Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Utah: Now you can go to jail for having a miscarriage!

123578

Posts

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Similarly, pregnant women aren't served at most bars even though they can be by law.
    Assuming she's not drunk, that would be illegal discrimination.

    A decent human would do what's right and face the legal penalty.... wow, that sounds like Old South segregationist talk when I type it out like that but, damn!, I wouldn't serve a woman who's preggers hard liquors and I wouldn't let her participate in a roller derby.

    ... an all preggers roller derby does sound hot, though.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Similarly, pregnant women aren't served at most bars even though they can be by law.
    Assuming she's not drunk, that would be illegal discrimination.

    Yep!

    That's what "can be by law" means.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2010
    bowen wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Wow, it's like.. it's like we've got our own little Australia. Baren wasteland with a whole bunch of crazy mcfuckers running the local government. The only thing now we need is animals that ooze poison.
    Yeah, no. We're nothing like Utah, thanks.

    It was more a gibe at the crazy fucking lunatic policies, like, oh I don't know, "banning" adult material and filtering the internet.

    Not "olol next Australia is gonna ban miscarriages 'cause they hate women" so please don't take my comment for some misogynistic comment about your country and their policies when there wasn't really one there to begin with.

    ...what?

    ok, first para is basically incorrect and shows you know nothing about those issues beyond comments read in passing here (Hint: not sufficient basis for a critique) and second para is.... what? What? where did that even come from?

    tmsig.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Ah, I can always count on the emmnmnmnemeneme show. Run into a thread, say something wall-eyed-stupid with a thin dusting of misogyny on top, then spend three pages backtracking and making snide comments about how you were joking and your sense of humour is just too sophisticated for the board. And you've done it twice in this thread! Must have eaten your weeties this morning!

    :arrow:

    Heh, my snide is nothing against your snark. If I study hard enough, maybe my wall-eyed stupid will match your half-baked misandry some day.

    Ooooh, nice. The Cat Hates Men. Nuanced!
    The Cat wrote: »
    So, has anyone kicked off the usual "mail your used tampons to the local police so they can check if you're a criminal" campaign yet? Because those are always fun.

    Oh, those mean ol' male mayors! A female politician would never propose such outrageous policies whereas a man licks his lips at the prospect of protecting damsels from themselves.

    You uhhhh... you aren't making any sense. I never made any of the claims in this little string of fucking crazy you call a sentence. FYI, I was referencing historical protests against similarly intrusive laws. I don't recall if anything was actually mailed to the state rep in VA who tried to make miscarriage a more severe felony than grand theft auto - probably not since it's illegal to mail biohazards like that anyway - but there was a lot of talk about it and it rather wigged the poor fellow out.
    The Cat wrote: »
    Theoretically, this law could punish women for driving cars, since that has a much higher chance of harming a pregnancy than a glass of chablis.

    Well, you know women drivers. (D'oh, there goes my dusting of misogyny again!)

    Keep delivering your sisters from the shackles of male domination, Cat, one snarky post at a time.

    Can you be less insane please

    its disruptive and doesn't contribute anything to the thread

    you're also kind of embarrassing yourself here

    you just want attention and this is the last time I'm giving it to you, since it appears that once you get it, you can't even handle it.

    tmsig.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2010
    bowen wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Iaculus wrote: »
    Corehealer wrote: »
    Wikipedia:
    Misogyny (pronounced /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is hatred (or contempt) of women or girls. Misogyny comes from Greek misogunia (μισογυνία) from misos (μῖσος, hatred) and gynē (γυνή, woman). It is parallel to misandry—the hatred of men or boys. Misogyny is also comparable with (but not the same as) misanthropy which is the hatred of humanity in general. The prefix miso-, meaning hatred or to hate applies in many other words, such as misandrist, misocapny, misogamy, misarchy and misoxeny.

    I'm aware of that, but didn't see how a snide remark about a country could be construed as misogynistic. Unless Australia's entire male population died off since I last went there, anyway. I'm open to new information.

    I think what he meant was that he wasn't saying Australia was misogynistic.

