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!
Posts
Banning something privately to legitimately protect your own ass from litigation is a reasonable measure.
Banning something legally because you hope it might do some good is not.
How?
And shouldn't you promote women who are preggers going down waterslides? It'll give the baby some practice.
if you take the assumption (as I know at least than did) that they are to-be-carried to full term for sure, then there is a person in the future that can be affected by actions done now.
Honor system.
I'm not proposing treating men and women differently, I'm talking about treating pregnant and non-pregnant people differently. I'm proposing a ban because the risk of them harming another person is exponentially higher than under any other circumstances. It's the same reason we don't allow the "subset" of 11-year-olds buy alcohol.
By keeping less mothers from drinking alcohol, thereby imparting FAS upon their child? Yes, someone else can buy it for them, but just because a law can be circumvented through illegal means doesn't mean it's entirely useless. Once again I make the comparison to banning minors from drinking alcohol.
can't guarantee the fetus will make it that far. there's also no established connection with alcohol purchase and consumption, or indeed consumption and 'massive deformity'.
oh, I don't support there being a law at all, I'm just specifically arguing the point I quoted.
I will also concede that I don't know what specifically can be considered dangerous to a fetus, I trust you far more than myself on that subject.
I'm just saying that, if you plan to carry a baby to birth, it is your responsibility to not do things that could (likely could, not like 1/1,000,00) lead to it being born a specifically sick/unhealthy person.
You wouldn't have to deal with all that bullshit if you'd just stay in the kitchen throughout.
Except that as indicated consumption of small volumes of alcohol at reasonably low frequency doesn't hurt the baby and doesn't stop being good for the mother just because she's pregnant. Your legislation rests on the assumption that being pregnant turns you into Steve Tyler.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Also the reason that we don't allow 11 year-olds to buy alcohol is because 11 year-olds lack the maturity and understanding to know that drinking can harm them a lot more than it would a 21 year-old. The 21 year-old has rights, the 11 year-old does not. The 21 year-old is legally cognizant and capable of making decisions about their own personal safety, even if it's the wrong one. We don't violate the rights of the 21 year-old from doing something stupid because we aren't fucking fascists.
How does it keep less mothers from drinking alcohol? It'll keep less pregnant women from buying alcohol, perhaps, but that isn't the goal you're pushing so...
I don't see how minors are a comparable group here. It's really just not making any sense to me. Now, the moral argument of 'don't get shitfaced when you're drinking for two' certainly is a good idea. There's no way to really codify that, though.
Yes, but Stalin is not talking about the mother's personal safety, but the safety of her baby. Which may or may not be a person yet, depending on your position. Mine is that if you've chosen to carry a baby to term, you have a responsibility to look after its safety and not make it all deformed, because you've chosen to make it a person in the future. However, it's be very difficult to pass a law about this that could be enforced fairly.
Also, Stalin's proposal doesn't consider whether mothers who are going to have abortions should be allowed alcohol.
Except that there aren't any conclusive studies showing that low alchohol consumption while pregnant doesn't cause FAS, just the Cat. Show me those studies that have eluded the medical community for decades.
And the increased likelihood of coercion being involved. Though I'm mostly remembering stuff Cat linked awhile back and could be pretty fuzzy.
When evidence of damage at such low frequencies is absent, I would say erring on the side of caution is for the best. Remember, however you put it, alcohol is a toxin. When you actually remind yourself that you're deliberately introducing a toxin into your bloodstream, one that is shared through the placenta with another life, it doesn't sound so great.
*Edit: This is excluding any evidence that moderate consumption of beer is healthy, something I've seen a lot of lately. Keep in mind, the candidates for these studies are not pregnant women.
I repeat: Yes, someone else can buy it for them, but just because a law can be circumvented through illegal means doesn't mean it's entirely useless.
We ban heroin, don't we? Abuse of prescription drugs? Drunk driving? Yes, we do absolutely keep people from doing something stupid, if it's stupid enough that it could do serious harm.
Of course, try finding a politician willing to go on record as pro-incest.
You just asked me to provide a negative proof with science. Good job, you lose.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Red wine and some beers are beneficial and reduces the likelihood of heart disease and some other stuff.
The problem is, I would say that most cases of incest are a harmful violation of trust. There's the odd happy couple, but it's certainly not the trend.
don't act like it's proven and he won't ask for proof.
I am pro-choice because I don't consider fetuses to be people, at least not until fairly near birth. I have no issues with destroying the potential for human life. There's plenty of that around - men create countless sperm, women ovulate every month.
I would, however, be for a law prohibiting pregnant women from drinking excessively (or drinking at all if that can be shown to be harmful). Yes, the thing that you are damaging at the moment, the fetus, is not a person, but you are potentially endangering the well-being of a person that you fully intend to create. In this case you are not harming the potential for human life, but an actual human life.
To make a stupid analogy - it is not against the law to demolish a building when no one is there (abortion), but it is against the law to set a timer on the detonation (consuming alcohol) and then allow someone (the baby) to wander into the building the next day only to be crushed by tons of concrete.
That's because that's not how science works, you idiot. There aren't any conclusive studies showing that low-level alcohol consumption harms kids at all in the long run, and plenty of studies showing the minor benefits of the same levels of consumption. This isn't rocket science. Go google.
What illegal means? You aren't making it illegal for a pregnant woman to consume alcohol, just purchase it. Then comparing her to chattel in order to justify this theoretical defacto ban. All without linking the intent to purchase with the intent to consume.
Should we make it illegal for butchers to sell pork to Jews with heart conditions?
or not allow alcoholics or people with liver conditions to drink? still a life at stake.
can never and should never be a law.
But you're not addressing the risk factors that are most likely to cause serious harm, namely proximity to traffic/driving and proximity to one's male partner. You're just having a good ol' moral panic about beer.
Then the way to deal with it would be to outlaw harmful violations of trust.
Which is, of course, impossible.
Are there specific varieties of incest that are more harmful then other kinds? Like, maybe we could outlaw parent-child incest, and leave sibling-sibling intact. So the law would be more valid on moral principles while still fulfilling it's pragmatic purpose, and oh god i'm talking about different kinds of incest on the internet what is wrong with me.
Actually it is against the law to just demolish a building, occupied or not. You wouldn't believe the permitting process it takes to do even some minor demo work on a rehab.
The difference is that someone else is being forced to drink.
That's because they are harming themselves. Harming someone else (the kid) is completely different.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Well, I mean, yeah, but you can get those permits. I suppose in my analogy that would be like how you have to be 21 in order to drink, can't drive, etc.
I would say parent child is the most rife for abuse. Sibling to sibling may be, depending on age difference. I would say relations between first cousins is the most common and in relation, the most commonly accepted. The problem with this kind, is that it is the most renewable, recurring from generation to generation and resulting in the genetic mess that is the royal family. For evidence of this, I point you to Charles II of Spain.
There are simply so few times when having incest not illegal in some way would be of any positive outcome that it's basically not worth the effort.
This assumes that the siblings exist in a vacuum. Odds are the older one is going to be an authority figure same as parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, &c. There is really no way to prove that psychological manipulation and coercion isn't happening, and the likelihood that it is forces the government's hand to act. Think of that polygamist cult that was in the news weeks ago. Only more inbred.