[vorpalhex]

I think the prison has a fairly simple winning argument here.

1. Births attended by medical staff are much safer

2. The movement of dangerous prisoners is complex and time consuming and is significantly more dangerous during a health crises (imminent birth)

3. Moving prisoners ahead of natural birth to a medical facility and inducing at fullterm leads to more attended births

Inductions at term are extremely safe and routine. There are times preterm inductions are done but that isn't what is happening here.

[t-writescode]

> The movement of dangerous prisoners

You're moving the goal posts, now. The *vast* majority of prisoners are not dangerous.

Further, the article referenced specifically mentions people being induced prior to the safe time to induce labor.

Further, further, in the context of the existing prison system and human rights violations inside prisons (and *all* humans have human rights. This isn't "freedom of speech", these are even more base than that), this is yet another monstrous example of harming people in the State's care in prisons.

[vorpalhex]

The article cites 3 people, two at 39 weeks and one at 37. Term is 35 (but inducing that early isn't ideal, 37 is the earliest you want to go if you can choose).

Those are all term and all very safe.

Most prisoners are dangerous. The idea that you got busted for an 1oz of weed and went to prison isn't aligned to reality. If you are in prison (not jail) then you went through the full sentancing dance and weren't eligible for a supervised release or a program. That usually means you either keep committing crime or did serious crime. You didn't steal a bicycle.

[FireBeyond]

> Term is 35 (but inducing that early isn't ideal

Conflating natural delivery (where the body has decided, for whatever reason, that it is now time to deliver the child) with induction is not an appropriate comparison.

> 37 is the earliest you want to go if you can choose).

I would be willing to wager money that you are not going to find ANY obstetrician in the US who will induce at 37 weeks for no other reason than familial "choice" ("elective induction"). In fact ACOG specifically says that it should not happen without medical basis.

> The idea that you got busted for an 1oz of weed and went to prison isn't aligned to reality.

Perhaps you should read more about prison in Arizona, and of law enforcement officials like Sheriff Arpaio.

Here: https://hernandez-hamilton.com/the-arizona-criminal-justice-...

Some quotes from that and the ACLU:

> It is grotesquely expensive, unduly punitive, discriminatory against minorities (especially against Latinos) and does little to actually keep our communities safe or cut down on recidivism.

> About 1 out of every 40 Latino men in Arizona are currently in prison. Even more are currently in the various other phases of the criminal justice system (pretrial release, jail, probation, parole, warrant status etc.). Arizona prison population is more than 40 percent Latino, but Latino’s only make up about 27 percent of our overall population.

> Our legislature is to blame for these insane prison statistics because it allows itself to be influenced by Arizona prosecutors to scuttle any prison reform initiatives. Prosecutors have a powerful lobby called Arizona Prosecuting Attorney’s Advisory Council (“APAAC”) which it uses to influence the legislative process to its own benefit. In the last few years alone, Arizona’s prosecutors have opposed bail reform, sentencing reform, and lighter drug sentences while supporting stiffer penalties for a number of offenses.

You may recognize APAAC - it's one of the sources you quoted with reference to "prison is full of dangerous and violent offenders". When I first read it it sounded like a District Attorney's campaign speech, and no wonder - it's their lobbying organization, that has opposed each and every reform bill in AZ in the last 24 years.

> You didn't steal a bicycle.

Or of an Arizona man convicted of several thefts in the space of three months from yards, sheds, all agreed by the state to be non-violent offenses, and only a couple involved entering any structure at all... his sentence? Two hundred and ninety two years. What did he steal that earned this sentence? A drill, flashlight, telescope, credit card.

Arizona also repeatedly sentences people sentences, up to life, with parole. Including plea bargains. And then it abolished the concept of parole. For nearly 300 people, this means now the state has "changed the terms of the deal or sentencing after the fact". (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investiga...)

Your attitude of "most of these people are dangerous criminals" is also not entirely aligned with reality.

[rsj_hn]

> The vast majority of prisoners are not dangerous.

Wow, what a divergence from reality.

