There are Lots of Pregnant Women in Jail
Pregnant women in jail is not yet a national story. It should be. Forced birth zealots in various local governments are throwing them in jail.
As everyone who has watched anti-abortion for years knows one of the objections is complete control of women. The control will be how long the work, what they eat, their exercise schedule, their sleep schdule and anything and everything else about their personal lives.
I Alabama there is a law against drug use by women who are pregnant. A young woman, Ashley Banks, did not know she was pregnant until her pregnancy test came back. During that day when she learned of her pregnancy she had one marijuana cigarette. She was told she had violated a law that pregnant women are to be incarcerated for drug use while pregnant and put in jail. The law required her to stay in jail while she attended drug abuse classes. The drug abuse organization said she had no drug problem and would not accept her in their program. She was not formally charged with anything. The jail, as apparently is often the case in Alabama, was horrific. While she was in jail, enduring so much pain she slept on the dirty floor of her cell. She developed complications with the pregnancy. She did not have $10,000 for bail. Law enforcement was unsympathetic. It was several months until an appeal judge allowed her out of jail. From what I have read, Ashley Banks' experience is not that unusual. Control of women's personal lives without adequate services for pregnant women in jail is a way to punish women.
State legislatures dominated by men pass laws regulating pregnant women. Those who help women by giving rides to an abortion clinic as well as the woman are sinners and need to be punished. The result is a barbaric form of abuse by those who claim they are "defending babies." Truth is, they are abusing women.
The rates of miscarriage are higher among women in jail that among the general population. Surely this is caused by lack of medical attention and inadequate care in general.
Our country will eventually learn about the mistreatment of women in several states. Pressure will return to Washington to make abortion rights again the law of the land.
Punish the unborn child with a death sentence is your only solution.
ReplyDeleteMatt -- "unborn child"-- I don't happen to share that religious view with you or find that term based on science. It might be helpful for you to read up on various religions or non religious views. According to polls ever the majority of Catholics do not share the official Catholic force-her-to-give-birth position on abortion. Learning about views outside your comfort zone would do you a world of good.
Deletelet's say that I have gone "soft". but for now, I am going to assume that Jon, his dogmatic world view aside, is posting in good faith. that is to say that he really believes that his views are reasonable, based on what he calls "science". social science, sociology that is, not biological science. he appears to think, then, that a human being is one that has entered into human society, someone who can interact with others. someone "present" in the human community. and its logical extension, that the community, not biology, determines humanness. this, if I am not mistaken, is a post-modern notion, underpinning the view that what comes out of the birth canal becomes "human" at the moment of birth. this view, obviously, is fraught with danger: don't like some group,just let the community define them as non-persons. CONTINUED BELOW,
ReplyDeleteagainst this is the "classical" understanding: that something is an intrinsic something. a something having a form, a purpose, a soul if you will. not a Cartesian soul, but a formal soul, a beingness that perdures through time and space,a unity. the presence of which is backed up by empirical evidence. this, I would claim, is the common sense view, a view held by most persons, at least when they stop to think about the matter.
there is, course, much more that could be said. for now, however, let's just sit back and see what Jon, Granny,Arby, Anon and others have to say (if anything.
PS. sorry about the gap in the text. seem to be having trouble
posting today
"this I would claim, is the common sense view, a view held by most persons, at least when they stop to think about it."
ReplyDeleteThat is incorrect. The majority of Catholics believe in abortion rights. Your Catholic view of abortion is the minority among Catholics. Your arrogance is revealed in the phrase, "if they think about it." You are saying your view is the only one people arrive at if the "think." You are the reason there continues to be strong support for abortion rights. Anti abortion wing nuts are disliked by the majority.
How does one respond to rants of this sort. one doesn't, it's a waste of time. stupid me, I thought that for once, we might have an intelligent discussion. as to arrogance, I don't think that anyone can beat Jon on that front. and as to Catholics, does one include the ones who are indifferent, away from the church? better take a close look at your stats Jon.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous--"And as to Catholics, does on include the ones who are indifferent, away from the church?" Actually, I don't think that matters. 99% of Catholics say they use artificial birth control. That even though every priest must repeat at least occasionally the Catholic prohibition. It's wishful thinking on your part that a majority of Catholics oppose abortion. The reason a majority of Catholics, and a majority of everyone else, favor access to abortion is economics. Women, and their partners, have bills to pay. A birth at the wrong time of their lives can put them, and often their children, in desperate circumstances. They know it can happen to themselves and don't want it to happen to others. Catholic clergy, and some Protestants, think the world is still in the 1950's where women did not have jobs outside the home. Another pregnancy might not have had the serious economic consequences it has for women today.
ReplyDeleteso it's all a matter of economics. nice!
