What a hellhole of a country for woman. One step closer to Afghanistan.
Removed by mod
Intersectionality matters. Every one of the male/straight/cis/white/neurotypical/Christian/rich/conservative boxes you check may put you further down the list of targets for fascists, but make no mistake, you will be targeted eventually and you’ll have fewer and fewer people left to fight back alongside you.
Removed by mod
This also has the added layer of jailing someone who is struggling with addiction. Oof.
This poor woman needed treatment, not a manslaughter conviction.
Willing to bet her state doesn’t have comprehensive sex education or free/cheap contraception. Welcome to creating a problem so you can ensure a poor and sick population to imprison.
Removed by mod
It didn’t so you’re not making a point.
Removed by mod
Have you stopped beating your wife?
What if her addiction was a dog, would you pet it?
Removed by mod
Addiction is not something you can control. In a way she was sick and there is not very much she could have done. Sure, “don’t take drugs while pregnant” or “don’t get pregnant while being an addict” sound like obvious things, but drugs can cloud your judgement.
And that is before you even think about what constitutes as a “someone”. I don’t even want to start the discussion on it, but there IS the question of when a fetus counts as another life/person.
Removed by mod
They should be rehabilitated in an institution that is set up to help them beat the addiction and re-join society.
If necessary, they should be removed from society and locked up, if they pose a danger to others.
Putting them in a typical American prison that is designed to make their life as miserable as possible while extracting free labor helps neither them, nor the victims, nor society.In 1991 an alcoholic got drunk and killed my 16 year old brother with his car. Are you suggesting that he should not have gone to prison but instead should have been sent for treatment? I’m not so sure things are as black and white as you say.
Removed by mod
I don’t think you read the comment you are replying to:
If necessary, they should be removed from society and locked up, if they pose a danger to others.
Putting them in a typical American prison that is designed to make their life as miserable as possible while extracting free labor helps neither them, nor the victims, nor society.Removed by mod
Depends on the crime, the motive and their state of sanity.
Generally, it’s for a court to decide.Removed by mod
And if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a bike.
Removed by mod
A couple years ago I watched one episode of this show where women are slaves. Stopped because it was so unrealistic.
Me today: The show was probably right.
In case you were unaware, that show was based on a book written in 1985, which was based on real events that had all already happened by that point (and had been, for time immemorial).
It continuing to happen now should only surprise (or seem unrealistic to) those not paying attention, probably because they aren’t impacted personally. Yet.
The author has publicly said she’s seeing it come true.
Really? I couldn’t watch it because I thought it was too realistic.
I had to stop watching it for the same reason.
I was like why subject myself to this depressing show when I’m already subjecting myself to the news.
Shit, Republicans probably stroke themselves at what a utopia Gilead is.
Gilead is ethnically diverse also though, so that probably puts them off a bit.
Can’t imagine how much worse it is now three years later.
What the FUCK is going on in this theocratic third world country with cellphones and guns??? How the fuck is the US still considered a leading nation???
If you step outside the US you might find out we’re not viewed as leading.
Threatening? Manipulative? Maybe even petulant? Sure. But leading by fear first, everything else after. Now we add fear of our instability to the mix alongside with the normal fear of economics or bombs.
The only people saying we’re a leading nation are the ones wanting you to feel good and/or ignore all the bullshit we do inside and out. The ones that yell “leading” or “greatest” the loudest are the ones fucking us over the hardest.
This pretty well sums up what ya said
A great speech. But it has never been true. America has never been the greatest nation. It has had the greatest marketing though.
Yep. I share that video fairly often. It’s too true.
I’ll offer this one in a similar vein:
Stop adhering to the propaganda pushed on you and you’ll see that America is not what it claims to be. America won’t heal until you HATE it.
fr fr no cap 🧢
I’ll let Kris Kristofferson explain it from 1991: link
They arrested an addict whose drug use may have led to a miscarriage, or who may have just had a miscarriage completely unrelated to the drug use, or a mixture of multiple issues.
