Women who drink and smoke during pregnancy

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by chimx+--> (chimx)a woman came over to my friend shouse the other day
she was obviously in her third trimester
and she was smoking and drinking a beer
i wanted to yell at her
but felt like it wasn't my place for some reason
after she left i talked with my friends
and we all had wanted to say something[/b]


Originally posted by chimx+--> (chimx)drinking and smoking has consequences beyond the time that the fetus is in the womb
and effects a person
not "owned" by the mother[/b]


[email protected]
i don't want to send the woman to death row
i just want to chastise her
and tell her she is fucked up

These exerpts were copied and pasted from chat. I have posted only the most important parts, omitting some nonessential details, but keeping everything within context.

chimx's disclaimer:

chimx
[02:08] <chimx> you better post that i haven&#39;t really thought mucha bout this then too
[02:08] <chimx> and make clear that this was a impromtu discussion without much though put into it

In the same manner that women have every right to abort embryos and fetuses, they have the right to cause it potential physical harm. It would be just as patriarchal and tyrannical to force women to maintain a given standard of health during gestation, as it would be to ban abortion.

[KC]

Of course we shouldn&#39;t harass them. It&#39;s their choice.

[chimx]

hey, wait a second... you said you weren&#39;t going to make me look bad... you totally just posted shitty stuff out of context&#33; imma get the rest of the log.

[chimx]

[22:54] <chimx> hey
[22:54] <chimx> speaking of which
[22:54] <chimx> why is it..
[22:54] <Dr__Rosenpenis> tearing him a new one might be a good idea
[22:54] <chimx> that we have htis stigma (at least in the US)
[22:54] <chimx> that it isn&#39;t ok to yell at pregnant women
[22:54] <chimx> who are smoking and drinking while pregnant
[22:55] <Dr__Rosenpenis> why?
[22:55] <chimx> yeah
[22:55] <Male> because you yankees are dumb
[22:55] <chimx> no shit
[22:55] <chimx> that shit is infuriating
[22:55] <Male> ?&#33;
[22:55] <chimx> a woman came over to my friend shouse the other day
[22:55] <chimx> she was obviously in her third trimester
[22:55] <chimx> and she was smoking and drinking a beer
[22:55] <chimx> i wanted to yell at her
[22:56] <chimx> but felt like it wasn&#39;t my place for some reason
[22:56] <chimx> after she left i talked with my friends
[22:56] <Dr__Rosenpenis> she has that right, you prick
[22:56] <chimx> and we all had wanted to say something
[22:56] <chimx> tell that to the baby with no butthole
[22:57] <Dr__Rosenpenis> I think she knows, like everybody else, that it&#39;s harmful to the fetus/embryo when you drink during pregancy
[22:57] <Dr__Rosenpenis> telling her won&#39;t do shit
[22:57] <chimx> but if we ridiculed her
[22:57] <chimx> and alienated her from our group
[22:57] <chimx> she may feel obligated to change her shitty actions
[22:57] <Dr__Rosenpenis> unless you want to force women to conform to health standards when they&#39;re pregnant
[22:57] <chimx> like dealing with a friend that is homophobic
[22:57] <Dr__Rosenpenis> which is about as bad as banning abortion
[22:58] <Dr__Rosenpenis> read what I wrote
[22:58] <chimx> i did read wha tyou wrote
[22:58] <chimx> and i disagree
[22:59] <chimx> abortion is solely inutero
[22:59] <chimx> it is a fetus, not a life
[22:59] <chimx> drinking and smoking has consequences beyond the time that the fetus is in the womb
[22:59] <Dr__Rosenpenis> so does abortion
[22:59] <chimx> and effects a person
[22:59] <chimx> not "owned" by the mother
[22:59] <chimx> i think comparing it to abortion is apple&#39;s and oranges
[23:00] <Dr__Rosenpenis> this is akin to saying that physical abuse is worse than murder
[23:00] <chimx> what?
[23:00] <chimx> i don&#39;t want to send the woman to death row
[23:00] <chimx> i just want to chastise her
[23:00] *** Political_Chucky has joined #che-lives
[23:00] <chimx> and tell her she is fucked up
[23:00] <Dr__Rosenpenis> your argument is akin to saying that physical abuse is worse than murder
[23:00] <chimx> i don&#39;t follow your logic at all
[23:01] <chimx> abortion isn&#39;t murder
[23:01] <chimx> it isn&#39;t a life
[23:01] <chimx> is that what you meant?
[23:01] <Dr__Rosenpenis> you&#39;re saying that physically harming a baby is bad... but killing future babies isn&#39;t
[23:01] <Dr__Rosenpenis> this is akin to saying that physical abuse is worse than murder
[23:01] <chimx> i dont&#39; think abortion is murder though
[23:01] <Political_Chucky> Hey everyone
[23:01] <Dr__Rosenpenis> look up metaphor
[23:01] <Dr__Rosenpenis> grab a dictionary and look up metaphor
[23:01] <chimx> i know what a metaphor is
[23:01] <Dr__Rosenpenis> hey chuck
[23:01] <ComradeRed> I see chimx&#39;s pint is
[23:02] <ComradeRed> *point
[23:02] *** Political_Chucky has quit (Quit: Political_Chucky)
[23:02] <chimx> but the crux of your metaphor lays on assuming that abortion is murder
[23:02] <Dr__Rosenpenis> no
[23:02] *** Political_Chucky has joined #che-lives
[23:02] <Political_Chucky> .
[23:02] <Political_Chucky> .
[23:02] <Dr__Rosenpenis> drinking during pregnancy harms a future life
[23:02] <chimx> yes
[23:03] <Dr__Rosenpenis> abortion kills a future life
[23:03] <Dr__Rosenpenis> why is one okay and the other not
[23:03] <Dr__Rosenpenis> ???
[23:03] <chimx> because harming a future life is real
[23:03] <chimx> killing a future life isn&#39;t real
[23:03] <chimx> one exists and the other doesn&#39;t
[23:03] <Political_Chucky> Thats a good question. I think it is viewed morally wrong because once the baby comes out after the effects of drinking, the baby is still alive
[23:03] <Dr__Rosenpenis> what the fuck?
[23:03] <chimx> killing a future life
[23:04] <chimx> if you kill it, it has no future, thus it never exists
[23:04] <Dr__Rosenpenis> yes
[23:04] <Political_Chucky> but I wouldn&#39;t abort any baby, shits wrong (editorial add: wtf?)
[23:04] <Dr__Rosenpenis> abortion involved killing a future life
[23:04] <chimx> if you harm a future life, it has a future that is harmed--it exists
[23:04] <Dr__Rosenpenis> so you&#39;re saying that physical abuse is worse than murder
[23:05] <Dr__Rosenpenis> if i rip off your arm, you will be harmed
[23:05] <Dr__Rosenpenis> if i kill you, you will die
[23:05] <chimx> considering that the "murder" has no actual consequences in the real world, i&#39;ll say yes for the sake of this discussion
[23:05] <Political_Chucky> I can safely say that rosenpenis doesn&#39;t condone stem cell research? haha
[23:05] <Dr__Rosenpenis> i am pro-choice
[23:05] <Dr__Rosenpenis> for drinking and aborting
[23:05] <Political_Chucky> oo ok I see
[23:05] <Dr__Rosenpenis> i hate babies
[23:06] <Political_Chucky> ohmy.gif
[23:06] <Dr__Rosenpenis> ^
[23:06] <Dr__Rosenpenis> joke
[23:06] <chimx> i think i disagree with your concept of murder
[23:06] <Political_Chucky> haha yea, I figured that haha
[23:06] <Political_Chucky> but sitll
[23:06] <Political_Chucky> ohmy.gif
[23:06] <Political_Chucky> still*
[23:06] <chimx> a fetus isn&#39;t a life. murder implies the taking of a life from an already existing life
[23:07] <chimx> but drinking has repercussions on a life after it is birthed
[23:07] <Dr__Rosenpenis> this calls for a thread
[23:07] <chimx> maybe
[23:07] <Dr__Rosenpenis> in discrimination
[23:07] <Political_Chucky> Chimax, let me ask you a question on a more broad view. Do you think a Sperm cell has life?
[23:07] <Dr__Rosenpenis> tragic clown will side me
[23:07] <Dr__Rosenpenis> nobody will side with you
[23:08] <chimx> i honestly haven&#39;t really thought about it at all before we started chatting
[23:08] <chimx> i am not going to start a thread though
[23:08] <Dr__Rosenpenis> i will
[23:08] <chimx> because TC already thinks i am a closet anti-choice asshole
[23:08] <chimx> and i don&#39;t want to give her fuel for the fire
[23:08] <chimx> tongue.gif
[23:08] <chimx> i will not participate in the discussion
[23:08] <chimx> tongue.gif
[23:09] <Dr__Rosenpenis> you bettr
[23:09] <chimx> i don&#39;t know enough about biology to answer your questionchucky
[23:09] <chimx> haha
[23:09] <chimx> no way dude
[23:09] <Dr__Rosenpenis> i will quote your comments from this chat
[23:09] <chimx> you better post that i haven&#39;t really thought mucha bout this then too
[23:09] <chimx> and make clear that this was a impromtu discussion without much though put into it

