Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3173 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 74
Thanked:104
Posted: 05-27-08 11:31am
Birch
wrote:
cmyked
wrote:
IF the harm is purposeful. I
don't think she should be charged for
accidental manslaughter if her body
miscarries the child, for example.
However, if it's something obvious like
drinking or drug abuse WITH the intent to
give birth then yes, she is 100%
responsible.
This could be very, very scary. Society
would have to explicitly define "something
obvious" and then what exactly that
responsibility entails.
I would be in no favor of such a law. I
would hope to compel pregnant women by
education
instead.
If that happens I will become a lesbian
therfore I can no longer get pregnant lol
Birch I agree with you 100%
|
Snug
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 151 Location: In the jacuzzi, silly.
Thanks: 21
Thanked:0
Posted: 05-27-08 11:46am
cmyked
wrote:
IF the harm is purposeful. I
don't think she should be charged for
accidental manslaughter if her body
miscarries the child, for example.
However, if it's something obvious like
drinking or drug abuse WITH the intent to
give birth then yes, she is 100%
responsible.
I disagree. I believe that any activity a
non-pregnant woman can engage in, a
pregnant woman ought to be able to do as
well. I find the concept of stripping
someone of their rights because of their
reproductive status to be quite alarming.
As for illegal drug use, if a pregnant
woman is caught doing that, the penalties
should be no greater than those imposed on
a non-pregnant woman.
Personally, I think all drugs should be
legal anyway. Of course, I know that's
never going to happen. But a Libertarian
can dream, right?
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3173 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 74
Thanked:104
Posted: 05-27-08 11:55am
Snug
wrote:
cmyked
wrote:
IF the harm is purposeful. I
don't think she should be charged for
accidental manslaughter if her body
miscarries the child, for example.
However, if it's something obvious like
drinking or drug abuse WITH the intent to
give birth then yes, she is 100%
responsible.
I disagree. I believe that any activity a
non-pregnant woman can engage in, a
pregnant woman ought to be able to do as
well. I find the concept of stripping
someone of their rights because of their
reproductive status to be quite alarming.
As for illegal drug use, if a pregnant
woman is caught doing that, the penalties
should be no greater than those imposed on
a non-pregnant woman.
Personally, I think all drugs should be
legal anyway. Of course, I know that's
never going to happen. But a Libertarian
can dream, right?
I feel the same way, we shouldnt be locked
in a room because someone else cares more
about something that is to come then what
is already here. I dont think they
understand the implications on what they
are saying snug, especially if it is a
woman.
|
NeutralUsername
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 May 2008 Posts: 124 Location: , United States
Thanks: 10
Thanked:0
Posted: 05-27-08 14:49pm
diamondsz
wrote:
Snug
wrote:
cmyked
wrote:
IF the harm is purposeful. I
don't think she should be charged for
accidental manslaughter if her body
miscarries the child, for example.
However, if it's something obvious like
drinking or drug abuse WITH the intent to
give birth then yes, she is 100%
responsible.
I disagree. I believe that any activity a
non-pregnant woman can engage in, a
pregnant woman ought to be able to do as
well. I find the concept of stripping
someone of their rights because of their
reproductive status to be quite alarming.
As for illegal drug use, if a pregnant
woman is caught doing that, the penalties
should be no greater than those imposed on
a non-pregnant woman.
Personally, I think all drugs should be
legal anyway. Of course, I know that's
never going to happen. But a Libertarian
can dream, right?
I feel the same way, we shouldnt be locked
in a room because someone else cares more
about something that is to come then what
is already here. I dont think they
understand the implications on what they
are saying snug, especially if it is a
woman.
But we're talking about a WANTED
pregnancy, right? Obviously, a woman who
drinks and does drugs doesn't care about
the fetus so why stay pregnant to give
birth to a CHILD that could be seriously
damaged from her abuse? Why shouldn't
anyone care for a fetal human when the
woman is intentionally harming it?
Or are we supposed to only care once it's
born?
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-27-08 17:11pm
Birch
wrote:
cmyked
wrote:
IF the harm is purposeful. I
don't think she should be charged for
accidental manslaughter if her body
miscarries the child, for example.
However, if it's something obvious like
drinking or drug abuse WITH the intent to
give birth then yes, she is 100%
responsible.
