Lmao pretend you can’t even fathom what he meant, that the system is rigged and that they got the result they wanted because the US is seemingly inherently corrupt.
Nonetheless it’s no surprise, this woman would’ve needed help and care. There’s only speculation that could be done regarding circumstances, but I think it boils down to the “pro life” - laws being ironic
I know exactly what they meant. What I don’t know is how it’s related to what I said.
We can have a conversation about how our prison systems treat prisoners. Which we’ll likely agree on
Or we can have a conversation about police abuse of power, which we’ll probably also agree on.
Or we can have a conversation about our broken criminal justice system, which seems boring because again, we’d probably just agree.
Or we can have a conversation about whether pregnant mothers, in general, should be allowed to be imprisoned for attempting to kill their unborn children, but it seems like people just want to derail the conversation with irrelevant arguments.
No, your “red thread” was that it was just to take the baby away with cps(?) because she either did or does narcotics. And somehow you feel it is derailing to even take any question outside the narrow scope of it.
It is what people are discussing, it is a health issue. Both addiction and abortion are.
was that it was just to take the baby away with cps(?) because she either did or does narcotics
Yes that’s correct, good job.
And somehow you feel it is derailing to even take any question outside the narrow scope of it.
Except it’s not “outside the narrow scope”, it’s got nothing to do with my statement. And you know that you can’t argue with my statement so the only way you can “win” is to argue about something else entirely.
It is what people are discussing
It is not what I was discussing, nor was it what the person I replied to was discussing.
You quoted the article as reporting on “accusations” that the mother tested positive for meth while pregnant. Your interlocutor seems to have glossed over that since it is possible for a party to claim something without evidence backing it up.
But say they did have evidence that she ingested meth. In a state like Alabama, there is a strong incentive to skew evidence to support the widespread belief that women don’t have a choice over whether they reproduce or not: if you have sex, then you must have your kid.
So, your interlocutor was merely calling into question the source that produced the accusations, as well as any other sources that produced evidence that showed she ingested meth recently while pregnant, possibly leading to the accusations.
The point about whether foster care is more or less sufferable than dying pre- or postnatal is not what your interlocutor was addressing.
I don’t know but none of that is what we were discussing.
I see. Well clearly this police department deserves your blind faith.
What does any of this have to do with the police department? Do you have a response that is actually tangentially related to my comment?
Lmao pretend you can’t even fathom what he meant, that the system is rigged and that they got the result they wanted because the US is seemingly inherently corrupt.
Nonetheless it’s no surprise, this woman would’ve needed help and care. There’s only speculation that could be done regarding circumstances, but I think it boils down to the “pro life” - laws being ironic
I know exactly what they meant. What I don’t know is how it’s related to what I said.
We can have a conversation about how our prison systems treat prisoners. Which we’ll likely agree on
Or we can have a conversation about police abuse of power, which we’ll probably also agree on.
Or we can have a conversation about our broken criminal justice system, which seems boring because again, we’d probably just agree.
Or we can have a conversation about whether pregnant mothers, in general, should be allowed to be imprisoned for attempting to kill their unborn children, but it seems like people just want to derail the conversation with irrelevant arguments.
But you go on with ya bad self, Mr. Straw Man.
No, your “red thread” was that it was just to take the baby away with cps(?) because she either did or does narcotics. And somehow you feel it is derailing to even take any question outside the narrow scope of it.
It is what people are discussing, it is a health issue. Both addiction and abortion are.
I don’t know what a “red thread” is.
Yes that’s correct, good job.
Except it’s not “outside the narrow scope”, it’s got nothing to do with my statement. And you know that you can’t argue with my statement so the only way you can “win” is to argue about something else entirely.
It is not what I was discussing, nor was it what the person I replied to was discussing.
Not interested in winning, is this projection? If so, change the mindset. Why are you so belittling? Read of the appeal to ridicule.
And if you’re not interested, not answering only means one part simply cba
You quoted the article as reporting on “accusations” that the mother tested positive for meth while pregnant. Your interlocutor seems to have glossed over that since it is possible for a party to claim something without evidence backing it up.
But say they did have evidence that she ingested meth. In a state like Alabama, there is a strong incentive to skew evidence to support the widespread belief that women don’t have a choice over whether they reproduce or not: if you have sex, then you must have your kid.
So, your interlocutor was merely calling into question the source that produced the accusations, as well as any other sources that produced evidence that showed she ingested meth recently while pregnant, possibly leading to the accusations.
The point about whether foster care is more or less sufferable than dying pre- or postnatal is not what your interlocutor was addressing.
I don’t know who The Interlocutor is. Sounds like a comic book villain.
So weird that you replied so many hours before my post.