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Expand on this "immorality"

[Rollo]

Being born with brain damage and deformaties is far worse than being born not at all.

[LSD]

Sorry, but I don&#39;t understand how this is a political issue...

In fact I think we make a grave error in general by buying into the conservative notion that foetuses and foetus related issues are a valid areas for legislation.

No government or authority has any right to intervene on what a pregnant woman does to herself, regardless of how "moral" it might feel in doing so.

Insofar as what private citizens choose to do, again, I don&#39;t see the political issue. Randoming yelling at total strangers strikes me as mental illness, but if a friend or partner&#39;s behaviour bothers you, there&#39;s really nothing wrong with expressing your concerns.

There is documented evidence that use of certain substances during pregnancy can cause future harm to the child of that pregnancy. If a woman who intends on keeping her child is unaware of that evidence and does not realize that in using said substanced she is potentially damaging her future child (and in so doing, creating a lot of work for herself), then I don&#39;t see what&#39;s wrong with telling her.

Obviously, no one should be "harrased" for what they do to their own bodies, but there&#39;s a vast difference between "harassing" and informing.

And, again, where&#39;s the political angle here? &#39;Cause at this point, I&#39;m a post away from moving this to Chit-Chat.

[Sadena Meti]

Just to put this in another light:

Consider a mother who gives birth, then begins using meth, which is passed on to her child through breast milk, and kills it.

This happened last year in the US. That is a clear case of criminal neglect, or child abuse depending how you look at it.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

What. The. Fuck.

Of course a pregnant woman doesn&#39;t have the right to do harmful things to her children, even if they are unborn. Comparing with abortion is absolutely ridiculous, as in this case the child will be born and will have to live with whatever problems it may or may not experience because of the mother&#39;s lousy care during pregnancy. Unless the child is going to be aborted, it is absolutely inhuman to cause damage to a helpless child (that is, by excessive drinking and smoking during pregnancy, and excessive only) and it may as well be considered child abuse.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 09:17 AM
...(that is, by excessive drinking and smoking during pregnancy, and excessive only)...
Where do you draw the line though? I have a friend who works in drug prevention who will swear blind and produce convincing evidence that any amount of any illicit drug is harmful. I&#39;ve since learned to avoid that discussion, as her arguments drive me to drink.

