Topic: Do you think it should be illegal for pregnant women to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes?
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 month ago #16,515
If so, what kind of punishment should it carry?
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes. | 11 | 50% | |
| No. | 11 | 50% |
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #283,531
Boss in own tummy.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #283,542
It depends on if she ever has the kid. If someone chooses to bring a life into this world and then she negligently harms it, she should have to go through some form of rehabilitation and measures should be taken to prevent further damage. The issues on enforcing this can be worked out by the more technical minded.
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #283,544
Smoking cigarettes is arguable and even drinking small amounts of wine and the likes is okay. But heavy drinking should be punished in same way as if you were to give an infant or child a bottle of booze. It's not right to drink heavy or do drugs when you're pregnant, the fetus doesn't have a choice... scuzzy mothers should be locked up until the baby is born and then be punished appropriately.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 4 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,620
There are already laws in some some states against serving pregnant women alcohol, and we've probably all seen what fetal alcohol syndrome does to these poor children. I agree with Ks completely. Small amounts are OK, but the women who bring FAS babies into this world should be locked up for negligence. I feel the same way about women who smoke while pregnant, and it sickens me that for some reason smoking while pregnant is more socially acceptable than drinking while pregnant. The woman who do this are trash.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,623
@previous
> Woman has complete property rights over her body
> I should be able to tell what she can and can't do with her body.
At least you're consistent. lol
> Woman has complete property rights over her body
> I should be able to tell what she can and can't do with her body.
At least you're consistent. lol
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,624
@previous
First off, STFU mountainman.
Secondly, if you actually want to go that route, this is what I have to say. If a woman wants to have an abortion, she can have one, but if she chooses to keep it, then she has accepted the responsibility to take care of it. It's one or the other. You can't say "it's my body so I choose to abuse the child inside me and fuck it up for life." Like Ks said, it's no different from giving a baby of bottle of booze after they're born. If you don't want the baby, you can give it up for adoption, but if you choose to keep it, you must accept responsibility. You can't say "Well since I could give it up for adoption if I want to, I don't see why I can't take the middle road and just be a shitty parent," and in the same sense you can't say "Since I could have an abortion, I don't see why I can't just fuck up its whole life." There is no middle-road here. You either accept responsibility or you don't.
First off, STFU mountainman.
Secondly, if you actually want to go that route, this is what I have to say. If a woman wants to have an abortion, she can have one, but if she chooses to keep it, then she has accepted the responsibility to take care of it. It's one or the other. You can't say "it's my body so I choose to abuse the child inside me and fuck it up for life." Like Ks said, it's no different from giving a baby of bottle of booze after they're born. If you don't want the baby, you can give it up for adoption, but if you choose to keep it, you must accept responsibility. You can't say "Well since I could give it up for adoption if I want to, I don't see why I can't take the middle road and just be a shitty parent," and in the same sense you can't say "Since I could have an abortion, I don't see why I can't just fuck up its whole life." There is no middle-road here. You either accept responsibility or you don't.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 double-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,627
Oh, and here's an interesting article on the subject of FAS.
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/parenting-family/pregnancy/story/2012-01-17/Study-No-alcohol-intake-safe-during-pregnancy/52614174/1
It basically says that NO amount of alcohol is safe. Scientists have found no safe threshold. Even a small amount at just right time (or wrong time rather) can cause symptoms in the child.
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/parenting-family/pregnancy/story/2012-01-17/Study-No-alcohol-intake-safe-during-pregnancy/52614174/1
It basically says that NO amount of alcohol is safe. Scientists have found no safe threshold. Even a small amount at just right time (or wrong time rather) can cause symptoms in the child.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 triple-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,629
@previous
Jeez. I was just reading some of the comments on that article. Those people are full-on retard.
Jeez. I was just reading some of the comments on that article. Those people are full-on retard.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 1 month ago, 9 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,634
@283,627
Ouch, did not know that. Facts once again triumph beliefs.
Ouch, did not know that. Facts once again triumph beliefs.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,635
@previous
I think one of the reasons why so many people, including you and myself, falsely believe that just a little is OK is because there are a lot of women out there who drink, sometimes drink a lot, and their infants have no symptoms. The study confirms this, but to say that that must make it OK is anecdotal at best. There were also women in the study who drank very little, but their children showed symptoms. They point out that during the later half of the first trimester was the worst possible time.
I think one of the reasons why so many people, including you and myself, falsely believe that just a little is OK is because there are a lot of women out there who drink, sometimes drink a lot, and their infants have no symptoms. The study confirms this, but to say that that must make it OK is anecdotal at best. There were also women in the study who drank very little, but their children showed symptoms. They point out that during the later half of the first trimester was the worst possible time.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,639
@283,624
> First off, STFU mountainman.
Start with an ad hominem, thanks.
> Secondly, if you actually want to go that route, this is what I have to say.
I obviously do, or else I wouldn't have posted.
> If a woman wants to have an abortion, she can have one, but if she chooses to keep it, then she has accepted the responsibility to take care of it. It's one or the other.