    Basically. Cat is the regular misandrist and tends to over-analyze when someone says something that deals with women and takes it completely out of context. I'm didn't really delve too deep into what emnmnme said originally but it stands to reason that she's getting very defensive about women's rights in this thread.

    In my case I made some off the wall comment about some political crazies going on with weird ass laws and she had assumed (I'm guessing) that I was inferring that Australia is full of misogynists and they're going to inact some anti-miscarriage laws in the near future and correlating that particular crazy with Utah.

    Had I been referring to actual misogyny there, I would've definitely chosen a better country, but I wasn't, just pointing out that crazies are crazy, and they're all over the place. As well as making a gibe at Australia being a fucking frightful country to begin with. Couple that with Cat being from Australia and a woman, and I guess I could see the concern there.

    I don't know how the fuck you got that out of "we're not like Utah", but I applaud your ability to overextrapolate. You could take this shit to the Moon!

    I was stating that our legislatures have some basic standards about how we write laws, and even though there's a streak of idiot social conservatism among the current government, we have a strong enough democracy that it won't ride roughshod over the people's wishes.

    Unlike Utah, where you're at the mercy of one dude who doesn't even seem to have been elected off his own bat, if I'm reading earlier comments correctly.

    So, like, neener.

    Anything else is you projecting your personal issues on to me, as evidenced by your ludicrous claim that I hate men because I stick up for women's rights, along with your inference that defending my own interests is somehow pathological. Poor show, fellow.

    tmsig.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Nobody carries a pregnancy well into the waddling watermelon smuggler phase and then suddenly decides they don't want it any more, barring something going catastrophically wrong.

    "I'm having this baby to squeeze more child support out of my recently divorced husband! Oh wait, he just died. To the abortion clinic!"

    *waddles away*

    Ah, I can always count on the emmnmnmnemeneme show. Run into a thread, say something wall-eyed-stupid with a thin dusting of misogyny on top, then spend three pages backtracking and making snide comments about how you were joking and your sense of humour is just too sophisticated for the board. And you've done it twice in this thread! Must have eaten your weeties this morning!

    :arrow:

    How the fuck are you too stupid to get the joke? Sarah Palin would be able to get that it's a joke and that emnmnme doesn't agree with her, and she doesn't even qualify as sentient.

    Its not funny, especially in the context of emememmemememems habit of posting inflammatory nonsense for attention.

    Its kind of amazing how rabid you're all being in here, given that I'd made all of two posts, neither directly addressing the law in question since it had all been said, before getting sick of his bullshit behaviour and calling him out. Get some perspective.

    edit: having seen Will's post and defended myself from Teh Crazie adequately, I'll leave it at that.

    tmsig.jpg
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Similarly, pregnant women aren't served at most bars even though they can be by law.
    Assuming she's not drunk, that would be illegal discrimination.

    Yep!

    That's what "can be by law" means.
    How is that illegal? AFAIK, "pregnant" isn't a protected class.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Bama wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Similarly, pregnant women aren't served at most bars even though they can be by law.
    Assuming she's not drunk, that would be illegal discrimination.

    Yep!

    That's what "can be by law" means.
    How is that illegal? AFAIK, "pregnant" isn't a protected class.

    I guess the law doesn't make a distinction between the two in any way. Not that that matters at all.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Bama wrote: »
    How is that illegal? AFAIK, "pregnant" isn't a protected class.

    I don't know if thats entirely accurate. I'm pretty sure washington state at least has laws that protect pregnant women from losing their jobs due to their pregnancies even though we are an at will state for employment.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Huh, I thought not serving pregnant women alcohol would fall under the "we reserve the right to refuse service to people for reasons other than protected classes because this is a private business" thing.

    Or is that even a thing. I might have just made that up, I dunno.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Huh, I thought not serving pregnant women alcohol would fall under the "we reserve the right to refuse service to people for reasons other than protected classes because this is a private business" thing.

    Or is that even a thing. I might have just made that up, I dunno.

