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 can come up with a laundry list of things that are detrimental to innocents yet still occur on a regular basis. There is an even larger laundry list of things that might be.
Do we really want to live in a world where everything that is potentially harmful maybe and every action we take can lead to punishment?
I don't know where we draw the line here but we could make a good case to outlaw just about everything without some kind of compass about what should be protected and what shouldn't be.
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.
Okay let me be honest: I'm still thinking this issue out. I'm all for womens' right to choose but what if their actions (drinking heavily for example) lead to the child being permanently disabled? Does she have a right to endanger a child like that? But how easy is it to link some types of birth defects and drug abuse? Could they be mis-diagnosed genetic disorders? If that were the case then we'd have to err on the side of caution and not punish them.
No, sorry, it doesn't work - you still haven't established causation between moderate alcohol consumption and FAS, or the purchase of alchohol and its consumption.
Less than a year ago there were articles starting to appear about how women should be policing their diets just in case they got knocked up, because apparently even that could affect the fetus. Women were told to consider themselves 'pre-pregnant' whether they intended having kids or not. That's just one step further from your flawed reasoning down the control-women-because-babies-are-far-too-important-for-women-to-ever-run-their-own-lives slippery slope. And sorry, but babies are not that important, and there's no need for us to strive to eliminate every stupid little potential risk to their ultimate wellbeing. Its a bullshit way to live.
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.
Okay let me be honest: I'm still thinking this issue out. I'm all for womens' right to choose but what if their actions (drinking heavily for example) lead to the child being permanently disabled? Does she have a right to endanger a child like that? But how easy is it to link some types of birth defects and drug abuse? Could they be mis-diagnosed genetic disorders? If that were the case then we'd have to err on the side of caution and not punish them.
We could take the argument farther and even make the claim that parents who scream and yell at their children cause psychological drama and as a result should be punished for the damage they cause.
If we wanted to regulate and enforce everything to a Utopian standard we'd all be in prison for something.
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?
Right off the bat, I have to say I am pro-life. Besides that though, I must admit the possible reason that more contemplation of this subject is done by pro-choicers is simply because most pro-lifers have this opinion as a knee-jerk reaction due to ingrained religious belief and so on. I would say I have given much more thought to this idea then that, though I find more and more I begin to lean towards pro-choice. On a final note, yes the morning after pill is a much better solution then a delayed abortion and is much less icky considering gastrulation has not yet occurred. Also, where did that 20% statistic come from?
Beren39 on
Go, Go, EXCALIBUR! - Trent Varsity Swim Team 2009, better watch out for me Phelps!
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.
Are you responding to me? I'm going to assume you are.
Here's my logic;
Firstly; a parent does not have the right to give their child a deformity if the child is already born.
Second; if you have made the decision to carry a fetus to term, that fetus is not yet your child. But, in the future, it will probably be your child, you intend for it to be your child, and you will have responsibilities to it.
Third; if you are capable of taking actions that will give your child a deformity in the future, you do not have a right to do so. This holds true even if the child does not yet exist, as long as it will in the future.
No, sorry, it doesn't work - you still haven't established causation between moderate alcohol consumption and FAS, or the purchase of alchohol and its consumption.
Less than a year ago there were articles starting to appear about how women should be policing their diets just in case they got knocked up, because apparently even that could affect the fetus. Women were told to consider themselves 'pre-pregnant' whether they intended having kids or not. That's just one step further from your flawed reasoning down the control-women-because-babies-are-far-too-important-for-women-to-ever-run-their-own-lives slippery slope. And sorry, but babies are not that important, and there's no need for us to strive to eliminate every stupid little potential risk to their ultimate wellbeing. Its a bullshit way to live.
I don't think anyone was still arguing that all alcohol sales should be banned to pregnant women (i could be wrong) it was more along the lines of additional punishments for women who get "can't lie on the floor without holding on" drunk while pregnant. Because that does lead to FAS. Your statement that women have the right to "exercise final decision-making capacity over everything that goes into her body" seemed to indicate you believe their should be no legal reprucussions for drinking however much they want while pregnant. Which I simply cannot agree with.
as has been mentioned before, how are you going to punish an alleged self-abusive mother without fucking over both mother and child? And somehow avoiding creation of a witchhunt climate?
The Cat on
0
Options
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
as has been mentioned before, how are you going to punish an alleged self-abusive mother without fucking over both mother and child? And somehow avoiding creation of a witchhunt climate?
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!
as has been mentioned before, how are you going to punish an alleged self-abusive mother without fucking over both mother and child? And somehow avoiding creation of a witchhunt climate?
Demerit points.
Interesting idea, does this result in the eventual impounding of the child?
Beren39 on
Go, Go, EXCALIBUR! - Trent Varsity Swim Team 2009, better watch out for me Phelps!
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
No, sorry, it doesn't work - you still haven't established causation between moderate alcohol consumption and FAS, or the purchase of alchohol and its consumption.
Less than a year ago there were articles starting to appear about how women should be policing their diets just in case they got knocked up, because apparently even that could affect the fetus. Women were told to consider themselves 'pre-pregnant' whether they intended having kids or not. That's just one step further from your flawed reasoning down the control-women-because-babies-are-far-too-important-for-women-to-ever-run-their-own-lives slippery slope. And sorry, but babies are not that important, and there's no need for us to strive to eliminate every stupid little potential risk to their ultimate wellbeing. Its a bullshit way to live.
