I'm all for mormon bashing but honestly, calling out the entire group isn't going to do much except piss off those who believe they don't belong to said group yet are still mormon.
Also, can someone clarify something since this topic is being batted back and forth.
It's clear that a person (of legal age) has the right to alcohol but does a business still have the right to refuse serving said person alcohol? I assume they need a valid reason (as when a business refuses to serve a person because they're verbally abusive to staff for instance), does anyone know what said reasons include?
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited March 2010
I don't have much patience for the way that the mormon church inserts itself into politics and business - i think it's a bad organization that takes advantage of its tax-exempt status and champions regressive views. their theology is such riduclous bunk it makes mainstream christianity seem almost respectable by comparison.
that said, i grew up around a lot of mormons, and they are some of the genuinely nicest people on the whole. i really like most of the mormons i have known as people.
that said, i grew up around a lot of mormons, and they are some of the genuinely nicest people on the whole. i really like most of the mormons i have known as people.
My experience with mormons is a mixed bag which is appropriate, in each group you have good and bad people. I tried it out for a couple months but they got pushy about me dropping college and going somewhere on my own dime to recruit new members so I quit (well, that and me not agreeing with a lot of their practices).
So yeah, overall I agree with you there Will.
Sipex on
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
It's clear that a person (of legal age) has the right to alcohol but does a business still have the right to refuse serving said person alcohol? I assume they need a valid reason (as when a business refuses to serve a person because they're verbally abusive to staff for instance), does anyone know what said reasons include?
The law isn't super clear, but it really comes down to "I don't want to serve him/her, so I won't." You don't need a reason... their ID looks weird, they were looking at one of my employees funny, or "I just didn't feel like serving that person" all work.
It's clear that a person (of legal age) has the right to alcohol but does a business still have the right to refuse serving said person alcohol? I assume they need a valid reason (as when a business refuses to serve a person because they're verbally abusive to staff for instance), does anyone know what said reasons include?
The law isn't super clear, but it really comes down to "I don't want to serve him/her, so I won't." You don't need a reason... their ID looks weird, they were looking at one of my employees funny, or "I just didn't feel like serving that person" all work.
Unfortunately, Alaskan statute appears to support the actions of the store clerk[refused to sell the pregnant women a case of beer]:
/quote
AS §04.21.055 Refusal of Service
A licensee, an agent, or employee may refuse to sell, give, or serve alcoholic beverages to a person if the licensee, agent, or employee reasonably believes that the consumption of alcohol by that person may result in serious harm to that person or to others.
/ end quote
tinwhiskers on
0
Options
SenshiBALLING OUT OF CONTROLWavefrontRegistered Userregular
....because a fetus carried to term will, in fact, become a person? One who could, in theory, be damaged by the consumption of alcohol by his mother while he is a fetus*? The damage to the person in this situation is delayed, but that's irrelevant.
*the alcohol issue is a kind of stupid one, as apparently if the woman is showing it's not really dangerous anymore, if I'm not mistaken?
Kamar on
0
Options
SenshiBALLING OUT OF CONTROLWavefrontRegistered Userregular
edited March 2010
I think it's only not dangerous if you drink it in limited amounts. Too much alcohol isn't good for anyone--but my point is, it's her body, and it's her responsibility to take care of it, along with any fetuses she may be carrying.
We don't have a fetus police for a reason. I'm all for the bartender advising her against it, but it's really not his place to deny her it unless she's already inebriated to the point where he would turn down another drink to a non-pregnant person. What I'm saying is, you can't make laws for non-people. I can't think of a suitable analogy (when does a non-person ever become a person?), but I think you get the gist of it.
Senshi on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
"X will become Y" is by its very nature admitting that X is not a Y.
Say, for example, a pregnant mother gets drunk as fuck all the time while pregnant, and bears a child who is developmentally challenged / has fetal alcohol syndrome, or some other kind of impairment as a direct result of the mother abusing her body during pregnancy, and this can be conclusively proven.
Would that child have the right to sue or otherwise have the mother prosecuted?
Al_wat on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
... Raise your hand if you got a funny mental image from "fetus police."
I suppose the problem with the law would be "Who would be seeking damages the mother caused" (if any were incurred, and for the record I'm not suggesting at this point that a bit of drinking is going to make that happen, I've had my shot at it in the thread and was defeated on it). The only logical positions there are the fetus, which would need 18 years to get to adult status, and the father. The more I make this suggestion though the more dubious it sounds. I mean, if the state is seeking compensation from 'damages' the mother caused that's definitely not okay.