But if, from a medical / chemical analysis, one can say that even small amounts of certain drugs to cause damage, and one has accepted that excessive use is immoral, at what point can you define "acceptable damage" or "acceptable abuse"?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 11:17 AM
a pregnant woman doesn&#39;t have the right to do harmful things to her children, even if they are unborn.

This is a discussion about rights.
Despite the bullshit, a polemic political issue is in question here.
This thread needs to be split and put back in discrimination.

[LSD]

This is a discussion about rights.
Despite the bullshit, a polemic political issue is in question here.

Where?

So far not one person has challenged a woman&#39;s legal right to do what she wants to her body, pregnant or otherwise. Some have said that they personally disaprove of certain behaviours but, again, that&#39;s not a political issue.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 11:17 AM
Of course a pregnant woman doesn&#39;t have the right to do harmful things to her children, even if they are unborn. Comparing with abortion is absolutely ridiculous, as in this case the child will be born and will have to live with whatever problems it may or may not experience because of the mother&#39;s lousy care during pregnancy. Unless the child is going to be aborted, it is absolutely inhuman to cause damage to a helpless child (that is, by excessive drinking and smoking during pregnancy, and excessive only) and it may as well be considered child abuse.

I think that answers your question.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

This has probably been posted before but whatever.

By smoking and drinking during pregnancy you are causing physical harm to another human being. This is because the effects of the smoking and drinking take effect on the child once it is born, rather than while it is in the feotus. You cannot say it is like abortion because abortion prevents the feotus from ever becoming a conscious person capable of feeling harm, whereas drinking and smoking while pregnant allows the feotus to develop into a person and then harms that person. This is why I strongly oppose smoking and/or drinking while pregnant, and believe there should be action taken against it (although I am unsure as to the form or extent of this action).

The only alternative would be to forcibly abort pregnancies where the mother smokes and/or drinks, and good luck getting that legislation to pass.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Essentially you&#39;re advocating institutionalized restrictions regarding what women can do to their own bodies, because such actions affect future humans. Guess what? That is the exact same line of reasoning used to justify anti-choice paternalism. Do you think that people would proclaim abortions to be murderous if they didn&#39;t involve the termination of a future human? Fuck no.

Who gives a shit if kids are born with deformities and mental handicaps if it comes at the cost of enslaving pregnant women?

[KC]

By smoking and drinking during pregnancy you are causing physical harm to another human being. This is because the effects of the smoking and drinking take effect on the child once it is born, rather than while it is in the feotus.

Actually, you are increasing the chance of defects within the child. And by this logic you could also argue that pregnant women should only eat certain foods that are healthy to the baby, that they shouldn&#39;t get ultrasounds because it increases the risk of defects within the child, etc... etc...

[Freelanced]

This is obviously not an issue of civil rights, this is an issue of humane treatment of a person. How would the revolution have gone if Che Guevara had been born a crack baby, or with FAS? It can be argued that it is the mother&#39;s choice to poison her fetus. Maybe that fetus isn&#39;t a life yet, but it will be, and most doctors, who know more about the subject than anyone else, will agree that a child with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome will not live the same life as one who was born without life-threatening birth defects.

[KC]

Che wouldn&#39;t have been born if his mom had an abortion. Are you anti-choice now?

[Freelanced]

With all due respect to you, and I&#39;m not sure how much is due, who ever said I was pro-choice. Being a socialist does not label me as pro-choice, or anything else that does not pertain to the simple detail of complete equality. As I had said,
How would the revolution have gone if Che Guevara had been born a crack baby, or with FAS?
I said nothing about abortion, I said if he had been born, the keyword there being born. and even if he hadn&#39;t, the Cuban revolution would not have been the same, and I believe that we can all agree that El Che had a positive on the outcome of the revolution in Cuba.

[KC]

So are you anti-choice or not?

[Freelanced]

Firstly, why does it matter to you so much?

Secondly, I an pro-life, except in extenuating circumstances, such as the likelyhood of birth defects, or endangering the life of the mother.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 06:51 am
Being born with brain damage and deformaties is far worse than being born not at all.
I find that quite discriminatory to the handicapped. Who are you to say that because of their disabilities they should not have been born at all?? My oldest friend that I still keep in touch with was born crippled, so when you say that I basically take it as you are saying his life is worthless. Please, consider the ramifications of your words before you go around with such inflammitory naziesque statements.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by KC
And by this logic you could also argue that pregnant women should only eat certain foods that are healthy to the baby, that they shouldn&#39;t get ultrasounds because it increases the risk of defects within the child, etc... etc...

The &#39;logic&#39; of not smoking, using drugs or drinking excessively is premised on the strong probability of adverse effect, what you&#39;ve said is completely fallacious, both ignoring the probability of adverse effect and over-stating what adverse effect may actually be experienced from these actions.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Ace [email protected] 18, 2006 08:37 pm
Sorry, but I don&#39;t understand how this is a political issue...

In fact I think we make a grave error in general by buying into the conservative notion that foetuses and foetus related issues are a valid areas for legislation.

No government or authority has any right to intervene on what a pregnant woman does to herself, regardless of how "moral" it might feel in doing so.

Insofar as what private citizens choose to do, again, I don&#39;t see the political issue. Randoming yelling at total strangers strikes me as mental illness, but if a friend or partner&#39;s behaviour bothers you, there&#39;s really nothing wrong with expressing your concerns.

There is documented evidence that use of certain substances during pregnancy can cause future harm to the child of that pregnancy. If a woman who intends on keeping her child is unaware of that evidence and does not realize that in using said substanced she is potentially damaging her future child (and in so doing, creating a lot of work for herself), then I don&#39;t see what&#39;s wrong with telling her.

