Skip to main content

Musing On The News - Abortion's Fringes

Lawyer argues fetus of jailed pregnant woman is being illegally detained. 

By The Guardian - February 23rd, 2023

    Okay, this is treasure trove of hot button issues, and in my desire to make everyone happy, this gave me pause because of the quagmire fetal rights is becoming. Basically, a woman in Florida is pregnant and being held without bail awaiting trial and alleges she is not getting adequate care and the fetus is being jailed unconstitutionally. So many issues to unpack in this one.

    First, there is the can of worms that is giving an unborn fetus the same rights as an autonomous, living person. I'm not sure how I feel about this movement and find it hard to discuss because it is such an emotional issue for so many people, including myself. I think the first thing we can do is stop doing the Either-Or argument with fetus and mother. Mom and fetus have equal weight until it has a bearing on the economy and governmental health, then the mother gets precedent because she is an avowed citizen of the United States, while the fetus has no choice, nor can it make one. This is one suggestion, but I don't expect anyone to take it seriously. I can already see some of the flaws...which, by the way, any plan will have, so people need to stop thinking their policies are perfect or better than others when they all tend to miss a large part of the whole picture.

    Moving away from abortion laws, there is the issue of bail and being pregnant in prison. I think that if a woman is pregnant and not convicted, she should not be in jail and bail should be waived. If you've ever been pregnant, and ever been to a jail, you know that this is cruel and unusual punishment all by itself. Thinking of the woman's right to a speedy trial, she's done half her pregnancy without the trial starting. This happens to people throughout the country and it is unconstitutional based on both the 6th and 8th amendments. Regardless of the court cases that have come through history to weaken these rights, they remained enshrined in our Constitution, and should be fought for. Months in jail is not the right a speedy trial, and bail disproportionately affects the poor, making debtors and homeless where there didn't have to be. The holding in prison doesn't just negatively affect moms-to-be, but a whole community of providers who cannot fend for themselves or their family while they are languishing in prison awaiting trial.

    I am going to do an economic side note on this one: People who know they have a trial and will not run need to be given the opportunity to work and coordinate with their community so their children and family members will be looked out for in their absence. These alleged criminals could work without fear and continue their lives while they await trial; a privilege enjoyed by the wealthy alone. People in jail funnel taxpayer money to the private prison corporations, instead of the individuals contributing tax dollars to the community and putting into the economy for several months. This means that on an individual and national level, bail is draining resources from the working people and funneling them to the corporations. Friendly reminder that corporations exist to provide dividends for their shareholders, not to take care of people. In fact, those two ends are often at cross-purposes. This leads me to the idea that industries that are tied to human survival and well-being (food, water, prison, healthcare) should not be run by amoral entities (which is what corporations are: they might be run by people, but they are not human and have no moral obligation to consider anything but the "almighty dollar"). In the case in the article, this is made clear by the lack of care and consideration afforded the pregnant woman and her unborn child.

    Another musing I got from the fetal rights portion of the article was the right to life is tied to the right to die: another controversial topic. If a fetus is not going to survive the birth, whether or not the mother is in danger, isn't it human to prevent the suffering that would be all the fetus would know in its short life. The fetus cannot advocate for itself; that's the mother's job. If the fetus will survive, but the mother won't, then not only did the baby murder the mother with the help of doctors, but that child is an orphan, which automatically dramatically reduces positive outcomes in its lifetime. We are condemning women to death and children to pathological childhoods; why is this what we're fighting for? If we were as humane to dying people as we are to dying animals, we would have right to die laws that would protect people and families from economic and social hardships that no one would wish on their fellow humans.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What If We Addressed Problems Holistically

What If… We treated problems holistically instead of individually?               One of the things I realized early on in my adult education was the relationship between seemingly disparate ideas. My bachelor’s degree focused on the relationship between biological equilibrium, environmental factors, and the mental reaction of individuals. From the beginning, I knew that it was folly to think that any of these categories could be studied in a vacuum. It did not take long for me to realize that it was not only in my own specialty that this was true, but in many other aspects of life. Yet, the compartmentalized view of the world is how the general populace perceives its environment, and social problems in particular.               As an educator, I found myself unable to teach only the subject with which I was tasked. I found the need for students t...

The Viral Candidate - Housing

Am I actually running for president? Not now. I am reasonable enough to know that an idea borne of frustration at lacking a candidate that represents me and my family is not going to change the world. But an idea can change the world, and these generations are the ones most capable of doing so. I am going to dream of a world where no one is hungry, thirsty, or at the mercy of the elements. If I was running for president, I would need to explain my platform, get feedback, and adapt it to the needs of each community. The problem is most people focus on one or two issues and try to solve them independently. What I have learned as a science teacher and a student of the social sciences is that many issues are intertwined and need to be addressed as a whole, instead of in parts, if they are going to be any good for the average American.               For example, I want to tackle homelessness. That is a doozy and requires so...

Musing on the News - Book Bans

                 Time published an article on 4/20 titled “New Report Finds That Book Bans Have Reached Their Highest Levels Yet.” As an avid reader I am immediately bothered by this, but I think it is worth explaining why.               First, over half the country is functionally illiterate, and even more don’t like to read, so who are we banning books for, anyway? It’s not like online ads that subliminally change your thinking. If you want to read a book, you have to physically get it, let someone else know what you’re reading (checking it out of a library or buying it in a store), and spend hours reading the material, depending on how fast you read. Reading is also self-selecting, as you can figure out by the book cover and back if you want to spend the time to decipher its contents. Reading social media and news is anonymous (except for the data points being collected on ...