Fuck them. Require a licensed doctor on site observing the workers. Fuck this I think your on drugs bullshit. Why the actual fuck would Texas take away water breaks? How much more value is that aqueezing out of your workers. I think this lady deserves WAY more than a million. You kill an employee due to neglect, pay a billion. But that’s too high. It’s supposed to be a punishment. Fuck it. A billion a year forever.
They’re taking away the workers’rights to get water breaks, not the supervisors’ rights to give them. So, if you’re a happy and compliant little drone who kisses enough ass maybe you’ll get one, and making workers’ feel the need to do things like that is where the real value in this lies for the bosses I think.
Those 5 minutes you’re drinking water COULD be spent making money for the company! Think of the bottom line! /s
That’s literally what this is. I’m sure whoever proposed the bill had a friend who runs a construction or landscaping company complaining that their workers are taking too much time on break because they’re hot.
The power dynamic is already heavily skewed in favor of the employer. Especially with construction and landscaping work, the way it tends to go is: workers need the job. The company rules with a pretty strict hand. You don’t like something, there’s the door. So you put up with stuff until you find another job or can’t take it anymore.
Take away a legal right, and that’s that. The workers and the company both know who has the upper hand. Sure, one person could try to stick up for themselves here and there, but plenty of people don’t because they’re afraid to lose their job. And it usually doesn’t change anything anyway. Even when there are laws to protect employees, companies don’t always follow them.
I’m talking mostly about non-union jobs there. Union jobs are better, but they’re not free of problems either.
And don’t forget in those industries you see a lot of workers who may not be legal so they have to put up with the companies bullshit. It’s not like they can get the law involved even if they wanted to. Companies know this and abuse their workforce heavily because of it.
If we believe in the death penalty, then we believe that the state has a right to end someone's life because they unjustly took someone else's.
So if a person was executed and was found posthumously to actually have been innocent, then would we be justified in executing, say, the DA who prosecuted the crime?
Yeah we totally would, and if the original murderer was found to not be innocent we would have to kill the person who killed the person who killed the murderer…
And perhaps at that point, enough people might realize that giving the state the right to execute people is extremely fraught and finally decide it's not worth it.
But it seems like maybe the bloodlust is too strong.
Do we ever give the death penalty to someone who kills someone by accident or in an unfortunate situation?
You analogy might be relevant if the DA knew the person was innocent and intentionally framed them and/or continued to prosecute. But it’s not remotely the same to have done so and been mistaken.
Do we ever give the death penalty to someone who kills someone by accident or in an unfortunate situation?
No, but we sometimes give the death penalty to... people who didn't do anything wrong? And maybe, just maybe, it's too easy, too consequence-free, for the state to take someone's life, if it just happens by accident sometimes.
The difference is that we don’t give the death penalty to somebody who accidentally does something wrong. And we especially don’t do that in such a deliberate drawn out process.
Yes, and I would argue that it's crueler to put an innocent person through that drawn out process than it is someone whose mistake or carelessness actually caused an innocent life to be lost.
It is a mistake worth dying over? Maybe not, but as long as there is no consequence to getting it wrong, there is literally zero incentive for public officials to get it right, especially those wanting to prove themselves "tough on crime"
I’m not sure why you act as if all innocent people are completely innocent. It could be that they made mistakes and we’re careless and that was a part of what led them to being falsely convicted.
Literally zero incentive is an extremely high bar and certainly incorrect.
I understand wanting to ensure there’s a better incentive than currently exists, but giving them the death penalty for false death penalties is just a roundabout way of stopping the death penalty. So you may as well just do that directly.
What I mean is that take a situation where someone was convicted of murder, but the reality is that was a false conviction and they were only guilty of manslaughter.
I shouldn’t have used the “innocent person” phrasing because that’s too low resolution for this discussion. You can’t always neatly put a person into innocent/guilty categories.
I got pretty bad heat stroke once while running in Texas. Was in the military, and due to a stupid miscommunication was told I was not allowed to drink water.
Lap or two later and I started having symptoms I’d never experienced before.
I can 100% believe that my look and behavior could have been mistaken for drug use.
I had stopped sweating, looked pale and disoriented, I’m sure I was not speaking clearly. My friend grabbed me and dragged me to a water fountain.
Once I had time to recover, get some A/C, and rehydrate, I was pretty much fine, though I remember having one hell of a headache like a hangover.
Yeah, you start acting this way because your brain literally starts to boil in your skull. Over a certain temperature, your sweat glands start dying and so your body has no other effective ways to shed heat from your core.
Well There’s Your Problem just had a very horrifying episode about heatstroke - they had a physical therapist on to talk about the Jordan McNair heatstroke case in 2018 at U Maryland.
3 times in my life I can tell you that I had heat exhaustion. One time I thought I was going to have to go to the hospital. It is the absolute worse feeling I’ve ever experienced
Maybe I’m not thinking through everything here, but why not have a phone locker by the classroom door? Student comes in, phone goes in the phone locker. Student leaves…phone comes out.
Parents throw a fit, and honestly I can’t blame them. With school shootings as prevalent as they are I’d want my kid to have a phone at all times too if they need to call for help.
There have been multiple times that my daughter has had emergencies at school that she was able to solve by calling us. I’m glad she has a phone. But she also uses it responsibly.
Honest question. How quickly do these emergencies need to be resolved by you specifically? Like if the teacher or school can contact you in a quick manner if they go to the office, why would they need a phone on their person?
Maybe there are person exceptions here, but how often does a few minutes, or a direct contact matter?
Exactly. I'm adopted. I'm pro choice. But this isn't really the own it's getting implied to be. It really just highlights that statistics can support an argument, but you can't really make an argument based solely on stats.
Yep they’re trying(and succeeding at in some states) to frame women as cattle. Where the fetus no matter what the viability is, or the danger to the women’s health, and her socioeconomic status in regards to being able to raise a kid(with little to no help from the state that made her carry the fetus to term without any social safety net and if their is one it’s completely underfunded and has lack of easy access. Wtf is going on in peoples minds that think this is alright? I swear the alt right and republicans just give lip service “ small government” while they laugh all the way to the bank and damn well make sure that their daughters,wife’s, mistresses have access to those health services that is “plebs” are not privy too. /end rant
In Nebraska, The 12-week ban includes exceptions for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. This might indicate it was more of a socio-economic / psychological reason, which are not sufficient grounds under the law to terminate the offspring after that point.
Good luck getting a doctor to perform an abortion under those conditions. Whose responsibility is it to verify that the condition is met? Doctors are very afraid of being sued. Most just won’t perform any abortions just in case. This is the intended effect.
It was always a crime to secretly force a stillbirth at 28 weeks and then bury the body without telling anyone. 28 weeks is almost 7 months (edit: math is hard). She had plenty of time to do it legally.
agree. fetuses can live outside the womb starting at ~24 weeks, whether you are pro life or pro choice i think (and hope) most of us can agree abortion at 28 weeks is very wrong. i dont understand how people can think otherwise. plus the article says nothing about the fetus posing any dangers to her health.
Absent more information, we cannot assert it was definitely wrong. You've intentionally framed this as "the article says nothing about the fetus posing any dangers to her health" which I have to assume is an intentional lie of omission. What the article actually says is nothing at all about the health of the fetus. It does not imply there was no danger to her health. It says nothing. Likely because it is an unknown.
What we do know about a 28-week abortion is that such an abortion was not part of a normal, healthy plan. Late-term abortions like this are almost certainly from someone intending to carry to term who has some kind of crisis. We do not know the nature of severity of the crisis.
In such a crisis generally, the community and the state should've been there to help them navigate it and reach an outcome that kept her as whole as possible while doing what is possible to keep the child alive. This was possibly a viable pregnancy. But I totally understand, especially to a teenager and in the current political environment of a place like Nebraska, being rightly too frightened to reach out for help.
We can not agree on that because we have no fucking clue on the circumstances. It’s possible she learned of a medical complication for the fetus after 20 weeks. It is possible that it is really difficult to get an abortion in Nebraska and it took a couple months to be able to obtain the resources to do it.
We do not know because the information is not provided. It is possible that somehow after carrying a fetus for 28 weeks and likely knew for 22 of those weeks, she decided she no longer wanted it. We do not know but that seems unlikely to me.
To pretend that abortion after some arbitrary limit, should be illegal, is to make a mockery of pro-choice and bodily autonomy arguments. It even makes a mockery of pro-life. The whole thing is a complete joke. If you think abortion is murder, then agreeing to a term - based compromise is agreeing to let people murder children as long as they’re not too old. A compete mockery of pro-life. In reality, the arguments for bodily autonomy are so strong that everyone should have the right to abort at any term, because no one has the right to use someone else’s body without their consent (Republicans are changing this).
When you support these arbitrary term-based bannings, you’re giving in to the social manipulation of pro-lifers who have successfully manipulated you into a compromise that supports their position.
Being pro-choice requires you accept abortion at any point is morally acceptable.
It does not mean it is desirable. You can have a preference that an abortion late term not happen. It's just a preference for individuals to behave more charitably, after all. And you're free to institute policies that make it less likely to happen so long as those policies do not trample on an individual's ownership of their own body. For example, you can create financial incentives to complete the pregnancy -- cover the person's living and healthcare expenses or flat pay them to do it.
It's telling that the "pro-life" types aren't out here advocating for these kinds of policies that prevent individuals from WANTING to have abortions. If they truly were concerned about murder, they'd be out there making education and contraception available and pregnancy care available and cheap. They'd be expanding things like TANF. All sorts of policies that are normally part of the agenda of the same people that tend to be pro-choice.
I wish people wouldn't talk about pregnancy in terms of months.
40 weeks is at typical pregnancy. A nice, round, simple-to-remember number.
28 weeks is a pregnancy in the 6th month, just as a matter of fact. 28 weeks is also basically the earliest you would ever call someone in the third trimester and is the earliest a pregnancy is typically thought to have the possibility of viability.
There are quite a few medical complications that can be found after the 20 week ban. It is possible she did not discover it until after that. The article does not give information on the circumstances.
As for what she is being charged with, improper disposal of a body, that seems proper assuming there was some sort of biohazard issue.
Yep. Know why she did it? Desperation + living in a state that already made it hard to get abortions, but also doesn’t provide good prenatal care. Nebraska has one of the higher infant mortality rates in the country (though it still pales in comparison to Mississippi).
Celeste Burgess, now 19, pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant, beyond the 20-week limit then set by Nebraska law.
Abortion should be completely legal at any trimester. That’s what it means to have a right to bodily autonomy. Pretending that abortion is murder, but not if it’s before some arbitrary trimester limit, makes a mockery of the pro-life position. If it’s murder or “wrong” after a certain week, then it’s murder before that time has passed too. Pro-lifers lie and say they want to “compromise”. They’ve successfully tricked the population into thinking term limits actually are humane, without you considering the arguments why we should or should not have them in the first place.
You don’t know the circumstances because the article does not give them. Don’t be a fuck head. It is quite possible that there were medical complications that were discovered past 20 weeks.
Celeste Burgess, now 19, pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant, beyond the 20-week limit then set by Nebraska law.
Then the doctors would have advised her on what to do. I doubt "take black market pills to force a stillbirth and then hide the body" were the doctors orders.
Would they really though? If there’s legislation in place that could cost a doctor their license or even put them in jail, then they wouldn’t be able to recommend that or do the procedure themselves. This is a huge part of the reason why there’s now a huge shortage of OB/Gyn doctors in red states, because they just can’t practice medicine with one arm tied behind their backs with these ridiculous laws all over the place.
It should not be a crime. The trimester is irrelevant. If the child had been born, it would have no right to anyone’s body. In the womb, it should have no right to someone’s body either. Pro-lifers have tricked you into arguing for unethical trimester-based bans. If it’s wrong to kill that baby after a certain number of weeks, it’s wrong to kill it before then too. To compromise, to allow abortion before a certain trimester but not after, is to make a mockery of the pro-life position, which says abortion is murder (but if you do it early you get a pass). There is nothing wrong with a late-term abortion compared to an early abortion. The child does not have a right to use someone without their consent.
Seems like you wanted to actually argue something, so please expand on your comment by explaining why it’s outside both science and morality, otherwise you’re not really having a discussion.
The actual crime she was nabbed for was illegally hiding human remains. Her mother who provided the abortion pills is the one actually going to be in a lot more trouble it sounds like.
“According to court documents, Celeste Burgess was in her third trimester of pregnancy when she consumed the abortion pills, making the procedure illegal as per Nebraska law.”
I think this would be illegal in almost every western country.
What would be revolting is if this wasn’t a crime. She then hid the “human remains.” I understand you’re probably pro-choice, but is this the hill you want to die on?
People like you just read the headline and reaction as if you know the whole story?
Abortion should be legal at any trimester, for any reason. No one has the right to use your body without your consent (unless Republicans succeed). Pretty sure that’s how it is in Canada.
None of these countries would permit an abortion at 28 weeks, let alone let her keep the babies remains.
The article sheds no light on why she needed a late-term abortion. If something is permissible and publicly funded, chances are a person gets it done early, in a clinic, without hesitation. In case of wanting an abortion, delay is harmful, having to travel, smuggle something or fear something (or gather money) is harmful. Also note: those countries have a separate schedule for normal and exceptional conditions. Which is generally not possible in a political environment that has banned abortion (some cities in Nebraska - yes, in the US, cities can regulate abortion, very strange for me). Some examples that I know of:
Estonia:
under normal conditions, 12 weeks
under exceptional conditions, 22 weeks (risk to health, severe foetal disease, raising the child is prevented by health or sanity, the pregnant is under 15 or over 45)
Finland:
under normal conditions, 12 weeks
under exceptional conditions, 20…24 weeks (foetal abnormality gives a limit of 24 weeks)
Great, so Canada got it right, and you’re obviously swinging the weight of “western nations” as if it has any relevance. What matters is what can be argued to be correct, and I’ve argued that using bodily autonomy. You’ve argued… You’re right because most western nations agree. Totally barbaric and ignorant of my argument, but that’s obvious. You completely misunderstand consent, but that’s not surprising. I was taught that consent can be withdrawn, but you imply like she has to sit there and take it if she consented originally. Bizarre view of consent you have.
No, they enacted a policy that you agree with. That doesn’t make it ‘right.’
and you’re obviously swinging the weight of “western nations” as if it has any relevance.
It does, we’re most comparable with other first world countries and specifically western countries. Pretty much in every comparable metric where we want to see how we’re doing, we compare it to first world european nations.
What matters is what can be argued to be correct
There is no ‘correct’ - just because you agree with it, doesn’t mean every single country needs to listen to you and enact policies you agree with. You have mad main character syndrome.
Believe it or, people disagree with some of your opinions, and that doesn’t make them ‘wrong’
Not anywhere in anything you said, do you actually argue why abortion should be legal or illegal. Not anywhere do you argue why we should or should not have inviolable bodily autonomy. You wrote a whole lot that says “most western countries agree, so that’s what I’m going with”. What a lazy, uneducated, uninformed opinion. If you have nothing useful to say, why are you replying? I gave reasons why I am pro-choice, any you are completely avoiding those.
do you actually argue why abortion should be legal or illegal.
Because that’s not my argument, that’s what you want to argue.
I’m simply stating that almost every single other western country, even ones that are much more liberal than the U.S., has laws restricting abortions in the scenario that this woman had an abortion. If the U.S. is a shithole 3rd world country because of this, those nations surely are as well.
Nebraska’s abortion policy at this time was more liberal than europes, who we offten compare our policies to.
I’m also arguing that just because you think a policy would be good, doesn’t make it ‘right’ for the other 7 billion people in the world.
You’re arguing that you don’t have to argue. You’re the same guy I’m replying to from yesterday about this very topic. I’m laughing so hard that here you are spending all your energy taking about what most western countries do or do not do, but you STILL won’t argue for or against bodily autonomy, for or against abortion. You have no argument! You just want to talk about things that are completely irrelevant, like what policy has been decided. It’s irrelevant! Argue or admit you can’t justify what you believe. This is my 3rd reply to you and you never argue or justify anything, just more invitation to meaningless conversation.
I don’t care! This is exactly what I meant about conservative misdirection when YOU were CRYING yesterday about how everyone ridicules conservatives on reddit/lemmy. Ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule, by definition. You refuse to engage my argument because you have no response. So you argue ANYTHING else, you ask me to consider your own arguments, knowing you’ll trap and misdirect at every turn. Abortion should be legal because we should have a right to our own bodies. Ultimately, you don’t believe in this right, which is why you avoid the topic. If you want to know why I treat you like other conservatives, it’s because you act like other conservatives.
I don’t see how I’m personally attacking them, nor do I intend to. When I said they were crying, I was referencing their comment from yesterday. I want to attack their ideas, which do not need to be respected. I respect their right to have their opinion heard and that’s why I’ve repeatedly asked this user to argue the topic, as of yesterday. They will not. They also complained that they were unfairly persecuted, while they respond to threads like this one, asserting their opinion, arguing irrelevant topics, never engaging my position. I’d call them a troll but I think they’re sincere.
Some people do it even years after birth, so there are always someone pushing it.
Point is that “tour right To swing your fist ends just where my nose begins”
At some point those cells become person wether that is after three months, nine months or nine years is up to debate. I think medical professionals are best equipment to advice us.
I don’t believe you will find many doctors willing to do abortion in 7th month.
You are arguing in favor of abortion when you say “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” I can’t believe you don’t see that. The principle says that we are generally free, but we don’t have the right to harm or infringe upon someone else. But, that’s exactly what’s happening when a woman is forced to give from her body to support a child. You are giving the child the right to swing their fist wherever, regardless of who it harms.
The cells are a person from the very beginning. They are a person, and it is not wrong to abort them. It’s the most compassionate way to interpret our autonomy rights. The alternative is forced incubation.
See, you have to misrepresent my position, to try to defeat it. You should feel ashamed for the harm against women you’re perpetuating with your attitude, but you’re probably too ignorant to realize the impact of your own beliefs.
If it was easy to get an abortion earlier in the pregnancy when she wanted one, you would have a point. But you and I both know Republicans have made it next to impossible for women to get a legal abortion before whatever cutoff time have been mandated in law, especially in a deep-red shithole like Nebraska. When Republicans keep restricting access to legal abortions, things like this are going to happen. This is entirely a policy failure.
Right because the GOP is famously known for making it easy to get an abortion, and definitely don’t defund abortion providers so that people have to drive for hours to get an abortion. I’m sure the odds are high she lives right next door to one of Nebraska’s three whole abortion clinics, you know?
I don’t know the exact scenario, only the facts presented in the article
The woman had 20 weeks to get an abortion, instead she took an abortion pill at 28 weeks and held onto the babies remains.
I’m sure during the 5 months, she could have found a day to drive and get an abortion if it was important to her.
I do believe there should be more abortion clinics available, but have you ever lived in a rural state? The 3 are in the largest cities in the state, where nearly 50% of the population lives.
Putting an abortion clinic in a town of 1,000 people doesn’t make sense for clinics. I think your disgust comes from your lack of understanding rural america.
Okay first of all the article doesn’t say “held onto the babies remains.” She plead guilty to removing or concealing human skeletal remains, which most likely means she buried it.
I’m sure during the 5 months, she could have found a day to drive and get an abortion if it was important to her.
See, that’s an assumption, not a fact presented in the article. You don’t know if she had access to a car, and public transportation in rural areas is known for being practically nonexistent. It’s possible she didn’t get an abortion sooner because she simply did not have the means to.
Putting an abortion clinic in a town of 1,000 people doesn’t make sense for clinics. I think your disgust comes from your lack of understanding rural america.
You realize places like Planned Parenthood don’t just perform abortions, right? They provide all kinds of other family planning and women’s healthcare services, which are useful for most women, not just those looking to get an abortion. It makes sense for them to be easily accessible to everyone. And GOP has been attacking Planned Parenthood for yearsspecifically to make it harder for women to get abortions. What this woman went through is exactly the sort of thing that was inevitable when the Republican party attacks women’s rights.
regardless, it’s the law. if you want it changed, move to Nebraska, get residency, start a grassroots campaign, get elected to State government, and draft a bill into law.
you’re free to do that, after all - self government is one of our many freedoms. many other countries don’t allow people to do anything about how the government works.
I don’t get what’s controversial about Netflix making sure their customers keep their promises.
The good thing about Netflix is that they don’t lock you in for 12-24 months. So you’re free to cancel whenever you want. Compare that to the agreement you have with your internet provider.
With that said, you who cancelled Netflix because of this change, what streaming service did you move to that didn’t enforce on account per household?
With that said, you who cancelled Netflix because of this change, what streaming service did you move to that didn’t enforce on account per household?
No streaming service has a "on[e] account per household" rule so I'm not really sure what you mean. Are you saying "what streaming service allows password sharing?" The answer is all of them except Netflix and Apple sort of (Apple cleverly tied it to having an Apple ID so credit where credit is due. It's just too difficult to password share outside your family. But in theory you can).
I didn't cancel netflix, but I didn't bother to make my own account when I got booted from my parents' account. Because Netflix doesn't make enough good stuff to justify it anymore and they cancel everything too quickly. I'm actually happier paying for Apple TV+ or whatever it's called because the price is good and the content is like nothing I've ever seen half the time. I can just browse PlutoTV and/or Tubi and I've got 90% of the quality I see at Netflix for $free.99.
I don’t get what’s controversial about Netflix making sure their customers keep their promises.
This is a tad dramatic, we don't have a moral obligation to netflix. Account holders agreed to terms and to make it sound so important as a personal promise is a bit much. Either way, you're totally right, Netflix is within their rights to boot people. I think most people get that. But they also allowed the status quo for 16 years, so this is their fault. They set an expectation and created a sharing culture that almost, quite literally, crosses generations. They wanted to be in more homes faster and that was the cost. Then they're surprised when they say "hey it's over" and people are vocalizing their displeasure? Again, it's their right, but what did they (or you) expect to happen?
Either way it doesn't matter. If their balance sheet works it works. I just can't quite see why you're riding in defense of Netflix.
“…but I didn’t bother to make my own account when I got booted from my parents’ account. Because Netflix doesn’t make enough good stuff to justify it anymore and they cancel everything too quickly.”
So you actually don’t care about Netflix enforcing the agreement since you don’t care about Netflix.
I agree on Netflix not making much good stuff. A lot of the Netflix movies people are praising today would never have passed the pre production phase in the 90’s or 00’s. It just seems like there has been a general decline in quality the last 10 years and people had just gotten used to it and get happy for whatever is better than the latest upcoming remake/sequel.
I also agree about Apple producing quality. In my opinion they’re the only streaming service that doesn’t fill their catalogue with bullshit just to look bigger.
All other services not requiring one account per household is simply not true. Netflix is probably the only service actively stating that account sharing is okay. For example, Disney Plus terms states that you are not allowed to share your credentials to a 3rd party.
The reason that some services are more lenient on this issue is that they are still focusing on gaining market shares. Next phase is starting to focus on how to getting profitable.
Netflix might be the first one cracking down on this but they are definitively not the last one doing that.
If the streaming services don’t make sure it’s enforced the copyright holders will.
So you actually don’t care about Netflix enforcing the agreement since you don’t care about Netflix.
Why does that matter? Don't discount my opinion simply because I don't care enough about netflix's content to pay for it. Nothing I've said hinges on that.
All other services not requiring one account per household is simply not true. Netflix is probably the only service actively stating that account sharing is okay. For example, Disney Plus terms states that you are not allowed to share your credentials to a 3rd party.
Netflix said the same things in its terms for 16 years. Would you have said "netflix doesn't allow account sharing"? Because that's a pretty ridiculous claim when functionally they did and everyone else does. I currently only pay for HBO, yet I'm on Prime, Hulu, and Disney+. Terms or not, we know what the reality is. So let's not hide behind faux-legalese and arguments even you don't believe man.
The reason that some services are more lenient on this issue is that they are still focusing on gaining market shares. Next phase is starting to focus on how to getting profitable.
They aren't lenient, they literally don't enforce it. And it's not just "some," it's all but Netflix and Apple* (as explained above). Because functionally it's allowed.
Netflix might be the first one cracking down on this but they are definitively not the last one doing that.
No doubt about it, but not sure its relevance.
If the streaming services don’t make sure it’s enforced the copyright holders will.
This sounds highly speculative.
I'm also not sure you really answered the "one account per household" thing. You are very precious about the ToS so I'm curious what you meant by this.
The reason I chose the word “promise” is because people often, especially in discussions regarding Netflix latest nice, tend to forget/ don’t understand what it means when you sign an agreement.
I personally don’t care if people get angry if Netflix hold them liable to the agreement they signed out if they get angry after getting a parking fine.
Regarding the ToS, do you mean that Netflix never made a change in the terms regarding sharing account before enforcing the new stuff or do you agree that the terms now regulate who you can and who you can’t share your account with?
I don’t know how much clearer I can make this. We are talking about what is written and what is functionally happening. It’s like jaywalking. If you jaywalk, and someone said “jaywalking is illegal,” you would roll your eyes because literally everybody does it.
