321
Nebraska US mother sentenced to two years in prison for giving daughter abortion pills
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
321 points (95.0% liked)
News
23014 readers
6 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would disagree here. Their right to life cannot infringe upon my rights. In my opinion that is a different scenario. I can understand if you disagree.
You are saying that a woman in full control of her facilities and in no danger of medical complications one day before her due date should be able to abort the fetus? What about giving birth half way babies head is out of the mother, can abort the baby? What about still connected before they cut the umbilical cord? Still able to abort?
How do you not get that this is exactly what you're demanding of pregnant women?? The fetus's right to life cannot infringe on the prospective mother. And that's just a fetus, the transplant recipient is a full unquestionable person with a myriad of relationships, obligations, and contributions to society.
This is not a situation that ever exists. Birthing is a traumatic process that incurs risk of death and long-term damage to the body, even when everything is going well right up until it starts. You don't seem to know much about pregnancy.
I'm ignoring your other questions because they're stupid.
I get that, i believe i asked or infered the question earlier about when the fetus becomes a "person" is basically what this whole discussion revolves around.
You didn't want to answer the questions because while they are stupid, much like forced organ donation, they are awkward to answer and they go against "100% her body, her choice" there is a line out their that at some point aborting the fetus is "murder" what that line is? I have no idea but we have laws for things like that. Much like we have laws that can force you to do things you don't want to do for the health of others and yourself, go to jail if you are a violent criminal, go to the psych ward, court mandated therapy etc. At some point you shouldn't be able to abort a child. You want to you want to abort a child for the first, second, third, up to the fifth month? Sure no questions six and seven? Kinda pushing it in my mind eighth or ninth? Kinda seems rediculous to me.
You are right i don't know a lot about pregnancy I'm not a doctor, I've never given birth. Just what i read and have seen from friends/ family and being their for them during their recoveries.
At this point i think we are going in circles in the discussion, I'd be happy to continue but i don't see the point. I hope you have a great week and thanks for taking the time to have a semi civil conversation with me about a very charged subject.
Jumping in here. Would you accept forced blood donation? If someone desperately needed a blood transfusion and no volunteer donors come forward, would you accept a government finding an eligible person and drawing blood by force if necessary? Why or why not?
That's hard to answer. It would depend on the greater good that the forced blood donation would be for. If it is because joe billionaire needs it for some elective surgery, no. If it is for some sort of pandemic and my blood will help sure. Especially if it is like a system that incenivises the donation in some way. "Hey patient A needs blood if you donate you'll be higher up on the list for xyz" or something
The logical followup is where is that line to decide if it's "enough of a greater good" and who gets to decide? My answer to that would be people that are smarter than me and people we put in office to help make laws. Regardless of what they decide i will have an opinion about it and look to discuss it.
I also give blood quarterly anyway. Getting out of forced blood draw would be easy, recent tattoos, rusty knife of unknown origin cut your skin while you were walking, or participated in an orgy with people of questionable virtue will all get you politely asked to leave. They don't mess around with potential blood contaminants.
What about you? Yay/nay and why?
Sorry but you avoided the point of the question. In this case you are specifically the only person with acceptable blood for the transfer and it is to a person you refuse to provide blood for. That can take the form of Joe Billionaire or some other manifestation of what you might consider an "ultimate evil", but at the heart of the matter is that you do not want to participate. Would you be OK with a government forcing you to provide blood against your wishes?
Ahh OK. So would i be OK with someone doing something to me or a loved one against my wishes? No, but would i give blood in this case if it was a law, yes. Laws force you to do something potentially against your will.
Someone is driving a car swerving, driving erratically, and when the officer pulls them over the car smells of alchohol. The officer requests they do a breathalyzer or they go to the station for a blood test, refuse that and they lose their ability to drive for a year. They refuse everything, is it fair the officer can force them to not drive and take away their free will for a night throwing you in jail?
If that isn't the same thing fine. What about required vaccinations before a kid can go to public school? That policy is recently under more scrutiny since covid. For the greater good i think that is a good policy.
So your two examples of the drunk driver and vaccines are different. You don't have the right to drive or go to school. You are granted that privilege by the government. Part of those privileges involve consent to certain requirements. So in those cases, the government is simply forcing you to uphold the agreement put in place. If you used this reasoning to support your argument, it would be like saying bodily autonomy is a privilege granted by the government. Maybe if you're at a breeding age they would prevent you from sterilization (so you can procreate for the greater good). They could tell you not to get a tattoo (or go full Hitler and force you to get a tattoo).
You say you would not be OK with the law, but would comply. How far does that go? Would you support another military draft? Potentially being put into deadly situations (especially if you don't agree with the war/whatever is happening)? Forced labor if it was for "the good of the country" or some reason (maybe making a product you don't agree with e.g. drugs, guns, late term abortion kits)?
If someone were to refuse to comply with any of these laws, what should the punishment be?
Edit: What if the government tried to mandate forced abortions? If they can declare something necessary "for the greater good"?
Driving is a privilege, but i believe education is a right and requirement for every child. Parents can choose private/home/public but the education is a requirement. CPS can remove a child from a home if they are not going to school.
I'd like to clarify, bodily autonomy is a right in my opinion.
I do agree fundamentally with the draft. I do agree that in certain circumstances we can/ should give up rights "for the greater good". The widening of surveillance after 9/11 for instance. I agree with it in concept but also agree it was abused and went on to long.
