Should pregnant women be allowed to smoke/drink?

[Publius]

I ask this because I know this board contains quite a few ardent abortion supporters. My, I'm torn on supporting abortion. I follow the logic behind it, but it seems hopelessly arbitrary; do you mean to tell me that, in your heart of hearts, you don't think there's ANYTHING wrong with killing a third trimester fetus? Just like tying your sh oes?

Anyway, how can a supporter of abortion also oppose these measures; aren't the women only hurting something that isn't alive? Also, how do abortion supporters feel about laws against killing a fetus, as in, a drunk driver causes a wreck that forces a miscarriage; is that wrong, any more so than a normal car wreck is?

Either way you cut it you end up infringing on the rights and wants of some women: those who don't care about their fetus won't want any restrictions but those who intend on having the child would want legal protection. Is the solution to say "some fetuses are worth something ( a human life) and others aren't"? Is that even logically tenable?

Can anyone find any way out of this mess?

[Lynx]

The law recognizes the right of a woman to control her own body. This can be an unconditional right or a right with specified limitations.

[Publius]

The law recognizes the right of a woman to control her own body. This can be an unconditional right or a right with specified limitations.

So if a woman wants to, she can make her arm worth a life, since it's "her body", exactly like a fetus is?

If a fetus is "a part of a woman's body", then it's like an arm, correct? It's an appendage, no more, no less.

So can a woman who loses her arm in a car wreck press murder charges for "having her arm killed"? Can a man, for that matter?

One specified limitation is that you just can't declare something "worth a human life." Either it is or it isn't. If a woman can make her fetus a legal person, in some cases, then I should be able to make any part of my body a legal person, right? That's only fair...

[JazzRemington]

You can't force people to NOT do things to their body. The only thing one can do is to educate women about the side effects of smoking and drinking (even a moderate amount has been shown to have an effect on the fetus) and provide support for quiting, if they choose to.

[black magick hustla]

In dry terms, a fetus holds a biologically parasitcal relationship to women's body. It removes nutrients from the women's body, it causes all sorts of annoyancec and difficulties.

The case would be similar to that of siamese brothers, were one thrves at the expense of the other.

Women should have the ability to choose if they are willing to pass through this "difficulties" and "annoyances" or not.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)do you mean to tell me that, in your heart of hearts, you don't think there's ANYTHING wrong with killing a third trimester fetus? [/b]

No of course not; if you follow the logic of pro-choice arguments you should understand why this is an easy question to answer. Of course, that doesn't make such things comparable to winning the lottery or eating a freshly baked brownie, but so what? It is nevertheless important for women to have full control of their ovaries.


Publius

Just like tying your shoes?

Or performing a minor (but important) medical procedure.


anyway, how can a supporter of abortion also oppose these measures

Which measures?

Are you referring to the smoking/drinking thing?

You're being a bit imprecise with your phrasing here, are you asking 'how can a supporter of abortion also oppose pregnant women drinking/smoking?'

If so, i don't think there is a necessary correlation between those two positions.

I am pro-choice - this means that it is a womans choice whether she wishes to terminate her pregnancy or carry the foetus to term. Implied in this position is that i also oppose any attempts to interfere with this choice in any way. So if a pregnant women does wish to carry a foetus to term but nevertheless smokes or drinks at significant levels (that is a level which is commonly regarded as posing significant health/developmental risks for their future child) - they are free to do so, who knows? Maybe they will end up having an abortion anyway?

If they don't... well i certainly don't see the logic in such action - if you wish to give birth to the foetus, that is if you wish to have a child - why risk seriously damaging its health?

Nevertheless i do not agree that such people should be punished or reprimanded by the state or some authority - it her choice to do so. Though in that context i do not understand their actions.

The solution to the issue is education for people who do wish to have children once they become pregnant, not some kind of punitive or otherwise authoritarian response that effectively voids the control of a woman over her own body.



Also, how do abortion supporters feel about laws against killing a fetus, as in, a drunk driver causes a wreck that forces a miscarriage

No i don't think miscarriages are 'murder' - such laws make women potentially subject to prosecution by angry partners and families for 'manslaughter' or something equally ridiculous.

From a legal stand-point it seems to make little sense, how can someone be prosecuted for the 'murder' of a 'person' who is not born to this world? Or indeed, a 'person' who may very well never been born - perhaps the woman in the crash would have miscarried at a later date?




is that wrong, any more so than a normal car wreck is?

Of course it is different to a normal car wreck but only if the woman who miscarried intended to carry her pregnancy to term; in that instance i'm sure she would feel a deep loss, as if she lost a child.



but those who intend on having the child would want legal protection.

Do they? I was unaware of any significant female lobby for 'rights' for foetuses. Of course there is the so-called 'pro-life' movement, but they are not representative of most women or even people generally - who support the right to choose (well i'm speaking about the country in which i live).



Is the solution to say "some fetuses are worth something ( a human life) and others aren't"? Is that even logically tenable?