I don't think anyone was still arguing that all alcohol sales should be banned to pregnant women (i could be wrong) it was more along the lines of additional punishments for women who get "can't lie on the floor without holding on" drunk while pregnant. Because that does lead to FAS. Your statement that women have the right to "exercise final decision-making capacity over everything that goes into her body" seemed to indicate you believe their should be no legal reprucussions for drinking however much they want while pregnant. Which I simply cannot agree with.
Can we have the same thing for seafood? Because Listeria monocytogenes is easily got from seafood of all sorts and a pregnant woman who eats raw seafood in particular is at a very high risk of infecting the fetus. This is even easier to do than giving it FAS, because you only need to eat suitably infected mussels (or whatever) once.
Clearly, we need legislation and punishment immediately.
as has been mentioned before, how are you going to punish an alleged self-abusive mother without fucking over both mother and child? And somehow avoiding creation of a witchhunt climate?
Demerit points.
Interesting idea, does this result in the eventual impounding of the child?
Perhaps it should. It seems likely a child whose mother had little enough regard for it as a fetus to drink enough to give it FAS would be better off out of that persons care. The lesser of two evils if you will. But more realistically at the very least counseling sessions.
Can we have the same thing for seafood? Because Listeria monocytogenes is easily got from seafood of all sorts and a pregnant woman who eats raw seafood in particular is at a very high risk of infecting the fetus. This is even easier to do than giving it FAS, because you only need to eat suitably infected mussels (or whatever) once.
Clearly, we need legislation and punishment immediately.
Not all seafood is affected, but all alcoholic beverages contain alcohol. Analogy fail. Unless the chances of getting this from seafood is absolutely huge, in which case presumably no-one should be eating it.
as has been mentioned before, how are you going to punish an alleged self-abusive mother without fucking over both mother and child? And somehow avoiding creation of a witchhunt climate?
Demerit points.
Interesting idea, does this result in the eventual impounding of the child?
Perhaps it should. It seems likely a child whose mother had little enough regard for it as a fetus to drink enough to give it FAS would be better off out of that persons care. The lesser of two evils if you will. But more realistically at the very least counseling sessions.
Yeah, so like, do you cut it out of her and put it into another woman or that artificial womb or whatever you've got handy?
No, sorry, it doesn't work - you still haven't established causation between moderate alcohol consumption and FAS, or the purchase of alchohol and its consumption.
Less than a year ago there were articles starting to appear about how women should be policing their diets just in case they got knocked up, because apparently even that could affect the fetus. Women were told to consider themselves 'pre-pregnant' whether they intended having kids or not. That's just one step further from your flawed reasoning down the control-women-because-babies-are-far-too-important-for-women-to-ever-run-their-own-lives slippery slope. And sorry, but babies are not that important, and there's no need for us to strive to eliminate every stupid little potential risk to their ultimate wellbeing. Its a bullshit way to live.
That bolded part definitely sets of my "Oh that's a bunch of misogynistic bullshit" meter. That is patently ridiculous and probably bad science.
So let us use a hypothetical: a child is born with defects, and dies soon afterward. The evidence points to the mother's drug addiction as the incredibly probably cause. So do we punish the mother for infanticide?
Now that I have thought more about this issue and collected my thoughts, I am going to say no. We should better educate the couple about the risks of pregnancy and drug use. And we should provide free drug addiction counseling before the pregnancy even occurs. In other words we create a situation where this is a non-issue that never happens.
But, sadly, we do not live in a good world. We live in a world filled with criminally bad parents. We shouldn't restrict the rights of anyone for any reason, but I do pause and consider if parents who cause the child permanent damage due to actions during pregnancy shouldn't be held responsible. It's hardly ever a clear-cut case so criminal punishment is out of the question. We are left with mere moral guilt, I suppose. The parents should feel bad for the consequences of their actions, and we should feel bad for, as a society, we let people go so misinformed about sex and pregnancy.
as has been mentioned before, how are you going to punish an alleged self-abusive mother without fucking over both mother and child? And somehow avoiding creation of a witchhunt climate?
Demerit points.
Interesting idea, does this result in the eventual impounding of the child?
Perhaps it should. It seems likely a child whose mother had little enough regard for it as a fetus to drink enough to give it FAS would be better off out of that persons care. The lesser of two evils if you will. But more realistically at the very least counseling sessions.
Yeah, so like, do you cut it out of her and put it into another woman or that artificial womb or whatever you've got handy?
Maybe I phrased that a little badly, but my argument was never for the fetus itself. If she drinks enough to give it FAS and aborts it the day before its born, I really don't see a problem with it. But once the child is born we need to do whatever is best for its welfare.
edit: and to a lesser extent to deter the mother from doing it again, which as I stated above is probably best done through education and counseling.
AngrySpoon on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Can we have the same thing for seafood? Because Listeria monocytogenes is easily got from seafood of all sorts and a pregnant woman who eats raw seafood in particular is at a very high risk of infecting the fetus. This is even easier to do than giving it FAS, because you only need to eat suitably infected mussels (or whatever) once.
Clearly, we need legislation and punishment immediately.
Not all seafood is affected
90% of seafood is affected by Listeria monocytogenes, it's one of the most common organisms in seafood and is basically on everything. I've grown Listeria monocytogenes from canned Salmon and Tuna for example.
However, you only need to make a mistake once with Listeria monocytogenes.
Analogy fail.
