Pregnant Smokers and Drinkers

Originally posted by Nyxie
I mean what I say.

You changed no1's quote to "one think's is right". How could we judge them against what they thought, and how could you prove it?

I have the impression we are getting caught up in the turns and twists of moral relativism here.

We were talking about freedom and what freedom is or should be. No1 stated freedom is doing what you want (unless it does infringe on the freedom of others). I find this interpretation of freedom rather one-dimensional and not substantial.

Therefore I introduced the statement:

Freedom is not doing what you want but doing what is right.

I introduced substantial morality in the description of freedom.

Originally posted by ivanhoe


I have the impression we are getting caught up in the turns and twists of moral relativism here.

We were talking about freedom and what freedom is or should be. No1 stated freedom is doing what you want (unless it does infringe on the freedom of others). I find this interpretation of freedom rather one-dimensional and not substantial.

Therefore I ...[text shortened]... but doing what is right.

I introduced substantial morality in the description of freedom.

You did'nt answer my question.

But you have raised another so I'll ask another way : How can you legislate morality?

Again : If it hurts noone is it wrong?

Because someone else thinks it's wrong, should I not do it?

I think it's wrong, but it's the better choice in a delicate situation, would I be wrong to do it then?

Doing what is right is following rules, not freedom, true freedom would mean having no rules. Society should protect people, and that is why we institute government. Government introduces rules that keep peope from hurting one another, physically, monetarely, mentally, and so on. Introducing rules that are not in this interest are not the place of governments.We do not seek a government to protect us from ourselves because ultimately this is impossible. If we wish to harm ourselves the law will not stop us.

An anti suicide law is a good point. If it is illegal to kill yourself, how much thought would one give to this before attempting suicide? The only thing this law would do is to make the person careful enough to insure that they were succesful so that they won't be prosecuted by the law. The law itself would have the exact opposite effect of what it was created for.

Nyxie

Originally posted by Nyxie
You did'nt answer my question.

But you have raised another so I'll ask another way : How can you legislate morality?

Again : If it hurts noone is it wrong?

The first is a good question - the second is a moral question. If the State's obligation is to stop us from harming others (and I think this is a valid function of the State), then the State is enforcing a moral standard - "do no harm to others."

What particular action do you think is "not hurting anyone" that people should be allowed to do? Since this thread is about the consequence of pregnant women who smoke and drink - are you denying that the baby with fetal alcohol syndrome has been harmed by the mother?

Originally posted by Coletti
The first is a good question - the second is a moral question. If the State's obligation is to stop us from harming others (and I think this is a valid function of the State), then the State is enforcing a moral standard - "do no harm to others."

What particular action do you think is "not hurting anyone" that people should be allowed to do? Since ...[text shortened]... drink - are you denying that the baby with fetal alcohol syndrome has been harmed by the mother?

I have made no such denial.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Pfffuuuh, you start name dropping now. I would like to imagine a discussion between the famous people you mentioned and you about the ideas you are presenting to us as "freedom", "rights" and "morality". They would wipe the floor with you No1.

No1: " what I am presenting is the Lockean, fundamental rights theory on which the US is based."

You ...[text shortened]... let myself be stopped by feminist or liberal whiners in defending the unborn's Right to Live.

You're my hero, Ivanhoe but it doesn't change the fact that you want to restrict a pregnant woman's freedom (an undoubted person with rights) in favor of a fetus (a dubious assertion of rights). Slavery is a red herring you anti abortion fascists bring up, but no reasonable person would have denied that a slave was a man. It is only your religious beliefs that make a fetus a person in your view, this is disputed by many religions (Orthodox Jews for example) and there is insufficient evidence to establish it as a fact. Therefore, the fact that a certain proportion of the population believes that way is not enough to restrict a pregnant woman's fundamental right to procreate or not. That is the logical outcome of Lockean philosophy and you know it.

Originally posted by Coletti
Aside from some irrelevant comments from the paranoid - I'll ask again, does the State have any right or duty to protect the interests of minors?