There is no difference between this and obesity, alcohol, smoking, or poor diet. Obesity has a voluntary aspect to it, and increases your chances of miscarriage. Eating non-nutritious foods, micro plastics, not taking prenatal vitamins can all contribute to miscarriage. Getting into a car accident while voluntarily driving while pregnant, staying with a violent husband who beats you while pregnant… I mean where do you draw the line at making the pregnant woman 100% responsible for anything that happens while she is pregnant?
Ideally women are never charged with a crime for seeking or attempting an abortion. That should settle the issue.
It’s unfortunate that the solution is as simple as it is and it’s not being implemented.
I mean where do you draw the line at making the pregnant woman 100% responsible for anything that happens while she is pregnant?
Oh that’s very easy. The line is drawn at being rich and white.
The cruelty against poor and preferably non-white women is the whole point of such laws.
I love all the shades of grey that arise when you open a pandora box of biopolitics.
Anyone who would arrest or prosecute someone because they had a miscarriage deserves to be beaten to death. In Minecraft.
You don’t have to say “In Minecraft” it’s not a direct threat.
I had a very similar comment removed by some coward before.
What a shit hole country
The examiner did not determine a cause of death for the foetus, noting genetic anomaly, placenta abruption or maternal methamphetamine use could have been contributing factors.
How unusual is it for no cause of death to be determined in a post-birth-human case and there still be a murder conviction?
Did you know you can significantly degrade the integrity of concrete and cinder blocks using something like dexpan demolition grout and a drill?
Or just a few pounds of sugar when the concrete is wet. Concrete needs to be able to bond to the water molecules to cure, but dissolved sugar prevents that. So the concrete will never actually cure, and will crumble back into dust when it dries instead of turning solid. Anyone with a hardhat, safety vest, and work boots could blend into a large construction site long enough to lob a bag of sugar into a concrete mixer.
I’m not saying you should use it to oppose police stations, prisons, roadways immediately surrounding capitol buildings, etc from being built or repaired. But you could.
I see this online, how true is it though? like do I need a bag of sugar or just a few sprinkles.
You need enough sugar to bond to enough water molecules to prevent enough concrete from bonding to it. It’ll take a pound or more, because you need to “capture” the water molecules before the concrete can. The nice part is that you don’t need to be careful about it; You can just pop a bag or two straight into a concrete mixer, and let the mixer do its job.
Ideally maybe repack the sugar into a basic brown paper bag that will dissolve and not leave much in the way of trace dyes or waterproof packaging
But according to some geniuses, both parties are same.
Considering the totality of the suffering they cause they’re almost identical.
If you actually believe that…
This BBC title is a click bait. It should have in the headlines a disclaimer that the person was using heavy drugs. The article says:
"When she arrived at hospital seeking treatment, Poolaw admitted to using illicit drugs while pregnant.
Later, the medical examiner’s report, obtained by the BBC, found traces of methamphetamine in her unborn son’s liver and brain.
The examiner did not determine a cause of death for the foetus, noting genetic anomaly, placenta abruption or maternal methamphetamine use could have been contributing factors."
And why should that be a manslaughter charge? It’s a fucking fetus.
Because she’s a meth addict and they’ve worked hard to ensure she’ll be beneath empathy for many folks.
At 23/24 weeks of life a fetus has 55% - 70% of chance of surviving outside the mother as a regular human. Source: Wikipedia
I don’t know how old the fetus is, but if it was more than 23 weeks old, it is a human too.
I would probably be accused of manslaughter if I injected methamphetamine on you during your sleep and you died from that.
The article says she was at 16-17 weeks
Yes, you are right. It says this on the end of the article:
"Poolaw was about 16 to 17 weeks pregnant when she miscarried - probably the earliest term pregnant woman to be charged in the US, according to Ms Sussman. "
My jizz has a pretty good chance of surviving as a human too if met with an egg, but we don’t charge people for cumming on a woman’s back
Your jizz has a chance greater than 50% of surviving as a human only after the 23rd week after finding an egg, and only if you don’t abort it before
I meant in general, not outside of the mother, but my point is that we don’t have any obligation to create a human at any stage of the process. And we especially shouldn’t have any obligation to succeed
That’s your opinion. This topic is difficult to get everybody on the same page and get enough votes to get a nationwide change, so the best is If the opinions of people living in Texas doesn’t get imposed on people living in California and vice versa.
