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.
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.
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.
You just asked me to provide a negative proof with science. Good job, you lose.
don't act like it's proven and he won't ask for proof.
Provide proof that low intake at low frequency causes FAS or sod off.
I'd look at this more in the vein of seatbelt laws. Whose harming themselves or others is irrelevent, the point is any baby born damaged, but alive due to any harmful act the mother may have taken, will most likely require large amounts of special care, which costs money. Money which comes from everyones taxes in many countries.
note: i'm not saying that low amounts of alcohol consumption causes problems, this is just a general why harmful things should be illegal statement .
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 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.
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.
The difference is that someone else is being forced to drink.
No they aren't. Someone else is being forced to be present at the register of a liquor store. Well, a 3rd person, actually, counting the register monkey.
moniker on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
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.
You just asked me to provide a negative proof with science. Good job, you lose.
don't act like it's proven and he won't ask for proof.
Provide proof that low intake at low frequency causes FAS or sod off.
Like I said before, it comes down to erring on the side of caution. Weighing the suggested positives of low frequency alcohol consumption against the possible chance of FAS, what leaves you feeling most comfortable?
Having looked at what kind of consumption is needed to cause FAS, I don't see any reason to be more comfortable with low levels and frequency of intake than with none at all. Nor do I see any reason to believe that a ban on sale to pregnant women would be anywhere near as effective as the ban on sale to minors, given that a large proportion of pregnant women live with a man who is over the legal drinking age and thus likely have alcohol in their homes anyway, as compared to 18-20 year-olds who mostly live with other 18-20 year-olds.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
EDIT: If the following is too off topic as to be objectionable, let me know and I'll axe it.
FCS, I have a question for you that I would like you to try and answer, if you would. Please understand that I am not trying to "trap" you or trick you or anything of the sort, I just honestly want to know your opinion on the following. Also I understand that this is a little tangential, but I would appreciate it if you'd all be patient with me.
The fact of my existence is nothing short of a medical miracle, if I may borrow the term. When my grandmother was pregnant with my mother, she was given a drug that was intended to prevent miscarriage, as her previous daughter had been stillborn. Unfortunately this medication (the name of which escapes me) actually served not only to increase the rate of miscarriage, but also imparted a number of congenital disorders to my mother (weak immune system, chronic migraines, depression, etc.) that were later passed on to me.
Anyway, when my mother and father decided they wanted to have children, it was discovered that my mother's cervix was severely compromised, most likely as a result of the damage that was done to her while my grandmother was still pregnant. She was told that the likelihood of miscarriage was astronomically high, and that even if she took every precaution I very likely would end up with health issues similar to hers.
Regardless, she chose to try and see the pregnancy through. Doing so required that she spend six months in bed, and was allowed only 15 minutes a day to be upright, other than to go to the bathroom and such. Ultimately I was born a few weeks early by C-section, a little colicky but otherwise perfectly healthy.
After that my parents decided that I was enough, even though they wanted more children, because of the physical tole that pregnancy took on my mother, and the fact that the risk of miscarriage increased after I was born.
However, my mother has told me many times that if I had been lost, they would have kept trying as many times as it would have taken for her to successfully carry a child to term, even though she likely would have suffered multiple miscarriages along the way.
So my question is, would my mother have been wrong to continue to get pregnant knowing that she likely would have miscarried? Would she have been in any way morally responsible for the loss of her unborn children, since she knew the extreme risk that conception carried? If I myself had been lost, would she have born any responsibility, since she knew how unlikely it was that I would survive?
If a mother is responsible for the loss/deformity of her child due to carelessness, does she also bear responsibility for a lost/disabled child if she knows the risk of compromise is extremely high when she chooses to become pregnant?
Please understand, again, I'm not trying to trap you or anything, and I promise not to take offense at your response, no matter what. I also invite other forumers to weigh in on the question, but please don't be too harsh with each other because I really want to know what everyone thinks.
It's not everyday I get to pose the question as to whether or not I should even exist.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
Hey, so with regard to the actual topic of the actual thread; if the purpose of incest laws is to make it easier to convict in cases of rape or abuse, shouldn't we instead try to deal with rape and abuse cases better? Incest may be icky, but people have rights to do things that are icky. If it's not hurting anyone there's nothing morally wrong with it.
Of course, try finding a politician willing to go on record as pro-incest.
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.
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.
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.
Alright, fair enough. But it's a pity we have to violate people's God-given right to fuck their sisters.:P
FCS, I have a question for you that I would like you to try and answer, if you would. Please understand that I am not trying to "trap" you or trick you or anything of the sort, I just honestly want to know your opinion on the following. Also I understand that this is a little tangential, but I would appreciate it if you'd all be patient with me.
The fact of my existence is nothing short of a medical miracle, if I may borrow the term. When my grandmother was pregnant with my mother, she was given a drug that was intended to prevent miscarriage, as her previous daughter had been stillborn. Unfortunately this medication (the name of which escapes me) actually served not only to increase the rate of miscarriage, but also imparted a number of congenital disorders to my mother (weak immune system, chronic migraines, depression, etc.) that were later passed on to me.
