[flagged]
Of course they can, we do it all the time. Children, for example, are people and they have very limited rights (especially in the area of freedom of movement).
Exactly, therefore the claim in OP that "They can't claim a fucking fetus is a person and then not give it rights." isn't really sound. Our legal systems already claim that some beings (children in this example) are persons but that they aren't entitled to the full range of rights that adults enjoy.
Please do note that I'm not trying to argue any related issues (such as the legality of abortions), just that claim made by OP.
(The systems for that are in terrible shape too, but that's a separate issue.)
The physical location of the mother doesn't make any difference to the child's rights. The baby is stuck inside the mother's womb either way. However, if the police are preventing the mother and her child from receiving needed medical care, that is a violation of the child's rights! The lawyers are right to complain in such a case.
It is difficult to square that statement with "pro-life from conception" as mentioned earlier. On the one hand you recognize the need for nuance, and in the other case not.
* Right to an attorney to represent it and its needs. (6th Amendment)
* And the right to bring a Habeas Corpus suit before the court.
In short the argument is going to go like this:
Jail is a dangerous place. If the mother is killed, likely the fetus/person will be killed as well. Hence the Habeas plea.
I think if you are at all serious about fetuses attaining personhood status (with all the rights and privileges thereof), you would want the court to do something to protect the life of the fetus here, even if the court can't separate the mother from the fetus.
100%. The mother should be kept in good conditions, isolated from other inmates that might harm her child, with adequate medical care.
Preposterous. Sleep, diet, activities, even socializing all impact the development of a fetus. These are the domains of choice to which free people are entitled, none of which are freely available in a cell.
It's not just "medical care" to which we're entitled. Even sunlight must be an option.
Harrell, 24, has been jailed without bond since July, when she was accused of fatally shooting another woman and charged with second-degree murderBeing accused of murder can lead to detainment, which naturally bears the risk of temporarily detaining innocent people. That's the tradeoff society has agreed to.
The state has improperly seized that property and inhibits its conversion into a birthed human being that inherits all constitutional rights.
(this framework exists outside of the pro-life pro-choice false dilemma)
Malicious Compliance. It opens a whole can of worms they weren't prepared for.
Really, I see it the same as any parent transporting their own kids. The real point of the carpool lane is to reduce the number of cars on the road by having multiple adults who are able to drive share a vehicle. Nonetheless we already make exceptions for other passengers who can't drive.
Until reality hits and you get arrested/cited.
Both arguments are the same, why do you only see one as ridiculous?
Really, it's ridiculous logic from both sides, I don't see where one side has an argument that is not conflicted by that sides previous assertions.
Since the state is keeping the mother imprisoned it should provide adequate care
¿Please stop calling it a "fucking fetus"? You are offending not only me and people I care for, but also yourself.
This is really a poor justification for suppressing speech. There will always be someone who is offended.
First, the mother is 8 months pregnant - there is virtually no developed country that allows abortion this late in the pregnancy. Unless you are for abortion right up to the point of birth, you are in the same dilemma as the pro-life people you rail against.
Second, for this to be a real legal issue you would need to demonstrate some sort of damages to the child. If the unborn child is safe and receiving adequate care, how are his rights materially affected by his mother being in jail? His amount of liberty is precisely what it was before.
> First, the mother is 8 months pregnant - there is virtually no developed country that allows abortion this late in the pregnancy.
[1] - https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-polici...
Denying necessary medical intervention is cruel and harmful. Patient and doctor should be left to it, as nothing about that decision gets better by getting the law involved as well. Big government is not helpful in this case.
You know all of this. This is the substance of Mr Buttigieg 's comments in 2019
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/pete-buttigieg-shut-down-t...
Most people believe that if the life of the mother is in danger at any point, abortion should be available. Not everyone, but the vast majority. Most people believe that there needs to be a cut off at some point (generally after viability, but this varies) where non-medically necessary abortions should not be legal. If you take a poll of 100 people, how many would support a non-medically necessary abortion at 8 months? Not many. So then the question is, why are there states with zero restrictions that late in term?
As to your claim that "nobody" would abort that late in term unless medically necessary, we know that is categorically false. Hundreds of already born children are murdered by their parents every single year in the US, so it's inexcusable to give them legal cover to do it prior to birth when the child is viable.
What is the difference between an elective abortion at 8 months and just smothering the baby after its born?
This may be true, but "should". the law can and does differ.
But agreed, it should be a medical decision only, as to if it's necessary.
> we know that is categorically false. Hundreds of already born children are murdered by their parents
That's not the same thing at all, so you haven't given any evidence of falsehood of the statement at hand here, you've just tried to equate something else.
Your imaginings about infanticide are uninteresting, and I think wrong, but it also seems that you would rather pick nits about this insane comparison, so no.
> Your imaginings about infanticide are uninteresting
https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.16...
There is actually a metric shit ton of research on infanticide, I'm not sure what would lead you to pretend it's not real.
> I'm not sure what would lead you to pretend it's not real
Word games. Again: pointless distraction, dishonest, uninteresting.
Burden of proof remains on you.
I don't think that's literally true, but irrelevant. I, and most pro-life people I know support medical necessity as a valid exception to an otherwise general prohibition. Again, also irrelevant.
The question is, do you support the right to non-medically necessary abortions at 8 months, or not?
If you don't, then you are implicitly stating that the child has a right to life, and thus you are in the same (supposed) dilemma posed by this article as pro-life people.
What our disingenuous friend is ignoring is that if someone wanted to be rid of a fetus, why on earth would they wait 8 long hard months? Why endure late pregnancy for no reason? It would be easier to end it at 5 months, easier still at 3. And easier before then.
What exactly do you think of Mr Buttigieg 's comments above? He does mention this.
> I support medical necessity as a valid exception to an otherwise general prohibition.
And does the law concur? Are you invoking the Shirley exception? https://issuepedia.org/Shirley_exception/origin
> The question is, do you support the right to non-medically necessary abortions at 8 months, or not?
I think that this is a decision between patient and doctor, and nobody else. My ignorant view is not wanted, yours neither and especially not the law's. if you claim "medical necessity as a valid exception" then you actually don't disagree much.
As I said above: "Patient and doctor should be left to it, as nothing about that decision gets better by getting the law involved as well. Big government is not helpful in this case."
> I think that this is a decision between patient and doctor, and nobody else.
My statement is simply that there is no reason not to prohibit elective abortions after some point in the pregnancy. Typically this is at viability, which is around 24 weeks. If you claim no woman would ever get an elective abortion at 8 months then I would imagine you also believe no women would ever get an elective abortion after 6 months (ie 24 weeks, the point of viability). Therefore there is no reason not to restrict elective abortions after that point.
And a doctor, decides what's medically necessary, and decides to perform it or not. This is daft semantic hairsplitting, again. Stupid word games, not a productive debate.
> Therefore there is no reason not to restrict elective abortions after that point.
Ans also no reason _to_ restrict them. Which makes the whole statement quite pointless. But we don't bias in favour of excessive pointless laws and government intrusion on private matters, now do we?
You don't get direct answers because your questions do not come across as seeking clarity, just a) "gotchas" and b) going down garden paths.
> And a doctor, decides what's medically necessary, and decides to perform it or not.
> Ans also no reason _to_ restrict them.
How is an elective abortion at 32 weeks any different from killing an infant?
And yes, technically if you support abortion without restriction that you avoid the dilemma presented in this article, but then you have arguably much bigger ethical dilemmas to work through, which is why support for such policies is outside the norm for those who are pro-choice.