I trust the people that we vote for and the checks and balances in place would stop overt abuse of the system. Do i think the system is perfect? No. Do i agree with everything Democrats do in office? No. Do i agree with everything Republicans do in office? No. But the concept i agree with.
If i disagreed with a law vehemently enough, and voting/ trusting the system isn't enough i would leave the country.
As for punishments, that isn't for one person to arbitrarily decide and should always be re assessed with the times.
Ps: really making me regret using only mobile for lemmy lmao
I share your frustration with using mobile. Also I must commend you on staying pretty consistent. There's a lot of abortion opponents that come unglued at the thought of something like forced blood or organ donation. Though I disagree with your opinion, this is a rare case where the issue was almost fully boiled down to a difference of opinions. I'll change course a tad.
No doubt you agree with the right to privacy and I'm sure you'd have some exceptions (probable cause to search and stuff like that). If a doctor considers it medically necessary to abort citing life of the mother as being in danger, how would you reconcile allowing the government to overrule that? What other areas should the government overrule licensed and practicing professionals in their area of expertise? How would you reconcile the right to medical privacy? After all the government would need to know it was a medically necessary operation rather than some reason you oppose. What other medical information should the government have access to without your consent? Surely you could also see that would be rife for abuse (don't hire the woman on fertility drugs as she's likely going to be pregnant soon).
In some other comments you'd mentioned you'd think at some point in the pregnancy it would transition from fetus to person. What obligations would the government need to adhere to once the fetus is considered a person? Consider a pregnant woman fasting in an effort to induce a miscarriage. No doubt you'd expect government involvement if a parent decided to just stop feeding their already born child. Would you support an extreme like force feeding a woman in an effort to preserve the "person"? Forced c-section once deemed viable? If you don't support that extreme, where do you draw the line and is that consistent with where you draw the line for already born people?
There is nothing wrong with differing opinions and it is, in my opinion, the lack of the ability to have a civil conversation about those differences that has lead to some divides that we are seeing in the world today.
You cannot argue that eventually a fetus becomes a person. It's just when that happens that you can argue. It's it the first, second, third trimester, when it leaves the vaginal canal, or when the umbilical cord is snipped. And maybe fetus isn't the right term. Eventually the thing growing inside a woman during pregnancy becomes a person. I also have not said in my opinion when that happens as I'm not nearly educated enough in that realm. I just said something along the lines of "seems a little late" or something along those lines in regards to the 5 month abortion time.
I think that if a guy impregnates a girl and splits they should be paying child support during the pregnancy. As for obligations the government has to keep the un born child/fetus/person alive? I don't know. Thinking about it as i have over the past couple days, I do think abortion should unquestionably be allowed up to the third tri mester. It's just after that where it starts to get into that gray area for me personally.
As for government forced procedures it would be on them to prove the burden of the "greater good" in my opinion. I cannot see a reason for the government to force a pregnancy through from day 1 to birth "for the greater good". In my opinion a case could be made to "force/require/mandate" a woman that is the day before her due date to cary the child to term, that case could be the fetus is a person and has a right to life, do i agree with the argument? I don't know but a case could be made. I would personally be interested in knowing why the woman wants to abort the day before delivery. And it all comes back to when that fetus/child/ whatever you want to call it becomes a person in my opinion.
The government already has the ability to overrule healthcare officials right? They need to be licensed through the state to practice, that's my understanding at least. As for your private medical data? You keep that as long as you don't participate in any government medical aid/programs. I would love to see free medical for everyone via government. But you will give up some privacy from the government in that case. Should your medical records be out their for everyone to see? No. But the appropriate programs/entities with reasonable use should have access. For instance if someone wants a new liver, their previous drug/alchohol information should be taken into account. Should government sponsored food stamps have access to your medical history? No.
Just because one entity has access to your data doesn't mean it should be shared with the world. If the government has access to your medical information potential employers, government agencies or private sector, should not have access to it. Anti Discrimination laws are still in place and should be upheld. Do those laws get violated? Sure, all laws do. But we need laws of some sort in place. If you disagree with them get out and vote, protest, lobby for change.
No real argument there. But "personhood" can be a troublesome notion to define. I've found it easier to frame it as "At what point should the government confer certain rights to a fetus/person?" After all, there are many rights that are age gated and no one really balks at that (driving, smoking, voting).
This gets back to doctors being overruled by the government. If a doctor recommends terminating a pregnancy the day before they're due date, who are you or the government to contravene that? The licensing isn't the government overruling their decisions. That's the government's check to ensure its citizens won't fall victim to some quack rubbing then down with crystals and essential oils while calling themselves doctors.
This is the point opponents like to use the "abortion as birth control" and try to argue these late term abortions should be banned to prevent that. That's just simply not the case for late term abortions though. Women are not carrying a fetus for 9 months only to up and change their mind right before it becomes unequivocally murder. Again, the hypothetical is this is a doctor's recommendation. A doctor would not be recommending terminating that late simply because the person felt like it. Things would need to be catastrophically dire for the mother or fetus for that to be recommended that late. On top of that, a tiny fraction of abortions happen in the third trimester. The implications for malpractice are huge if they recommend dangerous treatments that are not outweighed by the benefits. You have espoused at least a modicum of faith in the government to identify "the greater good". Would you extend that same faith to doctors? Assume they will mostly act ethically and professionally and only recommend abortion if it is truly the best option?