No; to do so would enable partners, families... anyone; to attempt to prosecute women who are pregnant but do wish to have an abortion - that is stripping away the right to choose.

I guess the sticky point you see here is consent? In the case of an abortion a woman is consenting to have the foetus terminated - in the case of an accident involving other parties or an assault on a woman who is pregnant and intends to give birth - no consent is given - so in effect you are injuring the woman. I don't think it is necessary to take this injury and project that it was infact a separate person who was injured and not the woman... to do so one must already accept that foetuses are people with rights to life (and thus the right not to be assaulted or killed). It's something of a backdoor argument for a 'prolife' position.

[Lynx]

I believe it is implicit that a woman's right to control her own body precludes there being rights for the fetus. If there are rights for the fetus, then the conflict is to decide which right overrides the other, in what circumstance.

The rights of a person can be curtailed however, if they are ruled mentally incompetent.

[Publius]

You can't force people to NOT do things to their body.

You can. The question is, should you?


The only thing one can do is to educate women about the side effects of smoking and drinking (even a moderate amount has been shown to have an effect on the fetus) and provide support for quiting, if they choose to.

That's not the only thing you can do. It might be the best thing to do, but it isn't the only thing.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:11 am
I ask this because I know this board contains quite a few ardent abortion supporters. My, I'm torn on supporting abortion. I follow the logic behind it, but it seems hopelessly arbitrary; do you mean to tell me that, in your heart of hearts, you don't think there's ANYTHING wrong with killing a third trimester fetus? Just like tying your sh oes?
This hyperbole doesn't help. Things are not divided into horrible crimes on one hand, and "tying your shoes" on the other. There are things that are difficult decisions; there are even things that may be "morally wrong", but should remain a right under any reasonable law.


Anyway, how can a supporter of abortion also oppose these measures; aren't the women only hurting something that isn't alive? Also, how do abortion supporters feel about laws against killing a fetus, as in, a drunk driver causes a wreck that forces a miscarriage; is that wrong, any more so than a normal car wreck is?

A car wreck can go from just material damage (which is a civil law issue, unless there is intent) to murder, with many intermediate possibilities. It is worse to crash your car into other people's car in order to kill them than to forget to check your breaks and cause a death because of that. It is worse to kill someone in a wreck than to make them permanently handicapped, which in turn is worse than breaking their leg, which is worse than just giving them a sore eye. Any reasonable law will put a miscarriage caused by imprudence, negligence, etc, of a third part, somewhere in its hierarchy of punishments.


Either way you cut it you end up infringing on the rights and wants of some women: those who don't care about their fetus won't want any restrictions but those who intend on having the child would want legal protection. Is the solution to say "some fetuses are worth something ( a human life) and others aren't"? Is that even logically tenable?

Some fetuses are worth something (that is definitely not a human life): those whose future mothers want to be born. What would the logical problem with this?

A woman who intends to have a child is protected by the law. Just because a woman can legally abort their own fetus doesn't mean that a third party can cause them a miscarriage without punishment. I see no problem here, just as there is no problem in the fact that I can demolish a house that I own, but nobody else can, without my consent.

Luís Henrique

[Publius]

In dry terms, a fetus holds a biologically parasitcal relationship to women's body. It removes nutrients from the women's body, it causes all sorts of annoyancec and difficulties.

The case would be similar to that of siamese brothers, were one thrves at the expense of the other.

Women should have the ability to choose if they are willing to pass through this "difficulties" and "annoyances" or not.


The question is, can they choose to poison their parasite? Obviously. Can they then choose to have it?

Isn't that a sick form of torture?

[pusher robot]

in the case of an accident involving other parties or an assault on a woman who is pregnant and intends to give birth - no consent is given - so in effect you are injuring the woman.

Yes, but the physical injury to the woman could only be classified as minor. After all,

In dry terms, a fetus holds a biologically parasitcal relationship to women's body. It removes nutrients from the women's body, it causes all sorts of annoyancec and difficulties.So the injury would be akin to removing a tapeworm against somebody's wishes. The fetus is not an integral part of a woman - it does not share her DNA, it is not an organ, it is in no way necessary for the woman's health or survival. But for some reason, the civil liability on a doctor who negligently kills a fetus is much higher than one that negligently kills a tapeworm.

Another example: if you punch somebody in the gut, that would ordinarily be a simple misdemeanor. If I punch a pregnant woman in the gut and as a consequence kill the fetus, do you think a simple misdemeanor is sufficient punishment? In your view, it's only a felony if great bodily harm is done to the mother. But all she would probably have is some bruises.


If there are rights for the fetus, then the conflict is to decide which right overrides the other, in what circumstance.

So what? Those kinds of conflicts arise ALL THE TIME with living people; somehow we find a way to resolve those conflicts. Are you arguing that it simply a matter of being too inconvenient?

How about the conflict between the rights of the members of a society to benefit from the fruits of their production and the rights of the retarded, incapacitated, and otherwise unproductive members of society birthed by irresponsible people to be nevertheless given the fruits of production? Does a woman have the right to impose any amount of additional burden on a society that she wants?

