|
In that case I am having trouble following both sides of the argument.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
There are so many things to address but I'm phone posting so I'll just examine the last one. The argument is "just because the law will cause people whose attempted suicide induced their own miscarriage to be jailed doesn't mean the law is a bad idea." This only makes sense if you view a fetus as a full person. However, even if you do, it makes the law target only women, which is pretty unfair. Yes, if someone attempted to commit suicide by shooting themselves and they misfired and shot someone else in the room, they would rightly be prosecuted for the injury/death of that person, but there is just no way a man could swallow poison and spontaneously cause some other human to die. So right out of the gate, this type of murder charge affects women only. Given that some of the women who have been prosecuted under this law didn't even know they were pregnant, it means that we have breakdowns like this: Of all men in that state, x% will attempt suicide in their lifetime and x% will not succeed on at least one attempt. Of all women in that state, x% will attempt suicide, of those x%, x% will not succeed on at least one attempt, and of those x% will have been pregnant during that attempt and x% of those will lose their pregnancy as a result of the attempt. That last group is now subject to criminal prosecution. You may say that group is small - but I can guarantee you that the number of men being prosecuted for same is 0. Bear in mind also that unless a person is terminally ill, the decision to commit suicide is never a rational one. It is one made by a person whose thinking is disordered in some way (probably by depression). Statistically speaking, most suicides are spur of the moment. Furthermore, going back to the stats above - women are more likely to attempt suicide by poisoning themselves than men. Men are more likely to use firearms, one reason why they tend to succeed more often than women. Looking at it that way, given that poison is the suicide of choice for women, personhood laws have the perverse effect of targeting depressed women disproportionately. And how is society served by jailing a woman whose suicide induced her own miscarriage? Is it because they are dangerous and need to be locked away from the general public? Absent a history of violent crime, the person has proved themselves to be a danger only to...themselves. "Ah, but she'll serve as an example to other suicidal women! Don't try to commit suicide or you might miscarry the pregnancy you may or may not have!" one might say. Research has shown, however, that people who attempt suicide are not behaving rationally. Suicide is nearly always a "crime of passion," as it were. Not to mention it's pretty gross to tell women to behave as if they might be pregnant at all times - by that logic women should never be allowed to drink or run in marathons until menopause. The other argument would be "she committed manslaughter, no two ways around it," which brings me back to the above point, there is zero way for a man to commit manslaughter by poisoning himself (unless you dream up some crazy scenario like "pilot takes 300 sleeping pills while flying passengers," which, come on, is deliberate murder-suicide.) a manslaughter charge should come when someone does something that a reasonable person knows could endanger the life of another. And on to the economic concerns - this jailed person is now without a job, probably now unemployable, and is living on the taxpayer's dime. Any children she may have in the future are more likely to make use of taxpayer funded welfare programs. Any existing children she may have are either now in a one-parent household (if they're lucky) or are now wards of the state. Just to cap it off, I think it's entirely within reason to put the following hypothetical person in jail: a depressed woman gets in her car and decides to kill herself by driving the wrong way down the interstate at 100mph. She crashes head on into a motorcycle, killing the driver. She should receive a manslaughter charge because even a suicidal person knows doing that will hurt somebody. So someone who believes fetuses should be considered full people may say "yep this law makes men and women unequal under the law, but so what, it will punish baby-killers." Here's another angle to consider - the women going to jail are almost all poor. They are almost all minorities. Wealthy white women don't get in trouble for this. In supporting this law you are supporting terrorizing more poor families. Because fetuses are people, but white women's fetuses are less people than others. White people do get off easier in aggregate for manslaughter charges, but for these self-induced miscarriages where it all comes down to a doctor's subjective opinion, how many will see the suffering white woman whose suicide attempt caused her to miscarry and think "she looks like my daughter!" vs a POC he can write off as "ugh, another one of those irresponsible blagh people!" Personhood laws are insane and cause undue suffering. If you care about human life you must oppose them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:There are so many things to address but I'm phone posting so I'll just examine the last one. The argument is "just because the law will cause people whose attempted suicide induced their own miscarriage to be jailed doesn't mean the law is a bad idea." quote:However, even if you do, it makes the law target only women, which is pretty unfair. Yes, if someone attempted to commit suicide by shooting themselves and they misfired and shot someone else in the room, they would rightly be prosecuted for the injury/death of that person, but there is just no way a man could swallow poison and spontaneously cause some other human to die. quote:Personhood laws are insane and cause undue suffering. If you care about human life you must oppose them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:Men can injure pregnant people in a way that causes fetuses to die. Clearly abortion laws disproportionately affect pregnant people, but I think abortion laws survive a strict scrutiny analysis if you presume that protecting fetuses is a good thing whatsoever (which I don't, but if you want to argue a law is bad, you need to convince the people who think it is good). Pretty sure this one would be covered under rape laws, but in the end, the target of the law is the female, not the male as the male is not carrying the fetus. Let me help you again: The Bill as was set before the Alabama legislature requires the mother to show that the miscarriage was 'natural', or face felony charges up to life in prison. The Bill specifically makes it near to impossible for the defendant to defend themselves, and unduly makes women the targets of prosecution. Creating bills to 'protect fetuses' is just a poor mans end run around Roe Vs. Wade. There is no other way this can be interpreted. The groups that back these laws are overwhelmingly anti-abortion, and generally the same ones who push laws to limit/close abortion access. Mississippi's law makes it possible to prosecute a mother for stillbirths related to drug use, etc. These laws are not there to protect fetuses. They are there to target women. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Pretty sure this one would be covered under rape laws, but in the end, the target of the law is the female, not the male as the male is not carrying the fetus. Ok Alabama did a thing, I haven't read the thing Alabama did, but I'll believe you for now. This has nothing to do with anything I've said. Yes obviously bills that protect fetuses are trying to ignore Roe v Wade (or perhaps provoke an appeal to overturn Roe v Wade). No one suggested we interpret it any other way. Xibanya was noting that abortion laws has disparate impact on women (which is true), but the relevant standard for that is strict scrutiny, and I think that whether or not abortion laws in general pass strict scrutiny is based on whether or not you think fetuses need protection, which means that the disparate impact argument is ineffective against the people you are trying to convince that abortion laws are bad things. There's been several circular arguments in this thread that only work if you already believe abortion laws are bad. edit: Ok Mississippi also did a thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Just because officials might misuse the Poll Tax doesn't mean we shouldn't have one!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The bill specifically required women to 'demonstrate that their miscarriage was natural or face felony charges' Wow, that innocent until proven guilty thing sure was fun, wasn't it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
i am pro life, feel free to hate me (and your parents) d&d
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The bill specifically required women to 'demonstrate that their miscarriage was natural or face felony charges'
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Blue Raider posted:i am pro life, feel free to hate me (and your parents) d&d You inject your child with love rather than vaccines as well, a true American.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Blue Raider posted:i am pro life, feel free to hate me (and your parents) d&d It's cool, some people know their desire to control women can't be defended or rationalized. Never be afraid to be yourself!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Blue Raider posted:i am pro life, feel free to hate me (and your parents) d&d What a contribution to the thread!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Blue Raider posted:i am pro life, feel free to hate me (and your parents) d&d I am so mad IRL right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
Blue Raider posted:i am pro life, feel free to hate me (and your parents) d&d i'm mad your parents didnt abort you to spare us from your posting
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
First the anti-choice movement made up a thing called “partial-birth abortion.” Now they’re trying the same thing with “dismemberment abortion.” http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/01/31/3617078/fetal-dismemberment-bills/
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Cannibal Holocaust Abortions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:Right, a good reason to oppose abortion laws is because they cause undue suffering, not because overzealous prosecutors might abusively prosecute people who had spontaneous miscarriages. By what twisted logic does getting hosed over by an rear end in a top hat prosecutor not count as "undue suffering"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:By what twisted logic does getting hosed over by an rear end in a top hat prosecutor not count as "undue suffering"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
twodot posted:First, it's not at all clear to me that abortion laws lead to prosecutions of people who had spontaneous miscarriages. Someone earlier tried to provide some examples, but none of them were relevant. If abortion laws don't lead to that, then it would not be included in the "undue suffering" caused by abortion laws. More importantly, if your standard is "We should not have laws which an overzealous prosecutor might abusively prosecute people for", then you won't have any laws. The correct way to deal with bad prosecutors is fire them, not rewrite laws, which they will continue to abuse anyways. nah you should do both
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
This is what happens when lawmakers with agendas think they can make decisions about your medical treatment, despite having little to no training in the medical field.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Women Who Had Abortions After 20 Weeks Explain Why They’re Necessary http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/02/03/3618460/20-week-abortion-stories/ From the article: quote:“When people talk about fetal pain, it infuriates me, because that was our goal,” Mary O’Donnell, a Virginia resident who had a post-20-week abortion back in 2005, told ThinkProgress. “Our goal as parents was to avoid suffering on behalf of our child.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 10:58
|
|
|
Also relevant http://feministing.com/2015/02/04/indiana-woman-found-guilty-of-feticide-and-neglect-for-having-a-miscarriage/ quote:Yesterday a jury convicted Purvi Patel, the Indiana woman arrested after miscarrying and seeking help at the ER, after five hours of deliberation. She faces a maximum sentence of 70 years in prison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
How horrifying. I'm curious about what evidence they came up with to claim she induced her own miscarriage.
