620
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
620 points (100.0% liked)
politics
24708 readers
2717 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.
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.
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.
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.
But we're talking about a situation in which the protections are against unjust persecution. Selective lack of protections in this case is quite literally the same as selective persecution.
No, they are not the same thing. Just like not prosecuting children is not the same as selectively prosecuting adults.
It is also fine to prosecute pregnant women. We just don't send them to conditions that put them and their baby at risk. It's protection from severe risk, not protection from consequences or prosecution.
Alligator Auschwitz is an abomination and nobody should be held there. However, there are degrees of inhumane. Sending pregnant women there is more inhumane than sending an able bodied man.
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...
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.
Why? All people should be spared inhuman behaviour.
I'm sorry but "i don't like equality" feels like nonsense to me. Men should have every potection afforded to others.we should protect all people to the best of our ability.
You're either misunderstanding me or I'm not being clear enough, but I didn't say any of that lol. I'm gonna go step by step here and try to be really clear, but if I'm misunderstanding anything please let me know.
Yeah, I agree with you, and I don't think I've suggested anything to the contrary. I've just said that certain vulnerable groups sometimes require more protection than men. Because they're more vulnerable than men.
It feels like nonsense to me too, probably because I didn't say that either. But what it seems like you're suggesting is to ignore the circumstantial differences between groups, even when one group is more vulnerable than another, in the name of treating everyone the same, i.e, "equality". But I take issue with that, because that sort of thinking leads to inequal outcomes. As in, if a vulnerable group is treated exactly the same as their less-vulnerable counterparts, the vulnerable group will experience more negative outcomes on average, thus experiencing inequality.
In general, yeah, absolutely, except in cases where a particular protection only applies to a group that excludes men. The same logic applies to every group. Maybe this is just semantics at this point, but I don't see the point of affording a protection to a group that it doesn't apply to. All that is sort of beside the point though, because at no point have I suggested that any one group have protections taken away, just that some vulnerable groups require more protection than others in order to experience equality.
One hundred percent agree. In my view, we do that by trying to figure out what everyone needs as a baseline, identifying the more vulnerable groups by figuring out who that baseline doesn't satisfy, and then figuring out what extra things those vulnerable groups need. That's all I'm advocating for - protecting vulnerable groups by figuring out what extra protections they need, not taking protections away from less vulnerable groups.
I wouldn't consider "not being sent to a death camp" to be an extra protection that only applies to specific groups of people, though
Neither would I, and I haven't said anything of the sort.
Right, but we were talking about how people were less concerned when men get sent to the death camps, and then you made the point that some protections don't apply to men. You can see the connection. I don't believe that's the point you were intending to make but nonetheless I felt it was necessary to voice my disagreement for the sake of a complete discussion.
Maybe this is going to come across as just pedantry, but I really feel like some people are missing some pretty important things here. The thread started with this question:
I thought it was wild to leap to "men don't matter" on a post about pregnant women and children being sent to a concentration camp. That pivot felt misguided at best, and misogynistic at worst. I replied with a reminder that pregnant women and children are a more vulnerable group than men, as an alternative, *non-malicious explanation for why the article calls those groups out specifically. I was just trying to push back on the misguided notion of "media reports on group A, therefore they don't care about group B."
Ah okay, that makes more sense. Thanks.
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....