This could be very, very scary. Society
would have to explicitly define "something
obvious" and then what exactly that
responsibility entails.
I would be in no favor of such a law. I
would hope to compel pregnant women by
education
instead.
Why would it be scary to explicitly define
"something obvious"? If a woman drinks
several times a week for her entire
pregnancy and the child is born with FAS,
how more obvious can you get?
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-27-08 17:14pm
Snug
wrote:
cmyked
wrote:
IF the harm is purposeful. I
don't think she should be charged for
accidental manslaughter if her body
miscarries the child, for example.
However, if it's something obvious like
drinking or drug abuse WITH the intent to
give birth then yes, she is 100%
responsible.
I disagree. I believe that any activity a
non-pregnant woman can engage in, a
pregnant woman ought to be able to do as
well. I find the concept of stripping
someone of their rights because of their
reproductive status to be quite
alarming.
So you approve of a woman purposely
becoming pregnant, purposely keeping the
pregnancy, and then purposely poisoning
the fetus by drinking so that it is born
with FAS.
I consider that to be child abuse. She may
as well have waited for it to be born and
then beaten it nearly to death; Oh, but
THEN you'd be up in arms about it!
I think someone else touched on this: I am
NOT talking about women who are intending
to abort. I am ONLY talking about women
who are planning to give birth. To
purposely engage in activities that are
PROVEN to be deadly and harmful to the
fetus is CHILD ABUSE and should be treated
as such by law.
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 376 Location: ,
Thanks: 71
Thanked:43
Posted: 05-27-08 17:44pm
Ironically, women from my mother's
generation had more personal freedom when
pregnant than women today. They could
imbibe in legal chemicals like everyone
else, eat what they wanted and participate
in any activity they wanted to. Somehow,
my generation didn't come out as mutants
because of it. Now people want to have
pregnant women arrested for having a
couple of glasses of wine or lighting up a
cigarette. If everything that they're
saying is harmful to unborn were outlawed
for pregnant women, they would have to
spend the incubation period in a plastic
bubble or go immediately into police
custody as soon as the stick turned
colors.
And yet, the advocates of stripping
pregnant women of their rights can't seem
to see what a huge violation it is or how
grossly prejudice their stance is.
Everyone else is permitted to do all
manner of things that they "shouldn't" be
doing. Pregnant women should be no
exception. People that are worried about
a low population crisis would do well to
oppose legislation and societal attitudes
that would frighten a lot of would-be
mothers out of reproducing at all.
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-27-08 18:39pm
I don't think women who are purposely
trying to give birth should have personal
freedoms such as drinking heavily,
smoking, or taking harmful substances
(unless such treatment is to save the
mother's life or ease intolerable
situations - determined by the woman AND
her doctor), as they are harboring someone
else's life inside of them. Doesn't that
mean they should be MORE responsible, not
LESS? I find it ironic that people seem to
want pregnant women to be able to prance
around drinking and smoking yet cry when
babies come out deformed or sick due to
the mother's actions.
"Oh, how could it happen to me!" - It was
100% preventable. FAS is 100% preventable.
IF you want to drink when pregnant, then
your child should not receive any aid in
school if they come out mentally or
physically handicapped. IF you want to do
harmful things to your unborn child, then
neither I nor the Government owes you a
single CENT OF AID. Your baby is
premature? Maybe it was those cocktails
and the pack of cigs you smoked every day.
Maybe it was your refusal to eat healthy
foods or your unwillingness to sensibly
curtail your physical activities. Why
should I pay for something YOU did to your
own child?
I'm sorry, but if that's not considered
child abuse, I don't know what is. At
least a baby can fight back, however
feebly. A fetus cannot; you are pumping
those poisons directly into his or her
bloodstream.
Why should a pregnant woman be restricted
from doing bad things that all other
people are "permitted" to do? Because it's
not just HER life she is endangering.
There is another life inside of her, and
it is NOT WORTHLESS.
A woman goes and gets drunk time after
time; fine, her body, her choice. A
purposely pregnant woman gets drunk time
after time? So does the fetus. The fetus'
body is not HER body, and it is not her
choice to poison it with alcohol.
When you're pregnant, it's not just about
YOU anymore. Especially if you have CHOSEN
to become pregnant and intend to bring
that child into the world, you owe it
every logical chance you can give to help
it grow safely, healthy, and properly.
