3 ms·

Tangential, but since Arizona passed a law recognizing personhood at conception, it would seem they'd be guilty of unlawful detainment of the fetus if they keep

Tangential, but since Arizona passed a law recognizing personhood at conception, it would seem they'd be guilty of unlawful detainment of the fetus if they keep pregnant women as prisoners.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dahfizz 4y ago
[flagged]
- MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
  [flagged]
- outside1234 4y ago
  Honestly it is a pretty interesting argument. Again, they are arguing this, not the OP.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    No, its not. Its an r/IAmVeryClever comment. You may as well accuse mothers themselves as unlawfully imprisoning their children against their will, either born or unborn.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      The OP was saying the idea that personhood begins at conception is a poor model of reality. They are suggesting that we are picking and choosing attributes of personhood to meet our preconceived conclusions around abortion rather than making a rational assessment. They are falsifying the premise by showing its natural extension as applied to this situation. > You may as well accuse mothers themselves as unlawfully imprisoning their children against their will, either born or unborn. I think the OP would agree.
      - dahfizz 4y ago
        A kindergarden teacher is not "guilty of unlawful detainment" when they stop a toddler from wandering out of the classroom. A mother is not "guilty of unlawful detainment" by housing their young child. OP has not made some profound statement about the personhood of fetuses. They have stumbled into the murky waters of children's civil rights and flailed about. Whether a fetus is a person or not makes no difference to their hypothetical scenario.
Rebelgecko 4y ago
If we're gonna make ridiculous strawmen like that, then these mothers should be guilty of unlawful detainment for not letting the fetuses out of their wombs as soon as they were viable
- prh8 4y ago
  It's not really a ridiculous strawman, it's more indicative of how ridiculous these personhood laws are. Here in Arizona (I am here), you cannot get health insurance for fetuses, nor claim as a dependent. I would expect traffic tickets for using the HOV lanes (similar to the Texas woman doing so a few months ago). This is all political theater and it does nothing for actual life. Not to mention that 9 of the 10 worst states for maternal and fetal morbidity are red states enacting policies like this.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    I agree but this found all over the law in many instances around age / birth. In states where personhood is established at birth, you can still be found guilty of murder if your actions result in the death of a unborn person outside the limited exemption of medical abortion.
- spoils19 4y ago
  Not a bad idea, in all honesty. Conservative states are already leaning towards this, and it's something that every reader on this forum should generally support.
Natsu 4y ago
The article says the prisons are probably doing it for "liability reasons." Given the horrible state of medical care in prison in general, they're probably trying to make sure that labor happens with doctors available, rather than spontaneously when nobody might be around to provide any medical help at all.
- t-writescode 4y ago
  So they're performing a human rights violation to reduce costs in an area that's already horribly lacking?
  - cutemonster 4y ago
    Maybe they could even make some extra money: "Adding insult to injury, two of the women said they were receiving medical bills for the services provided during their labor"
  - Natsu 4y ago
    The hospital said they're doing it to protect the mother's health due to complications. So it's more like they're trying to avoid making things even worse. It is horribly lacking, and that should be fixed, but trying to make sure her baby is delivered safely isn't really reducible to "reducing costs."
    - t-writescode 4y ago
      It's lacking because they aren't paying for an on-call or easily accessible doctor; or for the staff to be able to respond sufficiently quickly to an emergency where they would be able to see the concern and then get a doctor there quickly. In both cases, part of the solution is to pay more / have better employees (that you get, in part, by paying more). That's why I argue it's "reducing costs". It's a banal and boring explanation; but, most evil is.
fbdab103 4y ago
If personhood begins at conception, does that mean we need to back-calculate birthdays? Can 20 + 3 month year olds legally drink?
- richbell 4y ago
  Apparently in South Korea everyone is "1" at birth. https://www.90daykorean.com/korean-age-all-about-age-in-korea/ https://www.90daykorean.com/korean-age-all-about-age-in-kore...
- gruez 4y ago
  It's literally called "birth"dates, not existence days or personhood days.