Obviously, no one should be "harrased" for what they do to their own bodies, but there&#39;s a vast difference between "harassing" and informing.

And, again, where&#39;s the political angle here? &#39;Cause at this point, I&#39;m a post away from moving this to Chit-Chat.
If we look at it from a class issue, since substance abuse is higher in the lower classes then it is political. That was my point last time, and people tried to claim I was making a moral statement. Thoose people are very confused.

[EbolaMonkeh]

Originally posted by EwokUtopia+October 26, 2006 02:09 am--> (EwokUtopia @ October 26, 2006 02:09 am)
[email protected] 18, 2006 06:51 am
Being born with brain damage and deformaties is far worse than being born not at all.
I find that quite discriminatory to the handicapped. Who are you to say that because of their disabilities they should not have been born at all?? My oldest friend that I still keep in touch with was born crippled, so when you say that I basically take it as you are saying his life is worthless. Please, consider the ramifications of your words before you go around with such inflammitory naziesque statements. [/b]
I don&#39;t think that was a discriminatory statement. There&#39;s nothing wrong with disabled people, obviously, and they have the same rights as anyone else. But would you want to have Downs&#39; Syndrome, or be a quadraplegic? Disabled people just have a more difficult life than everyone else. I don&#39;t think he was saying that disabled people shouldn&#39;t have been born—merely that drinking and drug abuse during pregnancy affect another person more than abortion does. Abortion ends life before it ever becomes conscious, whereas FAS directly affects a life that didn&#39;t need to be affected. Abortion is often life-saving to the woman (both literally and in terms of not forcing a person who isn&#39;t ready to become a parent to do so), but drinking during a pregnancy doesn&#39;t really do anything for a woman...

However, you could argue that giving birth to a disabled child is almost the same as killing a fetus, since there was never a time when it was conscious and not disabled. I can see the arguments for both sides.

[TC]

but drinking during a pregnancy doesn&#39;t really do anything for a woman...


What are you talking about? It does the same thing as it always does, improves their mood and helps them socialize :-p.


However, you could argue that giving birth to a disabled child is almost the same as killing a fetus, since there was never a time when it was conscious and not disabled.

I agree, someone born with a birth defect that their parents could have prevented had they chosen a different course of action before they were born, might be in an unfortunet position but wasn&#39;t injured by their parents as they didn&#39;t inflict any injury to them once they existed as a person. Its not someones responsibility to make sure that the collections cells and tissues they&#39;re carrying around ends up being the healthiest person possible anymore than it is for them to make it become a person at all.

But moreover theres no conclusive evidence at all that minimal alcohol will lead to FAS its just a paranoid thing to control and harrass people with.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

If I placed a bomb on a child, and it died at a later date, I would be considered a murderer. If I placed a bomb on a fetus, and a child died at a later date, I would not be a murderer? Genetic problems that are the direct result of alcohol or smoking while pregnant are caused by the mother. It is a form of abuse. If an action is preformed that does no harm to a child until a later date it is still considered a form of abuse. If you are committed to having a child, you cannot be abusive towards it. Women who want to smoke while pregnant can preregister for a damn abortion, but, in all other cases, they should be charged for child abuse.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 03:33 am

I agree, someone born with a birth defect that their parents could have prevented had they chosen a different course of action before they were born, might be in an unfortunet position but wasn&#39;t injured by their parents as they didn&#39;t inflict any injury to them once they existed as a person. Its not someones responsibility to make sure that the collections cells and tissues they&#39;re carrying around ends up being the healthiest person possible anymore than it is for them to make it become a person at all.

But moreover theres no conclusive evidence at all that minimal alcohol will lead to FAS its just a paranoid thing to control and harrass people with.
you are so disensitized.

it doesnt matters that the child hasnt gained consciousness yet, because he is really going to. One thing is aborting a ball of nerves before it becomes a child, and the other thing is fucking up a kid&#39;s life because of the mothers&#39; deliberate carelessness.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 03:33 am
But moreover theres no conclusive evidence at all that minimal alcohol will lead to FAS its just a paranoid thing to control and harrass people with.
lolz.

nasa faked the moon landings too.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 02:36 am
However, you could argue that giving birth to a disabled child is almost the same as killing a fetus, since there was never a time when it was conscious and not disabled. I can see the arguments for both sides.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? That people with disabilities arent concious or fully human? That is a horrible statement, equating the birth of somebody born with challenges to the killing of a foetus. Disabled people arent brain-dead vegetables, as your comments lead me to believe you think.

That arguement leads right into the arguement forsuch wonders as the T4 Euthanasia program.

[Kleng]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 23, 2006 04:36 pm
Essentially you&#39;re advocating institutionalized restrictions regarding what women can do to their own bodies, because such actions affect future humans. Guess what? That is the exact same line of reasoning used to justify anti-choice paternalism. Do you think that people would proclaim abortions to be murderous if they didn&#39;t involve the termination of a future human? Fuck no.

Who gives a shit if kids are born with deformities and mental handicaps if it comes at the cost of enslaving pregnant women?
You can&#39;t really compare that. Having to take care of a child at a point when you don&#39;t feel ready for it is a huge loss that will affect and possibly ruin the rest of your life. To quit drinking for 9 months is just a minor loss.