Anyway, when my mother and father decided they wanted to have children, it was discovered that my mother's cervix was severely compromised, most likely as a result of the damage that was done to her while my grandmother was still pregnant. She was told that the likelihood of miscarriage was astronomically high, and that even if she took every precaution I very likely would end up with health issues similar to hers.
Regardless, she chose to try and see the pregnancy through. Doing so required that she spend six months in bed, and was allowed only 15 minutes a day to be upright, other than to go to the bathroom and such. Ultimately I was born a few weeks early by C-section, a little colicky but otherwise perfectly healthy.
After that my parents decided that I was enough, even though they wanted more children, because of the physical tole that pregnancy took on my mother, and the fact that the risk of miscarriage increased after I was born.
However, my mother has told me many times that if I had been lost, they would have kept trying as many times as it would have taken for her to successfully carry a child to term, even though she likely would have suffered multiple miscarriages along the way.
So my question is, would my mother have been wrong to continue to get pregnant knowing that she likely would have miscarried? Would she have been in any way morally responsible for the loss of her unborn children, since she knew the extreme risk that conception carried? If I myself had been lost, would she have born any responsibility, since she knew how unlikely it was that I would survive?
If a mother is responsible for the loss/deformity of her child due to carelessness, does she also bear responsibility for a lost/disabled child if she knows the risk of compromise is extremely high when she chooses to become pregnant?
Please understand, again, I'm not trying to trap you or anything, and I promise not to take offense at your response, no matter what. I also invite other forumers to weigh in on the question, but please don't be too harsh with each other because I really want to know what everyone thinks.
It's not everyday I get to pose the question as to whether or not I should even exist.
No, as long as she's not actively doing something harming the baby, such as consuming heavy amounts of alcohol, smoking, etc.
Also, smoking pretty obviously can cause seriousbirthdefects. While alcohol is still a gray area, smoking is not.
If a mother is responsible for the loss/deformity of her child due to carelessness, does she also bear responsibility for a lost/disabled child if she knows the risk of compromise is extremely high when she chooses to become pregnant?
For me, it's a balance of risk versus reward. If a mother wants to risk having a dead or disabled baby in exchange for the possibility of having a baby at all, that's completely acceptable. If a mother wants to risk having a dead or disabled baby in exchange for getting completely drunk one night, then it's not acceptable.
Hey, so with regard to the actual topic of the actual thread; if the purpose of incest laws is to make it easier to convict in cases of rape or abuse, shouldn't we instead try to deal with rape and abuse cases better? Incest may be icky, but people have rights to do things that are icky. If it's not hurting anyone there's nothing morally wrong with it.
Of course, try finding a politician willing to go on record as pro-incest.
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.
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.
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.
Alright, fair enough. But it's a pity we have to violate people's God-given right to fuck their cousins.:P
Zimmy, you're giving me flashbacks of an Biology Ethics lab I had, with such conundrums as whether a women had a right to remove her dying, comatose husband's sperm to father a child without his previous consent. I completely appreciate the personal nature of your question, but I would say it's a far cry between a woman who desperately wishes to have a child despite possible non-avoidable complications and one who takes unnecessary risks simply due to addiction or apathy. I'm not even close to the age where I may consider children, but I can undestand the desire to produce a child despite the apparent risks.
Beren39 on
Go, Go, EXCALIBUR! - Trent Varsity Swim Team 2009, better watch out for me Phelps!
If a mother is responsible for the loss/deformity of her child due to carelessness, does she also bear responsibility for a lost/disabled child if she knows the risk of compromise is extremely high when she chooses to become pregnant?
For me, it's a balance of risk versus reward. If a mother wants to risk having a dead or disabled baby in exchange for the possibility of having a baby at all, that's completely acceptable. If a mother wants to risk having a dead or disabled baby in exchange for getting completely drunk one night, then it's not acceptable.
Thats all well and good in the US, but what about places with public health care?
What if the baby is disabled to the point where it needs special care and treatment, which will cost enormous amounts of money that comes from taxpayers dollars? Why should everyone else in the country have to pay because one woman was desperate to have a baby despite all the risks?
If a mother is responsible for the loss/deformity of her child due to carelessness, does she also bear responsibility for a lost/disabled child if she knows the risk of compromise is extremely high when she chooses to become pregnant?
For me, it's a balance of risk versus reward. If a mother wants to risk having a dead or disabled baby in exchange for the possibility of having a baby at all, that's completely acceptable. If a mother wants to risk having a dead or disabled baby in exchange for getting completely drunk one night, then it's not acceptable.
Thats all well and good in the US, but what about places with public health care?
What if the baby is disabled to the point where it needs special care and treatment, which will cost enormous amounts of money that comes from taxpayers dollars? Why should everyone else in the country have to pay because one woman was desperate to have a baby despite all the risks?
Living in Canada, I can honestly say I would rather pay for that then some dick who is riddled with ailments generated by self-abuse and gluttony and expects free help without even bringing the effort to stop such habits.