If yes, what prevents the State from merely taking children from parents so they can be educated and raised as the State deems best?

If there should be limited State protection of children - how are the boun ...[text shortened]... ill be appreciated - but you are all free to be as moronic as you wish - it's a free Internet.)

Make a point, not a bunch of rhetoric. The State is only the collective will of individuals with enforcement power; it should exercise those powers only in the most dire of circumstances. There is little reason to believe that State appointed functionaries are competent enough to judge if parents are "abusing" their children if the definition of abuse is as nebulous as you seek. If a child is being brutalized that is one thing, but to say that every child who has a problem is potentially "abused" and therefore, her parents MUST be investigated is moving down the road to totalitarian, fascist government. You might believe that we're all "vile" and the "elect" should rule over everything we do, but in the US we kicked that idea out a while ago. Sorry about that.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Therefore, the fact that a certain proportion of the population believes that way is not enough to restrict a pregnant woman's fundamental right to procreate or not.

There are several issues here, #1, and, as a lawyer, perhaps you can clarify them.

1) Does the State have a responsibility to protect children in some way?

It would seem that the answer to this question is 'Yes.' We have child neglect laws (like how
it is illegal to leave your one-year old alone in the house). We have child abuse laws (like how
it is illegal to beat your child with a bat).

It seems that the State has enacted laws to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

In the first case, the child may not suffer any harm, in the second, the harm may be
ephemeral (no long-term physical or psychological damage).

2) Where does the State's responsibility end?

If we know that a certain action may harm a child irrepairably and the action is reasonably
avoidable, then it seems that a law preventing it should be reasonable.

For example: driving while drunk is illegal. You have a right to enjoy your alcohol, but you don't
have a right to endanger anyone by driving drunk (even though you may not do any harm).

So, similarly, if we acknowledge that the State has the obligation to protect children (who cannot
protect themselves) from actions that may have a reasonable chance of harming the child
when those actions are reasonably avoidable, then it seems that the State would have a reasonable
grounds for enacting laws preventing people from smoking in their own house or apartment when
their kids are inside with them.

In short: 1) Kids cannot protect themselves; 2) Kids have a right to have a statistically better
chance of not getting lung cancer or heart disease; and 3) Smoking is easily done outside. This
is concordant with a combination of the principles of child neglect and drunk driving laws.

I need your reaction to this before I can try to tie this to a fetus. Before I can, I need to know
whether you assign any rights to a fetus, when and how many.

I invite other people to jump in with their thoughts.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
There are several issues here, #1, and, as a lawyer, perhaps you can clarify them.

[b]1) Does the State have a responsibility to protect children in some way?

It would seem that the answer to this question is 'Yes.' We have child neglect laws (like how
it is illegal to leave your one-year old alone in the house). We have child abuse laws (lik ...[text shortened]... a fetus, when and how many.

I invite other people to jump in with their thoughts.

Nemesio[/b]

Just out of curiosity can you prove that second hand smoke will cause health problems in a child?

While I agree that we should'nt smoke in front of children, I don't think it has been proven without a doubt that smoking in front of them will cause health problems.

Originally posted by Nemesio
There are several issues here, #1, and, as a lawyer, perhaps you can clarify them.

[b]1) Does the State have a responsibility to protect children in some way?

It would seem that the answer to this question is 'Yes.' We have chi ...[text shortened]...
I invite other people to jump in with their thoughts.

Nemesio[/b]

Analysis of the language of child abuse and neglect laws only take you so far. The answer to your first question is basically "no"; the State doesn't have a "responsibility" to protect children. The most important concept that I tried to bring up is that the State itself is only another way to say what a group of individuals judgment is. Do you feel that you personally have a "responsibility" towards your neighbor's children? If not, why does the State?

To me State enacted laws regarding child abuse and neglect are problematical; most are worded too vaguely to give any real guidance. We can all agree that a parent hitting a child with a baseball bat is abuse, but how about a slap on the buttocks? The language of these laws generally refer to "physical, mental or moral abuse"; I would contend that those are empty vessels into which anything can be poured.