[chimx]

Originally posted by tragicclown
Its not someones responsibility to make sure that the collections cells and tissues they&#39;re carrying around ends up being the healthiest person possible anymore than it is for them to make it become a person at all.


i think you are confusing passive and active action in the development of the child. yes i would agree that it isn&#39;t a mother&#39;s responsibility to take her vitamins so as to assure the best growth of a fetus, but simply not taking vitaimins is passive. other examples can be living in polluted areas, improper eating habits, etc. this strikes me as quite different that actively ingesting chemicals knowing that it will have severe developmental consequences on a fetus that will persist when it becomes a person.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Kleng+October 31, 2006 02:20 pm--> (Kleng @ October 31, 2006 02:20 pm)
Dr. [email protected] 23, 2006 04:36 pm
Essentially you&#39;re advocating institutionalized restrictions regarding what women can do to their own bodies, because such actions affect future humans. Guess what? That is the exact same line of reasoning used to justify anti-choice paternalism. Do you think that people would proclaim abortions to be murderous if they didn&#39;t involve the termination of a future human? Fuck no.

Who gives a shit if kids are born with deformities and mental handicaps if it comes at the cost of enslaving pregnant women?
You can&#39;t really compare that. Having to take care of a child at a point when you don&#39;t feel ready for it is a huge loss that will affect and possibly ruin the rest of your life. To quit drinking for 9 months is just a minor loss. [/b]
So pregnant women should be told what decisions to make now? For their own good, of course. :lol:
STFU

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by chimx+October 31, 2006 02:40 pm--> (chimx @ October 31, 2006 02:40 pm)
tragicclown
Its not someones responsibility to make sure that the collections cells and tissues they&#39;re carrying around ends up being the healthiest person possible anymore than it is for them to make it become a person at all.


i think you are confusing passive and active action in the development of the child. yes i would agree that it isn&#39;t a mother&#39;s responsibility to take her vitamins so as to assure the best growth of a fetus, but simply not taking vitaimins is passive. other examples can be living in polluted areas, improper eating habits, etc. this strikes me as quite different that actively ingesting chemicals knowing that it will have severe developmental consequences on a fetus that will persist when it becomes a person. [/b]
TC pointed out that limited alcohol consumption cannot result in FAS. Obviously. Otherwise we would probably all have it. A pregnant friend who comes to your house and drinks a beer and smokes a ciggy isn&#39;t going to have a sick baby unless she does it often. It&#39;s certainly no reason to harrass her.

Regardless, it&#39;s nobody&#39;s place to restrict pregnant women&#39;s right just because they&#39;re pregnant. That is the ultimate in patriarchal authority.
Fetuses have no rights. This includes being born healthy.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Women who smoke or drink while pregnant should be charged with child endangerment and child abuse where the child ends up born with a specific problem that could&#39;ve resulted from smoking or drinking.

Again, smoking and drinking while pregnant puts a child at risk. In many cases, it hurts a child. The line of reasoning being presented here is the equivalent of putting a child in a running car and leaving. The child could die. It is child endangerment. The child won&#39;t die right away, but it might die.

[Noah]

I think that mothers should be educated on the risks to their to-be-born when they smoke, drink or are intoxicated and I think that the majority of the mothers who decided to keep their babies, want the best for them anyway and tend to give up smoking or the like while they are pregnant and until the baby gets older...I think those that don&#39;t should not be harrassed but more steps should be taken to portray the effects of doing such activities...I mean if the kid is born with a disability, the mother is also going to be affected hugely, disabled kids need alot of care; it&#39;s expensive, time consuming and stressful, you should just show pregnant mothers that by smoking or drinking you are affecting the to-be-born&#39;s quality of life and if the risk turn out to be positive, then the mother&#39;s as well&#33;

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by RZ
Regardless, it&#39;s nobody&#39;s place to restrict pregnant women&#39;s right just because they&#39;re pregnant. That is the ultimate in patriarchal authority.
Fetuses have no rights. This includes being born healthy.

That is one of the most moronic things anyone has ever posted in this forum.

Yes, fetuses have no rights, but CHILDREN do, if someone is playing on getting an abortion then what they do to the fetus is irrelevant, but if you plan on giving birth to a child it&#39;s lunacy to say that it doesnt matter what you do to it, once its born it&#39;s quality of life will be reduced by your actions, you dont have a &#39;right&#39; to give your child a drug addiction, dont be absurd. Drinking or smoking lightly will be probably not have much of an effect, but doin either of these regularly or to excess will harm the child, and should not be encouraged or recklessly ignored as you would propose.

[TC]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 04, 2006 12:17 pm

That is one of the most moronic things anyone has ever posted in this forum.

Yes, fetuses have no rights, but CHILDREN do, if someone is playing on getting an abortion then what they do to the fetus is irrelevant, but if you plan on giving birth to a child it&#39;s lunacy to say that it doesnt matter what you do to it, once its born it&#39;s quality of life will be reduced by your actions, you dont have a &#39;right&#39; to give your child a drug addiction, dont be absurd. Drinking or smoking lightly will be probably not have much of an effect, but doin either of these regularly or to excess will harm the child, and should not be encouraged or recklessly ignored as you would propose.
Children have rights, but hypothetical, nonexistant children do not.

When a child is born, they might have any number of inherent advantages or disadvantages, but they can&#39;t blame their parents for "harming them" because at the time they did not exist, and they would not exist otherwise.

To put it more simply, if you&#39;re pregnant and not getting an abortion for whatever reason, you&#39;re not responsible for the resulting child&#39;s health because there is no oprotunity to give it a better environment somewhere else, its existance is depedent on its circumstances and its circumstances predate its existance.

To say suggest that pregnant women should be punished for drinking while pregnant is like to suggest that blind women (from genetic caues) should be punished for having children at all thus endangering their children of blindness. How about fat women, they say thats genetic, the same logic would encourage people to charge them with &#39;child endangerment&#39; if they give birth and &#39;child abuse&#39; if their kids are fat. Naturally these people know that they put their hypothetical children at risk, but no one is suggesting that they be stoped...

