26 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Very few of my ideas will ever enter the realm of the widely accepted. I am still content to theorize about them. I don't require others' endorsement of my views in order to accept them as correct, and I value the theoretical contemplation of them as valuable, if for nothing more than the peace of mind that comes from internally resolving an ideological conflict, even if nothing practical will ever be realized from the exercise.
I'm not stopping you ..... go right ahead. There is one danger though.
In practising how to think using the notions and criteria of these theories you might be adjusting your thinking and unconsciously tuning in your "informed conscience" to these false theories. Brainwashing yourself Herr DoctorScribbles will be the result. Don't let anybody say I didn't warn you.
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeLikewise, my devout Catholic friend.
I'm not stopping you ..... go right ahead. There is one danger though.
In practising how to think using the notions and criteria of these theories you might be adjusting your thinking and unconsciously tuning in your "informed conscience" to these false theories. Brainwashing yourself Herr DoctorScribbles will be the result. Don't let anybody say I didn't warn you.
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by PawnCurry
Oh Lordy, more terminology to get to grips with.
Quick Google.....
Well, it seems to make sense... 😕
Still need to find out something about this Kant chap so I can decide where I live wrt him...
Discussing things at RHP "Debates" or "Spirituality" forums may turn out to be quite an ordeal ...... in more than one way 😉
A link:
Stanford
Encyclopedia
of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html#a
26 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by KneverKnightJust two links on pregnancy and smoking:
If it is true that drinking and smoking during pregnancy harms the fetus, does it follow that years ago when more women drank/smoked while pregnant there were more "defective" babies born? Are there "defective" generations?
"Smoking by women during pregnancy is widely recognized to increase the risks of several adverse health outcomes (1). In fact, the following warning appears on some tobacco products: "SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking by pregnant women may result in fetal injury, premature birth, or low birth weight."
http://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/oehp/hsc/briefs/four/default.htm
"Conclusions: Our findings show that smoking 10 or more cigarettes per day for at least 10 years and during pregnancy is associated with increased chromosomal instability in amniocytes. Band 11q23, known to be involved in leukemogenesis, seems especially sensitive to genotoxic compounds contained in tobacco.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/10/1212
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNo. A women should not be restricted in what she can do with her own body unless the exercise of her freedom clashes with the freedom of another person. A non-viable fetus is not a person; it is merely a part of the woman's body. There are many things that a pregnant women can do which may be potentially harmful to a fetus; being overweight, not eating right, not exercising enough, etc. etc. We wouldn't want to go down a "slippery slope" would we?
Should women who smoke or drink while they are pregnant be subject to criminal penalty?
26 Apr 05
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSo, you think that a woman should be allowed to use crack while pregnant, knowing full well that the child she intends to bear will almost certainly enter life as a tormented crack addict?
No. A women should not be restricted in what she can do with her own body unless the exercise of her freedom clashes with the freedom of another person.
Do you think it's fine for a mother to inject her newborn infant with crack?
Are you really willing to say that the difference between these two cases hinges on whether the target addict is in the womb or not?
26 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesActually, I think the difference between the two cases is that crack is an illegal substance and alcohol and cigarettes are not. Were crack legal the mother would have every right to use it whenever she chose, within the bounds of the law, of course.
So, you think that a woman should be allowed to use crack while pregnant, knowing full well that the child she intends to bear will almost certainly enter life as a tormented crack addict?
Do you think it's fine for a mother to ...[text shortened]... o cases hinges on whether the target addict is in the womb or not?
TheSkipper
26 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by TheSkipperWell, according to no1, using crack should not be illegal, for its use does not infringe on anybody else's freedoms. I posed my question under that assumption.
Actually, I think the difference between the two cases is that crack is an illegal substance and alcohol and cigarettes are not. Were crack legal the mother would have every right to use it whenever she choose, within the bounds of the law, of course.
TheSkipper
Is it your opinion, Professor, that a pregnant woman is morally free to consume any substances she pleases with complete disregard for the implications that behavior has on a fetus that she intends to bear, provided the substances are legal?
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by TheSkipperAlchohol and cigarettes are illegal for those under 18 to consume. I'm willing to stipulate that we have a minor in question if that makes the crack comparison more fair.
Actually, I think the difference between the two cases is that crack is an illegal substance and alcohol and cigarettes are not. Were crack legal the mother would have every right to use it whenever she chose, within the bounds of the law, of course.
TheSkipper
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesA) Yes.
So, you think that a woman should be allowed to use crack while pregnant, knowing full well that the child she intends to bear will almost certainly enter life as a tormented crack addict?
Do you think it's fine for a mother to inject her newborn infant with crack?
Are you really willing to say that the difference between these two cases hinges on whether the target addict is in the womb or not?
B) No.
C) The difference between the two cases resides in the fact that in the first a woman is doing something to her own body and in the second she's doing something to somebody's else body. Got it?