    That one is hard to say because its probably about liability/an honest desire not to injure the unborn.

  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited February 2010
    Bama wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Similarly, pregnant women aren't served at most bars even though they can be by law.
    Assuming she's not drunk, that would be illegal discrimination.
    Yep!

    That's what "can be by law" means.
    How is that illegal? AFAIK, "pregnant" isn't a protected class.
    "Pregnant" is absolutely a protected class. Refusing to serve a woman, firing her from her job, or anything else, simply because she's pregnant, would set you up for a nice discrimination claim.
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Huh, I thought not serving pregnant women alcohol would fall under the "we reserve the right to refuse service to people for reasons other than protected classes because this is a private business" thing.

    Or is that even a thing. I might have just made that up, I dunno.
    It would be the same as putting a sign in the window that read "No Chinese". The "private business so we can do what we want" thing only goes so far.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    I'll leave it at that.

    :^:

    Flipping around on google, other people have suggested it's a city's bylaws that determine who gets service and who gets the door. I don't know if this is city by city or state by state and Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act isn't too clear on what a bar is. Other posters say an upscale restaurant can turn men away for not wearing a necktie as long as a sign is clearly posted so I'm pretty sure a bartender with a sign posted can refuse to serve a pregnant woman and not be sued.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Huh, I thought not serving pregnant women alcohol would fall under the "we reserve the right to refuse service to people for reasons other than protected classes because this is a private business" thing.

    Or is that even a thing. I might have just made that up, I dunno.

    I think, in the case of bars and women who are preggers going to them, it'd soften the blow depending on how the bartenders handle it. If it's expressed as "I don't think this is a good idea for you" after a couple of drinks, I think that's fairly reasonable.

    If a pregnant woman is there to get smashed, there's a line being crossed on her part. I hate to say it, but not everyone knows how to be responsible for themselves and they need others there to be responsible for them. But with pregnant women, the issue isn't about them, it's about the unborn child. Heavy drinking damaging the unborn child isn't a fucking myth, it's a thing we know.

    I mean come on, we've seen the signs at theme parks outside rides. There's health reasons for people to be turned away from leisurely activity.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Heavy drinking damaging the unborn child isn't a fucking myth, it's a thing we know.

    http://www.hulu.com/watch/40212/the-simpsons-sip-of-alcohol

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited February 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Other posters say an upscale restaurant can turn men away for not wearing a necktie as long as a sign is clearly posted so I'm pretty sure a bartender with a sign posted can refuse to serve a pregnant woman and not be sued.
    Simply posting a sign doesn't absolve you of any wrongdoing, "well, the sign said management reserved the right to punch you in the balls, so you knew what you were getting into".

    And the two situations aren't remotely similar.

    You can always put on a tie (or take off a tie). Being tie-less is not an immutable or fundamental characteristic of who you are as a person. Race, gender, sexuality and being pregnant, among others, are.

  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    lol. Did someone just compare wearing a tie to being pregnant?

    Pretty sure only a man would do that.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    And the two situations aren't remotely similar.

    Then on to the next obvious question: Would a judge side with the pregnant woman in a discrimination case like that? The bartender tells his/her side of the story and even Her Honor Libby McLiberalson would dismiss the suit.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • AurinAurin Registered User
    edited February 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    And the two situations aren't remotely similar.

    Then on to the next obvious question: Would a judge side with the pregnant woman in a discrimination case like that? The bartender tells his/her side of the story and even Her Honor Libby McLiberalson would dismiss the suit.

    That's like saying it's okay to deny a woman access to Plan B because you don't want the widdle baby to die. It's not the bartender's problem that the woman chooses to drink while pregnant.

  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    lol. Did someone just compare wearing a tie to being pregnant?

    Pretty sure only a man would do that.

    maybe if you have to wear it for almost ten months, and it fucks with your hormones, and bone structure, and endangers your life
    must be a very pretty tie though

    sc.jpgsc.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2010
    Aurin wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    And the two situations aren't remotely similar.