Don't like the heavy burden of
responsibility being pregnant brings? Then
don't get pregnant or abort if you do.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3962 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 126
Thanked:12
Posted: 05-27-08 19:57pm
cmyked
wrote:
Birch
wrote:
cmyked
wrote:
IF the harm is purposeful. I
don't think she should be charged for
accidental manslaughter if her body
miscarries the child, for example.
However, if it's something obvious like
drinking or drug abuse WITH the intent to
give birth then yes, she is 100%
responsible.
This could be very, very scary. Society
would have to explicitly define "something
obvious" and then what exactly that
responsibility entails.
I would be in no favor of such a law. I
would hope to compel pregnant women by
education
instead.
Why would it be scary to explicitly define
"something obvious"? If a woman drinks
several times a week for her entire
pregnancy and the child is born with FAS,
how more obvious can you
get?
No, I'm sorry, I meant: responsibility and
thus punishment would be a scary bit of
business, unless those things were
explicitly defined.
FAS is obvious yes, but what about simply
walking into a smoky room, engaging in an
activity that may or may not be harmful
(some people think running is harmful)etc.
Who gets to define, and what is their
rationale?
At any rate, women who drink heavily
during pregnancy have something else going
on than just the desire to drink, and that
needs addressed.
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-27-08 20:16pm
Well laws are always being more and more
explicitly defined as exceptions are
always being found.
Second hand smoke? I doubt that causes
birth defects. Chain smoking? Yes. Vague
situations don't count. Doctors get to
define, since they're the ones who know.
And being depressed or mentally unstable
is NO excuse for harming your unborn
child.
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 376 Location: ,
Thanks: 71
Thanked:43
Posted: 05-27-08 22:00pm
You're confusing advocation of pregnant
women to have the same rights as everyone
else (imagine that, they're actually human
beings and not just a womb with legs!)
with the advocation for pregnant women to
go out and party all the time.
You must think really low of the female
gender if you seriously believe that
having the right to smoke and drink like
every other citizen will make women
everywhere go on binges. Your logic is as
bad as the prolifers that are against the
HPV vaccination because they think it will
encourage women to screw everything in
sight. Most women would not get drunk
every night, smoke heavily or use
narcotics when carrying a pregnancy they
are willing to carry. Of course if the
prolifers have their way a lot of us will
end up either gestating unwillingly or
killing ourselves so we've got one side
trying to force us to breed, while people
like you want to discriminate against us
further by making us criminals for having
a smoke or eating/drinking something YOU
don't approve of.
How about trying this one on for size,
cmyked: I am a person. I do not cease to
become a person if pregnant, and neither
do other women. Treating us as wards of
the state and restricting our activities
based on our gender and reproductive
status us a violation of our human
rights.
I'd also like for you to think about this:
We can't just walk to the nearest health
clinic or doctor's office and have our
tubes tied because we say so. If it were
that simple the abortion rates would be
massively lowered. You say "Don't get
pregnant or abort if you do" as if it's a
simple thing. It ISN'T! Because of
prolifers and militant "my way or the
highway" people like yourself, women's
bodily autonomy is constantly under fire
and we are in a struggle JUST TO MAINTAIN
THE RIGHT TO NOT BECOME PREGNANT IN THE
FIRST PLACE.
I'll make a deal with you. When you find
a way to guarantee that all women
everywhere have unquestioned access to
voluntary sterilization, birth control and
abortion then you can have your fascist
way and treat the ones that are still
brave enough to breed like farm animals.
Slap a ball and chain around their ankle
and have them monitored through the whole
nine months, fine them for scooping cat
litter or eating fish or drinking coffee
or taking aspirin, throw them in jail and
toss away the key if they DARE to even sip
a beer or a glass of wine and have them
publicly hanged if they smoke a cigarette.
Shove bamboo shoots under their nails if
you've got that much of a yen for
torturing women, but you'd better make
bloody sure that only those who are
willing to be dehumanized by you will ever
be subjected to your enslavement.
Oh, you'll have to find a way to abolish
rape too or actually punish those who
commit it and ensure that they will never
ever get the chance to do it again,
instead of protest them being locked up
for it. You seem sadistically eager to
criminalize pregnant women for stepping
over your particular line but those poor
rapists must be protected!