The vast majority of prisoners are dangerous. This myth that the US incarcerates prisoners not because we have a huge criminal class, but because we just like locking people up, is one of the most inane talking points on the left, one easily disproven with a few seconds of googling, and yet people keep repeating it.

So here is the few seconds of googling:

https://aci.az.gov/sites/default/files/media/PrisonersinAriz...

Percentage of criminals in AZ that have committed violent felonies or are repeat felony offenders: 94.2%

of these, the number who are considered "violent offenders": 65.4%

One of the many mistakes made by people is looking only at Federal statistics (About 10% of all inmates are held by the Federal government, the rest are held by state governments). In general, many people have a very difficult time grasping federalism, and don't understand that the Federal legal code focuses on interstate offenses and other offenses that states can't handle. E.g. not things like violence or robbery, but say, embezzlement, trafficking across state lines, securities fraud, etc. The FBI/Justice Department do not get involved in most violent crime.

The next part of the deception is to look only at Federal prison statistics and say "hey, there's not a lot murderers here -- we are mostly locking people up for trafficking things across state lines!" -- and just hope that your listener is too unaware to say "wait a minute -- are you giving me federal prison statistics in a debate about crime? What is wrong with you?!"

I would also note the delicious irony that the same people who complain about "white collar crime" (e.g. property crime) being given a less stringent sentence than "blue collar crime" (e.g. violence) are the most vocal ones insisting that we shouldn't be incarcerating non-violent offenders.

You have to decide whether robbery/fraud is something that deserves a prison sentence and then be consistent -- not calling for prison for some CEO when you are in corporate-hating mode, and then demanding release of non-violent offenders when you are weeping after watching Les Miserables.

[evanwise]

The irony of complaining about cherry picking statistics while yourself cherry picking statistics is astounding. If you combine federal and state prisons about 40% of prisoners are reported to be in prison for violent offenses (in 2019 according to statistics prepared by the Bureau of Justice Statistics). So, yes, the majority of prisoners are in fact imprisoned for non-violent offenses. But this is not the end of the story, there is no universal standard for what is considered a "violent crime" so states are free to set their own standards (often under considerable political pressure from the local legislature). Some states consider any theft involving drugs or even embezzlement as violent crimes. Beyond this, these statistics are collected and maintained by the same institutions which have a direct monetary incentive to over report violent crime in order to obtain increased funding. This is a clear conflict of interest.

But even if violent offenders were the majority, violent offenders in general are, perhaps surprisingly, less likely to reoffend. This is because the best predictors of violence in the general population are age and secondarily gender. The overwhelming amount of violent crime is committed by male adolescents and young men. While we may be fascinated with macabre cases where serial killers and other extreme offenders were released, these are outliers. We should not base policy decisions on our emotional responses to crime but on measurable outcomes.

[dragonwriter]

> This myth that the US incarcerates prisoners not because we have a huge criminal class,

The US has a “huge criminal class” because of its criminalization, incarceration, and disenfranchisement (not just voting, but more general engagement in society) practices, which grew up initially as a concious, direct replacement for chattel slavery.

The size of the criminal class is not the trigger for the policy, but its objective. Initially out of racial animus and desire for commercial exploitation, including via the (now closed by federal statute despite the absence of a Constitutional prohibition, formally, though many would disagree that it is actually eliminated in practice given the nature of prison labor policies) penal servitude loophole in the 13th Amendment, but now the institutional interests of the politically powerful law enforcement—prison—industrial complex in protecting and expanding its own role is layered on top of those interests.

[FireBeyond]

> Percentage of criminals in AZ that have committed violent felonies or are repeat felony offenders: 94.2%

You can be a repeat felony offender with only non-violent drug offenses to your name. Explain to us how multiple drug possession felonies makes you "dangerous" to society?

[Buttons840]

We're a few interactions into this debate. I want to clarify, are we discussing what is legal or what is morally just? Because those are far from the same. I personally would rather discuss what is morally justifiable, since that is a more important standard.

[lelanthran]

> We're a few interactions into this debate. I want to clarify, are we discussing what is legal or what is morally just? Because those are far from the same. I personally would rather discuss what is morally justifiable, since that is a more important standard.