[Robespierre2.0]

Say, perhaps, that scientists discovered fetuses posessed consciousness. Would you still be for abortion?

I'm for women having the right to choose, but that's only because as far as I know, up to a certain point, fetuses are not alive. However, I don't think life begins exactly at the moment the fetus exits the uterus- often late in pregnancy, the woman can feel the fetus kicking and flailing around- I'd say the fetus can be considered 'alive' at this point.

Do you see what I'm getting at? We must determine exactly what can be classified as a 'living human'- anything that doesn't fall under that category can be removed our bodies without scruples, anything that does fall under that category should be allowed to keep developing.

[Publius]

No of course not; if you follow the logic of pro-choice arguments you should understand why this is an easy question to answer. Of course, that doesn't make such things comparable to winning the lottery or eating a freshly baked brownie, but so what? It is nevertheless important for women to have full control of their ovaries.

But when a fetus it is viable, it is, by definition, no longer dependent on its mother.



Which measures?

Are you referring to the smoking/drinking thing?

You're being a bit imprecise with your phrasing here, are you asking 'how can a supporter of abortion also oppose pregnant women drinking/smoking?'

If so, i don't think there is a necessary correlation between those two positions.

I am pro-choice - this means that it is a womans choice whether she wishes to terminate her pregnancy or carry the foetus to term. Implied in this position is that i also oppose any attempts to interfere with this choice in any way. So if a pregnant women does wish to carry a foetus to term but nevertheless smokes or drinks at significant levels (that is a level which is commonly regarded as posing significant health/developmental risks for their future child) - they are free to do so, who knows? Maybe they will end up having an abortion anyway?

We can only hope.



If they don't... well i certainly don't see the logic in such action - if you wish to give birth to the foetus, that is if you wish to have a child - why risk seriously damaging its health?

There are many, many irresponsible people in this world.



Nevertheless i do not agree that such people should be punished or reprimanded by the state or some authority - it her choice to do so. Though in that context i do not understand their actions.

The solution to the issue is education for people who do wish to have children once they become pregnant, not some kind of punitive or otherwise authoritarian response that effectively voids the control of a woman over her own body.

She's using "her body" to assault someone. As soon as that infant is born with major birth defects, it has been harmed irreparably.

And this is acceptable to you? It's no longer a "parasite" but it is now terribly disabled. I don't have a problem with the women harming a fetus; I have a problem with her harming a human being which, as I don't need to remind you, a fetus becomes.

Crack use would also be interesting to examine.



No i don't think miscarriages are 'murder' - such laws make women potentially subject to prosecution by angry partners and families for 'manslaughter' or something equally ridiculous.

It isn't just miscarriage, though. It's directly caused by someone else's actions.



From a legal stand-point it seems to make little sense, how can someone be prosecuted for the 'murder' of a 'person' who is not born to this world? Or indeed, a 'person' who may very well never been born - perhaps the woman in the crash would have miscarried at a later date?

Maybe if the murderer hadn't murdered Person X, Person X would have been hit by a bus 5 minutes later.



Of course it is different to a normal car wreck but only if the woman who miscarried intended to carry her pregnancy to term; in that instance i'm sure she would feel a deep loss, as if she lost a child.

Might she feel more loss because the person who did that to her is not being charged for murder of what she thought was a living person? I thought women had ultimate control over their bodies? And now you're telling them that their fetus isn't alive? How authoritarian.

Try to convince some women that their fetus isn't "a person." I guarantee that you'd find quite a few who wouldn't buy the argument and would always treat it as an infant. To those people it IS murder, and by treating it as such you are commiting an injustice (in their eyes.) So you seem to just ignore the rights and wants of women who have a different position on what a fetus is which is not provable. Is a fetus "alive"? In a sense. Is it a person? Well, since "legal person" is purely arbitrary and subjective, sure, if you want it to be.



Do they? I was unaware of any significant female lobby for 'rights' for foetuses. Of course there is the so-called 'pro-life' movement, but they are not representative of most women or even people generally - who support the right to choose (well i'm speaking about the country in which i live).

Well, I live in America, and so I know that there are many people here who think fetesus have rights.

Some pro-life loons were out in the campus lawn with a bunch of pictures of aborted fetuses, and there were quite a few girls in support of it.



No; to do so would enable partners, families... anyone; to attempt to prosecute women who are pregnant but do wish to have an abortion - that is stripping away the right to choose.

No, the key is that only the woman herself can decide.



I guess the sticky point you see here is consent? In the case of an abortion a woman is consenting to have the foetus terminated - in the case of an accident involving other parties or an assault on a woman who is pregnant and intends to give birth - no consent is given - so in effect you are injuring the woman.

Essentially.


I don't think it is necessary to take this injury and project that it was infact a separate person who was injured and not the woman... to do so one must already accept that foetuses are people with rights to life (and thus the right not to be assaulted or killed). It's something of a backdoor argument for a 'prolife' position.