You seriously need to review your
priorities and imagine for a moment what
it would be like to be locked up for
having a cigarette just because of your
gender. Sickening.
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 376 Location: ,
Thanks: 71
Thanked:43
Posted: 05-27-08 22:30pm
While I'm thinking of it, I'd also like to
remind you of the fact that male sperm is
damaged from the use of narcotics,
alcohol, nicotine and caffeine. In your
little "Handmaid's Tale" perfect world,
not only would the women that commit the
"horrible crime" of having a glass of red
with dinner be treated worse than child
molesters, but the ones that behave like
good little broodmares and cower in their
rooms would also be subjected to your
witch hunt, because your new world order
only targets and blames females for
anything that goes wrong with the fetus
and not the males (unless a man punches a
pregnant woman in the gut, with plenty of
male eye-witnesses to attest that the
woman didn't do it to herself or ask him
to).
So men will be able to carry on using all
legal substances and enjoying all legal
activities, but any women unfortunate
enough to be impregnated by damaged sperm
will end up criminalized whether they
stayed in their plastic bubble or not.
Oh, but it's not discrimination and it's
not a double-standard and it's certainly
not illogical to put all of the blame,
burden and responsibility on the one that
stands to lose the most in the process of
gestation. Heavens, no.
If you criminalize legal substances for
pregnant women then you must criminalize
it for all men as well. Men can never
ever be allowed to subject themselves to
chemicals that could affect their sperm
and cause future birth defects, so long as
they are capable of impregnating anyone.
It's the only way to ensure that nobody
"abuses" their nonexistent children.
Outlaw all of these things for everyone
except for sterile men and women.
Of course people are going to be far more
willing to penalize women for doing things
that harm their reproductive functions
than they will be to penalize men. Women
are fun to smack around, aren't we?
|
aochriss
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 30 Apr 2008 Posts: 442
Thanks: 73
Thanked:121
Posted: 05-28-08 07:17am
cmyked
wrote:
Snug
wrote:
cmyked
wrote:
IF the harm is purposeful. I
don't think she should be charged for
accidental manslaughter if her body
miscarries the child, for example.
However, if it's something obvious like
drinking or drug abuse WITH the intent to
give birth then yes, she is 100%
responsible.
I disagree. I believe that any activity a
non-pregnant woman can engage in, a
pregnant woman ought to be able to do as
well. I find the concept of stripping
someone of their rights because of their
reproductive status to be quite
alarming.
So you approve of a woman purposely
becoming pregnant, purposely keeping the
pregnancy, and then purposely poisoning
the fetus by drinking so that it is born
with FAS.
I consider that to be child abuse. She may
as well have waited for it to be born and
then beaten it nearly to death; Oh, but
THEN you'd be up in arms about it!
I think someone else touched on this: I am
NOT talking about women who are intending
to abort. I am ONLY talking about women
who are planning to give birth. To
purposely engage in activities that are
PROVEN to be deadly and harmful to the
fetus is CHILD ABUSE and should be treated
as such by
law.
How far would you take this? There are
behaviors that both men and women engage
in that damage their gametes, thus causing
horrific birth defects in their children.
Should we punish these people as well?
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-28-08 09:30am
A gamete is not a being. I'm not a
catholic who thinks every sperm is sacred.
A fetus is a fetus; a unique being in this
world with his or her own set of unique
DNA. A fetus is more than the sum of its
parts; it's not just an egg plus a sperm.
It's more than that.
Trying to protect gametes is reaching too
far back. Many people go through
experiences that could possibly damage
their gametes. If we were to start going
back and back, we would need to
posthumasly arrest grandparents for
working with hazardous materials, and
arresting grandparents for defects that
appear in grandchildren.
Protecting the fetus, however, makes sense
since it IS, right now, a unique being. It
IS a human. It even is at certain ages a
BABY, just inside the woman and days away
from birth.
If you are purposely pregnant, know of the
pregnancy, purposely engage in activities
you know can cause problems and then give
birth to a child with those problems, I do
indeed feel punishment is due.
Honestly, you can't blame the child for
its situation, so forcing the parent to
pay who may be incapable of paying for
advanced care will only further hurt the
abused child. Something else would have to
be done. Therapy for substance abuse if it
was alcohol or drugs, and any other
applicable program for starters.