Tangential, but since Arizona passed a law recognizing personhood at conception, it would seem they'd be guilty of unlawful detainment of the fetus if they keep pregnant women as prisoners.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dahfizz 4y ago

[flagged]

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
[flagged]
outside1234 4y ago
Honestly it is a pretty interesting argument. Again, they are arguing this, not the OP.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  No, its not. Its an r/IAmVeryClever comment. You may as well accuse mothers themselves as unlawfully imprisoning their children against their will, either born or unborn.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    The OP was saying the idea that personhood begins at conception is a poor model of reality. They are suggesting that we are picking and choosing attributes of personhood to meet our preconceived conclusions around abortion rather than making a rational assessment. They are falsifying the premise by showing its natural extension as applied to this situation. > You may as well accuse mothers themselves as unlawfully imprisoning their children against their will, either born or unborn. I think the OP would agree.
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      A kindergarden teacher is not "guilty of unlawful detainment" when they stop a toddler from wandering out of the classroom. A mother is not "guilty of unlawful detainment" by housing their young child. OP has not made some profound statement about the personhood of fetuses. They have stumbled into the murky waters of children's civil rights and flailed about. Whether a fetus is a person or not makes no difference to their hypothetical scenario.

Rebelgecko 4y ago

If we're gonna make ridiculous strawmen like that, then these mothers should be guilty of unlawful detainment for not letting the fetuses out of their wombs as soon as they were viable

prh8 4y ago
It's not really a ridiculous strawman, it's more indicative of how ridiculous these personhood laws are. Here in Arizona (I am here), you cannot get health insurance for fetuses, nor claim as a dependent. I would expect traffic tickets for using the HOV lanes (similar to the Texas woman doing so a few months ago). This is all political theater and it does nothing for actual life. Not to mention that 9 of the 10 worst states for maternal and fetal morbidity are red states enacting policies like this.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  I agree but this found all over the law in many instances around age / birth. In states where personhood is established at birth, you can still be found guilty of murder if your actions result in the death of a unborn person outside the limited exemption of medical abortion.
spoils19 4y ago
Not a bad idea, in all honesty. Conservative states are already leaning towards this, and it's something that every reader on this forum should generally support.

Natsu 4y ago

The article says the prisons are probably doing it for "liability reasons." Given the horrible state of medical care in prison in general, they're probably trying to make sure that labor happens with doctors available, rather than spontaneously when nobody might be around to provide any medical help at all.

t-writescode 4y ago
So they're performing a human rights violation to reduce costs in an area that's already horribly lacking?
- cutemonster 4y ago
  Maybe they could even make some extra money: "Adding insult to injury, two of the women said they were receiving medical bills for the services provided during their labor"
- Natsu 4y ago
  The hospital said they're doing it to protect the mother's health due to complications. So it's more like they're trying to avoid making things even worse. It is horribly lacking, and that should be fixed, but trying to make sure her baby is delivered safely isn't really reducible to "reducing costs."
  - t-writescode 4y ago
    It's lacking because they aren't paying for an on-call or easily accessible doctor; or for the staff to be able to respond sufficiently quickly to an emergency where they would be able to see the concern and then get a doctor there quickly. In both cases, part of the solution is to pay more / have better employees (that you get, in part, by paying more). That's why I argue it's "reducing costs". It's a banal and boring explanation; but, most evil is.

fbdab103 4y ago

If personhood begins at conception, does that mean we need to back-calculate birthdays? Can 20 + 3 month year olds legally drink?

richbell 4y ago
Apparently in South Korea everyone is "1" at birth. https://www.90daykorean.com/korean-age-all-about-age-in-korea/ https://www.90daykorean.com/korean-age-all-about-age-in-kore...
gruez 4y ago
It's literally called "birth"dates, not existence days or personhood days.