Edit - Snap, sorta beaten to it.
Henroid on
0
Options
SenshiBALLING OUT OF CONTROLWavefrontRegistered Userregular
edited March 2010
But they were born that way. That person has always been like that. They're not starting off healthy and then being abused by their mothers, they're born that way.
Say, for example, a pregnant mother gets drunk as fuck all the time while pregnant, and bears a child who is developmentally challenged / has fetal alcohol syndrome, or some other kind of impairment as a direct result of the mother abusing her body during pregnancy, and this can be conclusively proven.
Would that child have the right to sue or otherwise have the mother prosecuted?
...you know, I think this might have been an issue in a surrogacy case. Or at least raised as a possible one. I don't know that the concept's been tested, but its theoretically solid... its just that the burden of proof is likely to make things difficult, even in a civil case.
The Cat on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
But they were born that way. That person has always been like that. They're not starting off healthy and then being abused by their mothers, they're born that way.
The argument that will be presented by people who believe fetus' are individuals will be that these children can sue because they were abused within the womb, and weren't given the chance, etc.
Not that it's something I necessarily agree with.
Specifically on the "given a fair chance" thing, that'd be hard to measure because there's too many different ways to measure success and you can't legally prove things that didn't happen or their chances of happening, etc. Yeah, this is a little bit much than I'm willing to investigate.
Say, for example, a pregnant mother gets drunk as fuck all the time while pregnant, and bears a child who is developmentally challenged / has fetal alcohol syndrome, or some other kind of impairment as a direct result of the mother abusing her body during pregnancy, and this can be conclusively proven.
Would that child have the right to sue or otherwise have the mother prosecuted?
...you know, I think this might have been an issue in a surrogacy case. Or at least raised as a possible one. I don't know that the concept's been tested, but its theoretically solid... its just that the burden of proof is likely to make things difficult, even in a civil case.
Yeah it seems like the most likely scenario for this to actually be in the courts would be a surrogacy case.
As far as the main question though, lets ignore the whole burden of proof aspect. Lets assume that yes, it has been shown somehow that the mother, through for example excessive alcohol consumption or illegal, non-prescription drug usage caused developmental health issues with the child.
Could the child or some other representative of that child (like the actual biological parents in a surrogacy situation) have a legitimate legal case against the mother/surrogate mother?
Al_wat on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Yeah. But at that point you're presumably dealing with a breach of contract rather than the fuzzier question of someone suing mum for their missing IQ points.
The Cat on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Yeah. But at that point you're presumably dealing with a breach of contract rather than the fuzzier question of someone suing mum for their missing IQ points.
That'd be a hell of a world to live in. People suing parents (and schools attended) because they don't have high IQs.
Yeah. But at that point you're presumably dealing with a breach of contract rather than the fuzzier question of someone suing mum for their missing IQ points.
That'd be a hell of a world to live in. People suing parents (and schools attended) because they don't have high IQs.
Wasn't there an episode of Sliders where they landed in Super Litigious World?
The Cat on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
Whether or not a fetus is a person depends on how you view future events. If you view them as, in a sense, pre-set and that Baby X was always going to be aborted and Baby Y isn't, then you would say X was never really a person while Y always was.
On the other hand, if you think that future events are, for the most part, completely random and only being 'written' as they happen, then it becomes a lot muddier. You can't say that baby you aborted would have carried or would not have. The best you could really do is something like 'Statistically, x percent of babies carry to term' or whatnot.
Also, X to Y does not mean X is wholly seperate from Y. If we wanna make it simple, you could easily say Y is merely X+1. That would imply that while not the 'same' they are hardly worlds apart.
But the point remains is that you can't claim a fetus is or is not a person without abscribing to one of the above schools of thought. Either it's something that was always going to happen and thus 'not a person' or there is no real 'future' in terms of foreshadowing (in these sorts of things, obviously there is cause and effect, etc) and thus you can't say if it's either is or is not.
... I guess the best you could say is 'maybe'? There is no way to 100% say that it's a person (IE, carries to term or at least to a period of development you would call 'human' or whatnot).
SenshiBALLING OUT OF CONTROLWavefrontRegistered Userregular
edited March 2010
I'd say that if they had drawn up some sort of legal agreement beforehand (i.e. the child's safety and well-being would be second only to that of the surrogate mother), then sure, but it's not the government's place to tell a pregnant woman how to take care of her fetus.