Why?

Because no one can do anything with blind women and fat women&#39;s genetics but normal women who like to enjoy themselves can be controlled...which is what this is really about: paternalistic control over what people do with their own bodies.

[chimx]

what you listed were passive actions

[Noah]

Children have rights, but hypothetical, nonexistant children do not.

If the mother could not care about her to-be child&#39;s health or quality of life then how can she be trusted to take care of it when it is born?

The consequences of having a fat mother is no where near as serious as a mother who is on cocaine, heroine or alcohol ect.

Same with a blind woman, a blind woman is that way there is no way to make her condition better but someone who is putting alcohol or cocaine or the such before a to-be life that they have decided to keep is just stupid...

This isn&#39;t about control, or who is or isn&#39;t normal...Fat kids can lose weight with a good a diet and sport even if they were born fat&#33; But a kid with mental disability because their mother was too selfish and wreckless to think about her own child&#39;s quality of life is just crazy..You can never repair that...

But also just to make a last point, there are people who want to stop obese mothers having children until they are a healthy weight.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 06:29 pm
what you listed were passive actions
the passive/active distinction is something that bourgeois morality makes much of because it uses a lot of pop/psudo-philosophy to justify its conservatism. Really its more a matter of perspective.

I mean are you really saying that deciding to fuck someone while failing to use birth control and failing to use condoms is a "passive action", but failing to give up smoking and drinking is an &#39;active action&#39;. You think that not changing your basic normal lifestyle is to "actively" do something, but choosing to get pregnant and give birth is merely "passive"? That makes utterly no sense at all.


Except of course, as a paternalistic conservative justification for wanting to controll someone elses body.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 03:29 pm
what you listed were passive actions
So pregnant women ought not have the right to take active actions which could harm her future child?

I find it amusing that the anarchists are the ones telling people what to do.

[chimx]

lolz.

you said: "failing to give up"

if we are talking about serious alcoholics with a physical addiction that is entirely different. i am referring to people not "failing to give up", but those "actively pursuing" the ingestion of alcohol at the expense of their child in the future.

lets make this slightly more abstract for the sake of argument.

a woman gets pregnant. she takes chemical x. the only purpose of chemical x is to cause improper neurological development in the fetus, so that when the child is finally born, it will suffer extreme chronic pain due to chemical x.

its fucked up to allow a person to purposefully and knowingly inflict that kind of pain on a person. the fact that you call me a paternalistic conservative wanting to control someone else&#39;s body goes more to show your consistent hatred of children. your autonomous woman is enacting control over someone else&#39;s body--a human, once born, that will have to deal with the repercussions of its mothers downright stupid, selfish, and idiotic actions.

[chimx]

go log some old growth ass.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I asked a legitimate question.
Is all of the pro-choice stuff about women having autonomy over their bodies despite of dependent clumps of cells being affected just thrown out the window when it comes to this matter?

[Noah]

Is all of the pro-choice stuff about women having autonomy over their bodies despite of dependent clumps of cells being affected just thrown out the window when it comes to this matter?

Yes&#33;

When I say I am pro-choice, it is related to being pro-anyone-who-wants-an-abortion not pro-any-fucked-up-mother-who-refuses-abortion-and-fucks-up-her-baby..

Still..I really think this is a rare case, most mothers take certain measures to make sure their children will enter the world as healthy as possible...what they need is education, if a mother saw how handicapped (that&#39;s not an offensive word is it?) her child could be explicity, I&#39;m sure she would stop...and if she doesn&#39;t how can she be trusted to take care of her baby in the first place?

Especially if the child DOES turn out disabled, if she is that wreckless, she&#39;s never going to manage..Who&#39;s going to take care of it then?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If you don&#39;t surrender your rights to a clump of cells in your womb, you&#39;re a crummy mother. Of course&#33; Send the gestapo to take away the baby&#33;

[LSD]

I find it amusing that the anarchists are the ones telling people what to do.


Don&#39;t turn this into a Leninist vs. Anarchist thing. There are plenty of self-described "Marxists" who want to limit abortion.

It is somewhat hypocritical that "Anarchists" would propose bourgeois state action against "irresponsible mothers", but it&#39;s equally hypocritical that revolutionary "socialists" would do the same.


Women who smoke or drink while pregnant should be charged with child endangerment and child abuse where the child ends up born with a specific problem that could&#39;ve resulted from smoking or drinking.

What if it&#39;s something less "immoral" like perscription medication? Exactly how much of her life do you propose that pregnang women be forced to cede to their "unborn" (and therefore nonexistant) "child"?

Besides, the real question here, the one that everyone&#39;s avoiding is what happens if the child is injured in an attempted abortion? What if the mother tried to kill the foetus, she failed, and it gets born damaged?

Should she be charged then? With attempting to comit an action that if successful wouldn&#39;t have been a crime?

Seriously don&#39;t you people see how insane this proposal of yours is?


I think those that don&#39;t should not be harrassed but more steps should be taken to portray the effects of doing such activities

Fine, education is always a good thing and there is nothing wrong with making all the facts known.

But the state has absolutely no business getting involved with what a woman can or cannot do to her own body, regardless of whether or not her womb happens to be occupied at that time.


If the mother could not care about her to-be child&#39;s health or quality of life then how can she be trusted to take care of it when it is born?

Yeah and women who drink and have sex aren&#39;t going to be present for their children and they won&#39;t teach them propper moral values&#33; Single mothers too, since they don&#39;t have the time to raise children properly. Also mixed race kids are probably going to sufer racism so its irresponsible to have sex with anyone from a different race...

Oh, and lesbians obviously can&#39;t be trusted &#39;cause kids need male role models and also they&#39;ll just be having sex all day and riding motorcycles and you know that can&#39;t be good for kids....