That’s why it’s better if the voting regarding rules about this is done state-wide, and not nation wide. At this level you have more chance of getting what you want.
Except addiction is a disease, injecting a pregnant person while they sleep is textbook assault. If the disease wasn’t addiction would the mother still be culpable? What if a pregnant person has a disease but the treatment will cause a miscarriage. Just because she is/was an addict doesn’t mean you can just write her off.
Yup, and look at all the people raging in the comments that clearly didn’t even get past the headline.
yea or maybe they read far enough down the bbc article to see the string of historical examples. or maybe just the general context of this being published 2 years ago, and the criminalization of miscarriage has gotten way more prevalent. disingenuous af
And there it is. This is the main reason I’m effectively pro-choice, while technically being pro-life.
In case anyone cares, here’s my specific policy preferences:
- women can never be charged with a crime for seeking an abortion - it’s the woman’s right to do with her body as she chooses
- the government should not be involved at all while miscarriage risk is high (say, 20 weeks or so)
- doctors should be the targets for any illegal abortion procedure, and medical data cannot be the subject of a subpoena (that would otherwise violate the women’s privacy)
- after the initial “hands off” period, doctors (or anyone other than the mother) could only be charged with a crime for knowingly performing an abortion illegally, and abortions would be allowed to preserve the mother’s life or to euthanize the child if complications would be significant
- if a mother decides to not keep the baby, the delivery should be performed as early as is safe, and the costs would be covered by the state
I’m okay with abortion being technically illegal, but the above would likely make it legal for all intents and purposes, and I’m okay with that.
Tell me you understand nothing about the risks of pregnancy without telling me.
Natural miscarriages =/= abortions.
One is planned, controlled for, with after care. The other one can potentially lead to sepsis and death.
I completely agree with you, and that’s precisely why I’m effectively pro-choice. Women should have absolute privacy here.
My wife has had a miscarriage before, and my coworker had to walk back a pregnancy after a miscarriage. I’m absolutely sympathetic to that, hence why I’m so adamant that privacy is always respected. I also think women have absolute control over what they do with their body, so even if they are trying to induce a miscarriage, I think the should be completely free to do that and never the subject of a criminal charge.
I’m not sure how what I wrote could be misconstrued to the contrary.
I’m okay with abortion being technically illegal, but the above would likely make it legal for all intents and purposes, and I’m okay with that.
Do you have any ideas how few doctors are going to be willing provide care if this is the state of abortion law?
I’m okay with abortion being technically illegal
As someone who has never been involved with an abortion and would not want that choice made, I am not.
Why wouldn’t doctors want to? The first trimester is essentially a blank check (the vast majority of abortions), and everything after that has a pretty high bar (intent plus sealed medical history). The likelihood of anyone getting charged is incredibly low, especially if they can point to any form of medical expediency.
It would be similar to the self-defense laws in many red states, they’re so loose that charges almost never stick if there’s any possibility that it was self defense.
The short answer is liability.
Here’s where we already are in the current circumstance, just pick the article you want: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=ob%252Fgyn+leave+red+states
But why start out with a goal of “technically illegal but defacto legal” - that seems inherently bad no matter what the issue is. The laws should be what we agree the laws to be, not what we agree them to be but then wink and fail to enforce.
The “goal” here is to respect the rights of both the mother and the child. The mother has a right to her body, but the fetus also has a right to life. Usually it’s easy to craft policy such that “my rights end where yours begin,” but they overlap in this case.
It doesn’t make sense to me to give the woman priority just because she can communicate her wants and needs. I think pro-life people generally go way too fast in prioritizing the rights of the unborn, and pro-choice people go too far in prioritizing the rights of the mother. So that’s why I have this compromise, it:
- prioritizes the woman’s rights at the most important time - limits harassment about miscarriages, allows confidentiality in cases of rape and incest, and provides a backup plan for those who cannot afford to be mothers
- retains the mother’s discretion in handling medical issues
- prioritizes the fetus’ rights at all other times
- errs on the side of the mother if there’s a conflict (e.g. mother’s life is at risk)
I think it’s a fair balance. It does prioritize the mother, but only when the alternative involves likely harassment of many innocent innocent people (like in the article), so I think it’s a fair compromise.