Beren39 on
Go, Go, EXCALIBUR! - Trent Varsity Swim Team 2009, better watch out for me Phelps!
Zimmy, you're giving me flashbacks of an Biology Ethics lab I had, with such conundrums as whether a women had a right to remove her dying, comatose husband's sperm to father a child without his previous consent. I completely appreciate the personal nature of your question, but I would say it's a far cry between a woman who desperately wishes to have a child despite possible non-avoidable complications and one who takes unnecessary risks simply due to addiction or apathy. I'm not even close to the age where I may consider children, but I can undestand the desire to produce a child despite the apparent risks.
I'm aware that my question totally comes out of left field, but it's a discussion I've had before. I've been told in no uncertain terms that even though I was wanted, planned, and conceived by a married couple out of love, my mother took an unacceptable risk by conceiving in the first place.
But then again the person who told me this was treated like a huge disappointment by his own parents, so there you go.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
I'll respond to that question, Zimmy, if only because I AM the result of repeated attempts.
My mother was told there was no way she'd ever carry a child to term. I don't remember what it was that was wrong, only it had something to do with her ovaries as she had a hysterectomy shortly after I was born. She wanted a child, however, and kept trying, despite doctors constant warnings that the miscarriages would continue and her health was directly at risk.
Anyway, small miracle, I was carried to almost to term (Born a little over a month early) and both of us survived delivery. Healthy baby. Unless I am to think that my birth was a mistake, the answer to your scenario is that miscarriages are irrelevant. If a woman wants a child then nobody has any cause to prevent her.
Of course, this is reinforced by the idea that women have control of their bodies regardless of their reproductive state.
If a mother is responsible for the loss/deformity of her child due to carelessness, does she also bear responsibility for a lost/disabled child if she knows the risk of compromise is extremely high when she chooses to become pregnant?
For me, it's a balance of risk versus reward. If a mother wants to risk having a dead or disabled baby in exchange for the possibility of having a baby at all, that's completely acceptable. If a mother wants to risk having a dead or disabled baby in exchange for getting completely drunk one night, then it's not acceptable.
Thats all well and good in the US, but what about places with public health care?
What if the baby is disabled to the point where it needs special care and treatment, which will cost enormous amounts of money that comes from taxpayers dollars? Why should everyone else in the country have to pay because one woman was desperate to have a baby despite all the risks?
Just because a country have public health care doesn't give everyone the responsibility not to get sick. But this doesn't need to be a health care thread.
Alternate response; What if the baby was Hitler? I'm allergic to pointless hypotheticals.
If a mother is responsible for the loss/deformity of her child due to carelessness, does she also bear responsibility for a lost/disabled child if she knows the risk of compromise is extremely high when she chooses to become pregnant?
For me, it's a balance of risk versus reward. If a mother wants to risk having a dead or disabled baby in exchange for the possibility of having a baby at all, that's completely acceptable. If a mother wants to risk having a dead or disabled baby in exchange for getting completely drunk one night, then it's not acceptable.
Thats all well and good in the US, but what about places with public health care?
What if the baby is disabled to the point where it needs special care and treatment, which will cost enormous amounts of money that comes from taxpayers dollars? Why should everyone else in the country have to pay because one woman was desperate to have a baby despite all the risks?
Actually US taxpayer dollars do help pay for my special care and treatment, since I've been recognized as a disabled student for many years now, and receive occasional state subsidies for extra costs associated with my education (for example, the state of Maine paid for me to fly back from Japan during my study abroad so that I could visit my doctors).
I do happen to think I've put that money to pretty good use, though. The gummint should get a decent return on their investment once I get a job and start paying taxes.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
Here are even morestudies on the effects of smoking on an unborn child.
VC, do you think pregnant women should be allowed to smoke cigarettes, regardless of the detrimental effects on another life?
I don't see how you could stop them, and I can see no benefit in banning the sale of cigarettes to women suspected of pregnancy. As a result whether or not I think smoking while pregnant is a good idea becomes irrelevant.
If a mother is responsible for the loss/deformity of her child due to carelessness, does she also bear responsibility for a lost/disabled child if she knows the risk of compromise is extremely high when she chooses to become pregnant?
For me, it's a balance of risk versus reward. If a mother wants to risk having a dead or disabled baby in exchange for the possibility of having a baby at all, that's completely acceptable. If a mother wants to risk having a dead or disabled baby in exchange for getting completely drunk one night, then it's not acceptable.
Thats all well and good in the US, but what about places with public health care?
What if the baby is disabled to the point where it needs special care and treatment, which will cost enormous amounts of money that comes from taxpayers dollars? Why should everyone else in the country have to pay because one woman was desperate to have a baby despite all the risks?
Just because a country have public health care doesn't give everyone the responsibility not to get sick. But this doesn't need to be a health care thread.
Alternate response; What if the baby was Hitler? I'm allergic to pointless hypotheticals.
It's not a pointless hypothetical if there is actually a very large chance of it happening, in fact it's not really a hypothetical at all since it happens, quite frequently.