<_<

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Fine. I&#39;ll admit that there is difficulty that comes with charging women who smoke and drink during pregnancy. Maybe it is totally impractical. However, the practice shouldn&#39;t be done.

Again, I have presented two analogies as to what is being done. A child is not being currently hurt, but actions are being taken that will put a child at risk or kill one. It is totally different from abortion, which just destroys a non-existent entity.

As for the failed abortion issue, I am not aware that abortions can fail unless there is some sort of restriction on what abortion techniques can be used.

[Hiero]

I don&#39;t think any serious Marxist would propose physically policing a woman during pregnancy. We have to look at smoking and drinknig while pregnant in the overall substance abuse problem in the working class. Which people keep failing to do. It is a bourgeois policy (the war on drugs) to penalize users, and does not create a viable soluton. In China with the opium problem, the solution was not more law enforcement. The solution was elevation of the proletariat out of an environment which makes opium favourable. This is the solution of substance abuse in the proletarait, education and class movement.

I think that both sides of the arguement have got it wrong. One side has take a very individualist rights, action without responsibility. Which fails to look at how class oppression increases substance abuse. The other side has taken a moral bourgeois stance and want more law enforcement. Which is completly impossible, look the war on drugs.

The Marxist solution is not telling woman what to do. It is to provide them with the education and environment that will allow them to make the healthy choice.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 11:50 pm
The Marxist solution is not telling woman what to do. It is to provide them with the education and environment that will allow them to make the healthy choice.
I think we can all agree with that. However, we are talking about child abuse here. Letting the women make a healthy choice is not an option when a child is being abused. I am certainly open to alternative arguments, but I have not been convinced that a women smoking while pregnant, who cases the deformity of her child, is not responsible for that deformity via child endangerment. At the very least, if the child is born, one should investigate whether or not the person is fit to be a parent (as many parents do slip up and endanger their child once in awhile). It should be treated like any other case and dealt with by child services.

Certainly, this position is much less extreme than the one I had earlier. However, I was not certain then as I am not certain now. I changed my mind. My polarized stance earlier was probably because of the attempt of individuals to compare this to abortion. Abortion is putting a future human being at risk. It is destroying cells. Smoking while pregnant if the pregnancy is going to occur does constitute child endangerment. The person was aware of what they were doing.

[OkaCrisis]

I think that what got misconstrued right from the start of this thread was that chminx&#39;s comments were about a form of social regulation, i.e. whether or not he and his friends should have made a comment to this women regarding her excessive drinking and smoking during pregnancy. He never posed the question of whether the woman should be charged or imprisoned (illiciting action from the state), only whether it would be wrong to &#39;harass the woman&#39; for potentially endangering the health of her fetus.

My answer to this question is, of course, no. I could tell her all I wanted about the harmful effects of her actions, and that&#39;s leaps and bounds away from calling the cops on her. The difference is that she could ignore me, walk away, and tell other people what an asshole I am. That&#39;s fine to me. I&#39;m not trying to control her actions, but trying to convince her to control them. She doesn&#39;t have to listen to me. That&#39;s the difference. I&#39;m not a cop, and I&#39;m not going to bust her ass, but I&#39;m a member of society who has an opinion, and if I think she should hear it then she will.

I harass people for littering and idling their cars because it&#39;s harmful to society and the environment. Equally I would harass someone for neglecting the potential health of a future human being. Nobody has to listen to me. I don&#39;t have that power, nor do I want it. But, equally, no one can stop me from voicing my opinion and attempting to convince a person to pursue a specific course of action (i.e. turning off their engines, throwing shit in a garbage can, or not getting wasted while pregnant).

It&#39;s not about whether it&#39;s a Marxist or an Anarchist thing to do. It&#39;s about being a member of a society where we all have to act responsibly to share and maintain it. A pregnant woman does have a responsibility to the health of her potential child. She could choose to ignore it, yes, but that does not mean that it (the responsibility) doesn&#39;t exist.

As a member of society with her, I have a right to remind her of that responsibility. But that&#39;s really all I can do.

[Physco Bitch]

Smoking and drinking during pregnacy is up to the woman how is pregnant, she should have the concience not to do such things to her child. As far as I am concered smoking and drinking is a choice open to anyone, and people shouldn&#39;t be forced into doing it. I smoke and drink, but if i go around to any friends house when their kids are there i will not smoke around them, it is not the childs choice to be breathing in smoke. As for the after effects, i have known a lot of woman how have both drunk and smoked a lot during pregnancy and their children are tall healthy human beings. I new one child how ended up with asthma, but i have asthma and my mother never smoked or drank while pregnant with me. Disabilities and illnesses do happen because of smoking and drinking, but a lot happen when the woman takes all the procautions and lives as heathly as suggested, those kind of things are also down to other causes as well.
I have known children how have downs syndrom , and it is nowhere in either of the parents history. People told them that it was because of dirty homes and taking the pill or even drugs (it was back in the sixties). Seen as these persons are very close to me i now it is neither of these factors, as the doctors told her - her son had just managed to get that gene himself. Things will happen either way, but i wish some woman would have a little more respect for the life they carry inside themselves, but i wouldn&#39;t lecture or row about it- I may say something but it is down to her if the baby is born with something wrong with it then it is her problem and fault. If you push people too badly they are more likely to do the thing more - it is best to just inform and hope that they do what is best.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by Freelanced+October 24, 2006 12:02 pm--> (Freelanced @ October 24, 2006 12:02 pm) As I had said,
How would the revolution have gone if Che Guevara had been born a crack baby, or with FAS?
I said nothing about abortion, I said if he had been born, the keyword there being born. and even if he hadn&#39;t, the Cuban revolution would not have been the same, and I believe that we can all agree that El Che had a positive on the outcome of the revolution in Cuba. [/b]
What an anti-materialist reading of history you have&#33; If Che hadn&#39;t been around then someone else would have taken his place. The Cuban revolution was going to happen with or without Che Guevara, peasant revolts in the Congo and Bolivia would have happened with or without Che Guevara.

