Pregnant Smokers and Drinkers

Originally posted by Nemesio
So, as I understand it, there are two considerations:

1) The potential for the act to cause immediate harm; and
2) Committing the act in public.

Is at least one a necessary conditions before governmental intrusiveness?

If my house is in a state of filth and neglect and my child is walking around in
it (even though he is in no immediate danger), he can be removed from my
possession. Do you feel that this is wrong?

Nemesio

We called child protective services on the house behind us because it was a frickin garbage house. I dunno if you have ever seen one, but if you have you will never forget it. Anyway, they came out to the house and did nothing at all. Go figure? Tax dallars at work.

I am still waiting for people to have to apply for children (you know, take a test or something), and when they pass their test, it is granted they get to have spirm and a eggs issued.

You have the right to F-up the life of a child, but some do not want to let people get abortions go f-in figure!


RTh

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes.

A pregnant woman can smoke or drink because to penalize this would be to trample her rights.
BTW, I saw a news report on TV about a pregnant woman complaining that the fumes from road work in front of her house was harming her unborn child. The camera showed her on her front porch indicating the road work and puffing on a cigarette. Right out of Trailer Park Boys

Originally posted by KneverKnight

BTW, I saw a news report on TV about a pregnant woman complaining that the fumes from road work in front of her house was harming her unborn child. The camera showed her on her front porch indicating the road work and puffing on a cigarette. Right out of Trailer Park Boys

Immediate harm is not needed. Only the certainty of harm is required. We are not to insulate public schools with asbestos or use lead based paints. Theses cause long term health problems that will not be apparent at the time of exposer.

Originally posted by Coletti
Immediate harm is not needed. Only the certainty of harm is required. We are not to insulate public schools with asbestos or use lead based paints. Theses cause long term health problems that will not be apparent at the time of exposer.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
LOL. Great story.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Notice the word "public" in your statement.

Originally posted by Coletti
Irrelevant. You're not allowed to use asbestos or lead based paints in your home either.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Wrong; they're not allowed to sell them anymore (i.e. public commercial transactions) but no one is going around everybody's house checking to see if they have asbestos or lead based paints. There are no civil or criminal penalties for someone having asbestos or lead based paint on the walls of their family home either; landlords who rent to the public do have potential civil liability. Check the law, Coletti.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
I'll try to find it on Monday at the office... but it was an email of a woman complaining that road construction noise was harming her baby even in the womb. She was smoking in the news photo.

Duh.

ES

Do pregnant women eat asbestos and drink hot lead ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Do pregnant women eat asbestos and drink hot lead ?

Originally posted by Coletti
True the State is not allowed to go into your house and check for asbestos or lead based paints without reasonable cause - but if you ask them to test your paint or look for asbestos and they find it, they will declare your house unsafe for occupancy, require you and your family to move out, and make you get rid of the environmental hazards.

If you refu ...[text shortened]... ou are not allowed to live in a structure that has been condemned or unfit for human habitation.