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?
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?
conservatives dont create logical policies. there is absolutely nothing logical about their 'platform'... except maybe 'brainwash masses to accumulate wealth'
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.
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.
I don't know why I'm still engaging with someone that thinks 15 years for doing drugs while pregnant is even remotely acceptable.
I don't know why I'm engaging with someone who insists on misrepresenting my statements, so let me do a favor for the both of us and block you, goodbye 👋
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.
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
I know exactly what they meant. What I don't know is how it's related to what I said.
We can have a conversation about how our prison systems treat prisoners. Which we'll likely agree on
Or we can have a conversation about police abuse of power, which we'll probably also agree on.
Or we can have a conversation about our broken criminal justice system, which seems boring because again, we'd probably just agree.
Or we can have a conversation about whether pregnant mothers, in general, should be allowed to be imprisoned for attempting to kill their unborn children, but it seems like people just want to derail the conversation with irrelevant arguments.
No, your "red thread" was that it was just to take the baby away with cps(?) because she either did or does narcotics. And somehow you feel it is derailing to even take any question outside the narrow scope of it.
It is what people are discussing, it is a health issue. Both addiction and abortion are.
was that it was just to take the baby away with cps(?) because she either did or does narcotics
Yes that's correct, good job.
And somehow you feel it is derailing to even take any question outside the narrow scope of it.
Except it's not "outside the narrow scope", it's got nothing to do with my statement. And you know that you can't argue with my statement so the only way you can "win" is to argue about something else entirely.
It is what people are discussing
It is not what I was discussing, nor was it what the person I replied to was discussing.
You quoted the article as reporting on "accusations" that the mother tested positive for meth while pregnant. Your interlocutor seems to have glossed over that since it is possible for a party to claim something without evidence backing it up.
But say they did have evidence that she ingested meth. In a state like Alabama, there is a strong incentive to skew evidence to support the widespread belief that women don't have a choice over whether they reproduce or not: if you have sex, then you must have your kid.
So, your interlocutor was merely calling into question the source that produced the accusations, as well as any other sources that produced evidence that showed she ingested meth recently while pregnant, possibly leading to the accusations.
The point about whether foster care is more or less sufferable than dying pre- or postnatal is not what your interlocutor was addressing.