Here are even morestudies on the effects of smoking on an unborn child.
VC, do you think pregnant women should be allowed to smoke cigarettes, regardless of the detrimental effects on another life?
You know, I'll freely admit that I contributed to the whole "Alcohol, good or bad", argument on this thread, but remember this thread is about INCEST. Though I can completely understand anyone wanting to change the topic of conversation with that doozy on board. But, in an attempt to get this back on track, I find it interesting that the most famous cases of incest (ex: the Hapsburgs) was due to greed (preservation of estate) rather then simply lust, as is the sick case in many of these recent situations.
Edit: Lust or dominance, the motivation behind these situations is pretty baffling.
Beren39 on
Go, Go, EXCALIBUR! - Trent Varsity Swim Team 2009, better watch out for me Phelps!
0
Options
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
Actually, this thread isn't about incest. Try reading the OP again.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
Curious. Tax payers in nations with public health care cover the costs of many things already criminal. Think of an assault of any kind - the victims hospital bill is picked up by the public. Why should the public pay for that since it was the actions of an individual that caused it?
Because that's what it's there for. Really, as much as I want to kick in the face of someone who gives their child FAS (My adopted brother has it, my nephew has it. I see the long term effects of it all the time) I can't think of any practical way to prevent it without bringing in a ton of collateral damage in the form of repressed rights for women.
EDIT: This was a reply to AngrySpoon - I lost track of the quotes.
EDIT2: Zimmy's right. I started this thread to talk about the issues surrounding responsibility to an unborn child - incest being one of those issues, not necessarily the primary one.
Curious. Tax payers in nations with public health care cover the costs of many things already criminal. Think of an assault of any kind - the victims hospital bill is picked up by the public. Why should the public pay for that since it was the actions of an individual that caused it?
Because that's what it's there for. Really, as much as I want to kick in the face of someone who gives their child FAS (My adopted brother has it, my nephew has it. I see the long term effects of it all the time) I can't think of any practical way to prevent it without bringing in a ton of collateral damage in the form of repressed rights for women.
But at least the individual who caused it is hopefully punished, which would (once again hopefully) deter them from doing it in the future. I also like to think that the laws against assault do a little bit to lessen how often it occurs. I'm not arguing that health care shouldn't cover the disabilities, just that we should discourage the actions leading to them as much as possible
Curious. Tax payers in nations with public health care cover the costs of many things already criminal. Think of an assault of any kind - the victims hospital bill is picked up by the public. Why should the public pay for that since it was the actions of an individual that caused it?
Because that's what it's there for. Really, as much as I want to kick in the face of someone who gives their child FAS (My adopted brother has it, my nephew has it. I see the long term effects of it all the time) I can't think of any practical way to prevent it without bringing in a ton of collateral damage in the form of repressed rights for women.
EDIT: This was a reply to AngrySpoon - I lost track of the quotes.
This is something I want to get cleared up. Do you, or for that matter anyone in the thread, believe that a woman has a right to drink excessively while pregnant?
I don't, but I can't think of a way to make it illegal without aforesaid collateral damage.
Curious. Tax payers in nations with public health care cover the costs of many things already criminal. Think of an assault of any kind - the victims hospital bill is picked up by the public. Why should the public pay for that since it was the actions of an individual that caused it?
Because that's what it's there for. Really, as much as I want to kick in the face of someone who gives their child FAS (My adopted brother has it, my nephew has it. I see the long term effects of it all the time) I can't think of any practical way to prevent it without bringing in a ton of collateral damage in the form of repressed rights for women.
But at least the individual who caused it is hopefully punished, which would (once again hopefully) deter them from doing it in the future. I also like to think that the laws against assault do a little bit to lessen how often it occurs. I'm not arguing that health care shouldn't cover the disabilities, just that we should discourage the actions leading to them as much as possible
Well, when I was looking for laws about this regarding Canada, I came upon a site that said there's a law (Either in Ontario only, or nation-wide - not sure) that says alcohol sellers have to have signs posted informing pregnant women that drinking can harm the fetus. Passive enforcement like that is really the only way to go about it, depending. There's a line about shaming women who are pregnant that need not be crossed I think.
At any rate, how would you go about punishing a woman who gave birth to a FAS baby? That's ..... a whole new can of worms.
Here are even morestudies on the effects of smoking on an unborn child.
VC, do you think pregnant women should be allowed to smoke cigarettes, regardless of the detrimental effects on another life?
No-one's been talking about smoking until you brought it up, you fucking troll. We've been talking about FAS and alcohol for the past four pages, and you realised that you can't win based on the facts, so now you're trying to change the subject. Get the fuck out.
The Cat on
0
Options
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
Here's another one.
Lets again assume that we're making a pro-life argument and we decide to pass laws to prevent the sale of alcohol/tobacco/whathaveyou to pregnant women.