If she doesn't want it, she can abort it. Her choice.
The issue would present itself later on, when--providing she didn't abort--it's found that, for example, the parents' neglect is putting the child in danger. That's when there'd be a legitimate legal case. Can't take someone to court over a fetus, but you sure as shit can over a child. Can, and should.
Senshi on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Yeah. But at that point you're presumably dealing with a breach of contract rather than the fuzzier question of someone suing mum for their missing IQ points.
That'd be a hell of a world to live in. People suing parents (and schools attended) because they don't have high IQs.
Wasn't there an episode of Sliders where they landed in Super Litigious World?
If I said I never watched Sliders, will you hate me?
Whether or not a fetus is a person depends on how you view future events. If you view them as, in a sense, pre-set and that Baby X was always going to be aborted and Baby Y isn't, then you would say X was never really a person while Y always was.
Even though that would never happen, I see that as being the most middle-ground way to solve the whole goddamn argument. The legal language for it would be great.
Henroid on
0
Options
SenshiBALLING OUT OF CONTROLWavefrontRegistered Userregular
edited March 2010
What I find most delicious about the whole abortion debate is that it's not Pro-Choice versus Pro-Life. It's Pro-Choice versus No-Choice. It sounds so bad they even have to lie to themselves in the very name of their movement.
Bit of a tangent, really, but it's like if you're pro-choice, you let everyone decide for themselves. If you're "pro-life" you're basically calling the shots despite the rather large odds that dictate that you have business whatsoever calling those shots.
Religion is so great, kids.
Senshi on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
Don't worry, most of us agree with what the abortion debate really is.
Yeah. But at that point you're presumably dealing with a breach of contract rather than the fuzzier question of someone suing mum for their missing IQ points.
That'd be a hell of a world to live in. People suing parents (and schools attended) because they don't have high IQs.
Wasn't there an episode of Sliders where they landed in Super Litigious World?
If I said I never watched Sliders, will you hate me?
No, it was pretty shit. Jerry O'Connell might pop out from behind a large bush and slap you, though.
You buy a large bag of popcorn at the movies. After you watch your movie, you'll probably have some cold popcorn left over. You can either throw it in the trash on the way out or take what's left home. The decision takes two seconds.
You buy a large bag of popcorn at the movies. After you watch your movie, you'll probably have some cold popcorn left over. You can either throw it in the trash on the way out or take what's left home. The decision takes two seconds.
Are you implying that American's will not gobble up all that popcorn before the previews are over? YOU INSULT US, GOOD SIR! PISTOLS AT DAWN!
You buy a large bag of popcorn at the movies. After you watch your movie, you'll probably have some cold popcorn left over. You can either throw it in the trash on the way out or take what's left home. The decision takes two seconds.
Are you implying that American's will not gobble up all that popcorn before the previews are over? YOU INSULT US, GOOD SIR! PISTOLS AT DAWN!
If you can eat a large popcorn before the previews are over, you're in world record territory, my friend.
You buy a large bag of popcorn at the movies. After you watch your movie, you'll probably have some cold popcorn left over. You can either throw it in the trash on the way out or take what's left home. The decision takes two seconds.
Are you implying that American's will not gobble up all that popcorn before the previews are over? YOU INSULT US, GOOD SIR! PISTOLS AT DAWN!
If you can eat a large popcorn before the previews are over, you're in world record territory, my friend.
Posts
Also, can someone clarify something since this topic is being batted back and forth.
It's clear that a person (of legal age) has the right to alcohol but does a business still have the right to refuse serving said person alcohol? I assume they need a valid reason (as when a business refuses to serve a person because they're verbally abusive to staff for instance), does anyone know what said reasons include?
that said, i grew up around a lot of mormons, and they are some of the genuinely nicest people on the whole. i really like most of the mormons i have known as people.
psssst
it's a trap
So yeah, overall I agree with you there Will.
The law isn't super clear, but it really comes down to "I don't want to serve him/her, so I won't." You don't need a reason... their ID looks weird, they were looking at one of my employees funny, or "I just didn't feel like serving that person" all work.
from http://www.mahalo.com/answers/food-and-drink/laws-against-refusing-to-sell-alcohol-to-pregnant-women
A fetus is a fetus. A person is a person. They're not the same thing.
*the alcohol issue is a kind of stupid one, as apparently if the woman is showing it's not really dangerous anymore, if I'm not mistaken?
