4 ms·

The state isn't stopping the fetus from leaving; the inmate is.

by causi 4y ago

Timon3 4y ago
This feels similar to "the mother didn't kill the kid; the hot car did". If the state is forcing the woman to stay in a situation which is dangerous to the fetus, surely the woman which is forced to carry it to term is not responsible for the situation itself?
- causi 4y ago
  It being dangerous for the fetus seems like a separate issue she should be suing the prison about. Particularly since this is an 8-month fetus that's entirely capable of surviving outside her body were she to give birth immediately. If you had a rare blood type and a disease that required daily transfusions, and the only donor was in prison for murder, should that murderer be released so you can stay alive without having to enter a prison?
  - Timon3 4y ago
    Your described scenario is not comparable, since the issue is not that the woman doesn't want to be in prison, it's that she fears her fetus will die, which seems well-reasoned (not even mentioning the potential damage done to her in said process). So if we make your scenario comparable, and there is a good probability I might die during one of my visits - then yes, I definitely would like the option not to enter the prison for said process, and it seems incredibly cruel to force both the prisoner and his blood to stay in the prison, and to force me to get my transfusions there. Why can there not be any accomodations made? > It being dangerous for the fetus seems like a separate issue she should be suing the prison about. I can't stress enough what a strange and uncaring attitude this is. Here you have the state forcing somebody to be in prison, and the prison is in terrible conditions. Why is it not the states fault that she is put into those conditions? Why should she have to sue the prison for this? Florida is forcing her to be in those conditions, specifically both in prison and pregnant. Why is she responsible for ensuring she doesn't suffer conditions where her unborn child might die?
    - causi 4y ago
      I can't stress enough what a strange and uncaring attitude this is. Here you have the state forcing somebody to be in prison, and the prison is in terrible conditions. Why is it not the states fault that she is put into those conditions? Why should she have to sue the prison for this? Florida is forcing her to be in those conditions, specifically both in prison and pregnant. Why is she responsible for ensuring she doesn't suffer conditions where her unborn child might die? This is entirely correct, but it's related to conditions inside the prison, not whether she should be released from it. Of course she should get to see a doctor, and get her prenatal vitamins, etc. I even agree that since the prison is unable or unwilling to give her the proper medical care, she should be moved to a different, even a non-prison, facility to receive that care. But it has fuck-all to do with any sort of "improperly incarcerating a fetus".
      - Timon3 4y ago
        > But it has fuck-all to do with any sort of "improperly incarcerating a fetus". If you're putting the focus on "improperly incarcerating a fetus" instead of "improperly incarcerating a fetus", I can see how it would have fuck-all to do. But since it's a willfully negative reading I don't see why you'd do so. Consider that other countries do what the lawyer is asking for - allowing pregnant people to serve prison sentences from their homes. Why is it so incredibly ridiculous to you to even entertain this thought, even though it would help in this situation (by saving the fetus' live)?
        causi 4y ago
        Why is it so incredibly ridiculous to you to even entertain this thought, even though it would help in this situation (by saving the fetus' live)? It isn't ridiculous to me. Even if it was, it wouldn't matter, because that isn't the topic. The title is "Florida lawyer argues pregnant inmate’s fetus is being illegally detained." My position is that argument is ridiculous, not that the woman in question doesn't deserve competent medical care regardless of what circumstances are necessary to achieve it.
  - washadjeffmad 4y ago
    The thing with unborn babies is that you don't know for certain whether or not they can survive until they do. Following the compulsory blood donation logic (presumably happening in a universe where someone could survive daily blood transfusions), why not just cut out all babies as soon as they're statistically likely to survive outside of their mothers? Why should a woman have any say in how long an unborn child gestates within them if it's not medically and scientifically required? Surely the cost of cesarean recovery is less than the potential risk and damage of allowing women to decide to give birth naturally?
- hbrn 4y ago
  > the state is forcing the woman to stay in a situation which is dangerous to the fetus Woman actions led to her being imprisoned, why are you blaming the state all of a sudden? State just executes the rules that she knew in advance. If she were to gamble away all her possessions in a casino, would you say that casino is responsible for taking away the resources necessary to support the child, and therefore should be punished?
  - Timon3 4y ago
    > Woman actions led to her being imprisoned, why are you blaming the state all of a sudden? I might have missed it, but what law is there that crimes shall be punished by being put into a situation which might kill your unborn fetus? Her actions led to her being imprisoned. The state led to her being imprisoned in a dangerous situation. She is NOT responsible for the situation being dangerous, ONLY the state is.