There needs to be exactly two groups involved in deciding to terminate a pregnancy: The pregnant person, and their medical team, with the pregnant person’s choices taking precedence over everyone else’s. If they want an abortion, they get one. If the doctors believe that the pregnancy is non-viable or carries an extreme risk to the parent, then the decision to terminate should be made only by the pregnant person.
It would be similar to the self-defense laws in many red states, they’re so loose that charges almost never stick if there’s any possibility that it was self defense.
And the doctors now risk getting arrested and having their mugshot published for everyone to see, having to go to court to fight it, possibly spending time in jail while waiting for trial. There’s a saying “You may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride”.
If they want an abortion, they get one
I agree, but only for the first half of the pregnancy.
If the doctors believe that the pregnancy is non-viable or carries an extreme risk to the parent, then the decision to terminate should be made only by the pregnant person.
Also agree. Abortion for medical necessity should be allowed for the entire pregnancy.
And the doctors now risk getting arrested
Only if they violate the above. Doctors can already get arrested for malpractice, and I see this as essentially euthanasia of an unwilling patient. Police would need to prove intent to violate the law.
I think it’s incredibly unlikely that doctors would actually be arrested unless they’re knowingly doing a lot of illegal abortions.
I’m okay with abortion being technically illegal (…) doctors should be the targets for any illegal abortion procedure
Moderates Libertarian Discussion
The joke writes itself.
How so? Abortion is a hotly debated topic among libertarians. Many are in favor on the grounds the women should be in complete control of whatever happens in their body. Those against point to the rights of the unborn as something to be protected as well (in a similar sense as a mentally unwell person who cannot assert their own rights).
Both sides want privacy to be maintained, and that was the grounds for Roe v Wade. I’m arguing that we should have something like Roe v Wade on the books as law that makes abortion effectively legal, but have enough protection of the fetus that it’s technically illegal if there’s no medical reason for it to be performed.
So in short, here’s my proposed policy:
- first 20 weeks - no restrictions, and have that enshrined in law; there’s too much at stake for the woman here - the only restriction is if the woman has willfully learned of the gender (again, needs to be proven without access to medical history)
- before viability - only doctors may be prosecuted, and only on the grounds of performing an abortion they knew to be medically unnecessary (must prove motive, in other words); again, no access to personal medical records, and there can maybe be a carve-out for women who didn’t know they were pregnant until the second trimester
- after viability - only doctors may be prosecuted, and only on the grounds of medical necessity (as in, even an emergency delivery is impractical; doctors are held more liable since it would need to pass the “reasonable person” standard); if the mother chooses to not keep the baby, the delivery would be funded by the state
That’s a pretty loose policy which prioritizes the privacy of the mother at every turn and completely allows it during the most important period (when miscarriages are high and women are learning that they’re pregnant).
You can’t say a woman is free to seek an abortion if you’ve taken away their option for safe care, which making doctors liable will do. All your plan will do is drive them to back-alley abortionists or attempt abortion by themselves.
The option would exist in the first half or so of the pregnancy, which is when the vast majority of abortions and miscarriages are performed. So for 95%+ of women, it would be the same as full abortion legalization.
So the only time “back alley” abortions would exist is after the fist 20 weeks and if there’s no medical necessity. That’s a pretty small edge case.
A person who wants the State to threat with violence to the possibility of a person not accepting their body to be used for the sake of another, having their health and even life be put at risk for it, is not a libertarian. Would you want the State to force people to have their blood extracted if there were patients in hospitals requiring blood to survive, but not enough supply? A person who replies yes is not a libertarian; a person who replies not, but is fine with prosecuting doctors or patients for performing or seeking abortions is a hypocrite.
I explicitly said women should never be charged with a crime for seeking or attempting an abortion. I said doctors should be charged for performing an illegal abortion since they’re directly harming the fetus. Doctors would know where this line is, which must meet be after the first 20 weeks or after the mother knows the gender, and is not medically necessary.