    Then on to the next obvious question: Would a judge side with the pregnant woman in a discrimination case like that? The bartender tells his/her side of the story and even Her Honor Libby McLiberalson would dismiss the suit.

    That's like saying it's okay to deny a woman access to Plan B because you don't want the widdle baby to die. It's not the bartender's problem that the woman chooses to drink while pregnant.

    Is this irony? Because denying a woman access to medicine is nowhere similar to denying a woman access to mojitos.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • AurinAurin Registered User
    edited February 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Aurin wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    And the two situations aren't remotely similar.

    Then on to the next obvious question: Would a judge side with the pregnant woman in a discrimination case like that? The bartender tells his/her side of the story and even Her Honor Libby McLiberalson would dismiss the suit.

    That's like saying it's okay to deny a woman access to Plan B because you don't want the widdle baby to die. It's not the bartender's problem that the woman chooses to drink while pregnant.

    Is this irony? Because denying a woman access to medicine is nowhere similar to denying a woman access to mojitos.

    What I'm trying to get across is that it's her body, her choice. The bartender can try to talk her out of it, but it's not his place to deny service just because she's pregnant.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    What I'm trying to get across is that it's her body, her choice. The bartender can try to talk her out of it, but it's not his place to deny service just because she's pregnant.
    That doesn't make sense. It is one thing to not be allowed to infringe upon her right, but it is another thing to be able to refuse to aid her in it. Even if she had a right to buy and drink beer, that doesn't necessarily mean that particular bartender has to let her buy the beer in his bar. Moreover, the state has a compelling interest in ensuring any potential children that the woman has won't suffer from severe disabilities. Roe v. Wade even stated that the state has an interest in the well being of potential life. It is why the court gave the legislature the power to restrict abortions after viability.

  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I could actually buy an argument from stopping women from doing things that would be harmful to a fetus they planned to carry to term; at this point, the human in question isn't hypothetical, as is the case with abortion. They will exist, and their body might be fucked up because of your actions.

    And this is completely different from abortion in that carrying a child to term currently is a choice, and will be as long as the crazies don't get their way. If drinking is that important to you, you don't have to stay pregnant. To create a tortured metaphor, it's kinda like how you're allowed to drink, and you're allowed to drive, but you're not supposed to do both at the same time because it puts others in danger.

    Although if the science says X thing is bad during certain periods but not others, obviously that should be taken into account.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2010
    A lot of the things we tell pregnant women not to do are things that have a very small chance of causing harm - forget boozing, that thing about soft cheese, for instance is like warning women not to go outside in case they get struck by lightning. Its not even very logical to ban women from more dangerous stuff like smoking, when our environment is filled with much more dangerous things, like the families of pregnant women, who are the most likely to injure or kill them. The rate of domestic abuse spikes in pregnant women *shrug*

    And then there's the really silly stuff, like the persistent belief that pregnant women shouldn't exercise in case their uterus falls out or something. People really do think that, and from time to time you'll hear about someone freaking out at a woman for breaking a sweat.

    In the end, I don't believe pregnant women should be subject to any more restrictions than anyone else. If smoking and drinking are that harmful for a person, ban them for everyone, don't suddenly act all concerned over the health of others just because there's a fetus in the picture. Smoking and drinking hurt real live people all the time, take care of them first.

    tmsig.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    It would never happen in real life in a million years so this is a question of principles - would you stop a determined pregnant woman from participating in a destruction derby rally? Would you beg her not to participate? Would you sand in front of her vehicle or physically restrain her? Let her do her own thing and hope for the best from the stands? Is it your place to prevent a stranger from harming a fetus if the baby will be carried to term?

    If you don't like destruction derby hypotheticals, think of some other thrilling-yet-dangerous thing like snorting cocaine or whatever. The question is still how much do you involve yourself?

