26 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1maraudercan you expand on this No 1. Maybe your definition of handicapped differs from mine. A visual/hearing impairment, cerebal palsy, ar all 'handicaps'. Do you really believe these people do not have a right to procreate?
I don't, but the logical outcome of the argument you made in the first post on this page is that they shouldn't be allowed to. Don't you agree? If not, explain why it doesn't.
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by wucky3You misunderstood my post. I was responding to Kneverknight's post:
can you expand on this No 1. Maybe your definition of handicapped differs from mine. A visual/hearing impairment, cerebal palsy, ar all 'handicaps'. Do you really believe these people do not have a right to procreate?
KK: So, the handicapped should not procreate? You don't believe that.
When I said "I don't" I was confirming that I would answer the first question in the negative. So, "I don't" would (again) be the answer to your question (which is the same as KK's).
26 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderHas that child suffered an injustice? I don't think so, because the child's life couldn't have been otherwise. His scales are balanced; nobody has tipped them. The child has not been deprived of any claim right, nor have any of his liberty rights been violated. Thus, no crime has occurred.
If a parent is aware that they are a carrier of the terrible disease of Ivanhoeitis and still decide to have a child knowing it has a good chance of having the disease, how is that an "Act of God"?
In the crack addiction case, the child has suffered a violation of his liberty rights, and thus we have a possible reason to seek recourse against that injustice.
Unless you're willing to say that all handicapped children have suffered an injustice at the hands of their parents' procreation, your argument doesn't have any bearing on the crack addiction case, because in that case, a key premise is that the child has suffered an injustice. The question in that case is, Given that the child has suffered an injustice, should the mother be held criminally liable for it?
26 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAs usual, you have changed the argument from a substantative one to a mere semantical one by changing the definition of a term: in this case, "injustice". Earlier you said this in back-to-back posts:
Has that child suffered an injustice? I don't think so, because the child's life couldn't have been otherwise. His scales are balanced; nobody has tipped them. The child has not been deprived of any claim right, nor have any o ...[text shortened]... an injustice, should the mother be held criminally liable for it?
DoctorScribbles: Should her crack use in (3) be a crime, given that the child will almost certainly be born into a life of torment as a crack addict?
DoctorScribbles: Has the child suffered an injustice?
The most clear meaning an unjust act is: "an act that inflicts undeserved hurt". whether the child is born a crack addict or with a terrible case of Ivanhoeitis surely it has been "hurt" and such "hurt" is "undeserved" from its point of view. In both cases the parents made decisions which directly led to such "hurt". I would assert that if an "injustice" has occurred in one case it has occurred in both cases as they are analytically identical and such "injustice" has restricted the child's "liberty rights".
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe parents are still libel in any case - for medical expenses, care, etc. But there would be no civil penalty. This follows Biblical law which says you are are to compensate people when you unintentionally cause them harm or lose (replace their cow). But the penalty is greater for causing intentional harm. A smoking Mom is causing intentional harm.
Has that child suffered an injustice? I don't think so, because the child's life couldn't have been otherwise. His scales are balanced; nobody has tipped them. The child has not been deprived of any claim right, nor have any of his liberty rights been violated. Thus, no crime has occurred.
In the crack addiction case, the child has suffered ...[text shortened]... en that the child has suffered an injustice, should the mother be held criminally liable for it?
26 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSo, are you asserting that all people born handicapped feel hurt or feel that they are the victims of an injustice?
whether the child is born a crack addict or with a terrible case of Ivanhoeitis surely it has been "hurt" and such "hurt" is "undeserved" from its point of view.
I deny that.
I do assert that all crack babies are victims of an injustice.
In the handicapped case, what being has been hurt? You have to say either a being that didn't exist, or a being that was already handicapped.
In the crack addict case, the otherwise healthy baby has been hurt by his mother's choice.
There is a clear distinction between the two cases, one that only a two-bit lawyer could fail to see.