Who do you punish, and how? The buyer, the seller, or both? If you punish the mother, what kind of punishment is appropriate? Jail time would obviously be detrimental to the development of the child, and community service would take her away from the child she should be raising. Imposing fines could adversely affect the mother's ability to afford to properly care for her child, both before and after birth. What if a woman who is unaware of her pregnancy buys alcohol for a friend, and is later found to have broken the law?
So why not just punish the seller? Because then there would be no incentive for the mother not to try and break the law anyway, since she won't be punished if she gets caught. In order to protect themselves, sellers would start refusing to sell to all women, which I think we can all agree is not the way to go.
So again, how do you punish the mother without potentially further impairing her ability to care for her child? How do you enforce the law in a way that serves the best interests of the child?
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
Here are even morestudies on the effects of smoking on an unborn child.
VC, do you think pregnant women should be allowed to smoke cigarettes, regardless of the detrimental effects on another life?
No-one's been talking about smoking until you brought it up, you fucking troll. We've been talking about FAS and alcohol for the past four pages, and you realised that you can't win based on the facts, so now you're trying to change the subject. Get the fuck out.
I don't think it's appropriate to call him a troll, though bringing up another variable when this one had already generated so much unresolved discussion was probably uncalled for too. Then again, I mentioned toxoplasmosis, so I'm basically in the same boat.
Beren39 on
Go, Go, EXCALIBUR! - Trent Varsity Swim Team 2009, better watch out for me Phelps!
Curious. Tax payers in nations with public health care cover the costs of many things already criminal. Think of an assault of any kind - the victims hospital bill is picked up by the public. Why should the public pay for that since it was the actions of an individual that caused it?
Because that's what it's there for. Really, as much as I want to kick in the face of someone who gives their child FAS (My adopted brother has it, my nephew has it. I see the long term effects of it all the time) I can't think of any practical way to prevent it without bringing in a ton of collateral damage in the form of repressed rights for women.
EDIT: This was a reply to AngrySpoon - I lost track of the quotes.
This is something I want to get cleared up. Do you, or for that matter anyone in the thread, believe that a woman has a right to drink excessively while pregnant?
I don't, but I can't think of a way to make it illegal without aforesaid collateral damage.
She has a right, as a human person, to exercise final decision-making capacity over everything that goes into her body, the same as any other human person. Rights aren't the same as shoulds. Don't confuse them.
Here are even morestudies on the effects of smoking on an unborn child.
VC, do you think pregnant women should be allowed to smoke cigarettes, regardless of the detrimental effects on another life?
No-one's been talking about smoking until you brought it up, you fucking troll. We've been talking about FAS and alcohol for the past four pages, and you realised that you can't win based on the facts, so now you're trying to change the subject. Get the fuck out.
I don't think it's appropriate to call him a troll, though bringing up another variable when this one had already generated so much unresolved discussion was probably uncalled for too. Then again, I mentioned toxoplasmosis, so I'm basically in the same boat.
No, he's playing bait-and-switch. Despite, I might add, that on the first page it was pointed out that smoking was about the only recreational substance not already illegal that one could definitely link to fetal problems and thus wasn't being contested.
Here are even morestudies on the effects of smoking on an unborn child.
VC, do you think pregnant women should be allowed to smoke cigarettes, regardless of the detrimental effects on another life?
No-one's been talking about smoking until you brought it up, you fucking troll. We've been talking about FAS and alcohol for the past four pages, and you realised that you can't win based on the facts, so now you're trying to change the subject. Get the fuck out.
I don't think it's appropriate to call him a troll, though bringing up another variable when this one had already generated so much unresolved discussion was probably uncalled for too. Then again, I mentioned toxoplasmosis, so I'm basically in the same boat.
No, he's playing bait-and-switch. Despite, I might add, that on the first page it was pointed out that smoking was about the only recreational substance not already illegal that one could definitely link to fetal problems and thus wasn't being contested.
Point taken, smoking is definitely not ambiguous in the possibility of harm.
Beren39 on
Go, Go, EXCALIBUR! - Trent Varsity Swim Team 2009, better watch out for me Phelps!
Here are even morestudies on the effects of smoking on an unborn child.
VC, do you think pregnant women should be allowed to smoke cigarettes, regardless of the detrimental effects on another life?
No-one's been talking about smoking until you brought it up, you fucking troll. We've been talking about FAS and alcohol for the past four pages, and you realised that you can't win based on the facts, so now you're trying to change the subject. Get the fuck out.
I'm simply trying to expand the discussion. The OP started with incest and opened discussion to "doing things that result in deformities in a fetus."
Curious. Tax payers in nations with public health care cover the costs of many things already criminal. Think of an assault of any kind - the victims hospital bill is picked up by the public. Why should the public pay for that since it was the actions of an individual that caused it?
Because that's what it's there for. Really, as much as I want to kick in the face of someone who gives their child FAS (My adopted brother has it, my nephew has it. I see the long term effects of it all the time) I can't think of any practical way to prevent it without bringing in a ton of collateral damage in the form of repressed rights for women.
EDIT: This was a reply to AngrySpoon - I lost track of the quotes.
