27 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat about only imposing penalties after the baby is born - with the added provision that harm must be shown to have occurred that was caused by the mother actions while pregnant?
[b]Should the pregnant woman be free to smoke and drink up to the point of viability?
This is the most difficult of the questions to answer, and is the only one that seems like a dilemma to me. On the one hand, the non-viable fetus has no rights. On the other, there will exist a viable fetus who, but for the fact that it had not yet attain ...[text shortened]... n though they only have a greater potential, but not certainty, of
causing injury to others.
[/b]
It does not really answer the question, but it removes the person-hood issue from consideration. And not all laws are designed for punishing violations immediately.
For instance, freedom of speech. The US Government may not stop a person from publishing offensive speech (say porno) - but the Government can fine someone after the fact for a violation of community decency standards.
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeDo you read your own posts? You said freedom is a "idol" and "a false god"! How is my pointing out that the philosophy of the US is based on fundamental rights as a necessary ingredient of a free country "not relevant"? I won't hesitate to call your "responding" post stupid because that's what it is. You want to force your ideas as to the status of a fetus unto others who do not share them and restrict their basic freedom to procreate or not as a result. That might be fine for the RCC but it ain't for a free country.
No1, I never ever called you stupid, please don't tempt me into doing it now. Your answer is simply not relevant in any way.
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by Nemesio
Then I will ask you this:
In the society that you prefer -- one that eschews the Culture of
Death and penalizes actions which contribute to it (such as making
abortion illegal) -- do you feel that a mother who smokes during her
pregnancy is committing a crime?
If yes, how would you label such a crime?
If yes to #1, what should the penalty for th ...[text shortened]... knowledge of its implications?
Nemesio
P.S., Please note: three questions to be answered.
Nemesio: "P.S., Please note: three questions to be answered."
........... lol ....... is this some kind of exam ?
I have addressed your questions. Please accept my answers.
27 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiPenalizing women for what they did while they were pregnant after a baby was born would be an excellent incentive for abortion. And you still haven't addressed the question of why smoking or drinking should logically be treated different than the myriad of other behaviors that a woman can do while pregnant which increase the risks to the child. Your proposal is completely unworkable and arbitrary.
What about only imposing penalties after the baby is born - with the added provision that harm must be shown to have occurred that was caused by the mother actions while pregnant?
It does not really answer the question, but it removes t ...[text shortened]... e after the fact for a violation of community decency standards.
27 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioWhose rights should the law favor?
Let me ask you this, Doc.
We know definitively the deleterious effects of second-hand smoke.
The percentage increases of diseases from those who are regularly
exposed to it are astronomical and irrefutable.
Do you think that parents ...[text shortened]... ce of a
variety of horrible diseases?
Any thoughts?
Nemesio
The helpless child who has no power to avoid the situation or deal with the mother as an equal through cooperation or force in an attempt to change the situation, and who is fully at her mercy for its protection?
Or the self-centered mother who has full power over the child, the responsibility for whose care and well-being she implicitly accepted by choosing to bear the child, and who is shirking those duties for the sake of her own temporary physical satisfaction at the possible expense of her child's permanent health?
I say the child's. What can be said about a society that decides otherwise?
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeNon-answer #5.
I have addressed your questions. Please accept my answers.
You have not answered my questions anywhere.
If a pre-born child is a person, and smoking/drinking harms that
person without their consent, then is it or is not not abuse, Ivanhoe?
If it is abuse, should it be punished (and with what severity)?
Be a man and stand for what you believe in!
Nemesio
27 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioNo! That it embraces a Culture of Torture, Cruelty and Savagery.
*shrug* That it embraces a culture of death?
The better option is the Culture of Death, in which the mother aborts the fetus that she doesn't intend to love or care for anyway before it becomes a person.
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThis statement reflects what I feel is the thorniest part of an already
And you still haven't addressed the question of why smoking or drinking should logically be treated different than the myriad of other behaviors that a woman can do while pregnant which increase the risks to the child.
complex issue.
If we penalize crack use, then why not drinking?
If we penalize drinking, why not smoking?
If we penalize smoking, why not being overweight?
If we penalize being overweight, why not penalize not taking folic acid vitamins?
If we are going to draw a line, it needs to be a concrete and logical one,
otherwise the line is as meaningless as saying 'Abortion is murder, but
shouldn't be punished like murder,' or some such nonsense.
Nemesio
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by NemesioThe line should be that people have the right to choose thier own path.
This statement reflects what I feel is the thorniest part of an already
complex issue.
If we penalize crack use, then why not drinking?
If we penalize drinking, why not smoking?
If we penalize smoking, why not being overweight?
If we penalize being overweight, why not penalize not taking folic acid vitamins?
If we are going to draw a line, it ...[text shortened]... Abortion is murder, but
shouldn't be punished like murder,' or some such nonsense.
Nemesio
27 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiThis could easily be implemented by setting standards of proof.
What about only imposing penalties after the baby is born - with the added provision that harm must be shown to have occurred that was caused by the mother actions while pregnant?
1) Has physical harm been done to the baby - damage that is evidence at the time the baby was born - or shortly thereafter.
2) Was the harm caused by the actions of the mother.
3) Were the actions of the mother considered by the medical profession to be highly likely to cause the harm that did occur.
If all three answers are yes, then this is a effectually the same as a case of child abuse.
What the mother did to harm the baby is not nearly as important as how much damage was done, and should the mother have know better. If it was diet, the situation could be one where the mother intentionally fasted, causing malnutrition. If drug use or alcohol, this is also obviously detrimental to the baby.
The issue should have nothing to do with WHEN the damage was caused, but IF the damage was caused by the mother due to negligence or malice. It would be no different then fining a mother for leaving her kids in a closed vehicle - or failing to feed her children properly.
If no major harm is done, maybe she is fined and goes to "child care" classes. If major harm is caused - maybe she goes to jail.
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiIn essence, what you would be setting up is a situation where every single time a baby is born with some health defect, it would be enough to trigger a criminal investigation of the mother. The thought of such a system makes me shudder and would be fundamentally incompatible with a free society i.e. one that believes in limited State power. Surely, DoctorScribbles wouldn't support such a governmental monstrosity!
This could easily be implemented by setting standards of poof.
1) Has physical harm been done to the baby - damage that is evidence at the time the baby was born - or shortly thereafter.
2) Was the harm caused by the actions of the mother.
3) Were the actions of the mother considered by the medical profession to be highly likely to cause the harm that ...[text shortened]... is fined and goes to "child care" classes. If major harm is caused - maybe she goes to jail.
27 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderEvery time you send you kid to school, you are in the same situation. If your kid come bruised and battered, the state can come knocking on your door.
In essence, what you would be setting up is a situation where every single time a baby is born with some health defect, it would be enough to trigger a criminal investigation of the mother. The thought of such a system makes me ...[text shortened]... octorScribbles wouldn't support such a governmental monstrosity!
27 Apr 05
*tongue firmly in cheek*
How about this slant: why shouldn't a woman with a smoking/drinking addiction be prevented from having children in the first place? Forced sterilization and all? Isn't it plain to see that her addictions are unlikely to be curbed because of her impending motherhood? Think of the misery saved for both her and her unborn child! And us taxpayers!
*tongue back to its usual business*
27 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by eagles54I don't think you should penalize a person before they have done something wrong.
*tongue firmly in cheek*
How about this slant: why shouldn't a woman with a smoking/drinking addiction be prevented from having children in the first place? Forced sterilization and all? Isn't it plain to see that her addictions are u ...[text shortened]... n child! And us taxpayers!
*tongue back to its usual business*
(I missed the tongue in cheek part)