I'm not making an analogy, I'm pointing out something that is actually factual. You know, that raw seafood is arguably one of the most risky things to eat while pregnant. It's actually worse than alcohol because it only takes one screw up for a L. monocytogenes infection and by everything else that has been argued is equally as 'irresponsible' as drinking alcohol.
Either you don't understand the point that was made or you're trying to avoid the subject because alcohol is easier to demonise than eating seafood.
Isn't that ultimately just the point of this? To demonise women and not actually make a point.
Unless the chances of getting this from seafood is absolutely huge, in which case presumably no-one should be eating it.
Yeah, just stop talking. Really. Just stop talking because you're only going to make yourself look stupid if you go down this track.
I think the studies The Cat is referring to have to do with spinal bifida. It's a fairly common birth defect and is caused by a deficit in folic acid that results in the spinal cord not forming properly during the first few weeks after conception, when most women don't know if they're pregnant or not. Most people don't consume enough folic acid through their normal diet, and anyone considering becoming pregnant should either take a supplement or eating more whole grains/dry beans/leafy vegetables.
Okay, so eating raw seafood while pregnant is just as likely to disable your baby as drinking excessive amounts of alcohol? I didn't know that. So pregnant women have no right to eat raw seafood, any more then they have a right to drink alcohol. This is because it'll severely fuck up their baby. Thanks for clearing that up.
Still, no one is brainstorming ways to ban pregnant women from travelling or living with their partners! Won't someone think of the fetuses.
Well, to be fair I wasn't really talking about fetus death resulting from mother death, regardless of the scenario. Unless traveling or their partners can likely result in fetus disability/deforming, it's not really relevant to the thread.
Can we have the same thing for seafood? Because Listeria monocytogenes is easily got from seafood of all sorts and a pregnant woman who eats raw seafood in particular is at a very high risk of infecting the fetus. This is even easier to do than giving it FAS, because you only need to eat suitably infected mussels (or whatever) once.
Clearly, we need legislation and punishment immediately.
Not all seafood is affected
90% of seafood is affected by Listeria monocytogenes, it's one of the most common organisms in seafood and is basically on everything. I've grown Listeria monocytogenes from canned Salmon and Tuna for example.
However, you only need to make a mistake once with Listeria monocytogenes.
Analogy fail.
I'm not making an analogy, I'm pointing out something that is actually factual. You know, that raw seafood is arguably one of the most risky things to eat while pregnant. It's actually worse than alcohol because it only takes one screw up for a L. monocytogenes infection and by everything else that has been argued is equally as 'irresponsible' as drinking alcohol.
Either you don't understand the point that was made or you're trying to avoid the subject because alcohol is easier to demonise than eating seafood.
Isn't that ultimately just the point of this? To demonise women and not actually make a point.
Unless the chances of getting this from seafood is absolutely huge, in which case presumably no-one should be eating it.
Yeah, just stop talking. Really. Just stop talking because you're only going to make yourself look stupid if you go down this track.
I'll give you a hint:
Pregnancy depresses the immune system
I hope you can figure the rest out from there.
That is just stupid. No one has stated that every women, or even a large amount of women purposefully do things harmful to the fetus when they are pregnant. Stop pulling things out of your ass. Does the fact that rape is illegal demonise men? no, because just because something is illegal does not mean everyone who could do it would do it if it wasn't.
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."
If that were the case you wouldn't have ignored my response.
I think punishing pregnant women for potentially endangering the fetus they're carrying would be all kinds of retarded. The not selling alcohol/tobacco to pregnant women idea was even worse.
If the well-being of fetuses was to be protected by law to such a degree, then the next logical step would be to punish women for getting pregnant after a certain age. But because fetuses are all-important, a paradoxical situation would arise: in addition to being punished for getting pregnant, the older women would also have to be forced to carry the baby to term. But fear not, I have thought of a solution: mandatory sterilization for all women at a certain age! It's the only way to be sure.
Bliss 101 on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Okay, so eating raw seafood while pregnant is just as likely to disable your baby as drinking excessive amounts of alcohol?
Probably more likely, because the woman only has to eat the wrong shellfish or whatever once. When we're talking about FAS, you have to drink quite a lot of alcohol for a long period of time.
I didn't know that. So pregnant women have no right to eat raw seafood, any more then they have a right to drink alcohol.
That's different again, because you've changed your terms and become very slippery. At first you specify excessive drinking and now just 'drink alcohol'. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy is not recommended, but it is also not something that will cause much harm unless done in genuine excess. So there is a qualitative difference.
Eating shellfish however can be a one off mistake that leads to directly serious consequences, you don't need to eat it every day for it to screw everything up.
So why aren't you getting all incensed about women eating shellfish?
Because being for the fetuses health was never what this was about right? Otherwise you would make sure you actually knew what you were fucking talking about. Alcohol is so much easier a target though isn't it, not just targeting bad behaviours or actually educating people (as I have just educated you) as to what is genuine risk behaviour.
Do you think banning these things and punishing people will help? Really?
Does the fact that rape is illegal demonise men? no, because just because something is illegal does not mean everyone who could do it would do it if it wasn't.
That's some pretty impressive stupid there chuckles.
I'm not sure though, but I figure that women are intelligent enough to make their own decisions, or are they all stupid and don't deserve control of their bodies?
That is just stupid. No one has stated that every women, or even a large amount of women purposefully do things harmful to the fetus when they are pregnant.