You've just outlawed adoption. Great work. Please consider the logical implications of your statements.
> You can't say "it's my body so I choose to abuse the child inside me and fuck it up for life."
Why not? You support the right to say "It's my body so I choose to kill the child inside me". Explain logically the difference.
> Like Ks said, it's no different from giving a baby of bottle of booze after they're born.
Actually, it's categorically different. You are no longer putting the alcohol in your body (which you own), but the babies (which you don't own). These are categorically distinct.
> If you don't want the baby, you can give it up for adoption, but if you choose to keep it, you must accept responsibility.
Hold on. You just said that if you give birth you have accepted the responsibility to take care of it. Which is it?
> You can't say "Well since I could give it up for adoption if I want to, I don't see why I can't take the middle road and just be a shitty parent," and in the same sense you can't say "Since I could have an abortion, I don't see why I can't just fuck up its whole life." There is no middle-road here. You either accept responsibility or you don't.
Those aren't analogous, for several reasons. One is your contention that death is better than disability (that death doesn't fuck up someone's life LOL). Would you change the law code to reflect this? Another is that you care a situation of no harm (adoption) to a situation of the most extreme harm (abortion/murder). It follows that if one can remove a child from a situation of harm (adoption) that one has no right to harm the child. It also follows that if one can put a child in a situation of great harm (abortion), one may put a child in a position of lesser harm (disability).
> First off, STFU mountainman.
Start with an ad hominem, thanks.
> Secondly, if you actually want to go that route, this is what I have to say.
I obviously do, or else I wouldn't have posted.
> If a woman wants to have an abortion, she can have one, but if she chooses to keep it, then she has accepted the responsibility to take care of it. It's one or the other.
You've just outlawed adoption. Great work. Please consider the logical implications of your statements.
> You can't say "it's my body so I choose to abuse the child inside me and fuck it up for life."
Why not? You support the right to say "It's my body so I choose to kill the child inside me". Explain logically the difference.
> Like Ks said, it's no different from giving a baby of bottle of booze after they're born.
Actually, it's categorically different. You are no longer putting the alcohol in your body (which you own), but the babies (which you don't own). These are categorically distinct.
> If you don't want the baby, you can give it up for adoption, but if you choose to keep it, you must accept responsibility.
Hold on. You just said that if you give birth you have accepted the responsibility to take care of it. Which is it?
> You can't say "Well since I could give it up for adoption if I want to, I don't see why I can't take the middle road and just be a shitty parent," and in the same sense you can't say "Since I could have an abortion, I don't see why I can't just fuck up its whole life." There is no middle-road here. You either accept responsibility or you don't.
Those aren't analogous, for several reasons. One is your contention that death is better than disability (that death doesn't fuck up someone's life LOL). Would you change the law code to reflect this? Another is that you care a situation of no harm (adoption) to a situation of the most extreme harm (abortion/murder). It follows that if one can remove a child from a situation of harm (adoption) that one has no right to harm the child. It also follows that if one can put a child in a situation of great harm (abortion), one may put a child in a position of lesser harm (disability).
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,641
@previous
See part 1 of my last post, thanks. And it wasn't an ad hom.
See part 1 of my last post, thanks. And it wasn't an ad hom.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,646
@previous
You were trying to discredit my argument by attributing it to a person you feel shouldn't be listened to. This is an ad hominem. It matters not who makes the argument, only the validity of the argument.
You were trying to discredit my argument by attributing it to a person you feel shouldn't be listened to. This is an ad hominem. It matters not who makes the argument, only the validity of the argument.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,648
@previous
When was the last time you agreed with somebody on here?
When was the last time you agreed with somebody on here?
Anonymous F replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,650
@previous
In at least two other threads currently active I am arguing positions in agreement with Broseph.
In at least two other threads currently active I am arguing positions in agreement with Broseph.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,653
@previous
Where? I call bullshit because I'm not actively arguing anywhere right now.
Where? I call bullshit because I'm not actively arguing anywhere right now.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 month ago, 9 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,655
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 1 month ago, 15 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,659
@previous
Neither or those are really arguments.
Neither or those are really arguments.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,662
@283,639
You might get a better reception in discussions if you try to more concise. Just a thought.
You might get a better reception in discussions if you try to more concise. Just a thought.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,684
Hmm. Should we also punish fathers who do the same, which has increasingly been shown to damage sperm and cause birth defects? What sort of impact do you expect this to have on women's willingness to seek medical care, drug or alcohol treatment, during/after pregnancy?
Enforcement is tricky. Would you suggest changing HIPPA privacy regulations to allow doctors to "report" on pregnant women using drugs - and would you do this for other crimes too, or just when someone is pregnant? What if she doesn't know she's pregnant, what if she's in denial about it - still a crime?
I think the earlier point on abortion is legitimate. It seems pretty inconsistent to punish someone for the lesser harm but not the greater one. For someone considering abortion, it's rarely a simple or quick decision, and I don't know how you would get around a defendant's argument that she intended to abort later. Granted, you don't always need actual harm for a crime to exist... and I think it'd be less of a problem if you only say, it's illegal to drink/smoke while pregnant and then carry the child to term.