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiYou are confused as usual. There are many criminal laws which impose penalties for non-intentional acts. And a "smoking Mom" is NOT causing intentional harm; here intent in smoking is not to cause harm to the fetus, that is a possible side effect not her "intent". In legal terms, she might be "negligent" or "reckless" or acting with "depraved indifference" but it would not be considered intentional. I would assert that the parents who are carrying the Ivanhoeitis gene and who disregard the possibility of harm and have the child anyway are in the same mental state as regards criminal culpability. Either both should be logically criminal culpable or neither should be.
The parents are still libel in any case - for medical expenses, care, etc. But there would be no civil penalty. This follows Biblical law which says you are are to compensate people when you unintentionally cause them harm or lose (replace their cow). But the penalty is greater for causing intentional harm. A smoking Mom is causing intentional harm.
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNonsense. A crack baby would be in the same state of mind as a handicapped one: the intentions of the parents prenatally would have no bearings on its feelings.
So, are you asserting that all people born handicapped feel hurt or feel that they are the victims of an injustice?
I deny that.
I do assert that all crack babies are victims of an injustice.
In the handicapped case, what being has been hurt? You have to say either a being that didn't exist, or a being that was already handicapped.
In th ...[text shortened]... is a clear distinction between the two cases, one that only a two-bit lawyer could fail to see.
To use your own sentence: what being has been hurt? You have to say either a being that didn't exist, or a being that was already a crack addict. Since the foetus was not a person until viability, the women's actions before viability "effect" a being that doesn't exist. And once the fetus becomes viable it is already a crack addict. There is not logical distinction between the two and even the pettiest nitpicker should be able to see that.
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderLet us change stipulation (2) to read that during the period of non-viability, the mother refrained from using crack and only began using crack during the period of viability.
To use your own sentence: what being has been hurt? You have to say either a being that didn't exist, or a being that was already a crack addict. Since the foetus was not a person until viability, the women's actions before viability "effect" a being that doesn't exist. And once the fetus becomes viable it is already a crack addict. T ...[text shortened]... gical distinction between the two and even the pettiest nitpicker should be able to see that.
Do you acknowledge a difference between the two cases under that new stipulation?
26 Apr 05
1 edit
A mother who smokes and drinks is knowingly doing harm to her fetus. If she did not known then the law says her ignorance is not excusable - she should have known better. She has a duty to give due diligence to learning how her actions could cause harm to the fetus. Since she has knowingly caused harm that she could have easily prevented - then it would be justified to penalize her.
If a person causes harm without intention AND has not neglected their duty to educate themselves to a reasonable extent so as to protect others from harm - then their liability should be limited to compensating the person they have harmed.
If a person causes another harm intentionally, or out of ignorance (they should have known better) then their liability should included both compensation to the victim, and civil/criminal penalties as a deterrent to others.
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiHow do you go about gathering enough evidence to penalize this woman?
A mother who smokes and drinks is knowingly doing harm to her fetus. If she did not known then the law says her ignorance is not excusable - she should have known better. She has a duty to give due diligence to learning how her actions could cause harm to the fetus. Since she has knowingly caused harm that she could have easily prevented - then it would be justified to penalize her.
26 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by eagles54You'd have to show that damage has taken place, and that the damage was caused by the mothers smoking and drinking. I think there are tests to show damage to the brain due to alcohol consumptions during pregnancy - I don't know about smoking.
How do you go about gathering enough evidence to penalize this woman?
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiWho determines how much alcohol intake and cigarette consumption constitute potential abuse?
You'd have to show that damage has taken place, and that the damage was caused by the mothers smoking and drinking. I think there are tests to show damage to the brain due to alcohol consumptions during pregnancy - I don't know about smoking.
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI already did on the previous page.
Let us change stipulation (2) to read that during the period of non-viability, the mother refrained from using crack and only began using crack during the period of viability.
Do you acknowledge a difference between the two cases under that new stipulation?