Do you even understand what advocating a ban is saying?
Still, no one is brainstorming ways to ban pregnant women from travelling or living with their partners! Won't someone think of the fetuses.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "partners" aspect of this argument. Is the epidemic of deadbeat men who beat the crap out of pregnant spouses greater than that of prego women who get loaded or smoke cigarettes? I find that really hard to believe. Regardless that's one individual beating the crap out of another one as opposed to a woman abusing a fetus. Philosophically maybe they are the same (or not at all) but legally there is a distinction here.
A law was recently passed in my city that will forbid smoking cigarettes in vehicles with minors. Even if they are teenagers and smoke themselves. If you are seen doing this you will be fined. Not quite the same thing but it's another version of the same concept. Another bullshit goody law created on sketchy science that earns political capital.
For all I care pregnant women can go eat a plate of ecstasy and wash it down with a glass of paint thinner. As long as I don't have to pay for the hospital bill I don't care.
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."
If that were the case you wouldn't have ignored my response.
Where you said that your view was irrelevant because of implementation issues? I agree with you on that. I said in the beginning of the thread that I don't have the answer for implementation, and there may not be one, so this whole discussion may be irrelevant. I'm just saying that if there was an ideal way to implement a ban on pregnant women harming their unborn children with smoking, etc., then I would be for it.
Also, I'm browsing a few other threads, I can't respond to literally everything, especially when I'm essentially in agreement with a statement.
Okay, so eating raw seafood while pregnant is just as likely to disable your baby as drinking excessive amounts of alcohol?
Probably more likely, because the woman only has to eat the wrong shellfish or whatever once. When we're talking about FAS, you have to drink quite a lot of alcohol for a long period of time.
I didn't know that. So pregnant women have no right to eat raw seafood, any more then they have a right to drink alcohol.
That's different again, because you've changed your terms and become very slippery. At first you specify excessive drinking and now just 'drink alcohol'. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy is not recommended, but it is also not something that will cause much harm unless done in genuine excess. So there is a qualitative difference.
Eating shellfish however can be a one off mistake that leads to directly serious consequences, you don't need to eat it every day for it to screw everything up.
So why aren't you getting all incensed about women eating shellfish?
Because being for the fetuses health was never what this was about right? Otherwise you would make sure you actually knew what you were fucking talking about. Alcohol is so much easier a target though isn't it, not just targeting bad behaviours or actually educating people (as I have just educated you) as to what is genuine risk behaviour.
Do you think banning these things and punishing people will help? Really?
Does the fact that rape is illegal demonise men? no, because just because something is illegal does not mean everyone who could do it would do it if it wasn't.
That's some pretty impressive stupid there chuckles.
I'm not sure though, but I figure that women are intelligent enough to make their own decisions, or are they all stupid and don't deserve control of their bodies?
You keep spouting nonsense. The entire reason we have laws is because, guess what? Not everyone makes the right decisions all the time, and often the wrong decisions are detrimental to others.
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."
If that were the case you wouldn't have ignored my response.
Where you said that your view was irrelevant because of implementation issues? I agree with you on that. I said in the beginning of the thread that I don't have the answer for implementation, and there may not be one, so this whole discussion may be irrelevant. I'm just saying that if there was an ideal way to implement a ban on pregnant women harming their unborn children with smoking, etc., then I would be for it.
Also, I'm browsing a few other threads, I can't respond to literally everything, especially when I'm essentially in agreement with a statement.
Right, I'm sure you never argued that sale of cigarettes or alcohol to pregnant women should be banned. Also Santa Claus is real. GG
You keep spouting nonsense. The entire reason we have laws is because, guess what? Not everyone makes the right decisions all the time, and often the wrong decisions are detrimental to others.
Oh you are aware of an objective "right" and "wrong"? Interesting. Please expound.
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."
If that were the case you wouldn't have ignored my response.
Where you said that your view was irrelevant because of implementation issues? I agree with you on that. I said in the beginning of the thread that I don't have the answer for implementation, and there may not be one, so this whole discussion may be irrelevant. I'm just saying that if there was an ideal way to implement a ban on pregnant women harming their unborn children with smoking, etc., then I would be for it.
Also, I'm browsing a few other threads, I can't respond to literally everything, especially when I'm essentially in agreement with a statement.
Right, I'm sure you never argued that sale of cigarettes or alcohol to pregnant women should be banned. Also Santa Claus is real. GG
Perhaps you misread my post.
FirstComradeStalin on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
You keep spouting nonsense. The entire reason we have laws is because, guess what? Not everyone makes the right decisions all the time, and often the wrong decisions are detrimental to others.
Except a fetus isn't legally a person and this is about controlling what someone is doing to their own body, with substances that are not legal. Ergo, if you want to argue this now, before you accuse others of spouting 'nonsense', you're going to have to legally support the argument. I think you'll find that the law isn't behind you on this point as a fetus isn't a person.
But again, we don't need laws because a great many women are responsible, exercise their rights appropriately and do actually genuinely care if their fetus grows properly. Believe it or not, that does mean they can in fact do things like have the occasional drink and similar. The taking of what is actually a fairly small minority and then saying we should ban this, when I would estimate the vast majority of women have more brains than you are willing to grant them and can choose to exercise their own rights to do things with their own fucking body is what's complete nonsense here.
