- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 20,120
- Reaction score
- 16,169
- Location
- Cheyenne, WY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
When Alicia Beltran was 12 weeks pregnant, she took herself to a health clinic about a mile from her home in Jackson, Wis., for a prenatal checkup. But what started as a routine visit ended with Beltran eventually handcuffed and shackled in government custody – and at the center of a first-of-its-kind federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state’s fetal protection law.
It is impossible to give rights to a being growing inside a person's body without violating that person's rights.
If a fetus is found to be causing harm to its mother, will it be tried as an adult or a minor? If it is tried as a minor and found guilty, will it be sent to a juvenile detention center? If it is tried as an adult, is execution on the table if the transgression is severe enough? Will it exercise its right to choose counsel? I'm just asking - considering a fetus is a person and all. I'd like to know just how a fetus, being a person and all, is supposed to be punished if it is found to be harming its mother.
Rights are commonly weighed against each other and violated. That's how it works. Are you under the impression that rights are never justly violated?
Wait a minute so you are ok with rights being violated as long as it is something you agree with?
Justly "violated". For example, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.
So you think it's "justily" to violate the rights of a woman and force her to carry to term with physical and mental changes that a man does not have to endure?
I do not support a ban on abortion.
I do, however, point out that pretending the "violation" of rights is something terrible is nonsense, as the balancing of rights and thus restriction of them is inherent to society and the basis of our justice system. People's rights are "violated" (read: restricted) all the time, it's nothing new.
I actually agree with you especially in abortion cases, you are going to violate one's side rights. Either the right of the fetus or the right of woman. Which one is greater? That is the eternal argument.
Of course, someone who sees a fetus as less than an animal and without any rights would have a hard time recognizing the exercise therein.
Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law - U.S. News
This is the logical conclusion of the misguided belief that fetuses have rights. It is impossible to give rights to a being growing inside a person's body without violating that person's rights.
If she had taken responsiblity and ceased her addiction, how could she be harming her baby? I believe that a pre-born human does have rights and it appears to me that she was doing what she thought was best for herself and her baby, so I fail to see the problem. I also don't understand how she was not given a court-appointed lawyer as I thought, from watching American shows, that this is an essential part of your justice system. I guess I was wrong. Australians do not have an automatic right to have a lawyer provided by the court, but a judge (I think) has to postpone a case until a person can find legal representaion.
We also don't have a Bill of Rights (thank goodness).
I think we should all be allowed to use other people's scripts and no one should be able to do anything about it.
You have said some insane things, but please justify how your comments here legally should happen?
You are not automatically given a lawyer, you have to file and be approved to be represented by the pathetic court appointed lawyers.
You didn't read the article?
Waiting for your justification since you claimed it.
I think you are mistaken here, because I do believe someone who has been deemed "possibly" unstable is given someone automatically to defend them in some cases.
The woman detained had used someone else's script to self-medicate off of percs that she was addicted to.
It is a matter of finances when it goes to trial. At the arraignment you can easily get the public defender to speak on your behalf, but when it requires they actually go through a trial they check to make sure you are actually poor before they let you have a public defender.
So you think because she used someone elses meds she should be required to carry to term a baby?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?