I’ll say it again too be clear, mothers should never be charged with attempting to abort their own pregnancy. Ever.
It’s a good thing I answer no to your question. Doctors can be charged with malpractice, and that’s what I see this as, it’s like euthanizing an unwilling patient (I’m in favor of legalizing consensual euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide though). The fetus hasn’t consented and cannot consent, so doctors are responsible for preserving its life where possible.
And the government has an obligation to every child born to make sure it is healthy and happy from then on.
Um, no? Parents have the obligation to make sure their kids are healthy and happy, and the state should only step in if parents either give up that responsibility or fail to uphold it. That’s why we have child protection services, public schools, Medicaid, etc.
But at the end of the day, it’s not the governments job to take care of you or your children, that’s your responsibility. The government should only step in if you’re incapable or unwilling to do it yourself. It’s a safety net, it’s there to catch you.
Great! So glad I’m responsible for building schools, teaching, paving roads, making baby formula, developing vaccines, providing neonatal care, being a pediatrician, providing daycare, being a dentist, being a pharmacist, growing food, being a bus driver, and more!
Or does the word ‘infrastructure’ not exist in your vocabulary?
When did I say infrastructure isn’t a good thing? We’re all responsible for contributing, that’s what a society is. I’m merely saying it’s not someone else’s job to take care of you, that’s your job, though there should be safety net to make sure everyone has a fallback plan.
If you are going to force women to give birth, you damn well better plan for and support with your votes a robust social support system for them and their children. Lengthy maternity leave, income assistance/UBI, job placement, and oh yeah - pay for their education through college.
These are all factors that may lead responsible prospective parents to choose abortion. If you are going for force women to give birth, you are now responsible for ensuring they have everything they could need to raise that child.
Otherwise it’s the standard conservative position that a fetus is precious until it’s a delivered baby. No concern at that point whether it lives, dies, or lives in poverty. (Unless it’s your baby, of course.)
Nobody is forcing the woman to keep the baby. If the woman wants to, they can give the baby up for adoption, at which point the state steps in to provide care for the child.
If the woman chooses to keep the baby, they are subject to means testing for any assistance like anyone else.
UBI
I agree with UBI (my personal preferred structure is a Negative Income Tax, which is similar), but that’s completely separate from taking care of yourself and dependents.
The difference is the government should ensure everyone has access to what they need, but it shouldn’t ensure the everyone is using what they need. So I’m against things like universal healthcare because whether to pay for insurance should be an individual decision, but something like Medicare for all is acceptable because it preserves that choice. Likewise for free college, though I’m absolutely supportive of reforming K-12 schools so kids have better prospects after high school (e.g. spend the last two years in some kind of apprenticeship program). I’m also vehemently against federal student loans, but I’m in favor of grants for students (collecting payments is morally incompatible with maintaining a monopoly on force).
So I think you’ll find I’m not a conservative, at least not in the sense most people seem to mean. I’m in favor of radical individual freedoms (i.e. drug legalization/decriminalization beyond marijuana), to the point where victimless crimes should not exist (i.e. porn, gambling, prostitution, etc should never be banned, but may be restricted somewhat to prevent harm).
at which point the state steps in to provide care for the child.
Again a woefully underfunded current circumstance. But also:
Nobody is forcing the woman to keep the baby. If the woman wants to,
Ah, so we’ll only force her to HAVE the baby, then endure the guilt, shame, and pain of having her newborn (who she has at that point carried for nine months and bonded with) taken from her for adoption.
Getting closer and closer to Gilead the further the conversation goes.
My suggestion would be that I’m going to drop out of this discussion right about here.
Yes, if a woman choose not to get an abortion in the first half of her pregnancy, we then need to respect the rights of the fetus. That’s about as fair if a balance (slanted toward the woman’s rights) as possible. And she’d only be obligated to carry the baby until it can be safely delivered, not necessarily to full term.
In short, for the first half of the pregnancy, she has complete freedom to choose. For the second half, the fetus gets protection. That seems fair.
But every life is a blessing. I don’t have any parents to punish. I am unwilling. Buy me a jet you selfish hypocrite.