For example, as I love papers from the literature because it just proves my point:
RESULTS: A total of 837 pregnant women have described all parameters. The mean age at delivery of our sample was 29.7 years (SD = 4.8 years). A total of 52.2% of women indicated that they had consumed alcohol at least once during their pregnancy, and among abstainers 54.5% had a positive AUDIT score. Of the pregnant women who consumed alcohol, 13.7% reported at least one binge drinking episode (5 or more drinks on 1 occasion) during pregnancy. Binge drinking is significantly more frequent than regular alcohol consumption (at least 1 drink more than 1 time per week) during pregnancy. A prevalence rate of FAS of 1.8 per 1,000 live births was observed.
Oh look. Stats back me up. Most women they surveyed have drunk some alcohol during pregnancy (52%) and yet there is only a really tiny percentage of babies born with FAS.
Wow, we sure are taking what isn't a significant problem for the vast majority of women giving birth and trying to make it a blanket ban or anything.
Oh.
Wait.
de Chazeron I, Llorca PM, Ughetto S, Vendittelli F, Boussiron D, Sapin V, Coudore F, Lemery D (2008). Is pregnancy the time to change alcohol consumption habits in France? Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008 May;32(5):868-73. Epub 2008 Mar 27.
Personally, I do think that alcohol, cigarettes, and other substances that are explicitly harmful to unborn children should be banned from sale to pregnant women (currently, they are not).
Drinking lots of alcohol over a long period of time will certainly screw up your fetus. That's a course of action that will definitely be harmful.
On the other hand, every time you eat raw shellfish you entail a risk of screwing up your fetus. Every time you do anything, any time, there is a risk of screwing up your fetus. It's not really preventable.
So, drinking to excess on a regular basis will almost certainly cause damage to your child. However, eating shellfish on occasion is a course of action with a hugely lower risk of hurting your child. Ergo, the first is worse then the second, and the two situations aren't comparable. Of course, I don't know the exact infection rates for obscure bacteria #32605, not being a biologist.
And I never mentioned the topic of punishment and banning. That was other people. I am of the opinion that there's no realistic legal way to prevent mothers drinking to excess, and am all for education etc.
Also. It's common knowledge that drinking to much is bad for the fetus. It's not common knowledge that eating shellfish is. If they are indeed equal-risk activities, and if a mother was aware of both risks, I would be just as critical of her for eating shellfish as I would for drinking excessively. But not many people know about the shellfish thing, so it could easily be a legitimate mistake.
All of this is academic, though, because it's just a smokescreen for my true purposes of sending women back to the kitchen, where there isn't any alcohol.
Personally, I do think that alcohol, cigarettes, and other substances that are explicitly harmful to unborn children should be banned from sale to pregnant women (currently, they are not).
Yeah, must have mis-read that. *snrk*
I'm saying you misread the other post that you apparently think is me refuting a ban. I never said in any of my posts that I didn't want a ban. All I'm saying is that I personally don't know how to implement a ban.
You keep spouting nonsense. The entire reason we have laws is because, guess what? Not everyone makes the right decisions all the time, and often the wrong decisions are detrimental to others.
Except a fetus isn't legally a person and this is about controlling what someone is doing to their own body, with substances that are not legal. Ergo, if you want to argue this now, before you accuse others of spouting 'nonsense', you're going to have to legally support the argument. I think you'll find that the law isn't behind you on this point as a fetus isn't a person.
But again, we don't need laws because a great many women are responsible, exercise their rights appropriately and do actually genuinely care if their fetus grows properly. Believe it or not, that does mean they can in fact do things like have the occasional drink and similar. The taking of what is actually a fairly small minority and then saying we should ban this, when I would estimate the vast majority of women have more brains than you are willing to grant them and can choose to exercise their own rights to do things with their own fucking body is what's complete nonsense here.
For example, as I love papers from the literature because it just proves my point:
RESULTS: A total of 837 pregnant women have described all parameters. The mean age at delivery of our sample was 29.7 years (SD = 4.8 years). A total of 52.2% of women indicated that they had consumed alcohol at least once during their pregnancy, and among abstainers 54.5% had a positive AUDIT score. Of the pregnant women who consumed alcohol, 13.7% reported at least one binge drinking episode (5 or more drinks on 1 occasion) during pregnancy. Binge drinking is significantly more frequent than regular alcohol consumption (at least 1 drink more than 1 time per week) during pregnancy. A prevalence rate of FAS of 1.8 per 1,000 live births was observed.
Oh look. Stats back me up. Most women they surveyed have drunk some alcohol during pregnancy (52%) and yet there is only a really tiny percentage of babies born with FAS.
Wow, we sure are taking what isn't a significant problem for the vast majority of women giving birth and trying to make it a blanket ban or anything.
Oh.
Wait.
de Chazeron I, Llorca PM, Ughetto S, Vendittelli F, Boussiron D, Sapin V, Coudore F, Lemery D (2008). Is pregnancy the time to change alcohol consumption habits in France? Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008 May;32(5):868-73. Epub 2008 Mar 27.
In none of my earlier posts did I argue for either a fetuses rights, or that pregnant women shouldn't be allowed to drink at all while pregnant. In fact I stated it didn't matter what they did while pregnant, as long as they aborted the fetus at some point, because I also agree with the fact that they have no rights. But as soon as the baby is born, and it has a condition that can be tied directly to something harmful and avoidable the mother has done while pregnant, she has taken actions that have harmed another human being, one which has rights. Just because most women don't do harmful things, is also not a reason for it to be legal to do afore mentioned harmful things. Most people don't commit felonies, yet they're still illegal. how is that any different?
edit:You also seem to keep implying I think women are stupid, I have never said or implied any such thing. Many people commit crimes, that does not make everyone of the same gender as them stupid.