It is, but I can't just ignore it if it's logically correct or logically compelling.

But see, we have a problem here. If by killing a fetus that a woman intended to have, you are injuring the women moreso than you would be injuring a woman who is not pregnant, you still run into difficulty, because this "extra injury" has to come from somewhere. And to the woman, if the injury results in a miscarriage she does not want, that is tantamount to murder, to her. Some women are (understandably) very attached to their parasites. Are they wrong?

[Led Zeppelin]

"Instead of warning pregnant women not to drink, I think female alcoholics ought to be told not to fuck." - George Carlin

[Publius]

Say, perhaps, that scientists discovered fetuses posessed consciousness. Would you still be for abortion?

Following their logic, they would have to be. A fetus is a "parasite" even if it's a conscious one.



I'm for women having the right to choose, but that's only because as far as I know, up to a certain point, fetuses are not alive.

I don't see, in what sense, a fetus, even a conceptus, could said to be "not alive."

The question is whether it's the type of "alive" we value (human) or the type we don't (insect or most animals.)


However, I don't think life begins exactly at the moment the fetus exits the uterus- often late in pregnancy, the woman can feel the fetus kicking and flailing around- I'd say the fetus can be considered 'alive' at this point.

I'd say that it can be. Now that doesn't mean we can't abort; I'm perfectly fine with early stage abortion. I can't reason to make it illegal.



Do you see what I'm getting at? We must determine exactly what can be classified as a 'living human'- anything that doesn't fall under that category can be removed our bodies without scruples, anything that does fall under that category should be allowed to keep developing.

This is the problem with regarding the fetus, rightly or wrongly, as a "parasite."

Because "parasite" doesn't mean "no right to life." People who collect government pensions for no good reason are "parasites", but we can't kill them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 28, 2007 03:23 pm
"Instead of warning pregnant women not to drink, I think female alcoholics ought to be told not to fuck." - George Carlin
Or to use contraception :rolleyes:

Tool.

[Dr Mindbender]

i dont think a pregnant woman should smoke or drink if she intends to have the baby. If she plans on having an abortion, well thats different... If the child has health complications or a reduced IQ in later life which can be proven to be a result of the mother's selfish indulgence then the child should be able to take her to court. This particular argument isnt about the woman's autonomy, its about responsible parenting.


Originally posted by Led Zeppelin

"Instead of warning pregnant women not to drink, I think female alcoholics ought to be told not to fuck." - George Carlin
I hope you dont mean this exclusively, and not to would-be fathers. <_< :rolleyes:

[Lynx]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 28, 2007 11:08 am

If there are rights for the fetus, then the conflict is to decide which right overrides the other, in what circumstance.
So what? Those kinds of conflicts arise ALL THE TIME with living people; somehow we find a way to resolve those conflicts. Are you arguing that it simply a matter of being too inconvenient?
I would argue that it makes no difference. Or would make no difference. In Canada, this conflict appears to be resolved, at least in the legal sense.


How about the conflict between the rights of the members of a society to benefit from the fruits of their production and the rights of the retarded, incapacitated, and otherwise unproductive members of society birthed by irresponsible people to be nevertheless given the fruits of production? Does a woman have the right to impose any amount of additional burden on a society that she wants?
No woman has that &#39;right&#39; because what you are describing is a consequence. One consequence out of many.

[pusher robot]

No woman has that &#39;right&#39; because what you are describing is a consequence. One consequence out of many.

Yes, I realize that. Obviously I&#39;m asking if every woman has a right to impose those consequences. What don&#39;t you understand about this question? Do you somehow believe that if something is a "consequence" then "rights" are inapplicable? What about the "consequence" of a bullet perforating your brain?


This particular argument isnt about the woman&#39;s autonomy, its about responsible parenting.
No, this argument is NOT about responsible parenting. There is no question about whether or not smoking, drinking, and taking crack is or is not responsible. The question is: given that some people are irresponsible and stupid, and will if unchecked do stupid and irresponsible things, what do you DO about it? Wishing the problem away is not an answer&#33;


If the child has health complications or a reduced IQ in later life which can be proven to be a result of the mother&#39;s selfish indulgence then the child should be able to take her to court.
I LOL&#39;ed at that&#33; What, exactly, do you think this would this accomplish? Assuming a communist society, she hasn&#39;t got any real assets to lose, or ability to pay judgments.

[lvleph]

It is a woman&#39;s body. End of argument.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot
I LOL&#39;ed at that&#33; What, exactly, do you think this would this accomplish? Assuming a communist society, she hasn&#39;t got any real assets to lose, or ability to pay judgments
I wasnt referring to jurisdiction of any specific ideaology, but if you could somehow reprimand an irresponsible mother like that then it would create an important precedence. Having your individual autonomy and behaving like an irresponsible fucktard are 2 very different things.
By the way, communism only deprives individuals of the opportunity to own the means of production, not, I repeat not their personal property. So theoretically even post revolution the child would still have assets to claim for.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:47 am


You can&#39;t force people to NOT do things to their body.