No one individual makes a revolution.




Hiero
I don&#39;t think any serious Marxist would propose physically policing a woman during pregnancy. We have to look at smoking and drinknig while pregnant in the overall substance abuse problem in the working class. Which people keep failing to do. It is a bourgeois policy (the war on drugs) to penalize users, and does not create a viable soluton. In China with the opium problem, the solution was not more law enforcement. The solution was elevation of the proletariat out of an environment which makes opium favourable. This is the solution of substance abuse in the proletarait, education and class movement.

I think that both sides of the arguement have got it wrong. One side has take a very individualist rights, action without responsibility. Which fails to look at how class oppression increases substance abuse. The other side has taken a moral bourgeois stance and want more law enforcement. Which is completly impossible, look the war on drugs.

The Marxist solution is not telling woman what to do. It is to provide them with the education and environment that will allow them to make the healthy choice.


Very well stated.

[Le Libérer]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 03, 2006 03:09 pm
Women who smoke or drink while pregnant should be charged with child endangerment and child abuse where the child ends up born with a specific problem that could&#39;ve resulted from smoking or drinking.


Not according to the law. Only after a child is born can a parent be charged with abuse or neglect. I work as an investigator for child protection. Now if a mother comes in high on cocaine, gives birth and cocaine is in the baby&#39;s system, then you can charge abuse. The rule of thumb here is, the baby has to be born first.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Clarify this for me, please...
A mother can only be charged with child abuse if the mother was drugged at the moment? What if drug tests certify that she had been using drugs during the pregnancy? And the kid is fucked up because of it? No law suit?

Anyways, it&#39;s pretty sick to charge anyone with child abuse for consuming something.
But such is United States law.

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

The Party stands clearly with women at all times, especially with the fundamental right of abortion, without apologies.

However, the Party also understands and healthy babies are important. When the mother decides to have the child and not her right to abortion, she is under the moral obligation to take care of her womb as best as she is able.

What does this mean? No drinking, no smoking, no drug use: as it has been scientifically and medically proven that it affects the baby negatively. No comrade would want that. No what is called "hard sex" either. If you don&#39;t know what means or are too young, don&#39;t ask. The mother should take care of herself at all times but especially during the preganancy.

[Comrade Phil]

A pregnant woman should have the unquestionable right to abortion, but if she chooses to have the child, then she has an obligation to her community to maximize the possibility of giving birth to a healthy child. (The above statement would apply to a post-revolutionary society, I have no comment on the matter in our current society.)

In a post-revolutionary context, if a woman willingly decides to take the risk of harming her unborn child, then she is not doing what is best for the community. A disabled individual is just as much a human being as anyone else, but they may not be able to contribute to the community as effectively as if they not been born disabled. As a result of the mother&#39;s actions, the rest of community suffers because less work will be contributed, but the need will remain the same. Obviously, disabled individuals will be born into society, and they should supported by the commune regardless of how much they can contribute. Obviously, many disabled people can contribute in some way just as effectively as a non-disabled person, although some can not. If it is possible for the child to be born without disabilities, then all measures need to be taken to maintain that this is so (such as a pregnant woman not smoking or drinking).

I agree with you when you say that since an unborn child is not a human being, a pregnant woman has no responsibility to it specifically. I don&#39;t agree with you if you say that a pregnant woman has no responsibility to her community. A pregnant woman&#39;s communal responsibility to make sure that her child is born healthy (if she has chosen to give birth to the child) should be just as important as any individual’s communal responsibility to contribute through work of some form. It would not be about legislation, or obeying a set of morals, it would be about making sure the quality of life for all individuals living in the community is not decreased.

[YoungAndReckless]

[FONT=Arial]Well.. Just putting my opinion across.

I feel that, although its the womans choice whether she smokes or drink throughout her pregnancy, surely you should urge women not to?

This seems like common-sense surely, however i no many husbands, boyfriends and fiances that sit back and watch there partner smoke and drink till her hearts content. I&#39;m obviously not saying every friend, and partner of the woman does that, although i know some that do.

However, although personally i wouldn&#39;t take it upon myself to smoke or drink during a preganacy, whether or not i usually did before hand or not, it is still down to the choice of the woman and whether she feels it is moral or not to do so when she is expecting.

And as we all know, it&#39;s not healthy for the baby during the beginning or end of the pregancy, but, we also know, some babies are born perfectly healthy even though the mother smoked and drunk throughout. This, i suppose, is there only argument for doing so.


This is my first post so try not too be too harsh. :)

Gemmax.

[Brekisonphilous]

You can&#39;t make her do anything, but you can educate her on how big of a moron she is for poisoning her unborn child.

[Comrade Marcel]

I hardly think a beer and a smoke is going to be dangerous and any worse then the multitude of toxins everyone is exposed to daily.

In fact, I would say that beer in moderation would do some good, while if the smoking keeps her sane rather than nerve racked it might be better than going through the stress of trying to quit during pregnancy.

In short, chimx is an asshole who should mind his own.

[Comrade Marcel]

I hardly think a beer and a smoke is going to be dangerous and any worse then the multitude of toxins everyone is exposed to daily.

In fact, I would say that beer in moderation would do some good, while if the smoking keeps her sane rather than nerve racked it might be better than going through the stress of trying to quit during pregnancy.

In short, chimx is an asshole who should mind his own.