You keep spouting nonsense. The entire reason we have laws is because, guess what? Not everyone makes the right decisions all the time, and often the wrong decisions are detrimental to others.
Except a fetus isn't legally a person and this is about controlling what someone is doing to their own body, with substances that are not legal. Ergo, if you want to argue this now, before you accuse others of spouting 'nonsense', you're going to have to legally support the argument. I think you'll find that the law isn't behind you on this point as a fetus isn't a person.
But again, we don't need laws because a great many women are responsible, exercise their rights appropriately and do actually genuinely care if their fetus grows properly. Believe it or not, that does mean they can in fact do things like have the occasional drink and similar. The taking of what is actually a fairly small minority and then saying we should ban this, when I would estimate the vast majority of women have more brains than you are willing to grant them and can choose to exercise their own rights to do things with their own fucking body is what's complete nonsense here.
For example, as I love papers from the literature because it just proves my point:
RESULTS: A total of 837 pregnant women have described all parameters. The mean age at delivery of our sample was 29.7 years (SD = 4.8 years). A total of 52.2% of women indicated that they had consumed alcohol at least once during their pregnancy, and among abstainers 54.5% had a positive AUDIT score. Of the pregnant women who consumed alcohol, 13.7% reported at least one binge drinking episode (5 or more drinks on 1 occasion) during pregnancy. Binge drinking is significantly more frequent than regular alcohol consumption (at least 1 drink more than 1 time per week) during pregnancy. A prevalence rate of FAS of 1.8 per 1,000 live births was observed.
Oh look. Stats back me up. Most women they surveyed have drunk some alcohol during pregnancy (52%) and yet there is only a really tiny percentage of babies born with FAS.
Wow, we sure are taking what isn't a significant problem for the vast majority of women giving birth and trying to make it a blanket ban or anything.
Oh.
Wait.
de Chazeron I, Llorca PM, Ughetto S, Vendittelli F, Boussiron D, Sapin V, Coudore F, Lemery D (2008). Is pregnancy the time to change alcohol consumption habits in France? Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008 May;32(5):868-73. Epub 2008 Mar 27.
So we shouldn't ban the occasional drink. That's a stupid idea. We should ban drinking to excess on a regular basis, (say one binge drinking bout a week, perhaps) which is the kind of behaviour that will almost certainly lead to FAS. Wow, we sure are taking what isn't a significant problem for the vast majority of women giving birth and trying to make it a blanket ban or anything.
Not that we can effectively ban that, but that's a different argument.
In none of my earlier posts did I argue for either a fetuses rights, or that pregnant women shouldn't be allowed to drink at all while pregnant. In fact I stated it didn't matter what they did while pregnant, as long as they aborted the fetus at some point, because I also agree with the fact that they have no rights. But as soon as the baby is born, and it has a condition that can be tied directly to something harmful and avoidable the mother has done while pregnant, she has taken actions that have harmed another human being, one which has rights. Just because most women don't do harmful things, is also not a reason for it to be legal to do afore mentioned harmful things. Most people don't commit felonies, yet they're still illegal. how is that any different?
You can never prove the causality there so there would never be grounds for punishment. We're talking about (slight) increases in risk of conditions that occur spontaneously as well.
Posts
I can come up with a laundry list of things that are detrimental to innocents yet still occur on a regular basis. There is an even larger laundry list of things that might be.
Do we really want to live in a world where everything that is potentially harmful maybe and every action we take can lead to punishment?
I don't know where we draw the line here but we could make a good case to outlaw just about everything without some kind of compass about what should be protected and what shouldn't be.
Okay let me be honest: I'm still thinking this issue out. I'm all for womens' right to choose but what if their actions (drinking heavily for example) lead to the child being permanently disabled? Does she have a right to endanger a child like that? But how easy is it to link some types of birth defects and drug abuse? Could they be mis-diagnosed genetic disorders? If that were the case then we'd have to err on the side of caution and not punish them.
Less than a year ago there were articles starting to appear about how women should be policing their diets just in case they got knocked up, because apparently even that could affect the fetus. Women were told to consider themselves 'pre-pregnant' whether they intended having kids or not. That's just one step further from your flawed reasoning down the control-women-because-babies-are-far-too-important-for-women-to-ever-run-their-own-lives slippery slope. And sorry, but babies are not that important, and there's no need for us to strive to eliminate every stupid little potential risk to their ultimate wellbeing. Its a bullshit way to live.
We could take the argument farther and even make the claim that parents who scream and yell at their children cause psychological drama and as a result should be punished for the damage they cause.
If we wanted to regulate and enforce everything to a Utopian standard we'd all be in prison for something.
We're working on it.
Right off the bat, I have to say I am pro-life. Besides that though, I must admit the possible reason that more contemplation of this subject is done by pro-choicers is simply because most pro-lifers have this opinion as a knee-jerk reaction due to ingrained religious belief and so on. I would say I have given much more thought to this idea then that, though I find more and more I begin to lean towards pro-choice. On a final note, yes the morning after pill is a much better solution then a delayed abortion and is much less icky considering gastrulation has not yet occurred. Also, where did that 20% statistic come from?