You can. The question is, should you?


The only thing one can do is to educate women about the side effects of smoking and drinking (even a moderate amount has been shown to have an effect on the fetus) and provide support for quiting, if they choose to.

That&#39;s not the only thing you can do. It might be the best thing to do, but it isn&#39;t the only thing.
OK, suppose you can force people to not do things to themselves. How would you enforce it? What are you going to do, have someone follow them around all hours of the day? Have them on some honor code? Install monitoring devices on them? None of this is effective because 1) its probably against whatever privacy laws are in effect in the country that the woman lives in and 2) even if it doesn&#39;t, there are hundreds of ways of getting around monitoring.

[pusher robot]

OK, suppose you can force people to not do things to themselves. How would you enforce it?Well, the obvious solution would be to threaten punishment for the behavior you wish to deter. I.e., make it a crime.


It is a woman&#39;s body. End of argument.Clearly, we are still arguing; therefore, you are wrong.

[Publius]

OK, suppose you can force people to not do things to themselves. How would you enforce it?

The same we enforce these sort of laws now.


What are you going to do, have someone follow them around all hours of the day? Have them on some honor code? Install monitoring devices on them? None of this is effective because 1) its probably against whatever privacy laws are in effect in the country that the woman lives in and 2) even if it doesn&#39;t, there are hundreds of ways of getting around monitoring.

There are hundreds of ways of getting around any law; does that mean that we should do away with laws against murder and rape just because some people commit the crime and get away with it?

This is terrible logic.

[JazzRemington]

would be to threaten punishment for the behavior you wish to deter. I.e., make it a crime.

Making something a crime historically has forced the act to go underground. Abortions, alcohol and illicit drug production, etc. are all evidence of this. You can&#39;t be that stupid to think that just because something is illegal it&#39;ll prevent people from doing it.

This doesn&#39;t explain how the law would be enforced. Making soemthing illegal and enforcing such law are to different things.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:11 pm


OK, suppose you can force people to not do things to themselves. How would you enforce it?

The same we enforce these sort of laws now.


What are you going to do, have someone follow them around all hours of the day? Have them on some honor code? Install monitoring devices on them? None of this is effective because 1) its probably against whatever privacy laws are in effect in the country that the woman lives in and 2) even if it doesn&#39;t, there are hundreds of ways of getting around monitoring.

There are hundreds of ways of getting around any law; does that mean that we should do away with laws against murder and rape just because some people commit the crime and get away with it?

This is terrible logic.
Except that we&#39;re talking about something that is done in the privacy of one&#39;s own home. If smoking while pregnant is made illegal, it&#39;ll most likely be done in one&#39;s own home. How would you enforce the law if this is the case? Go around and knock on doors asking people if they are pregnant and if they are smoking?

But your own logic is terrible becuase you don&#39;t seem to grasp the concept that if the law doesn&#39;t work try something else. Much research done by sociologists seems to indicate that if individuals are educated at a young age about what is wrong with, say, murder or rape they are less likely to do such things. This could work on women who smoke or drink while pregnant but I know for a fact that simply making what they do illegal won&#39;t do shit or won&#39;t be as effective as it should be. Period.

Besides, do you know how much evidence you leave behind if you rape or murder someone? What kind of evidence can be used to charge someone of smoking or drinking while pregnant that doesn&#39;t violate whatever their country&#39;s privacy laws are and can&#39;t be considered circumstantial?

[AGITprop]

i am fr pro choice and i do support women who chose to abort a pregnancy but i still think its killing a life. i believe tha a fetus s a life and it is kiling but it is the woman&#39;s choice. it is part o her body.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 28, 2007 03:19 pm

Yes, I realize that. Obviously I&#39;m asking if every woman has a right to impose those consequences. What don&#39;t you understand about this question?
Not every woman exercising her right will lead to the consequence you describe. The question to ask is what restriction can avoid the consequence in question? If I apply this restriction (to the actual right), what other consequences will this have?

You ask a question in isolation for which a solution (not an answer), can only come from a proposal that considers all consequences.

[pusher robot]

You ask a question in isolation for which a solution (not an answer), can only come from a proposal that considers all consequences.

Yes, and..? Has nobody considered all the consequences? If this simple question is too hard to answer then clearly communism is infeasible, because these kinds of questions will have to be answered.


How would you enforce the law if this is the case?

Law enforcement will be, as it usually is, mostly after-the-fact. Nobody can really stop you from killing someone if you are determined to do so. The laws against murder do provide for you to be punished after the fact. I would suppose that if it were determined that the child, once proven to be harmed, was harmed by the mother&#39;s negligent behavior, then she would receive some kind of punishment.

This sort of ties back to the thread about the point of punishment in criminal justice. Doesn&#39;t it strike you as unfair that a person could inflict such terrible harm and suffering on another person and not have to pay any penalty? Perhaps not, but I think you would be in the extreme minority in that case.