Pixelated Dragon fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Quite possibly they didn't and the jury just didn't like the look of her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
A miscarriage is a terrible and traumatic thing to go through. Why would anyone want to further victimize women who endure such a tragedy if there is little to no evidence that they induced it? And where will it stop? Will this country start blaming women when they give birth to ill babies?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Pixelated Dragon posted:A miscarriage is a terrible and traumatic thing to go through. Why would anyone want to further victimize women who endure such a tragedy if there is little to no evidence that they induced it? And where will it stop? Will this country start blaming women when they give birth to ill babies? a lot of people have really visceral emotional reactions to dead fetuses
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Also relevant quote:During the trial, the prosecution was unable to prove that Patel took abortion pills quote:they’ll still hold her accountable since she admitted to taking drugs to try to self-abort. Anti-abortion laws are bad, but we should have some basic consistency in facts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Pixelated Dragon posted:A miscarriage is a terrible and traumatic thing to go through. Why would anyone want to further victimize women who endure such a tragedy if there is little to no evidence that they induced it? And where will it stop? Will this country start blaming women when they give birth to ill babies? A lot of anti-abortion sentiment is about punishing women for being in control of their sexuality. It's the patriarchy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
twodot posted:Umm... from that same website: She wanted to abort. What's the problem? Considering Indiana has spent a lot of money trying to close down abortion clinics and make abortions hard to get, its surprising that someone might try to self-abort?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Oh man, this sucks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:She wanted to abort. What's the problem? Considering Indiana has spent a lot of money trying to close down abortion clinics and make abortions hard to get, its surprising that someone might try to self-abort?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
twodot posted:My main problem is that people are posting articles with blatant lies in them. No no no, hang on, even if we accept that the article has a lie in it, you've made it pretty clear you are okay with prosecuting women who self abort. I'm still not buying that you are actually pro-choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No no no, hang on, even if we accept that the article has a lie in it, you've made it pretty clear you are okay with prosecuting women who self abort.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:She wanted to abort. What's the problem? Considering Indiana has spent a lot of money trying to close down abortion clinics and make abortions hard to get, its surprising that someone might try to self-abort? According to http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/04/purvi-patel-found-guilty-feticide-unborn-childs-death her parents are strict hindus that wouldn't approve of having a kid out of wedlock, let alone having sex. I wouldn't be surprised if that's why she wasn't very knowledgeable on safe abortions, or that even acting on it would cause a ton of shame from her parents if they found out. Throw that in with the anti choice jury she got too. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
This makes it a lot more grey now. Better access to first-trimester abortions in the state of Indiana could have easily prevented this. I still don't think she should have been sentenced to jail for this.
Pixelated Dragon fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
twodot posted:Umm... from that same website: In a text to a friend she talked about it. She didn't admit guilt in a court of law or anything and it was never proven that she took them, so far as I can tell, and the two charges directly contradict each other; it's impossible (both legally and in the sense of "This makes no loving sense you moron!") to both neglect your child and commit pre-birth infanticide - which shows that the prosecutor wasn't concerned with consistency or reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:In a text to a friend she talked about it. She didn't admit guilt in a court of law or anything and it was never proven that she took them, so far as I can tell, quote:According to court records, Patel said in text messages found on her phone that she had taken drugs to try to terminate her pregnancy quote:and the two charges directly contradict each other; it's impossible (both legally and in the sense of "This makes no loving sense you moron!") to both neglect your child and commit pre-birth infanticide - which shows that the prosecutor wasn't concerned with consistency or reality. quote:A person who knowingly or intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus commits feticide, a Level 3 felony. edit: Preemptive note to CommieGIR: noting that laws aren't contradictory is not an endorsement of said laws. Bad things can be bad without being contradictory. twodot fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Is abortion flat out illegal in indiana or something? I thought it was legal everywhere in the US?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Is abortion flat out illegal in indiana or something? I thought it was legal everywhere in the US?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
So er, I guess the morning after pill is illegal and physicians aren't "persons" for the purpose of that law? It's just weirdly worded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:29
|
|