Are you responding to me? I'm going to assume you are.
Here's my logic;
Firstly; a parent does not have the right to give their child a deformity if the child is already born.
Second; if you have made the decision to carry a fetus to term, that fetus is not yet your child. But, in the future, it will probably be your child, you intend for it to be your child, and you will have responsibilities to it.
Third; if you are capable of taking actions that will give your child a deformity in the future, you do not have a right to do so. This holds true even if the child does not yet exist, as long as it will in the future.
Demerit points.
Interesting idea, does this result in the eventual impounding of the child?
Can we have the same thing for seafood? Because Listeria monocytogenes is easily got from seafood of all sorts and a pregnant woman who eats raw seafood in particular is at a very high risk of infecting the fetus. This is even easier to do than giving it FAS, because you only need to eat suitably infected mussels (or whatever) once.
Clearly, we need legislation and punishment immediately.
Not all seafood is affected, but all alcoholic beverages contain alcohol. Analogy fail. Unless the chances of getting this from seafood is absolutely huge, in which case presumably no-one should be eating it.
Yeah, so like, do you cut it out of her and put it into another woman or that artificial womb or whatever you've got handy?
That bolded part definitely sets of my "Oh that's a bunch of misogynistic bullshit" meter. That is patently ridiculous and probably bad science.
So let us use a hypothetical: a child is born with defects, and dies soon afterward. The evidence points to the mother's drug addiction as the incredibly probably cause. So do we punish the mother for infanticide?
Now that I have thought more about this issue and collected my thoughts, I am going to say no. We should better educate the couple about the risks of pregnancy and drug use. And we should provide free drug addiction counseling before the pregnancy even occurs. In other words we create a situation where this is a non-issue that never happens.
But, sadly, we do not live in a good world. We live in a world filled with criminally bad parents. We shouldn't restrict the rights of anyone for any reason, but I do pause and consider if parents who cause the child permanent damage due to actions during pregnancy shouldn't be held responsible. It's hardly ever a clear-cut case so criminal punishment is out of the question. We are left with mere moral guilt, I suppose. The parents should feel bad for the consequences of their actions, and we should feel bad for, as a society, we let people go so misinformed about sex and pregnancy.
Maybe I phrased that a little badly, but my argument was never for the fetus itself. If she drinks enough to give it FAS and aborts it the day before its born, I really don't see a problem with it. But once the child is born we need to do whatever is best for its welfare.
edit: and to a lesser extent to deter the mother from doing it again, which as I stated above is probably best done through education and counseling.
90% of seafood is affected by Listeria monocytogenes, it's one of the most common organisms in seafood and is basically on everything. I've grown Listeria monocytogenes from canned Salmon and Tuna for example.
However, you only need to make a mistake once with Listeria monocytogenes.
I'm not making an analogy, I'm pointing out something that is actually factual. You know, that raw seafood is arguably one of the most risky things to eat while pregnant. It's actually worse than alcohol because it only takes one screw up for a L. monocytogenes infection and by everything else that has been argued is equally as 'irresponsible' as drinking alcohol.
Either you don't understand the point that was made or you're trying to avoid the subject because alcohol is easier to demonise than eating seafood.
Isn't that ultimately just the point of this? To demonise women and not actually make a point.
Yeah, just stop talking. Really. Just stop talking because you're only going to make yourself look stupid if you go down this track.
I'll give you a hint:
I hope you can figure the rest out from there.
Okay, so eating raw seafood while pregnant is just as likely to disable your baby as drinking excessive amounts of alcohol? I didn't know that. So pregnant women have no right to eat raw seafood, any more then they have a right to drink alcohol. This is because it'll severely fuck up their baby. Thanks for clearing that up.
Well, to be fair I wasn't really talking about fetus death resulting from mother death, regardless of the scenario. Unless traveling or their partners can likely result in fetus disability/deforming, it's not really relevant to the thread.
If that were the case you wouldn't have ignored my response.
If the well-being of fetuses was to be protected by law to such a degree, then the next logical step would be to punish women for getting pregnant after a certain age. But because fetuses are all-important, a paradoxical situation would arise: in addition to being punished for getting pregnant, the older women would also have to be forced to carry the baby to term. But fear not, I have thought of a solution: mandatory sterilization for all women at a certain age! It's the only way to be sure.
Probably more likely, because the woman only has to eat the wrong shellfish or whatever once. When we're talking about FAS, you have to drink quite a lot of alcohol for a long period of time.
That's different again, because you've changed your terms and become very slippery. At first you specify excessive drinking and now just 'drink alcohol'. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy is not recommended, but it is also not something that will cause much harm unless done in genuine excess. So there is a qualitative difference.
Eating shellfish however can be a one off mistake that leads to directly serious consequences, you don't need to eat it every day for it to screw everything up.
So why aren't you getting all incensed about women eating shellfish?
Because being for the fetuses health was never what this was about right? Otherwise you would make sure you actually knew what you were fucking talking about. Alcohol is so much easier a target though isn't it, not just targeting bad behaviours or actually educating people (as I have just educated you) as to what is genuine risk behaviour.
Do you think banning these things and punishing people will help? Really?
That's some pretty impressive stupid there chuckles.
I'm not sure though, but I figure that women are intelligent enough to make their own decisions, or are they all stupid and don't deserve control of their bodies?
Do you even understand what advocating a ban is saying?
