Social Question

MrGrimm888's avatar

Should pregnant females be imprisoned, or controlled, until they give birth?

Asked by MrGrimm888 (16914points) June 15th, 2018

This is a branch off of the abortion threads.

There are many things that a pregnant woman can do, that are hazardous to the fetus. If she has no right to terminate the fetus, how could she have the right to hurt it?

Should they be closely monitored? Should they be put into camps?

Should pregnant women be tied down, like future veal? (You know, to make sure the mother is doing everything society thinks she should be…)

The pro-life opinion, is that the fetus has no choices. It cannot control it’s destiny, in any way. And as a “person,” it has rights.

To me, I infer a certain faulty logic in that thinking. It makes for a slippery slope.

How far do a fetus’s rights extend? It’s illegal in some places, to smoke indoors. How can a pregnant woman force the fetus to endure what a crowd doesn’t have to, legally?

What if the pregnant women are not taking the right vitamins?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

29 Answers

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

~Only if we can lock up the men until needed. Or reversible vasectomies for unmarried men.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I’m sure you meant this to be cheeky, but there are already laws in some states.

A few examples:
An Oklahoma mother was sentenced to 15 years in prison for second-degree murder after the 2004 stillbirth of her meth-exposed baby. More recently, drug-using pregnant women have been charged with criminal child neglect.

In 2014, the state’s high court ruled that a woman whose stillborn baby tested positive for cocaine could not be charged with ‘depraved heart murder,’ but it left open the possibility that she could be prosecuted for manslaughter.

Arizona-In 2003 a woman was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years in prison after her infant, who tested positive for crack cocaine, died shortly after birth.

In 2014, after Tennessee became the only state to pass a law criminalizing drug use during pregnancy, a federal judge added six years to a woman’s meth-manufacturing sentence because she was pregnant.

seawulf575's avatar

I know that no one was playing with you in the other thread so you started this one. Since it is now on topic, the answer is: don’t be silly. But, as with all things, the mother has responsibilities. That is the part that liberals always avoid. they don’t want to acknowledge responsibilities, they don’t want to talk about them. There are plenty of pregnant women that are addicted to heroin or crack and do serious damage to their unborn babies. As @KNOWITALL these are crimes in some states. The debate might be that they should be in all states. But it all boils down to responsibilities. The fetus has no responsibilities other than to grow. That’s its job. The mother has responsibilities before she gets pregnant as well as after. If she doesn’t want to be pregnant, she has the responsibility to avoid it. If she is pregnant and keeping the baby, she has responsibilities to it…to keep it as healthy as she can for example. Not taking the right vitamins isn’t a direct threat to the baby as, say, smoking crack is. In fact, not taking the right vitamins is likely to do more damage to the mother than to the baby.
Let’s flip it around for a minute. Let’s assume that there is no responsibility for the mother. Let’s say that the fetus/baby takes what it gets. Does that carry over to after the birth? Now you have a baby. Should the mother be able to shoot heroin? Should she be able to come and go as she wants, with or without the baby? Can she feed the baby drain cleaner? The answer is no, she can’t. She can’t be cause it is against the law. The laws are in place to protect the innocent. The child is the innocent. That is the same mentality that pro-lifers apply to unborn babies…they are the innocents.

Patty_Melt's avatar

@KNOWITALL, those are punishments.
What about preventions?
Can a woman be detained for the duration of her pregnancy to prevent harm to the fetus?

@MrGrimm888, if you are going to make comparisons between fetal rights, and the rights of society in general, what about stalkers?
Stalkers can’t be detained just because they made someone nervous.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . Yes. Nobody would play with me about this angle in other threads.
You mentioned what I spoke of. My question centers on the fetus’ rights. Where is the line drawn, in whomever is observing this thread’s opinion?

I’ll try and hold my tongue until I get some more passionate responses.

