623
Florida lawmakers sound alarm over plans ‘to send pregnant women & children’ to ‘Alligator Alcatraz’
(www.latintimes.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
623 points (99.8% liked)
politics
24617 readers
2634 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Honestly, how is it any better to send young men there? I'm not wild about sending pregnant women and children there obviously, but...are we indicating that men don't matter?
It said pregnant women and children. Which are both vulnerable populations that are more at risk for death from severe heat stress and malnutrition and stress .
A lot of our culture accepts and promotes the idea that men are inherently dangerous.
It is a depressing reality that to most people men (as a social class) are less important than others.
I think it's nice actually that we can recognize that pregnant women and children are more vulnerable groups of people that sometimes require more protection than men. I say that as a man.
I second this. I am nowhere near as vulnerable as a pregnant woman or a child. I choose to put myself below them, as they are in the position of such vulnerability. I'm personally okay with that.
Yep, there is not a big cabal of pregnant women having concentration caps built to hold white men. Not all men are dangerous, but more are than pregnant women.
So based on that statistic, we should treat them differently? This line of thinking leads to some very bad places.
I guess this is what I'm trying to convey - remember that even the Nazis did not go full Nazi immediately. It was incremental.
Let's say these camps end up killing some fraction of men, "accidentally", and possibly ramp up to more intentional things, like working people to death and even worse. At some point, the monsters are going to look around and still see "undesirables" in the remaining family members...meaning pregnant women and children.
They can inch things along as far as the circle of concern goes. The minute someone does the, "well, but it's men, and of course we wouldn't do this to pregnant women and children!" I cannot help but wonder where this is going...especially once all the men are "deported" or put into these camps. Where does the rest of their family go, anyway? Who is providing for them? If their provider was kidnapped and imprisoned, it's not like these vulnerable people are going to have their lives enriched even if they are not being put in concentration camps...
Recognising that some portions of the population are at higher risk leads to better outcomes for them if we follow where that thinking leads. The idea that all men are persecuted as men are more likely to take others rights, in a patriarchy where women have less rights, pay and justice is ridiculous.
Men should not be assumed guilty. Most aren't and never will be. However, we should recognise those who are at risk and place protections for them. Lack of protections for those that are higher risk is not the same as selectively prosecuting them, which is your implication.
I for one am glad that at least some on the right are still reachable on this matter.
But if they were okay with subjecting men they deem less than to this, it's still rather alarming, since it's not that much of a leap to then pushing pregnant women and children into the same conditions, if they are considered part of the same group.
Human rights protections for men can also protect pregnant women and children.
Indeed, protecting human rights universally makes them harder to chip away at.
The more loopholes we, as a society, allow in our morality the weaker it is.
Sure, but there are some protections that apply to pregnant women and children that don't apply to men. Ignoring that in the name of "equality" or dismissing that as "loopholes in morality" seems off base to me.
That's what I guess gets me. Of course we want to protect those that are even more at risk, but why does it take it going that far to talk about the fact that there is risk for anyone being held under such conditions?
Honestly, did you look at any of the pictures? You think people with delicate health conditions should be sent there? Really?
Also, I'm assuming you're genuine, but there are many people who post similar comments, things like "All lives matter." And yes, human life is worth respect, but at the same time, you don't want to be confused with a bigoted troll.
Don't lock people out of making valid arguments because they sound vaguely like arguments used by other people for negative means
Yes, it's a hard needle to thread. My point is that it's pretty fucked up in my view that it's considered unfortunate, but maybe "okay", with some if it's younger men being sent to such a place and held under such conditions, because, well, it's men. And that the only thing that might wake up some portion of the people is if women and children go there, and then some glimmer of humanity sparks in them...SMH.
It's not as if some men might have some preconditions that make them vulnerable under such conditions. Something tells me the monsters running this are not prescreening for any of that, because they are dangerous brown men....