This is something I want to get cleared up. Do you, or for that matter anyone in the thread, believe that a woman has a right to drink excessively while pregnant?
I don't, but I can't think of a way to make it illegal without aforesaid collateral damage.
She has a right, as a human person, to exercise final decision-making capacity over everything that goes into her body, the same as any other human person. Rights aren't the same as shoulds. Don't confuse them.
I'm not confusing them. I believe that it is the right of a pregnant woman to determine if the thing in her women will ever become a human being or not. I also believe that if a pregnant woman intends to carry her baby to term, she has no right to compromise its future well-being by drinking excessively. In an ideal world, it would be illegal.
Lets again assume that we're making a pro-life argument and we decide to pass laws to prevent the sale of alcohol/tobacco/whathaveyou to pregnant women.
Who do you punish, and how?
[snip]
How do you punish the mother without potentially further impairing her ability to care for her child? How do you enforce the law in a way that serves the best interests of the child?
You bring up a series of incredibly interesting and valid points. It's a question there has yet to be an answer for (provided by the pro-lifers anyhow. Us pro-choice folks seem to think about this a lot more than they do.)
If I may venture a guess I think the real answer why no one has tried to solve this dilemma is they simply don't care. Again, the leaders of the Conservative Christian movement don't particularly care about the consequences of their legislators. They only care about shaming those sluts, keeping those queers from being happy, making sure those atheists and Muslims don't get too comfortable and so on. In short it's about asserting control. Limiting freedoms to maintain and increase societal control. They know well and full that The Pill doesn't cause abortions and that no one uses abortion regularly as a form of birth control. They simply use these issues to scare up support.
That was a bit off-topic I know, so let me say this: I'm against restricting the rights of pregnant women because it assumes far too many of them are horribly stupid. There are plenty of horrible mothers out there, and their children suffer for it. But don't limit their behavior persay. We can't afford for society to deem what is safe and what is not. (Spankings are a good example.) Instead, punish them for creating an unsafe environment for their children (not their fetuses). We already do that. Hell, we take their kids away. Besides, a fetus isn't really a person yet since it is dependent on the mother and a full 20% of them don't survive due to natural miscarriages.
But if you were to, say, propose a bill that punishes mothers for hurting their children if it is apparent the children suffer from something like fetal alcohol syndrome, I might support it. Maybe. I'm not 100% sure. Damn this is a tricky issue. For example I'd love to see abusive parents stopped before the act but how do you do that?
That makes no logical sense. Either she has the right to decide on food consumption or she doesn't. What's in her uterus or not is not relevant to this right.
That makes no logical sense. Either she has the right to decide on food consumption or she doesn't. What's in her uterus or not is not relevant to this right.
How is it not relevant to that right? All rights are conditional, most hinging on the fact that fulfilling them cannot cause harm to other individuals. And it has been established that FAS for example has detrimental effects not only for the fetus, but for many other people.
AngrySpoon on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
But if you were to, say, propose a bill that punishes mothers for hurting their children if it is apparent the children suffer from something like fetal alcohol syndrome, I might support it. Maybe. I'm not 100% sure. Damn this is a tricky issue.
I was thinking about that - in order to punish you have to prove. So that means evidence. Does that mean any woman who bears a child with disabilities is likely to end up on trial? At the very least accused. Create the cloud of suspicion and even the innocent will be included.
Honestly, the more I think about this the more I think the only thing to be done is preventative education and support. The more prolific that is, the more the stigma of certain things will go away and the likelier at risk mothers will be getting help sooner rather than later.
Posts
Provide proof that low intake at low frequency causes FAS or sod off.
note: i'm not saying that low amounts of alcohol consumption causes problems, this is just a general why harmful things should be illegal statement .
No they aren't. Someone else is being forced to be present at the register of a liquor store. Well, a 3rd person, actually, counting the register monkey.
indeed.
Having looked at what kind of consumption is needed to cause FAS, I don't see any reason to be more comfortable with low levels and frequency of intake than with none at all. Nor do I see any reason to believe that a ban on sale to pregnant women would be anywhere near as effective as the ban on sale to minors, given that a large proportion of pregnant women live with a man who is over the legal drinking age and thus likely have alcohol in their homes anyway, as compared to 18-20 year-olds who mostly live with other 18-20 year-olds.
FCS, I have a question for you that I would like you to try and answer, if you would. Please understand that I am not trying to "trap" you or trick you or anything of the sort, I just honestly want to know your opinion on the following. Also I understand that this is a little tangential, but I would appreciate it if you'd all be patient with me.
The fact of my existence is nothing short of a medical miracle, if I may borrow the term. When my grandmother was pregnant with my mother, she was given a drug that was intended to prevent miscarriage, as her previous daughter had been stillborn. Unfortunately this medication (the name of which escapes me) actually served not only to increase the rate of miscarriage, but also imparted a number of congenital disorders to my mother (weak immune system, chronic migraines, depression, etc.) that were later passed on to me.
