the potential to hurt an unspecified individual, and the potential to hurt a specific entity that may or may not exist in the future.
What was being discussed was not "drinking while pregnant", but "engaging in risky behavior while intending to carry to term". Closer to "drinking while intending to drive".
In any case, I'm still not sure I'm in favor of it. One can't unknowingly get drunk and drive a car, but one can unknowingly become pregnant and have a drink.
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.
That's a different case, everything in the news article and lawsuit happened in 2021 but this one from the sheriff's page is from 2022
Assuming it's the same person and the sheriff's office is being truthful, it doesn't look like any of these awful events did anything to protect her children or stop her drug addiction
So it's your contention she was incarcerated in 2021 for conduct she engaged in during 2022? Because that seems like a violation of the Constitution, along with like laws of physics, but I really just don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
The comment I was responding to said [paraphrased] "if your goal is to give birth and you use drugs when you know you're pregnant that should be a crime." I just pointed out that we don't know if she knew she was 2 months pregnant in March 2021 when she was arrested, resulting in this jailhouse shower birth in October 2021. Whatever she's alleged to have done in 2022 and any arrests that resulted from that doesn't have anything to do with that question.
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.
Least brain rotted US government:
What?
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.
Fortress has arrived
So… why are the guards not being arrested for child endangerment? Why is this a lawsuit and not a criminal matter?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.