ReplyDeleteso "it's all a matter of economic. nice!" I know that to you it's all a matter of religion. But to people trying to live their lives in real time, economics plays a big role. It always has played a big role in the number of children people have. When children contributed to a farm family's income by the work they did, guess what, there were more children. When people migrated to cities where children cost more than they generated in income, let's guess again, they had and still have fewer children. You made light of the social sciences in a previous post. Understanding why people have children, or do not have children, does not come from engineering. It does not come from religion either. Understanding why people have abortions comes from understanding real life.
Deletegot news for you Jon. I'm not stupid enough to overlook the economic aspects of family size. economics,of course, has it place in any public policy discussion, demograpics included. but, unless one is an observent Marxian, it is folly to hold that economics is all that matters. I do not think, moreover, that I denigated the social sciences. I merely said that the SS's tend to take a non-biological view of "humaness". if this is not a true statement, then tell us why it is not true. and, finally, your presumptuous assertion: for me, "everything is religion". may I remind you--somethinng that you should know anyway -- that philosophy is NOT religion
ReplyDeletePhilosophy is not religion to those with adequate training and who do not start with a religious bias. Neither happens to apply to you. In your posts, philosophy and religion are interchangeable.
ReplyDeleteSo sayeth Jon. Jon sayeths many things most of them half baked. now he claims to know "that in my posts religion and philosophy are interchangeable". makes me wonder if he has taken leave of his senses. in any event, I would welcome a further explanation, what leads him to such a silly assertion? But, then, a little further explanation on my part. I did say that philosophy and religion arre not the same sort of thing. their concerns and approaches to reality are fundamentally different. in philosophy class, you are told to leave your Bible at the door. but I did not say that philosophy and theology do not have anything to say, one to another. they, in fact, often dialog. same with philosophy and science, the social sciences included. same with philosophy and economics. such dialog, as far as I know, is standard in any college or university worthy of its name. I await Jon's response, while beting that I will not get it.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous -- "I await Jon's response, while beting I will not get it." I supposed to respond yea or nay when someone states the obvious? I don't have enough remaining years to waste my time commenting on such obvious tripe. Where you reveal your weakness is claiming we can "prove the existence of a god by use of philosophy." Philosophy and religion, to you, are interchangeable. The same thing happens when you discuss abortion. You, or someone, mentioned "science" in an earlier post. I suppose that refers to the different DNA held by the fetus. Science does not tell us this DNA make the fetus a human being. The only people who believe that DNA makes the fetus a human being are religious people. Not only is philosophy interchangeable with religion, now "science" in also interchangeable with religion.
Deletetripe, eh? I concede that, from your point of view, that's what it is. for me, calling your remarks tripe is an understatement. for reasons that I have cited many times before they are far worse than mere tripe. they are stupid, outrageous, demonstrably untrue. maybe you should give up using your remaining years posting bigoted and slanderous assertions. you could do better: as in go study philosophy. and, for my part, I certainly could do better, doing something constructive, like learning more about global warming, political theory or whatever.
ReplyDeletebtw, where did I say that we can prove the existence of God, using philosophy? are you an expert on Aquinas's five ways? many philosphers and scientists have used philosopy to prove just the opposite. but enuf, right now, I'm going to do something useful: as in having an afternoon nap.
Godbye meaning God be with ye.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous--my comment is "stupid, outrageous, demonstratable untrue"....."where did I say we can prove the existence of God using philosophy..Aquina's five ways (to prove God using philosophy)"
ReplyDeleteSo you claim you do not agree philosophy can prove the existence of God but admire the five philosophical arguments used by Aquinas that prove there is a God. You are an expert at believing and holding two opposing at the same time. Not many people can do this.
Philosophy. “I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith", Immanuel Kant (Critique of Pure Reason, bxxx). Religion.
ReplyDeleteArdy B "...necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith." Yes, every inn has only a limited number of rooms. :)
DeleteI should not answer this post, but I will, briefly. Aquinas makes a very good case. yet others have trashed his arguments. that's the way it is in philosophy. gotta see both sides. it's not like you who can see only one side, and doesn't even see it well. again goodbye.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous "it's not like you can see only one side..."
ReplyDeleteGosh, you finally write a good post. Don't leave now. :)
you jest
Deletewith reluctance. but I need to clarify. philosopy professionals groove on trashing one or anothers views. some trash Aquinas, some love Aquinas. some love Plato, others hate him. and so forth. Altho' everyone generally agrees as to the meaning of any given philosoper's philosophy, they often disagree with the meanings involved. sometimes it gets borderline nasty (philosophers, most at least, show some professional restraint). thus, any examples of a "settled" philosophy are hard to find. that, it seems to me' is often true in science as well. what is considered settled today may get thrown out of the window tomorrow. so if I say that Aquinas has been trashed, I am not saying that I agree with the trashing. but I can say that I have some knowledge of the arguments posed by the trashors. aquainting ones self with opposing arguments does keep one from becoming a boring dogmatist. BTW, Aquinas (in the 13th century) antisipated and commented on most of the arguments used by today's atheists. so old chap, sleep tight tonite and don't let the Christians bite.
DeleteAnonymous--Another good post.
Delete