Enforcement is tricky. Would you suggest changing HIPPA privacy regulations to allow doctors to "report" on pregnant women using drugs - and would you do this for other crimes too, or just when someone is pregnant? What if she doesn't know she's pregnant, what if she's in denial about it - still a crime?
I think the earlier point on abortion is legitimate. It seems pretty inconsistent to punish someone for the lesser harm but not the greater one. For someone considering abortion, it's rarely a simple or quick decision, and I don't know how you would get around a defendant's argument that she intended to abort later. Granted, you don't always need actual harm for a crime to exist... and I think it'd be less of a problem if you only say, it's illegal to drink/smoke while pregnant and then carry the child to term.
squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 7 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,685
Anonymous F replied with this 1 month ago, 10 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,777
Anonymous F double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,778
@283,662
That was very concise. I replied to most of his points in less than a line.
That was very concise. I replied to most of his points in less than a line.
Anonymous F triple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,779
@283,684
> Granted, you don't always need actual harm for a crime to exist
Please explain.
> and I think it'd be less of a problem if you only say, it's illegal to drink/smoke while pregnant and then carry the child to term.
This is still inconsistent for the reason you acknowledged. If people have absolute self ownership then you can't deny them this course of action.
> Granted, you don't always need actual harm for a crime to exist
Please explain.
> and I think it'd be less of a problem if you only say, it's illegal to drink/smoke while pregnant and then carry the child to term.
This is still inconsistent for the reason you acknowledged. If people have absolute self ownership then you can't deny them this course of action.
Meowth joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 days later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #284,847
This is how we killed the baby that I made. Along with alcohol and cigarettes, we also used lots of MDMA, marijuana, and DXM. Thanks.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #284,860
@previous
???
???
Meowth replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 day later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #285,142
@previous
Yes, I got a bitch pregnant. Yes, drugs aided in our murder.
Yes, I got a bitch pregnant. Yes, drugs aided in our murder.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 weeks ago, 9 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #285,315
@previous
dam lol is there anything redeeming about your life at all?
dam lol is there anything redeeming about your life at all?
Anonymous C replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #285,375
@previous
Other than sparing the world a Super Hitler?
Other than sparing the world a Super Hitler?
Anonymous F replied with this 3 weeks ago, 14 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #285,378
Meowth replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #285,420
@285,315
Real talk. Most likely not. There's few minor things but meh. I see the world as everyone's on their own.
Real talk. Most likely not. There's few minor things but meh. I see the world as everyone's on their own.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 weeks ago, 7 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #285,480
@previous
Nice people are willing to help other nice people.
Nice people are willing to help other nice people.
Meowth replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 days later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #285,956
@previous
I do what I do to get by in life and mainly just worry about taking care of myself. I start shit only with people who start shit with me. If you get what I'm getting at. Of course, I'll beat some ass too for the ones I love most like my cousins and my girl.
I do what I do to get by in life and mainly just worry about taking care of myself. I start shit only with people who start shit with me. If you get what I'm getting at. Of course, I'll beat some ass too for the ones I love most like my cousins and my girl.
Ayn Rand joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #285,959
Meowth replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #285,978
@previous
It's pretty true if you think about it. Honestly, how many people would take a bullet for you? Now how many people would you take a bullet for? It's either 0 or a very small amount. Goes for everyone.
It's pretty true if you think about it. Honestly, how many people would take a bullet for you? Now how many people would you take a bullet for? It's either 0 or a very small amount. Goes for everyone.
Anonymous K replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #285,979
@previous
> Honestly, how many people would take a bullet for you?
I don't know.
> Now how many people would you take a bullet for?
12 people, excluding family.
also I would take a bullet for any child.
> Honestly, how many people would take a bullet for you?
I don't know.
> Now how many people would you take a bullet for?
12 people, excluding family.
also I would take a bullet for any child.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 day later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #286,185
@previous
Even baby hitler?
Even baby hitler?
Anonymous K replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #286,186
@previous
ok then: any child excluding hitler
ok then: any child excluding hitler
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 3 weeks ago, 32 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #286,189
Anonymous G replied with this 3 weeks ago, 23 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #286,191
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #286,214
FUCK NO LAST TIME I CHECKED THIS IS AMERICA!Meowth replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #286,246
@285,979
Decent amount. I guess mine is a decent amount because my family is huge. Meh. Although I don't know anyone that would take a bullet for me, let alone help me in a fight if I needed it. I've always asked people if I were getting my ass beat would they help me out. Sadly, every person I've asked said no. Even a friend that's over 300 pounds.
Decent amount. I guess mine is a decent amount because my family is huge. Meh. Although I don't know anyone that would take a bullet for me, let alone help me in a fight if I needed it. I've always asked people if I were getting my ass beat would they help me out. Sadly, every person I've asked said no. Even a friend that's over 300 pounds.