Patty. Could you elaborate? Please?....

elbanditoroso's avatar

Absolutely. And if a mother is having a second (or subsequent) child, it should be taken away from the mother, just like the ICE people are doing on the southern border.

Parents and children should be considered property of the state. And the state can do whatever they want with their property. After all, our esteemed Attorney General has quoted the bible has the religious backing to force the breakup of families.

The next thing that Mr Sessions will do is call for the creation of Extermination Camps, like Auschwitz, so that the young youth from the border can simply be put to death rather than going to tent cities. Mr Sessions will call this “The Final Solution” to emigration.

Sound familiar?

NomoreY_A's avatar

You must protect the precious fetus at all cost. Just be sure that once he or she becomes a real baby with real needs, that you don’t allow the single working mother any type of care or assistance. What are you, one them sochlist commie bleeding heart librals? Bet you wanna come take my bazooka too.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Patty The question was ‘should’ they be confined. In a scenario where the ‘fetus’ is harmed knowingly, some states define that as a crime. Other stated do not. I would argue jail is confinement, which answered the question logically.
If you want my moral opinion, as a human being and a christian, I would like those laws passed in all states, yes.
Preventions to what exactly, pregnancy or drug use while pregnant or ?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@MrGrimm The various penalties I linked to above are very interesting and varied. I would say the line falls somewhere in between for most people. From zero penalty to 15 years is a lot of wiggle room based on the nature of the ‘crime’ or circumstance.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Elbandit Do you think christians hate Mexicans or immigrants in general?
You are sadly mistaken in equating the desire for LEGAL immigration being enforced and streamlined, to hate of a race or group of people, which is racism and not okay.

Patty_Melt's avatar

My understanding of the question involved measures to prevent mommies from hurting their fetus, not punishment after harm is done.
Apparently I was mistaken.

snowberry's avatar

It happens in the US, and other places around the world. Sometimes they’re just arrested and taken to the hospital where they remove the baby (I hesitate to say she “gives birth”. I have met people who have had this sort of thing happen to them. Ah the wonders of modern medicine. Ain’t it wonderful?

This is quite an interesting article.

Unofficial_Member's avatar

Regardless of what the law says, in one way or another a mother have full control over her own fetus. Imprisonment? Being put under surveillance? Heck, the government are actually very happy there would less population in the country so there’s no way they invest their resources in somebody’s procreation life.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@KNOWITALL In the context of this news story, it doesn’t matter whether Christians hate Mexicans or not (although I tend to think there is inherent antipathy because they are non-white and poor).

The point I will repeat is that it is a corruption of Christianity to use that religion as an excuse to do immoral things like break up families. That’s just disgusting. And that religious Christians tolerate, and even support and vote for people who bastardize their religion makes them complicit.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Elbandit Just as liberals are complicit with abortion- murder of defenseless babies. You can’t use religion to condemn us when you use freedom as an excuse for wholesale murder for over 45 years. Pot calling kettle black.
Inherent antipathy? Maybe by some, a small percentage, but actually Jesus said something about loving the children and animals, so while adults may be fair game, mistreatment of children is never condoned.

canidmajor's avatar

It’s called “confinement”, and it used to be the norm. Just another way to keep them uppity broads in line.

And, once again, the entire debate rests on the definition of “baby” or “child”.
A subjective definition. If you believe that a small bit of protoplasm (that cannot survive in any way extrautero) should be granted all the rights and privileges of a citizen, then your feelings will be different from people who believe that it’s not viable as a human until it can be nurtured extrautero.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@KNOWITALL . Am I mistaken, or did I infer that you indeed support something like the q suggests?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@MrGrimm No, I do not. What I support are smart women and men who are responsible with their bodies not to cause their babies death, for convenience.
I’m very disappointed in many here griping about seperating kids from illegal immigrants, while arguing here that killing babies is fine. Ya’ll are messed up.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Going back to what @KNOWITALL wrote yesterday.