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "partners" aspect of this argument. Is the epidemic of deadbeat men who beat the crap out of pregnant spouses greater than that of prego women who get loaded or smoke cigarettes? I find that really hard to believe. Regardless that's one individual beating the crap out of another one as opposed to a woman abusing a fetus. Philosophically maybe they are the same (or not at all) but legally there is a distinction here.
A law was recently passed in my city that will forbid smoking cigarettes in vehicles with minors. Even if they are teenagers and smoke themselves. If you are seen doing this you will be fined. Not quite the same thing but it's another version of the same concept. Another bullshit goody law created on sketchy science that earns political capital.
For all I care pregnant women can go eat a plate of ecstasy and wash it down with a glass of paint thinner. As long as I don't have to pay for the hospital bill I don't care.
Fixed.
Where you said that your view was irrelevant because of implementation issues? I agree with you on that. I said in the beginning of the thread that I don't have the answer for implementation, and there may not be one, so this whole discussion may be irrelevant. I'm just saying that if there was an ideal way to implement a ban on pregnant women harming their unborn children with smoking, etc., then I would be for it.
Also, I'm browsing a few other threads, I can't respond to literally everything, especially when I'm essentially in agreement with a statement.
You keep spouting nonsense. The entire reason we have laws is because, guess what? Not everyone makes the right decisions all the time, and often the wrong decisions are detrimental to others.
Right, I'm sure you never argued that sale of cigarettes or alcohol to pregnant women should be banned. Also Santa Claus is real. GG
Oh you are aware of an objective "right" and "wrong"? Interesting. Please expound.
Perhaps you misread my post.
Except a fetus isn't legally a person and this is about controlling what someone is doing to their own body, with substances that are not legal. Ergo, if you want to argue this now, before you accuse others of spouting 'nonsense', you're going to have to legally support the argument. I think you'll find that the law isn't behind you on this point as a fetus isn't a person.
But again, we don't need laws because a great many women are responsible, exercise their rights appropriately and do actually genuinely care if their fetus grows properly. Believe it or not, that does mean they can in fact do things like have the occasional drink and similar. The taking of what is actually a fairly small minority and then saying we should ban this, when I would estimate the vast majority of women have more brains than you are willing to grant them and can choose to exercise their own rights to do things with their own fucking body is what's complete nonsense here.
For example, as I love papers from the literature because it just proves my point:
Oh look. Stats back me up. Most women they surveyed have drunk some alcohol during pregnancy (52%) and yet there is only a really tiny percentage of babies born with FAS.
Wow, we sure are taking what isn't a significant problem for the vast majority of women giving birth and trying to make it a blanket ban or anything.
Oh.
Wait.
de Chazeron I, Llorca PM, Ughetto S, Vendittelli F, Boussiron D, Sapin V, Coudore F, Lemery D (2008). Is pregnancy the time to change alcohol consumption habits in France? Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008 May;32(5):868-73. Epub 2008 Mar 27.
Yeah, must have mis-read that. *snrk*
On the other hand, every time you eat raw shellfish you entail a risk of screwing up your fetus. Every time you do anything, any time, there is a risk of screwing up your fetus. It's not really preventable.
So, drinking to excess on a regular basis will almost certainly cause damage to your child. However, eating shellfish on occasion is a course of action with a hugely lower risk of hurting your child. Ergo, the first is worse then the second, and the two situations aren't comparable. Of course, I don't know the exact infection rates for obscure bacteria #32605, not being a biologist.
And I never mentioned the topic of punishment and banning. That was other people. I am of the opinion that there's no realistic legal way to prevent mothers drinking to excess, and am all for education etc.
Also. It's common knowledge that drinking to much is bad for the fetus. It's not common knowledge that eating shellfish is. If they are indeed equal-risk activities, and if a mother was aware of both risks, I would be just as critical of her for eating shellfish as I would for drinking excessively. But not many people know about the shellfish thing, so it could easily be a legitimate mistake.
All of this is academic, though, because it's just a smokescreen for my true purposes of sending women back to the kitchen, where there isn't any alcohol.
I'm saying you misread the other post that you apparently think is me refuting a ban. I never said in any of my posts that I didn't want a ban. All I'm saying is that I personally don't know how to implement a ban.
In none of my earlier posts did I argue for either a fetuses rights, or that pregnant women shouldn't be allowed to drink at all while pregnant. In fact I stated it didn't matter what they did while pregnant, as long as they aborted the fetus at some point, because I also agree with the fact that they have no rights. But as soon as the baby is born, and it has a condition that can be tied directly to something harmful and avoidable the mother has done while pregnant, she has taken actions that have harmed another human being, one which has rights. Just because most women don't do harmful things, is also not a reason for it to be legal to do afore mentioned harmful things. Most people don't commit felonies, yet they're still illegal. how is that any different?
edit:You also seem to keep implying I think women are stupid, I have never said or implied any such thing. Many people commit crimes, that does not make everyone of the same gender as them stupid.
So we shouldn't ban the occasional drink. That's a stupid idea. We should ban drinking to excess on a regular basis, (say one binge drinking bout a week, perhaps) which is the kind of behaviour that will almost certainly lead to FAS. Wow, we sure are taking what isn't a significant problem for the vast majority of women giving birth and trying to make it a blanket ban or anything.
Not that we can effectively ban that, but that's a different argument.
You can never prove the causality there so there would never be grounds for punishment. We're talking about (slight) increases in risk of conditions that occur spontaneously as well.