- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Florida murder suspect’s unborn child seeks release from jail
Posted on 2/23/23 at 8:41 am to RTRinTampa
Posted on 2/23/23 at 8:41 am to RTRinTampa
quote:
How big of a check are you willing to write to support this idea?
By moving the 300+ death row inmates in Florida to life without parole and moving them off death row the state would save 24-40MM per year according to which source you use. Florida spends 230MM annually policing it's marijuana laws. Conservative estimates put revenue at $450MM annually if FL legalized marijuana.
BY executing the death sentence or converting the sentence to life without parole and legalizing Marijuana Florida would see conservatively 800MM-1B dollars annually. They could carve out a portion of that for something like this I would think.
0
Posted on 2/23/23 at 8:41 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:
It’s an unusual and unprecedented stance
it’s a stupid stance. Case closed.
Points for being novel
Posted on 2/23/23 at 8:56 am to John88
Posted on 2/23/23 at 9:01 am to John88
I say charge the fetus as an accessory to murder. Problem solved.
Posted on 2/23/23 at 9:05 am to John88
The issues of lack of medical care or even adequate nutrition which could have effects on the baby would have me side with putting the mother somewhere other than jail until she gives birth. The baby will be taken away from her at that point, she can then go back to jail. As long as she isn’t allowed to be a threat to the public, my interests are more with giving the baby the best chance at health possible rather than worrying the mother is getting nicer accommodations than she otherwise would if she wasn’t pregnant.
Posted on 2/23/23 at 9:05 am to John88
Any pregnant incarcerated FEMALE should be placed in a separate facility and receive the proper medical care. Once the child is born that female can be returned to the proper detention facility.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Posted on 2/23/23 at 9:20 am to John88
quote:
the mother hasn’t received adequate medical care and that she hasn’t been seen by an OB-GYN since October.
Unborn children don't have a "right" that the mother's pregnancy be guided/treated/delivered by an OB-GYN, which is a relatively new physician in human history. Matriarchs or mid-wives delivered billions of births.
Furthermore, 60% of modern mothers' "medical care" only consists of a positive OTC pregnancy test and a trip to the ER when their water breaks. There is no right to state/taxpayer-funded pre-birth ultrasounds, amniotic fluid tests, genetic testing, etc. Those are paid-for/insurance-covered elective services.
Posted on 2/23/23 at 9:33 am to John88
This is going to become part of the argument with/for or against abortion.
This post was edited on 2/25/23 at 9:54 am
Posted on 2/23/23 at 9:47 am to AwesomeSauce
quote:
A halfway house of sorts for incarcerated pregnant women wouldn't be an entirely bad idea. Remove them from gen pop which could pose a risk to both them and the baby. Provide prenatal and OBGYN care. Depending on the situation offer classes and counseling to either prepare the mom for motherhood beyond her release, or adoption to give the baby a chance if that is what is best.
I like your idea. I wonder how many mother's go to jail on purpose to get free prenatal care for their baby. Although it appears to be a terrible idea, we don't think like criminals so what do we know?
Posted on 2/23/23 at 10:12 am to SoonerK
quote:
The Supreme Court already declined to hear a fetal personhood case in 2022.
The lower court ruling in that case determined fetuses were not entitled to constitutional rights.
A ruling by this court determining otherwise would create a conflict.
Posted on 2/23/23 at 10:26 am to teke184
quote:
thought an unborn child had no rights per the “keep your laws off my body!” side. When the child is born, then they can exit jail.
I thought they had the same rights, per our genius Supreme Ct. Mom is not being provided adequate medical care and sustenance, thus depriving the fetus of its right to life and liberty. Release this mom and all pregnant mothers so the fetus’ rights, which are paramount, can be protected.
Posted on 2/23/23 at 12:24 pm to John88
I'll wait for the movie to come out
Posted on 2/23/23 at 12:26 pm to John88
WOW. They’re actually admitting that the unborn child is a person.
That’ll piss off some liberal scum.
That’ll piss off some liberal scum.
Posted on 2/23/23 at 12:34 pm to tigafan4life
quote:
Oh now it’s a child? Thought it was just a ball of cells.
This is where it will have some liberals heads absolutely explode.
Insert sweating man with two red buttons meme
Posted on 2/23/23 at 12:58 pm to John88
Makes more sense than sovereign citizens.
Posted on 2/23/23 at 1:46 pm to IAmNERD
quote:
“An unborn child is a person. A person has constitutional rights and one of them is the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law,” Norris said. The pro-abortion feminists will not like this argument one bit.
Some sneaky pro-life woman got her pregnant self arrested just to get this case filed.
In all seriousness, if (big if) the courts agreed doesn’t that by law make every unborn child now legally protected?
Posted on 2/23/23 at 3:47 pm to John88
In my opinion, this is not a question of whether or not the unborn child has rights. This case should not be a litmus test for abortion rights.
From the excerpt (I have not read the article) it seems that the legal argument is whether the unborn child has been "detained" without due process. The child, whether or not you believe it is entitled to constitutional protection while in the womb, has not been "detained" at all. At least not by operation of law. The baby is still in the womb, so its situation is a result of nature and the birth process, not any legal action by the state.
With that said, I do believe that the mom should have access to good prenatal care and be placed in the jails medical facility or similar place where she and the baby can thrive until the birth.
From the excerpt (I have not read the article) it seems that the legal argument is whether the unborn child has been "detained" without due process. The child, whether or not you believe it is entitled to constitutional protection while in the womb, has not been "detained" at all. At least not by operation of law. The baby is still in the womb, so its situation is a result of nature and the birth process, not any legal action by the state.
With that said, I do believe that the mom should have access to good prenatal care and be placed in the jails medical facility or similar place where she and the baby can thrive until the birth.
Posted on 2/23/23 at 3:49 pm to John88
i thought it was just a clump of cells?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News