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3173 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 74
Thanked:104
Posted: 05-28-08 09:56am
cmyked
wrote:
A gamete is not a being. I'm
not a catholic who thinks every sperm is
sacred. A fetus is a fetus; a unique being
in this world with his or her own set of
unique DNA. A fetus is more than the sum
of its parts; it's not just an egg plus a
sperm. It's more than that.
Trying to protect gametes is reaching too
far back. Many people go through
experiences that could possibly damage
their gametes. If we were to start going
back and back, we would need to
posthumasly arrest grandparents for
working with hazardous materials, and
arresting grandparents for defects that
appear in grandchildren.
Protecting the fetus, however, makes sense
since it IS, right now, a unique being. It
IS a human. It even is at certain ages a
BABY, just inside the woman and days away
from birth.
If you are purposely pregnant, know of the
pregnancy, purposely engage in activities
you know can cause problems and then give
birth to a child with those problems, I do
indeed feel punishment is due.
Honestly, you can't blame the child for
its situation, so forcing the parent to
pay who may be incapable of paying for
advanced care will only further hurt the
abused child. Something else would have to
be done. Therapy for substance abuse if it
was alcohol or drugs, and any other
applicable program for
starters.
I disagree...........
My doctor informed when I was a pregnant
that a glass of wine here and there
wouldnt any harm, now considering I have
two kids with whom I had a glass of wine
and with which I smoked they are perfectly
healthy.
Wine is a big part of my living and in
moderation is actually healthy, anything
can be wrong if it is taken out of context
and some doctors feel the same way, to say
they dont I can provide you the name and
number of my GP/ob gyn who provided with
this information in a PM if you want.
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-28-08 10:01am
Did I say "a glass of wine here or there"?
No. I'm talking about drinking heavily
during a pregnancy.
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3173 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 74
Thanked:104
Posted: 05-28-08 10:05am
cmyked
wrote:
Did I say "a glass of wine
here or there"? No. I'm talking about
drinking heavily during a
pregnancy.
Yes than I agree(apologizes).
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-28-08 10:16am
I try to stay away from saying "any
drinking" because I know that right now
it's contested how much alcohol during a
pregnancy is bad. That's why in my
hypothetical "law", punishment wouldn't
happen unless the child was born with FAS
or other disorders related to other drug
uses.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3962 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 126
Thanked:12
Posted: 05-28-08 11:29am
cmyked
wrote:
Well laws are always being
more and more explicitly defined as
exceptions are always being found.
Second hand smoke? I doubt that causes
birth defects. Chain smoking? Yes. Vague
situations don't count. Doctors get to
define, since they're the ones who know.
And being depressed or mentally unstable
is NO excuse for harming your unborn
child.
There are multiple studies on the impact
of second hand smoking and fetal
development.
I disagree that doctors are the know all,
end all of health and treatment. There is
a measure of disagreement within the
health system are far as what is kosher or
not.
I'm not sure I know what you mean when
someone is depressed or mentally unstable.
These individuals are not (always)
responsible for their own behavior.
For instance, you've got someone actively
schizophrenic, engaging in risky behavior.
You would apply a measure of punishment
for their noncognizant actions?
As you've said, it's not the fetuses
fault, but neither is it the mother's.
cmyked
wrote:
Therapy for substance abuse
if it was alcohol or drugs, and any other
applicable program for
starters.
I think this is a fantastic idea, and much
more useful than any punishment would be.
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 05-28-08 12:02pm
Of course doctor's don't know "all", only
God does. However, a doctor knows far MORE
than I or the average person knows about
their body. That's why they go to school.
I would no sooner operate on myself than I
would try to fix my own car. I simply
don't know how; I leave it to the
professionals.
It's NOT the mother's fault she drank so
much during her pregnancy that her child
developed FAS? Sorry, but punishment IS in
order, AS WELL as a recovery program.
You're probably going to tell me it's not
the drunk driver's fault he killed the
family he crashed into. The woman was
sober when she decided to drink; she was
sober and unless proven by a doctor, she
was mentally capable of making the RIGHT
decision, which is NOT TO DRINK HEAVILY
while pregnant!! It's a no-brainer!
Oh, and by the way, secondary-blame is
almost never sensible. It's like that
woman suing McDonald's because she dumped
their hot coffee on her own lap.