My own guess is that the lack of legal punishment combined with the burden imposed on society would create a huge social pressure against birthing defective children, similar to the social stigma against child rapists. Ancient Sparta had a very similar social stigma, and unfit children would be left to die.

[TC]

Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)Should pregnant women be allowed to smoke/drink?[/b]

This question could better be rephrased as "Do women&#39;s bodies become public property once they become pregnant?".

The answer is no.


Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius) I follow the logic behind it, but it seems hopelessly arbitrary; do you mean to tell me that, in your heart of hearts, you don&#39;t think there&#39;s ANYTHING wrong with killing a third trimester fetus? [/b]

Yes, absolutely nothing wrong. (except &#39;wrong&#39; in the sense that its better to cut out stage 1 cancer than treat stage 2 cancer)

Theres nothing "arbitrary" about this percisely because the true pro-choice position is completely consistent on this.


Originally posted by Publius
Just like tying your sh oes?

No of course not and you already know without needing to be told there is no comparison between getting an abortion and tying your shoes. Theres no comparison between getting a mole removed and tying your shoes.

Its more &#39;just like&#39; having an infected tooth extracted except more embarrasing and less painful...a routine, extremely common medical procedure to fix a medical problem that if ignored would cause exponentially more severe medical problems.

The question is why you have to take it to an absurd comparison, like tying a shoe, to try to get people to think "of course its not just like that" instead of using a more reasonable one where people would realize that the only difference was what personal emotional significance they attach to it.


Originally posted by Publius
Anyway, how can a supporter of abortion also oppose these measures; aren&#39;t the women only hurting something that isn&#39;t alive?

You seem confused, fetuses are very much alive (like tapeworms and kidneys&#33;). Thats also very irrelevant.


Originally posted by Publius
Also, how do abortion supporters feel about laws against killing a fetus, as in, a drunk driver causes a wreck that forces a miscarriage; is that wrong, any more so than a normal car wreck is?


Its more wrong than a car wreck which resulted in no injuries because it entails an injury to the woman carrying the fetus. If that woman wants the fetus, it also entails an emotional injury which could be grounds for a civil claim of emotional damage to the woman, but the fetus has no standing.



Originally posted by Publius
Either way you cut it you end up infringing on the rights and wants of some women: those who don&#39;t care about their fetus won&#39;t want any restrictions but those who intend on having the child would want legal protection. Is the solution to say "some fetuses are worth something ( a human life) and others aren&#39;t"? Is that even logically tenable?


Your "logical" confusion seems to come from the fact that you don&#39;t view women as people.

If you did, you would immediately recogize that whether someone is violated or not depends on whether they consent or not. Just like with sex, consent is the difference between it being a right and it being a violation of that right. Terminating a pregnancy voluntarily is a right, terminanting a pregnancy against the pregnant woman&#39;s wishes is a violation of her rights.

This would, again, be obvious if you believed women to be capable of human agency. Apparently you don&#39;t or you wouldn&#39;t be asking such a stupid question.



Originally posted by Publius
So if a woman wants to, she can make her arm worth a life, since it&#39;s "her body", exactly like a fetus is?


Uh, no, a fetus is never "worth a life." You&#39;re trying to refute an argument that no one is making.


Originally posted by JazzRemington
only thing one can do is to educate women about the side effects of smoking and drinking (even a moderate amount has been shown to have an effect on the fetus) and provide support for quiting, if they choose to.


Thats really untrue


But as the US sociologist Elizabeth Armstrong points out in her excellent book Conceiving Risk, Bearing Responsibility: Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and the Diagnosis of Moral Disorder, FAS is both very rare and not obviously caused simply by drinking (5). For example, ‘only about 5 per cent of children born to alcoholic women have FAS’. So even if you are an alcoholic, your baby has a 95 per cent chance of not getting Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. As Armstrong argues, ‘How can we reconcile this fact with claims that all pregnant women must avoid alcohol?’ We cannot, at least at the level of the science.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3422/

Its more propaganda to get women to think that they&#39;re baby making machines and not people.



Pusher [email protected]
Another example: if you punch somebody in the gut, that would ordinarily be a simple misdemeanor. If I punch a pregnant woman in the gut and as a consequence kill the fetus, do you think a simple misdemeanor is sufficient punishment? In your view, it&#39;s only a felony if great bodily harm is done to the mother. But all she would probably have is some bruises.

If you punched someone in the gut and a non-essential organ ruptured that would be more serious as well, so whats your point?


Popeosaurus Rex
Say, perhaps, that scientists discovered fetuses posessed consciousness. Would you still be for abortion?


Of course.


I&#39;m for women having the right to choose, but that&#39;s only because as far as I know, up to a certain point, fetuses are not alive.

Ovum and sperm are alive, fetuses are alive, unless they&#39;re dead.



Do you see what I&#39;m getting at?