Her outlook appears to be that the law of the land is to be obeyed, and that one of the tenets of christianity is to obey the laws of the land. That’s the rationale for christians acquiescing, even supporting, children being taken from children.

Abortion, however, is legal. It is the law of the US, regardless of @KNOWITALL views. And it has been reaffirmed over and over by courts at all levels over the last 40 years as legal.

So why then does @KNOWITALL refuse to acknowledge that the government and the courts have made choice (whether or not to abort) a legal option?

Or is the “my religion tells me to follow what the government says” rationale only in place for issues that she agrees with?

There’s some inconsistent, even hypocritical, theology rolling around here.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Elbandit I’m not a pastor or theologian, just a person trying to do as little harm as possible.
Neither of these issues apply to me, but I dont like either. It can be argued the predicted outcome of both careless sex and illegal immigration are unsavory.

Since you are calling names again, I dont care to respond to you further.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@KNOWITALL – actually, I am not calling you names, I am describing activity. There is a difference.

But ignoring me does not make my fundamental point less valid.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I’ll let her answer for herself.

@KNOWITALL . I see abortion, as a women’s rights issue. Trump is deliberately separating children from their parents, because he thinks it will deter future immigrants, and he is hoping that the dems will give in more on his immigration agenda, because they feel sorry for the kids. While your analogy isn’t ridiculous, I don’t find many similarities (personally.)

The conservatives are using your passion about abortion, to use you. They are using/hurting immigrant’s children in hopes of political gains. If you want to help some children, you need to consider whom you are supporting. This follows the typical conservative mindset. You care about what you consider a child, only until it is born. Then the child somehow loses value, like a new car you just drove off the sales lot.

As I’ve mentioned before. Abortion is just not realistically going to be banned. A war that can be won, is helping the children who you can save.

Picking realistic goals could really help these people. If they didn’t love their children, they would not have risked everything to try to give them a better life.

You do realize that many immigrants from the southern boarders are probably catholic. They probably are pro-life too. You should be hoping for as many as possible to enter the country. The more people who oppose abortions, the better chance you have of maybe banning them one day. One could argue that by supporting the Trump administration, you are hurting thousands of children, and people, while simultaneously hurting your own goal of banning abortions…

Just some things to chew on.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Put it this way.

You’re a rescue operation. You come across a ship that sunk. There are two life boats visible.

One life boat is full of children, and they seem ok, and are waving for help.

The other boat is also full of children, but the boat is sunken almost all the way under water. It’s not going to make it.

Because of the circumstances, you can only save one boat. Do you let the floating boat stay adrift, and try to save the boat that’s just not going to make it?

Or do you save who can be saved?

KNOWITALL's avatar

Grimm if you and JLeslie got together, a combined argument could possibly, just possibly, foment change. Later, got family stuff going on.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Yes ma’am.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@MrGrimm888 This morning Chief Padillo at the border said these people are not illegal immigrants, they are seeking asylum and there’s a LOT of misinformation being sent out. He said kids torn from parents are from criminal parents.

I’m done with the subject here, but thought I’d let you know I’m checking some purported ‘facts’ out.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I have heard different from many sources, BBC, and NPR amongst them. Trump, and Sessions have admitted to the behavior. Sessions quoted the bible (Romans or something) to justify their actions.

I am not saying that none are criminals that had their kids taken.

Of relevance, I suppose, is that some people are bringing their kids in hopes of them helping them have better odds of making it into the country. That’s partly why the law was first put in place. It was an attempt to deter people from trying that strategy. However, it is Trump that is calling for the strict enforcement. He is using the children as leverage, to try to get his wall built, and reform immigration.

LogicHead's avatar

I am sure that you don’t see that you are arguing the OPPOSITE of what you think you are.

And who is this authority? Let me guess: IT IS YOU.

You care more about the baby than the Mom does? Noooo, no way. Stalin and Mao destoryed families on that very basis. But we see now that it was just one person playing God

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Could you expound, on your thoughts? I just didn’t get it….

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther