April R. King, 35, is facing a particularly bad criminal case after a police body cam video by Apopka police allegedly showed her using her 4-year-old son to blow into an in-vehicle Breathalyzer so it would start. She is accused of leaving her kids in the car to drink at a bar.
Police say that they were called to a running vehicle outside of a Froggers Grill and Bar with kids in the car. The kids were in the car for about 20 minutes. That might be somehow explained (though the running car is particularly dangerous) but employees said that she left the bar and drove around in the parking lot before going to a business next door to the bar. When police arrived, they say that she was outside of her vehicle and had slurred speech and smelled of alcohol and seemed unsteady. She denied going to the bar or leaving her children. As the police were looking into the matter, the boy went to the front seat and blew on the Breathalyzer.
Her husband not surprisingly revealed that his wife has a serious drinking problem. She was charged with child neglect and taken to the Orange County Jail on a $1,500 bond.
The husband was not in town during the incident and the children were released into the care of a babysitter.
These are unbelievably sad cases. Many of us have known people with alcohol dependency and it takes a terrible toll on these people and their families. The question is how to handle such cases without shattering a family. It should be clear that she cannot have supervision of the children, but the question is what other restrictions must be placed beyond mandatory treatment. It seems likely that a jail stint will be ordered.
How do you think such cases should be handled? Is jail really warranted with such an addiction and, if so, how long is appropriate in such a case.
Most normal people don’t feel the need to “punch” at all. The violent rhetoric is odd. Discussion should not be described in the same way someone describes an assault by reasonable people. That in itself is extremely odd.
Nick – at least we have a written record. 🙂
Has anyone pointed out this woman looks American Indian. That would not bode well for her hopeful alcoholic recovery. They have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism.
Actually, the only statement I took personally was when you called me childish and petulant. Can you perceive why I would do so? It’s hardly elevated discourse. You clearly do not grasp why your statement was false logic, and have utilized personal attacks to defend yourself from criticism that was not personal.
That is exactly the problem with abortion discussions. People start throwing shoes at each other instead of discussing the issue.
Thank goodness Believer commented here today. It would be nice if some folks took a lesson from the way she engages in discussion.
Karen, do try not to take me saying some right to lifers are hypocrites on the issue of foster parenting so personally. See what I mean now?
No thanks needed. Thank you for giving a caring, intelligent, reasoned, woman’s take on this, and so many issues.
Nick – I think the statement that making viability the limit point is cultural is just lost on the Pro Choice movement. People could just as easily choose from any number of demonstrated scientific facts – when a fetus feels pain, when a kick can be felt by the mother, when a chromosome is a unique human. All of these are scientific facts. But the Pro Limited Choice movement tends to pick a single scientific fact and claim their position is based on science, and therefor best. But that would also apply to any of these scientific facts about gestation. For instance, the ability for a fetus to respond to pain could have just as easily been chosen.
Nick – thanks. 🙂
And Karen, science and modern medicine has made it possible for a fetus to survive earlier and earlier, the law should reflect this changing paradigm. So it most certainly does have much to do with science and modern medicine when it comes to my opinion on continuing to provide a choice, while at the same time recognizing advances in the care of micro preemies.
Inga – the same thing and logic is being used by you to defend abortion as was used by people to defend slavery. If I declare a black to be subhuman, then I can enslave him, I can beat him, I can kill him. If I call a baby a fetus, I can declare it to be subhuman, then I can kill it.
Because of this I do not believe in abortion at any point in a woman’s pregnancy. And the old saw “To save the life of the mother” is a joke. With today’s medicine very few women need their lives saved during pregnancy.
“It’s childish and petulant to expect everyone to agree with you.”
If you claim that someone is a hypocrite if they are not directly involved in an issue on which they stated an opinion, that is false logic. It is neither childish, nor petulant, nor any other name you can think of to call me to point this out.
In fact, similar examples are given routinely in debate class. And the teacher does not call anyone childish for correctly identifying them. Do try not to get so personal.
“Karen, you consistently claim that someone is “taking away your voice” when one disagrees with you. It’s actually quite simple, you get to say what you want, I get to say what I want in response.”
No, that’s not what I said. I merely pointed out your false logic, a common fallacy that is used by many on a variety of topics in political discourse, but especially on abortion. You’re not the only one who engages in this behavior, but that does not prevent me from pointing it out.
I never really thought about abortion one way or another. If asked, I would have probably answered pro choice, because that’s what all young women seem to be. When discussed, it was talked about as something that occurs early to a “ball of cells.” That phrase is used quite commonly in abortion discussions, at least what I heard growing up.
When I got pregnant with my own child, I got many ultrasounds due to my age. I heard the gestation limit for abortion was quite a bit later than I’d thought. That was no “ball of cells.” I could see my little boy’s heart beating like a hummingbird so early, at mere weeks of gestation. I could see his shape, and he’d do acrobatics in response to the ultrasound. As the transducer probe moved, he would move.
And then I saw this, which made me really uncomfortable, especially about 2nd trimester abortions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53tzMV9OmvY
If you’re pro-2nd-trimester abortion, but you can’t listen to an OB/GYN simply describe the process, then something is wrong. If you cannot bear to hear the facts about an issue on which you have an opinion, then something is wrong.
And then I realized that Planned Parenthood vehemently opposed requiring practitioners to explain gestation to patients. The patient could get an abortion and have absolutely no idea what stage her baby was in – could he move, was his heart beating, was he healthy, did he look like a baby yet? Since they couldn’t see him, they could just think of him as a “ball of cells.” I don’t think women should be forced to have an ultrasound against their wishes, but I think practitioners should be required to offer them, as well as an explanation for the gestational stage. Otherwise, the woman is not making a medically informed decision.
If Pro Choice supporters want to prevent women from finding out what happens in an abortion, or what the baby looks like at and before the limit to abortion, then something is wrong. If you’re hiding information, something is wrong.
We all intuitive understand this when we discover hidden ingredients in our food or cosmetics. Why is it different in abortion? Why is accurate information considered bad or anti-woman? Why is it bad for women to understand a medical procedure?
I have to admit that my opinion on abortion is still evolving. And I’ve discovered that many women have the same experience. They don’t really think about the negative side until they become mothers, and see their first ultrasound.
Karen, you consistently claim that someone is “taking away your voice” when one disagrees with you. It’s actually quite simple, you get to say what you want, I get to say what I want in response. To challenge, to disagree is NOT taking away one’s voice. This is not an echo chamber and you may not agree with my take on things, and visa versa. Again no one is taking away your right to speak your opinions. You most assuredly do not have to agree with me on anything. It’s childish and petulant to expect everyone to agree with you. If I think conservatives act in a certain way that makes them appear hypocritical I will say so. You have the same right.
I would like to see the Pope spend more time on this topic and less on global warming.
Karen, You have graced this thread w/ wisdom.
“Gosnell’s clinic wasn’t inspected for decades. It was that lack of inspection that allowed such a house of horrors. If all abortion is made illegal, we will see more such uninspected illegal houses of horrors in back alleys once again.”
This occurred at a time that abortion was legal. The point of the Gosnell example is that his patients willingly applied to him for a late term abortion, proving that there are, indeed, people on the spectrum who believe that there should be zero limits to abortion. Some of the infants were born alive, took a breath, and then were gruesomely murdered. And the mothers went there to have it done. The fact that the rest of society viewed it as a “house of horrors” proves that the majority of civilized society believes there should be some limits to abortion.
If we don’t make it legal, people will just do it on their own is a common pro-abortion reasoning. Clearly, it held true here. Late term abortion is illegal, so women found a black market provider to get one in an unsafe environment. By that logic, shall we legalize late term abortion, because women will just do it anyway in less safe circumstances? It seems like false logic to me. A more accurate reasoning would involve delineating the line between the woman’s rights and the fetus’ rights. Clearly, most people feel a fetus has the right to life late-term. The disagreement is how much earlier does the fetus have the reasonable right to life.
“Yes indeed, but more than simply beliefs, science and modern medicine has much to do with it. If infants are viable around 22 weeks and could conceivably be aborted alive and survive with medical care, there should be a time limitation.”
Statistics and biology determine viability (albeit with intensive intervention in the NICU) at 22 weeks; cultural values make viability a determining factor in abortion limits. It could have just as easily been based on the scientific facts of when fetuses respond to stimuli, when the embryo implants, when the chromosome forms a unique human, when the fetus could breathe on his own without a respirator . . .
“My side is backed by science” is really a false premise. All of these limitations are based on personal belief. Different people can look at at the same list of scientific facts listed above, and come to different conclusions on when one should ethically limit abortion.
Some cultures believed that infanticide was allowed because the child was not able to survive without the help of an adult until a certain age. That sounds quite similar to the “viability” argument.
So, clearly, there is no one-size-fits-all Pro Choice movement. In fact, it is more accurately a Limited Choice movement with a sliding scale, in a holier than thou war. Everyone’s fighting over who cares more for the mother, for the fetus, for medicine, etc. But the reality is that most people agree that, ethically, abortion should be limited. That is the common ground. People throw shoes at each other over what that limit should be.
But the premise that conservatives insert themselves between a woman and her right to choose is inaccurate. Actually, everyone who believes there should be some limit to abortion interferes with a woman’s right to choose. We already prevent the mother’s right to kill a child by infanticide, a practice that is still in use in other parts of the world.
“And no one has claimed that one cannot have a “voice” based on their stance on abortion. But it gives people the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of those who would ban all abortion, yet stand by to see a multitude of children languishing in foster care.”
This statement completely contradicts itself. You’re allowed to voice an opinion, but if you do not involve yourself personally in an issue, you are a hypocrite for commenting. That’s ridiculous. I have strong opinions on way too many issues to get personally involved on all of them without being guilty of hypocrisy.
Interesting.
Oh and one more thing Believer, yes I was raised right. I had two wonderful parents who were fundamentalist Christians, but were able to put aside some of the more extreme aspects of their religion when dealing with myself and my siblings. They were exemplary grandparents who helped me with my two youngest after my divorce in the way of moral support and child care on occasion. I miss them very much.