Who's morals? Yours? His? What makes your morals better than his? Why do you think your bar for "morally just" is the correct one?

Arguing morals is pointless - it's all subjective.

The best you can do is argue whether the rules are being adhered to or not.

Second best is to argue for addition or removal of rules.

[Buttons840]

I think there are many examples in history where discussing morals was more important than discussing the letter of law. When women couldn't vote, was "what's right" or "what's legal" the more important question?

You speak as though the law is not subjective, but legal rules are ultimately subjective just like moral rules. Was the holocaust legal? Most people when faced with the holocaust think "who cares what the law was, this is morally wrong". I'm sure there's some arguments out there that the holocaust was in fact illegal, and that's a fine academic argument about the law to have, but at the end of the day the people in power did what they did, and so I guess the legality of it all wasn't that important.

Arguing morals is very important.

And so back to my point, the more interesting question is "what is morally right and how do we want to structure our society in the future?" But if one side is arguing about morals and the other side is arguing about legalities, and they don't realize they're talking about different things, then it's hard to make progress.

[lelanthran]

You appear to have ignored me saying:

> Second best is to argue for addition or removal of rules.

And to answer your comment, arguing morals is pointless because there is no evidence that your morals are, in fact, any better than what you are arguing against.

None.

Arguing without evidence is pointless. You're simply saying "My opinion is better!", but in a more sophisticated manner.

Basically, you're doing the highbrow equivalent of "My God Is The Real God Only".

[Buttons840]

> Second best is to argue for addition or removal of rules.

What would we base our arguments for adding or removing rules upon? Financial incentives? Upon what will we base our assumption that financial incentives are important? Logical arguments are great, but after going down a layer or two we find there are only moral arguments. They are not pointless.

The above was going to be my first response, but then I took a step back and tried to address your argument as a whole.

I'm guessing you haven't spent much time considering moral philosophy, but even simplified toy examples, like the Trolley Problem quickly move past purely logical arguments and are firmly in the subjective realm. We won't be able to have a philosophical discussion here, but if you want I'd recommend the book "How to Be Perfect" as a relatively fun read on the subject and a good introduction.

[lelanthran]

> What would we base our arguments for adding or removing rules upon?

In practice we use a lot of things to attempt to convince a population to be for/against a law. We do it based on emotion (i.e. how much outrage/empathy/fear can be mustered on this particular crime), a sense of fairness sometimes.

But almost all the arguments using morals are poor ones - the against argument for female bodily autonomy is argued using morals, for example, and it didn't work.

Same-sex marriages weren't won by making moral arguments inasmuch the other side lost by making moral arguments.

When you see an argument based on morals, replace the word "morals" with "my god says so", because in practice that is all it is.

> if you want I'd recommend the book "How to Be Perfect" as a relatively fun read on the subject and a good introduction.

Thanks, I'll have a look for it. I'm afraid it seems that I haven't convinced you that arguing from morals is pointless, but I'm going to try one more time :-)

But, I respect your position, and it is not an uncommon one.

... so, parting thought ...

How can you continue an argument using your moral position as support, when the other party can dismiss your argument by saying that your moral position is inferior to his?

[richbell]

I think it's disingenuous to imply that it's impossible to separate legality from morality or ethics.

Saying "women shouldn't be forced to have medical procedures performed against their consent" is not just arguing about whose opinion is better. You are missing the forest for the trees.

[lelanthran]

> Saying "women shouldn't be forced to have medical procedures performed against their consent" is not just arguing about whose opinion is better.

Who's arguing that? I already made my position on that point clear: I think it's repugnant.

This thread (if you read back upthread) is literally only about the following sentence:

> I personally would rather discuss what is morally justifiable, since that is a more important standard.

But, while we're here anyway, I may as well ask why is the argument "women shouldn't have medical procedures performed against their consent"?

Why isn't the argument "people shouldn't have medical procedures against their consent"? Surely the notion that everyone should be treated equally is a morally superior position, so why focus on the less-moral argument?