All of these services say it’s one account per person (again, not a household). But none of them enforce it. So for the last 16 years Netflix has functionally not had that rule. I do not understand how you are confused by this concept. I feel like I’ve been pretty clear about it and it’s self evident. It is pointless to say “you’re not allowed to share accounts“ when it was rampant and Netflix did not care. We aren’t idiots, we know they are choosing to enforce it now. That’s literally what this entire discussion is about.
So what do you think is the reason why people are mad at Netflix? Is it because Netflix didn’t stop some customers from not following the agreement earlier or is it because the customers can’t continue to not following the agreement?
Yeah they’re allowed to but we get to be mad at them and factor that anger into our decisions regarding their product. Few if any people are saying that this behavior should be illegal, we’re saying it’s frustrating how few people are taking that anger into action
That’s correct. My point was that Netflix is now a low quality overpriced non-essential product. Why not just cut it without adding yet another subscription to your life?
Netflix making sure their customers keep their promises
Netflix sold me a 4 screens shareable account. They then broke their promise and removed the shareable part. WTF are you talking about, or was that simply sarcasm?
American phone and internet prices are crazy, they’re six times what I pay in the UK and come with so many bullshit fees and lock in clauses. Netflix being better than the worst of the worst doesn’t mean it’s not still shitty.
But yeah I do kinda agree, it’s a company giving you a choice to buy their shitty product for a high price - just say no and get your entertainment elsewhere, they make shit write-by-numbers time fillers no one actually needs it in their life. It’s the telecoms and other essential services we should be mad at, and by mad at I mean nationalising and open sourcing
"In May, Burgess pleaded guilty to a felony charge of removing or concealing human skeletal remains."
If that is the case, people are a lot stranger then I thought. I thought not hiding and/or stealing human remains was something most people supported. Learned another new thing today
I wonder if the circumstances leading up to that have any bearing on what ultimately happened, and if the state’s draconian laws on women’s rights should be examined as a possible influence on these chain of events. No, you’re right, the entire thing happened entirely in a bubble, context be damned.
My understanding is that the law for abortion was 20 weeks at the time. That was more inline with European standards.
Regardless, you cannot just hide the remains. If that were legal bad clinics would be in there right to dump remains.
Either way you seem to be making a lot of assumptions. If you have links about this case that have more context of the situation I would be happy to read them.
I am a -1.5 by - 4.21 on the political compass if that makes you feel superior.
If she wasn’t able to access abortion healthcare prior to 20 weeks and as a result had the abortion performed at 28 weeks, which I’m sure she was aware at the time was against Nebraska law, then it’s not really a surprise that she would try to conceal the remains to cover up her original crime, which I would argue shouldn’t be a crime to begin with. Think about it critically here. Do you think laws against hiding human remains exist because hiding human remains is in and of itself a bad thing, or do they exist because someone hiding human remains suggests that they likely committed another crime prior to it? In which case we should be examining the circumstances leading up to the remains being hidden to begin with and apply judgement based on the entire circumstances.
Either way you seem to be making a lot of assumptions
“Context matters” is an assumption? We don’t know the full context, but here you are assuming she’s a bad person.
I am a -1.5 by - 4.21 on the political compass
Who cares. The political compass is a fucking joke that nobody should be taking seriously.
You made the assumption that she could not receive abortion healthcare in the allowed 20 weeks at the time. I do not want to form my opinion on an assumption or feeling. I am going by what the article state since no one else has provided links to additional information on this case.
She was sentenced for the crime she admitted guilt to. Seems fair from the information I have.
You arguments may hold up better in the case of the mother when her sentencing come up.
"Who cares. The political compass is a fucking joke that nobody should be taking seriously."
You appear to as you try to throw ideas that challenge you into buckets when you say "Sure is easy being a conservative, isn’t it?"
You made the assumption that she could not receive abortion healthcare in the allowed 20 weeks at the time.
I didn’t assume anything. I have made a theory based on the facts presented to me, but I have not asserted my theory as fact. Learn the difference between theories and assumptions, please.
Seems fair from the information I have.
That is an opinion formed from your feelings. It’s okay to form opinions, just don’t act like you’re better than everyone else because you’re pretending you aren’t doing so.
You appear to as you try to throw ideas that challenge you into buckets when you say “Sure is easy being a conservative, isn’t it?”
That had jack shit to do with the political compass and everything to do with you choosing to ignore everything that users in this thread were saying and assuming that the only moral judgement being made was on this woman hiding human remains, and ignoring all conversation to the contrary, when in reality the story is much more nuanced and complex than that. Boiling down a complex event to “person did a bad thing, therefore they are wrong in everything” and dismissing the rest of the story so you can make a moral judgement is something conservatives are fond of. Maybe don’t act like a conservative if you don’t want to be called one.
Celeste Burgess, now 19, pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant, beyond the 20-week limit then set by Nebraska law.
This was before the change in the law. It is certainly possible that there were medical issues or that Nebraska made it extremely difficult to get an abortion. I wish the article offered more details. 28 weeks is extremely late for an abortion.
I think it’s an illegal abortion because she is not licensed to provide abortions. At least that’s what I recall reading on this elsewhere. I could be mistaken as it would still have been illegal by state law of 20 weeks at the time. I do believe what this mother did is reckless. She provided a medical procedure that she isn’t qualified to oversee. All that being said, I’m pro choice, but I don’t know that this case really represents what people are saying it does.
The state law that was in place prior to the overturning of Roe v. Wade would have had the same result for this mom and daughter. Not saying I agree with the 20 week ban, but that was the law. My point is that this case is being pushed so hard as a “look what happens after Roe v. Wade is overturned” and that just isn’t the case. There are other examples that illustrate that point more concisely.
Unless you have details other reports don’t have, I don’t think we really know why they did this at 28 weeks. I have not seen anything that said they couldn’t afford it prior to 20 weeks so they did it themselves. I’ve seen a bunch of comments here that insert details that have not been part of any reporting I’ve seen. That’s not to say there isn’t more info out there I have not seen.
They wouldn’t be in the position where the mother would have to be the one providing the service were the service still legal for professionals to provide
This argument is circular since abortions after 20 weeks are prohibited. All of the qualified medicinal professionals are not allowed to provide late term abortions thus no qualified person could provide the medical care she needed. The fault is not with the mother for doing something unsafe but the state that requires that only unsafe conditions exist for the procedure.
I was talking about what the mother is specifically being charged with. I did a little extra looking and that charge (abortion by someone other than a licensed physician) was dismissed as she is pleading guilty to illegally providing an abortion after 20 weeks, false reporting, and tampering with human remains. I agree that restrictions on abortion have the potential to lead to unsafe abortions. I also think it’s true that someone unqualified should not attempt it. Both can be true I think.
That’s what I’m talking about as well. A rise in back alley abortions and thus abortions done by unqualified practitioners are a direct consequence of abortion bans. No one would need to hide “human” remains if a legal abortion was available. No one would be forced to find a provider who is available rather than qualified if the abortion was legal. One should not be judged for taking irresponsible measures if that is all that is available.
Idk that I can get with that last statement as a blanket for all cases, but I understand your point. Abortion should be legal and we as a society can still agree that someone unqualified shouldn’t be offering/providing them. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. Laws that prevent non-medical doctors from performing medical procedures would cover this, so making it specific to abortion isn’t necessary. I read an interesting write up on Jezebel about how these kinds of cases are really probing to see what the public will accept and that makes a lot of sense.
We’re not in fetus territory, here. A premature baby born at 28 weeks has an 80-90% chance of surviving and is unlikely to have any health issues.
The article doesn’t say why they waited so long to reach this decision, but on the face of it this case starts to blur the line between abortion and murder.
A baby born at 28 weeks is absolutely likely to have health issues. What the fuck are you talking about? That would be extremely premature.
A healthy fetus has a good chance of surviving, sure. But what if she found out that the fetus had a severe medical issue that would not see it live long outside the womb? That is significantly different. The article does not give detail on that.
The face of it does not provide detail. I agree that this blurs the line but the line is blurry because of the lack of information.
It doesn’t matter what the age of the child is. Abortion at any age is not murder, because no one has the right to use someone else’s body without their consent (until Republicans succeed at allowing this). You’re arguing that a fetus has no right to someone’s body, until it grows up and reaches a magical “goldilocks zone” where it’s not too old, not too young, but juuust right. Then you say, “can’t abort, it’s alive, it has a right to use someone’s body without their consent!” and, then, once it’s born, it loses that right! The entire situation you’ve been manipulated into agreeing to, makes a complete mockery of the very pro-life values it’s supposed to espouse.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.