Anyway, when my mother and father decided they wanted to have children, it was discovered that my mother's cervix was severely compromised, most likely as a result of the damage that was done to her while my grandmother was still pregnant. She was told that the likelihood of miscarriage was astronomically high, and that even if she took every precaution I very likely would end up with health issues similar to hers.
Regardless, she chose to try and see the pregnancy through. Doing so required that she spend six months in bed, and was allowed only 15 minutes a day to be upright, other than to go to the bathroom and such. Ultimately I was born a few weeks early by C-section, a little colicky but otherwise perfectly healthy.
After that my parents decided that I was enough, even though they wanted more children, because of the physical tole that pregnancy took on my mother, and the fact that the risk of miscarriage increased after I was born.
However, my mother has told me many times that if I had been lost, they would have kept trying as many times as it would have taken for her to successfully carry a child to term, even though she likely would have suffered multiple miscarriages along the way.
So my question is, would my mother have been wrong to continue to get pregnant knowing that she likely would have miscarried? Would she have been in any way morally responsible for the loss of her unborn children, since she knew the extreme risk that conception carried? If I myself had been lost, would she have born any responsibility, since she knew how unlikely it was that I would survive?
If a mother is responsible for the loss/deformity of her child due to carelessness, does she also bear responsibility for a lost/disabled child if she knows the risk of compromise is extremely high when she chooses to become pregnant?
Please understand, again, I'm not trying to trap you or anything, and I promise not to take offense at your response, no matter what. I also invite other forumers to weigh in on the question, but please don't be too harsh with each other because I really want to know what everyone thinks.
It's not everyday I get to pose the question as to whether or not I should even exist.
Alright, fair enough. But it's a pity we have to violate people's God-given right to fuck their sisters.:P
No, as long as she's not actively doing something harming the baby, such as consuming heavy amounts of alcohol, smoking, etc.
Also, smoking pretty obviously can cause serious birth defects. While alcohol is still a gray area, smoking is not.
For me, it's a balance of risk versus reward. If a mother wants to risk having a dead or disabled baby in exchange for the possibility of having a baby at all, that's completely acceptable. If a mother wants to risk having a dead or disabled baby in exchange for getting completely drunk one night, then it's not acceptable.
Move to Shelbyville, George Michael.
What if the baby is disabled to the point where it needs special care and treatment, which will cost enormous amounts of money that comes from taxpayers dollars? Why should everyone else in the country have to pay because one woman was desperate to have a baby despite all the risks?
Living in Canada, I can honestly say I would rather pay for that then some dick who is riddled with ailments generated by self-abuse and gluttony and expects free help without even bringing the effort to stop such habits.
VC, do you think pregnant women should be allowed to smoke cigarettes, regardless of the detrimental effects on another life?
I'm aware that my question totally comes out of left field, but it's a discussion I've had before. I've been told in no uncertain terms that even though I was wanted, planned, and conceived by a married couple out of love, my mother took an unacceptable risk by conceiving in the first place.
But then again the person who told me this was treated like a huge disappointment by his own parents, so there you go.
My mother was told there was no way she'd ever carry a child to term. I don't remember what it was that was wrong, only it had something to do with her ovaries as she had a hysterectomy shortly after I was born. She wanted a child, however, and kept trying, despite doctors constant warnings that the miscarriages would continue and her health was directly at risk.
Anyway, small miracle, I was carried to almost to term (Born a little over a month early) and both of us survived delivery. Healthy baby. Unless I am to think that my birth was a mistake, the answer to your scenario is that miscarriages are irrelevant. If a woman wants a child then nobody has any cause to prevent her.
Of course, this is reinforced by the idea that women have control of their bodies regardless of their reproductive state.
Just because a country have public health care doesn't give everyone the responsibility not to get sick. But this doesn't need to be a health care thread.
Alternate response; What if the baby was Hitler? I'm allergic to pointless hypotheticals.
Actually US taxpayer dollars do help pay for my special care and treatment, since I've been recognized as a disabled student for many years now, and receive occasional state subsidies for extra costs associated with my education (for example, the state of Maine paid for me to fly back from Japan during my study abroad so that I could visit my doctors).
I do happen to think I've put that money to pretty good use, though. The gummint should get a decent return on their investment once I get a job and start paying taxes.
I don't see how you could stop them, and I can see no benefit in banning the sale of cigarettes to women suspected of pregnancy. As a result whether or not I think smoking while pregnant is a good idea becomes irrelevant.
Smoke, or purchase?
It's not a pointless hypothetical if there is actually a very large chance of it happening, in fact it's not really a hypothetical at all since it happens, quite frequently.
You know, I'll freely admit that I contributed to the whole "Alcohol, good or bad", argument on this thread, but remember this thread is about INCEST. Though I can completely understand anyone wanting to change the topic of conversation with that doozy on board. But, in an attempt to get this back on track, I find it interesting that the most famous cases of incest (ex: the Hapsburgs) was due to greed (preservation of estate) rather then simply lust, as is the sick case in many of these recent situations.
Edit: Lust or dominance, the motivation behind these situations is pretty baffling.