Thus, I do not agree that the State should be able to pass a law regulating the parent's conduct towards their own child on the basis that a "certain action MAY harm a child IRREPAIRABLY AND the action is REASONABLY avoidable." I see no way that such a law will not be enforced in an arbitrary manner. And I do not see that it is the State's (i.e. the collective "us"😉 concern or competent sphere to determine that every child is properly raised by some indeterminate standard. Thus, I will support laws saying a child cannot be truly abused in the traditional sense of the word i.e. brutally beaten, starved, sexually molested, etc. but I do not support the vague concept that you expressed above.

Originally posted by eagles54
But, how to know when the transition from non-experience to experience takes place in the being that will become sentient? As that is impossible, abortion is at best a terrible gamble.

I think the best way to evaluate this is to examine how the central nervous system of the being develops.

One possibility is based on the observation that the developing fetus goes through stages in which it resembles a fish, a pig, etc. If the nervous system develops similarly then we can assume that the level of sentience of the fetus is the same as that of a fetus of that other type of animal. When the fetus resembles a fish, maybe it should be given no more rights than an unborn fish, unless it can be shown that the human CNS is significantly different (more advanced or human like in some way) from that of a fish.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Nemesio: "I do not believe that, in a society that finds abortion permissible,
any penalties can be imposed upon a mother who behaves in this
fashion."

I agree.

Nemesio: "This is why my question to you regarding the pre-born child is totally
relevant and on-topic."

I disagree.

Nemesio: "There is an analogy between the concepts of 'abo ...[text shortened]... abuse.' This is why this discussion
is very much on topic."

I strongly disagree.

Nemesio: "There is an analogy between the concepts of 'abortion/infanticide' and 'smoking while pregnant/child abuse.' This is why this discussion is very much on topic."

I strongly disagree.

I strongly agree with Nemesio. The analogy is very solid. Either the unborn fetus is a full child and person, or they are not.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Nemesio: "There is an analogy between the concepts of 'abortion/infanticide' and 'smoking while pregnant/child abuse.' This is why this discussion is very much on topic."

I strongly disagree.

I strongly agree with Nemesio. The analogy is very solid. Either the unborn fetus is a full child and person, or they are not.[/b]

And it makes no difference either way.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're my hero, Ivanhoe but it doesn't change the fact that you want to restrict a pregnant woman's freedom (an undoubted person with rights) in favor of a fetus (a dubious assertion of rights). Slavery is a red herring you ant ...[text shortened]... That is the logical outcome of Lockean philosophy and you know it.

I think every sound women wants to do what is best for her unborn child. No woman in her right mind wants to damage the health of her unborn child.

I'm growing very tired of your drunken rants against me and the warped ideas you attribute to me. I leave it to experts to point out the many fallacies in your reasoning.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Nemesio: "There is an analogy between the concepts of 'abortion/infanticide' and 'smoking while pregnant/child abuse.' This is why this discussion is very much on topic."

I strongly disagree.

I strongly agree with Nemesio. The analogy is very solid. Either the unborn fetus is a full child and person, or they are not.[/b]

Then who is stopping the two of you to discuss the matter ? ... not me.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

I think every sound women wants to do what is best for her unborn child. No woman in her right mind wants to damage the health of her unborn child.

I'm growing very tired of your drunken rants against me and the warped ideas you attribute to me. I leave it to experts to point out the many fallacies in your reasoning.

If every "sound" woman won't get an abortion, then the question is moot, ain't it? Or do the gals need Ivanhoe to point out their "unsoundness" every time they make a procreative choice you disagree with?

I point out that your ideas are warped by quoting them and showing the fallacies inherent in them and the hostility to real human freedom you have. Your personal attacks don't bother me or change those facts, Ivanhoe; I'd rather be a drunk supporter of human freedom than a sober opponent of it any day.