Yes, you&#39;re anti-choice/pro-forced-pregnancy. We see what your&#39;e getting at


We must determine exactly what can be classified as a &#39;living human&#39;- anything that doesn&#39;t fall under that category can be removed our anything that does fall under that category should be allowed to keep developing.

That&#39;s the most meaningless and arbitrary claim. On a cellular level its always a living human, as is every bit of your body, on the level of being able to exercise personal rationality, humans don&#39;t become "persons" in that sense until they&#39;re maybe a year old. The relevant issue is not the status of the fetus but the status of the woman, whether you believe its acceptable to force an unwilling host to carry a fetus to term and go through childbirth or whether you believe pregnancy should be optional.

[Forward Union]

I am with the clown on this one.

Though I would add that while a pregnant woman should be allowed to do anything she wants with her own body, it&#39;s probably not for the better that she drinks and smokes (if she wants a healthy baby) and should be well-informed on the issue. And provided with help quitting any of the above substances should she want help.

[RGacky3]

What if she wants a messed up retarded baby? Just for kicks and giggles, on purpose, so she smokes and drinks just for that.

If your OK with that, how is it different than a mom beating a newborn to mess it up, seeing as the outcome is exactly the same?

[TC]

Originally posted by publius+--> (publius)
But when a fetus it is viable, it is, by definition, no longer dependent on its mother.[/b]

"viability" is popularly defined as "has a 1 in 10,000 chance of surviving in a neonatal intensive care unit."

In any case the issue is not whether a fetus is "viable" or "dependent" or not the issue is that it can&#39;t be removed intact without severely harming its host.


Originally posted by publius+--> (publius)
She&#39;s using "her body" to assault someone. As soon as that infant is born with major birth defects, it has been harmed irreparably.
[/b]

As stated earlier alcohol rarely causes birth defects even when consumed in large quantities,

but in any case its not assaulting someone because the someone in question does not exist at the time. If they end up with a decreased IQ they cannot claim to be deprived of a higher IQ since they never had it to begin with.

This is a bullshit argument intended to reduce pregnant women&#39;s status to that of an incubator by getting them to regulate their behavior accordingly. Its obviously inconsistent because no one ever argues that women with genetic risks shouldn&#39;t be allowed to reproduce. Plenty of couples will have a 25% chance of crippling birth defects, a far greater risk than anyone gets from drinking, and yet no one tells them they are "assaulting" their children with their bodies, precisely because theres no way for them to regulate their behavior so theres no incentive for misogynists to advocate it.


And this is acceptable to you? It&#39;s no longer a "parasite" but it is now terribly disabled. I don&#39;t have a problem with the women harming a fetus; I have a problem with her harming a human being which, as I don&#39;t need to remind you, a fetus becomes.

Crack use would also be interesting to examine.


Would a mother who gambles away her kid&#39;s inheretence before its born be responsible for paying it back? Of course not since it was never the kid&#39;s to begin with, it occurred before it existed as a concious entity so it experienced no injury. The same applies in this instance.


It isn&#39;t just miscarriage, though. It&#39;s directly caused by someone else&#39;s actions.


Lets examine why you don&#39;t want to prosecute women for miscarriages then. Do you deny involuntary manslaughter as a crime? If not then whats the difference?

Only because, again, the issue is not the status of the fetus at all but an essentially misogynist agenda. Theres no reason to prosecute miscarriages for the same reason why anti-choicer&#39;s dont want to prosecute rape victims for having abortions; because it doesn&#39;t serve to regulate women&#39;s sexual and reproductive behavior.



Might she feel more loss because the person who did that to her is not being charged for murder of what she thought was a living person? I thought women had ultimate control over their bodies? And now you&#39;re telling them that their fetus isn&#39;t alive? How authoritarian.

Having control of your own body doesn&#39;t entail being able to assign any penalty you like for injuries sustained by your body, that&#39;s freakishly obvious and you&#39;re clearly trying to belittle the point.


Try to convince some women that their fetus isn&#39;t "a person." I guarantee that you&#39;d find quite a few who wouldn&#39;t buy the argument and would always treat it as an infant.

The fact that many women, like many men, are stupid, is not relevant to this topic. Lots of women treat their dogs as infants too, lots of Christian women treat their teenagers as infants.


To those people it IS murder, and by treating it as such you are commiting an injustice (in their eyes.) So you seem to just ignore the rights and wants of women who have a different position on what a fetus is which is not provable. Is a fetus "alive"? In a sense. Is it a person? Well, since "legal person" is purely arbitrary and subjective, sure, if you want it to be.


Yes and how about all of the vegan women who think that eating a hamburger is murder and drinking cow&#39;s milk is rape? How about them? Do you see how stupid your argument is?



Well, I live in America, and so I know that there are many people here who think fetesus have rights.

Please. Republicans don&#39;t think children or teenagers or criminals or foreigners have rights. Its more like they believe that women don&#39;t have rights but they realize that its easier to stomach if they say that unconcious alien-shaped blobs that they couldn&#39;t give a damn about once they&#39;re born have "rights."