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    A lot of the things we tell pregnant women not to do are things that have a very small chance of causing harm - forget boozing, that thing about soft cheese, for instance is like warning women not to go outside in case they get struck by lightning. Its not even very logical to ban women from more dangerous stuff like smoking, when our environment is filled with much more dangerous things, like the families of pregnant women, who are the most likely to injure or kill them. The rate of domestic abuse spikes in pregnant women *shrug*

    And then there's the really silly stuff, like the persistent belief that pregnant women shouldn't exercise in case their uterus falls out or something. People really do think that, and from time to time you'll hear about someone freaking out at a woman for breaking a sweat.

    In the end, I don't believe pregnant women should be subject to any more restrictions than anyone else. If smoking and drinking are that harmful for a person, ban them for everyone, don't suddenly act all concerned over the health of others just because there's a fetus in the picture. Smoking and drinking hurt real live people all the time, take care of them first.

    Many municipalities ban smoking in pretty much any enclosed space where it's likely to harm another person...in some areas I believe this even includes personal spaces (such as cars or homes) when children are present. We also ban performing most activities while drunk that might harm others, the most obvious being driving.

    In other words, society (at least coastal American society) in general goes out of its way to ensure that the only people physically harmed by smoking and drinking are the people making the conscious choice to smoke or drink.

    I also cannot believe you want to compare drinking while pregnant to domestic violence that occurs during a pregnancy. First, the latter involves a violent crime...so yeah, we do make that illegal. And preventing this harm (rather than attempting to punish after the fact)? Do you really want to suggest that a restriction on drinking while pregnant is as unreasonable as a restriction from being near any family members while pregnant? Because yeah, that makes sense.

    Drinking while pregnant can cause permanent harm to another human being. So yeah, sorry, but it makes sense to regulate it. Don't like the restriction? Feel free to head on down and get yourself an abortion...then booze it up all you'd like. Problem. Solved.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2010
    I can't really think of a scenario where the woman's actions wouldn't be more directly dangerous to her or the people around her than the fetus.

    Bottom line: the two things most likely to kill or injure a pregnant woman, by a massive margin, are a) cars and b) her partner, so unless you handle those first you're really just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Except that you're actually on dry land and perfectly safe, since there is no crisis of harebrained women endangering their pregnancies routinely.

    tmsig.jpg
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    like the families of pregnant women, who are the most likely to injure or kill them. The rate of domestic abuse spikes in pregnant women *shrug*
    Holy shit, is that for real? D:
    The Cat wrote: »
    In the end, I don't believe pregnant women should be subject to any more restrictions than anyone else. If smoking and drinking are that harmful for a person, ban them for everyone, don't suddenly act all concerned over the health of others just because there's a fetus in the picture. Smoking and drinking hurt real live people all the time, take care of them first.

    Oh come on Cat, at least let the fetus grow into a young adult to decide to drink / smoke, rather than have it imposed on them. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything with that, I'm dead serious. If a woman gets pregnant, knowing what it entails, she should be prepared to give up some reasonable things for 9 months. If she can't restrain herself for 9 months of some things, I don't think 18 years of mothering a child is something she's gonna be hip on.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Many municipalities ban smoking in pretty much any enclosed space where it's likely to harm another person...in some areas I believe this even includes personal spaces (such as cars or homes) when children are present. We also ban performing most activities while drunk that might harm others, the most obvious being driving.

    Super, then the problem's solved! Why do we need more rules?

    (I kind of love it when I'm the one advocating the conservative viewpoint, by the way. The irony, its delicious!)

    tmsig.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    If she can't restrain herself for 9 months of some things, I don't think 18 years of mothering a child is something she's gonna be hip on.

    She doesn't have to keep the baby. If she drinks like crazy and the baby is born a preemie with one arm, she can decide to give it up for adoption and let the state take care of it. Good luck, kid!

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    I can't really think of a scenario where the woman's actions wouldn't be more directly dangerous to her or the people around her than the fetus.

    Bottom line: the two things most likely to kill or injure a pregnant woman, by a massive margin, are a) cars and b) her partner, so unless you handle those first you're really just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Except that you're actually on dry land and perfectly safe, since there is no crisis of harebrained women endangering their pregnancies routinely.