We don't have a fetus police for a reason. I'm all for the bartender advising her against it, but it's really not his place to deny her it unless she's already inebriated to the point where he would turn down another drink to a non-pregnant person. What I'm saying is, you can't make laws for non-people. I can't think of a suitable analogy (when does a non-person ever become a person?), but I think you get the gist of it.
Say, for example, a pregnant mother gets drunk as fuck all the time while pregnant, and bears a child who is developmentally challenged / has fetal alcohol syndrome, or some other kind of impairment as a direct result of the mother abusing her body during pregnancy, and this can be conclusively proven.
Would that child have the right to sue or otherwise have the mother prosecuted?
I suppose the problem with the law would be "Who would be seeking damages the mother caused" (if any were incurred, and for the record I'm not suggesting at this point that a bit of drinking is going to make that happen, I've had my shot at it in the thread and was defeated on it). The only logical positions there are the fetus, which would need 18 years to get to adult status, and the father. The more I make this suggestion though the more dubious it sounds. I mean, if the state is seeking compensation from 'damages' the mother caused that's definitely not okay.
Edit - Snap, sorta beaten to it.
...you know, I think this might have been an issue in a surrogacy case. Or at least raised as a possible one. I don't know that the concept's been tested, but its theoretically solid... its just that the burden of proof is likely to make things difficult, even in a civil case.
The argument that will be presented by people who believe fetus' are individuals will be that these children can sue because they were abused within the womb, and weren't given the chance, etc.
Not that it's something I necessarily agree with.
Specifically on the "given a fair chance" thing, that'd be hard to measure because there's too many different ways to measure success and you can't legally prove things that didn't happen or their chances of happening, etc. Yeah, this is a little bit much than I'm willing to investigate.
Yeah it seems like the most likely scenario for this to actually be in the courts would be a surrogacy case.
As far as the main question though, lets ignore the whole burden of proof aspect. Lets assume that yes, it has been shown somehow that the mother, through for example excessive alcohol consumption or illegal, non-prescription drug usage caused developmental health issues with the child.
Could the child or some other representative of that child (like the actual biological parents in a surrogacy situation) have a legitimate legal case against the mother/surrogate mother?
That'd be a hell of a world to live in. People suing parents (and schools attended) because they don't have high IQs.
Wasn't there an episode of Sliders where they landed in Super Litigious World?
On the other hand, if you think that future events are, for the most part, completely random and only being 'written' as they happen, then it becomes a lot muddier. You can't say that baby you aborted would have carried or would not have. The best you could really do is something like 'Statistically, x percent of babies carry to term' or whatnot.
Also, X to Y does not mean X is wholly seperate from Y. If we wanna make it simple, you could easily say Y is merely X+1. That would imply that while not the 'same' they are hardly worlds apart.
But the point remains is that you can't claim a fetus is or is not a person without abscribing to one of the above schools of thought. Either it's something that was always going to happen and thus 'not a person' or there is no real 'future' in terms of foreshadowing (in these sorts of things, obviously there is cause and effect, etc) and thus you can't say if it's either is or is not.
... I guess the best you could say is 'maybe'? There is no way to 100% say that it's a person (IE, carries to term or at least to a period of development you would call 'human' or whatnot).
Either way, stupid law.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
If she doesn't want it, she can abort it. Her choice.
The issue would present itself later on, when--providing she didn't abort--it's found that, for example, the parents' neglect is putting the child in danger. That's when there'd be a legitimate legal case. Can't take someone to court over a fetus, but you sure as shit can over a child. Can, and should.
If I said I never watched Sliders, will you hate me?
Even though that would never happen, I see that as being the most middle-ground way to solve the whole goddamn argument. The legal language for it would be great.
Bit of a tangent, really, but it's like if you're pro-choice, you let everyone decide for themselves. If you're "pro-life" you're basically calling the shots despite the rather large odds that dictate that you have business whatsoever calling those shots.
Religion is so great, kids.
MWO: Adamski
Too late, you captivated my attention. What state was this? Oklahoma?
No, it was pretty shit. Jerry O'Connell might pop out from behind a large bush and slap you, though.
I'm probably safe, being overseas.
Can you at least pretend a human fetus is worth more attention than a customer's leftover popcorn after a movie?
Yer breakin' mah balls, Couscous, yer breakin' mah balls.
Are you implying that American's will not gobble up all that popcorn before the previews are over? YOU INSULT US, GOOD SIR! PISTOLS AT DAWN!
If you can eat a large popcorn before the previews are over, you're in world record territory, my friend.
This is Americuh!