WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 35516574

(no title)

yucky | 2 years ago 

  > this disregard for the English language is truly despicable. You ought to be ashamed.
I mean, you brought race into it and implied I would care more if it happened to a white woman. That is the textbook definition of race-baiting. Both of your examples knew they were pregnant and abused drugs that killed the fetus. And both happened before Roe was overturned. So is there a point you're trying to make somewhere?

  > Says who? Some prosecutor?
The law, which is written by legislators democratically elected by the populace of the area they serve. That's how democracy works. If you think giving meth or valium to a baby or a developing fetus is a woman's prerogative, then I'm not sure there is any point in this discussion.

  > If a man takes a Valium, he won't be charged with anything.
Neither will a woman. Now if she is breastfeeding or pregnant that is a different story because it is no longer just her consuming the drug. She is no longer just endangering herself at that point. If a man endangers a child he will be charged as well. And in fact men face far heavier sentences in the legal system than women do. [0]

[0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/women-arent-always-sent...

discuss

order

jessaustin|2 years ago

"Bring race into it", e.g. acknowledging there is a concept called "race" and that it affects many people's opportunities and potential wealth is not "race-baiting". You would know this, if you had taken your ESL class from someone other than Bill O'Reilly, or if you had read the article I linked above discussing this very issue. I didn't say you should be ashamed of racism, because I didn't at any point accuse you of racism. You ought to be ashamed... of your poor usage of English. In an attempt to steelman your poor argument, I had offered the possibility that you maybe didn't consider the treatment of Native American women in Oklahoma to be representative of treatment of women in general in USA. Apparently I needn't have bothered, because you managed to take offense rather than taking the point. So prickly!

The prerogative of women to ingest whatever they want, at any time, just as if they were men, is precisely the topic of this discussion, in contradiction to thread parent's claim that common beliefs about pregnancy only affect women if they lack determination. If we abide sexist prosecutors' ideas about Valium and marijuana, they'll soon be convicting pregnant women for taking Tylenol.

Men are charged with assault when they assault people. Women too are charged with assault in that case, but you also want them charged with assault when they take half a Valium, because "democracy". If you think that a democracy would ever give the voters a binary choice between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, there is for sure no point in your taking part in any discussion. Also for some reason you still think we were ever discussing Dobbs ITT. I would suggest (against HN guidelines!) you read TFA, but at this point in the thread it's clear that wouldn't help.