    Right, so because we cannot eliminate the greatest risk due to it being infeasible, we shouldn't eliminate those risks that can be addressed without bringing society to a standstill? Because cars are more dangerous than drinking alcohol, and because we cannot possibly afford the kind of economic impact that banning pregnant women from cars would bring (and I agree), we shouldn't bother to address what is basically an entirely frivolous activity like getting drunk in the same circumstance?

    A is more dangerous, and we cannot feasibly ban A because it has other greater benefits, thus we should not bother to worry ourselves about B?

    I'll have to remember that one for the next gun control thread.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    If she can't restrain herself for 9 months of some things, I don't think 18 years of mothering a child is something she's gonna be hip on.

    She doesn't have to keep the baby. If she drinks like crazy and the baby is born a preemie with one arm, she can decide to give it up for adoption and let the state take care of it. Good luck, kid!

    God damn it.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    like the families of pregnant women, who are the most likely to injure or kill them. The rate of domestic abuse spikes in pregnant women *shrug*
    Holy shit, is that for real? D:
    Pregnancy is a stressful time, especially for those under economic strain *shrug* I'm not saying men turn into scary monsters if they don't want or are ambivalent about the pregnancy though; its more that underlying or existing abuse in a relationship becomes more severe/frequent.
    The Cat wrote: »
    Oh come on Cat, at least let the fetus grow into a young adult to decide to drink / smoke, rather than have it imposed on them. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything with that, I'm dead serious. If a woman gets pregnant, knowing what it entails, she should be prepared to give up some reasonable things for 9 months. If she can't restrain herself for 9 months of some things, I don't think 18 years of mothering a child is something she's gonna be hip on.

    You have to prove that its significantly harmful before you can make this argument, though. Crack cocaine, sure! Except its already illegal to take it. Smoking, maybe, but is it the nicotine or all the other crap in a cigarette? What if you're trying to quit and using patches or some other medication? Drinking? No proof that its harmful past the very early stages of a pregnancy at any but quite high levels, and pregnant women already have a very low drinking rate - certainly much lower than their partners, statistically speaking.

    tmsig.jpg
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    I can't really think of a scenario where the woman's actions wouldn't be more directly dangerous to her or the people around her than the fetus.

    Bottom line: the two things most likely to kill or injure a pregnant woman, by a massive margin, are a) cars and b) her partner, so unless you handle those first you're really just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Except that you're actually on dry land and perfectly safe, since there is no crisis of harebrained women endangering their pregnancies routinely.

    Right, so because we cannot eliminate the greatest risk due to it being infeasible, we shouldn't eliminate those risks that can be addressed without bringing society to a standstill? Because cars are more dangerous than drinking alcohol, and because we cannot possibly afford the kind of economic impact that banning pregnant women from cars would bring (and I agree), we shouldn't bother to address what is basically an entirely frivolous activity like getting drunk in the same circumstance?

    A is more dangerous, and we cannot feasibly ban A because it has other greater benefits, thus we should not bother to worry ourselves about B?

    I'll have to remember that one for the next gun control thread.
    Don't forget that studies show drinking is 1) actually only a major issue before the woman likely knows she's pregnant (unless she's actively trying and monitoring constantly) and 2) drinking later in pregnancy has actually been shown to have potential positive results.

    So what you're calling for is effectively a Uterine Alcohol Schedule based on information most women won't have.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    I can't really think of a scenario where the woman's actions wouldn't be more directly dangerous to her or the people around her than the fetus.

    Bottom line: the two things most likely to kill or injure a pregnant woman, by a massive margin, are a) cars and b) her partner, so unless you handle those first you're really just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Except that you're actually on dry land and perfectly safe, since there is no crisis of harebrained women endangering their pregnancies routinely.

    Right, so because we cannot eliminate the greatest risk due to it being infeasible, we shouldn't eliminate those risks that can be addressed without bringing society to a standstill? Because cars are more dangerous than drinking alcohol, and because we cannot possibly afford the kind of economic impact that banning pregnant women from cars would bring (and I agree), we shouldn't bother to address what is basically an entirely frivolous activity like getting drunk in the same circumstance?