The state isn't stopping the fetus from leaving; the inmate is.

by causi 4y ago

The state isn't stopping the fetus from leaving; the inmate is.

This feels similar to "the mother didn't kill the kid; the hot car did". If the state is forcing the woman to stay in a situation which is dangerous to the fetus, surely the woman which is forced to carry it to term is not responsible for the situation itself?

causi 4y ago
It being dangerous for the fetus seems like a separate issue she should be suing the prison about. Particularly since this is an 8-month fetus that's entirely capable of surviving outside her body were she to give birth immediately. If you had a rare blood type and a disease that required daily transfusions, and the only donor was in prison for murder, should that murderer be released so you can stay alive without having to enter a prison?
- Timon3 4y ago
  Your described scenario is not comparable, since the issue is not that the woman doesn't want to be in prison, it's that she fears her fetus will die, which seems well-reasoned (not even mentioning the potential damage done to her in said process). So if we make your scenario comparable, and there is a good probability I might die during one of my visits - then yes, I definitely would like the option not to enter the prison for said process, and it seems incredibly cruel to force both the prisoner and his blood to stay in the prison, and to force me to get my transfusions there. Why can there not be any accomodations made? > It being dangerous for the fetus seems like a separate issue she should be suing the prison about. I can't stress enough what a strange and uncaring attitude this is. Here you have the state forcing somebody to be in prison, and the prison is in terrible conditions. Why is it not the states fault that she is put into those conditions? Why should she have to sue the prison for this? Florida is forcing her to be in those conditions, specifically both in prison and pregnant. Why is she responsible for ensuring she doesn't suffer conditions where her unborn child might die?
  - causi 4y ago
    I can't stress enough what a strange and uncaring attitude this is. Here you have the state forcing somebody to be in prison, and the prison is in terrible conditions. Why is it not the states fault that she is put into those conditions? Why should she have to sue the prison for this? Florida is forcing her to be in those conditions, specifically both in prison and pregnant. Why is she responsible for ensuring she doesn't suffer conditions where her unborn child might die? This is entirely correct, but it's related to conditions inside the prison, not whether she should be released from it. Of course she should get to see a doctor, and get her prenatal vitamins, etc. I even agree that since the prison is unable or unwilling to give her the proper medical care, she should be moved to a different, even a non-prison, facility to receive that care. But it has fuck-all to do with any sort of "improperly incarcerating a fetus".
    - Timon3 4y ago
      > But it has fuck-all to do with any sort of "improperly incarcerating a fetus". If you're putting the focus on "improperly incarcerating a fetus" instead of "improperly incarcerating a fetus", I can see how it would have fuck-all to do. But since it's a willfully negative reading I don't see why you'd do so. Consider that other countries do what the lawyer is asking for - allowing pregnant people to serve prison sentences from their homes. Why is it so incredibly ridiculous to you to even entertain this thought, even though it would help in this situation (by saving the fetus' live)?
      - causi 4y ago
        Why is it so incredibly ridiculous to you to even entertain this thought, even though it would help in this situation (by saving the fetus' live)? It isn't ridiculous to me. Even if it was, it wouldn't matter, because that isn't the topic. The title is "Florida lawyer argues pregnant inmate’s fetus is being illegally detained." My position is that argument is ridiculous, not that the woman in question doesn't deserve competent medical care regardless of what circumstances are necessary to achieve it.
- washadjeffmad 4y ago
  The thing with unborn babies is that you don't know for certain whether or not they can survive until they do. Following the compulsory blood donation logic (presumably happening in a universe where someone could survive daily blood transfusions), why not just cut out all babies as soon as they're statistically likely to survive outside of their mothers? Why should a woman have any say in how long an unborn child gestates within them if it's not medically and scientifically required? Surely the cost of cesarean recovery is less than the potential risk and damage of allowing women to decide to give birth naturally?
hbrn 4y ago
> the state is forcing the woman to stay in a situation which is dangerous to the fetus Woman actions led to her being imprisoned, why are you blaming the state all of a sudden? State just executes the rules that she knew in advance. If she were to gamble away all her possessions in a casino, would you say that casino is responsible for taking away the resources necessary to support the child, and therefore should be punished?
- Timon3 4y ago
  > Woman actions led to her being imprisoned, why are you blaming the state all of a sudden? I might have missed it, but what law is there that crimes shall be punished by being put into a situation which might kill your unborn fetus? Her actions led to her being imprisoned. The state led to her being imprisoned in a dangerous situation. She is NOT responsible for the situation being dangerous, ONLY the state is.