/smartass
Because that's what it's there for. Really, as much as I want to kick in the face of someone who gives their child FAS (My adopted brother has it, my nephew has it. I see the long term effects of it all the time) I can't think of any practical way to prevent it without bringing in a ton of collateral damage in the form of repressed rights for women.
EDIT: This was a reply to AngrySpoon - I lost track of the quotes.
EDIT2: Zimmy's right. I started this thread to talk about the issues surrounding responsibility to an unborn child - incest being one of those issues, not necessarily the primary one.
Sorry, I'm just really eager to talk about incest.
/reallyjoking
This is something I want to get cleared up. Do you, or for that matter anyone in the thread, believe that a woman has a right to drink excessively while pregnant?
I don't, but I can't think of a way to make it illegal without aforesaid collateral damage.
Well, when I was looking for laws about this regarding Canada, I came upon a site that said there's a law (Either in Ontario only, or nation-wide - not sure) that says alcohol sellers have to have signs posted informing pregnant women that drinking can harm the fetus. Passive enforcement like that is really the only way to go about it, depending. There's a line about shaming women who are pregnant that need not be crossed I think.
At any rate, how would you go about punishing a woman who gave birth to a FAS baby? That's ..... a whole new can of worms.
Lets again assume that we're making a pro-life argument and we decide to pass laws to prevent the sale of alcohol/tobacco/whathaveyou to pregnant women.
Who do you punish, and how? The buyer, the seller, or both? If you punish the mother, what kind of punishment is appropriate? Jail time would obviously be detrimental to the development of the child, and community service would take her away from the child she should be raising. Imposing fines could adversely affect the mother's ability to afford to properly care for her child, both before and after birth. What if a woman who is unaware of her pregnancy buys alcohol for a friend, and is later found to have broken the law?
So why not just punish the seller? Because then there would be no incentive for the mother not to try and break the law anyway, since she won't be punished if she gets caught. In order to protect themselves, sellers would start refusing to sell to all women, which I think we can all agree is not the way to go.
So again, how do you punish the mother without potentially further impairing her ability to care for her child? How do you enforce the law in a way that serves the best interests of the child?
I don't think it's appropriate to call him a troll, though bringing up another variable when this one had already generated so much unresolved discussion was probably uncalled for too. Then again, I mentioned toxoplasmosis, so I'm basically in the same boat.
She has a right, as a human person, to exercise final decision-making capacity over everything that goes into her body, the same as any other human person. Rights aren't the same as shoulds. Don't confuse them.
Point taken, smoking is definitely not ambiguous in the possibility of harm.
I'm simply trying to expand the discussion. The OP started with incest and opened discussion to "doing things that result in deformities in a fetus."
I'm not confusing them. I believe that it is the right of a pregnant woman to determine if the thing in her women will ever become a human being or not. I also believe that if a pregnant woman intends to carry her baby to term, she has no right to compromise its future well-being by drinking excessively. In an ideal world, it would be illegal.
You bring up a series of incredibly interesting and valid points. It's a question there has yet to be an answer for (provided by the pro-lifers anyhow. Us pro-choice folks seem to think about this a lot more than they do.)
If I may venture a guess I think the real answer why no one has tried to solve this dilemma is they simply don't care. Again, the leaders of the Conservative Christian movement don't particularly care about the consequences of their legislators. They only care about shaming those sluts, keeping those queers from being happy, making sure those atheists and Muslims don't get too comfortable and so on. In short it's about asserting control. Limiting freedoms to maintain and increase societal control. They know well and full that The Pill doesn't cause abortions and that no one uses abortion regularly as a form of birth control. They simply use these issues to scare up support.
That was a bit off-topic I know, so let me say this: I'm against restricting the rights of pregnant women because it assumes far too many of them are horribly stupid. There are plenty of horrible mothers out there, and their children suffer for it. But don't limit their behavior persay. We can't afford for society to deem what is safe and what is not. (Spankings are a good example.) Instead, punish them for creating an unsafe environment for their children (not their fetuses). We already do that. Hell, we take their kids away. Besides, a fetus isn't really a person yet since it is dependent on the mother and a full 20% of them don't survive due to natural miscarriages.
But if you were to, say, propose a bill that punishes mothers for hurting their children if it is apparent the children suffer from something like fetal alcohol syndrome, I might support it. Maybe. I'm not 100% sure. Damn this is a tricky issue. For example I'd love to see abusive parents stopped before the act but how do you do that?
How is it not relevant to that right? All rights are conditional, most hinging on the fact that fulfilling them cannot cause harm to other individuals. And it has been established that FAS for example has detrimental effects not only for the fetus, but for many other people.
I was thinking about that - in order to punish you have to prove. So that means evidence. Does that mean any woman who bears a child with disabilities is likely to end up on trial? At the very least accused. Create the cloud of suspicion and even the innocent will be included.
Honestly, the more I think about this the more I think the only thing to be done is preventative education and support. The more prolific that is, the more the stigma of certain things will go away and the likelier at risk mothers will be getting help sooner rather than later.