3 ms·
> 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 "
by 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 agoWhy 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.