    A is more dangerous, and we cannot feasibly ban A because it has other greater benefits, thus we should not bother to worry ourselves about B?

    I'll have to remember that one for the next gun control thread.

    Again, why do we need more laws? Why laws? Laws are what we're arguing about, not what constitutes proper behaviour. What's to gain overall from getting the state involved, and what are the practicalities of doing so? This is what we're talking about.

    I am determined for this not to turn into another kneejerk "ban everything" discussion, as happens so very often in here.

    tmsig.jpg
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I might have been misunderstood. I think there's a difference between things that might cause the death of the fetus and something that might cause it developmental issues in its future, should it be brought to term.

    If the fetus dies, who cares? I'm bothered more by dogs being put to sleep than babies dying, as dogs are smarter. And I'm hardly one to be in favor of 'nanny state' (can I use that term without turning in my "Liberal" card?) crap.

    But in this case, things seem clear-cut; aborting a fetus harms no-one. Causing that fetus that you intend to carry to term developmental damage that will effect it throughout its life? That's kind of fucked up.

    Note that I'm not specifying anything in particular, because I have no clue what is and isn't likely to cause damage (and I'd clarify that it should be based on the probability of causing trouble). And really the solution is more education on the subject, not laws. So maybe I'm arguing pointlessly here.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    2) drinking later in pregnancy has actually been shown to have potential positive results.

    Tell me more. I'm crossing my fingers for a belly made of bronze, like my dwarf characters in WoW.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    I can't really think of a scenario where the woman's actions wouldn't be more directly dangerous to her or the people around her than the fetus.

    Bottom line: the two things most likely to kill or injure a pregnant woman, by a massive margin, are a) cars and b) her partner, so unless you handle those first you're really just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Except that you're actually on dry land and perfectly safe, since there is no crisis of harebrained women endangering their pregnancies routinely.

    Right, so because we cannot eliminate the greatest risk due to it being infeasible, we shouldn't eliminate those risks that can be addressed without bringing society to a standstill? Because cars are more dangerous than drinking alcohol, and because we cannot possibly afford the kind of economic impact that banning pregnant women from cars would bring (and I agree), we shouldn't bother to address what is basically an entirely frivolous activity like getting drunk in the same circumstance?

    A is more dangerous, and we cannot feasibly ban A because it has other greater benefits, thus we should not bother to worry ourselves about B?

    I'll have to remember that one for the next gun control thread.

    Again, why do we need more laws? Why laws? Laws are what we're arguing about, not what constitutes proper behaviour. What's to gain overall from getting the state involved, and what are the practicalities of doing so? This is what we're talking about.

    I am determined for this not to turn into another kneejerk "ban everything" discussion, as happens so very often in here.

    Well, I was assuming that what was to gain was a marginally lower rate of birth defects (something that costs society quite a bit to deal with over the years), and that all we were losing was the occasional impact to liberty of preventing people from drinking when it would harm another (future) human being.

    I'm also assuming easy access to abortion, so one can choose to remove that (future) human being.

    But looking at OZ's post, I'll admit that I'm really not all that sharp on the actual risks posed by drinking during pregnancy. If the argument is that it's actually not dangerous, so be it. But I was primarily rejecting the "X is more dangerous" argument.

    However, at this point I'll admit that I'm neither well versed enough nor do I care enough to continue arguing about it. I'll also say that I can appreciate your concern for individual liberty...I might generally apply it a little more universally, but whatever. Regardless, I may well just be talking out of my ass and I apologize for that.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    2) drinking later in pregnancy has actually been shown to have potential positive results.

    Tell me more. I'm crossing my fingers for a belly made of bronze, like my dwarf characters in WoW.
    There was a study linked earlier. It was in reference to limited alcohol intake on the part of the mother and generalized improved health for the babies.

    It's not some womb exposure turned superpower thing. Just statistical analysis that shows drinking outside a specific window isn't a big deal for a pregnancy.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
Sign In or Register to comment.