[email protected]

But see, we have a problem here. If by killing a fetus that a woman intended to have, you are injuring the women moreso than you would be injuring a woman who is not pregnant, you still run into difficulty, because this "extra injury" has to come from somewhere.

Obviously. How do you see that as a problem? Why is it so hard for you to see what a woman wants as a relevant part of the equation?




Ulster Socialist
If the child has health complications or a reduced IQ in later life which can be proven to be a result of the mother&#39;s selfish indulgence then the child should be able to take her to court. This particular argument isnt about the woman&#39;s autonomy, its about responsible parenting.


The child hasn&#39;t had "reduced" IQ because it never had a higher IQ to begin with, it didn&#39;t have any health complications which it didn&#39;t have from its onset. An entity cannot sue for "injuries" that predate its existence as a self-aware person. Otherwise every circumcised male could sue their parents and their parent&#39;s doctors for sexual battery.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 28, 2007 06:48 pm
Yes, and..? Has nobody considered all the consequences? If this simple question is too hard to answer then clearly communism is infeasible, because these kinds of questions will have to be answered.
If you want to know what was considered, study the law. Look for mention of women drinking and smoking during pregnancy. What does the law say in relation to that?
An actual trial involving a negligent pregnant woman would also provide an idea of where the law is on such matters.

Questions that need to be answered a priori by communism? I suggest a new thread or an existing one in OI or elsewhere.

[JazzRemington]

Law enforcement will be, as it usually is, mostly after-the-fact. Nobody can really stop you from killing someone if you are determined to do so. The laws against murder do provide for you to be punished after the fact. I would suppose that if it were determined that the child, once proven to be harmed, was harmed by the mother&#39;s negligent behavior, then she would receive some kind of punishment.

This sort of ties back to the thread about the point of punishment in criminal justice. Doesn&#39;t it strike you as unfair that a person could inflict such terrible harm and suffering on another person and not have to pay any penalty? Perhaps not, but I think you would be in the extreme minority in that case.

I&#39;m not talking about when or if there is punishment, but how one will enforce the law. Enforce the law. You can&#39;t enforce murder but after the fact, yes; however a murder scene is FILLED with evidence left behind. How would one enforce a law prohibiting smoking and drinking while pregnant before the baby is born, which would defeats the purpose of the law?


the burden imposed on society would create a huge social pressure against birthing defective children, similar to the social stigma against child rapists. Ancient Sparta had a very similar social stigma, and unfit children would be left to die.

Except that we aren&#39;t placing a stigma on birthing "unfit children." We&#39;re talking about simply educating women about why smoking and drinking during pregnancy is bad and offer resources if they want to quit. If anything, teh stigma would be on smoking and drinking while pregnant. While no one still can spy on her and watch her every minute, research in crime prevention seems to suggest that through education and offering structural support, one can eliminate crime. Why wouldn&#39;t the same be for preventing women from doing such things?

[pusher robot]

research in crime prevention seems to suggest that through education and offering structural support, one can eliminate crime.

Cite please, to anyone who thinks we can "eliminate crime." That is just silly. You are trying to wish the problem away so you don&#39;t have to address what to do with the theoretical criminals.


I&#39;m not talking about when or if there is punishment
Well I am and others are. If you don&#39;t want to address that then don&#39;t, but the point stands.



but how one will enforce the law. Enforce the law.
You seem to have a curious definition of "enforcement" which means "prior restraint." That is an atypical use, however. When we talk about "law enforcement" we are talking about investigation of already-committed acts and punishment for those acts. I am supposing that there would be signs of drug poisoning in a defective child that could be tested for.


How would one enforce a law prohibiting smoking and drinking while pregnant before the baby is born, which would defeats the purpose of the law?

Are you missing the point on purpose? As I already explained, criminal laws don&#39;t (just) prevent crime by physically preventing a criminal from breaking the law. They prevent people from committing crimes because they want to avoid the punishment. The punishment is a deterrent and that&#39;s how they reduce crime without prior restraint.



We&#39;re talking about simply educating women about why smoking and drinking during pregnancy is bad and offer resources if they want to quit.
Why do you insist on trying to dictate what we are talking about? As far as the OP is concerned, we are talking about what to do with someone who disregards education and common sense and does something arguably wrong anyways, something that objectively increases the burden on the rest of productive society without their input or consent.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by NoXion+November 28, 2007 06:17 pm--> (NoXion &#064; November 28, 2007 06:17 pm)
Led [email protected] 28, 2007 03:23 pm
"Instead of warning pregnant women not to drink, I think female alcoholics ought to be told not to fuck." - George Carlin
Or to use contraception :rolleyes:

Tool. [/b]
Carlin is a comedian. :rolleyes:

Moron.

[JazzRemington]

Cite please, to anyone who thinks we can "eliminate crime." That is just silly. You are trying to wish the problem away so you don&#39;t have to address what to do with the theoretical criminals.

"Ultimately, the best approach for reducing deliquency and crime would be prevention: to work with young people before they become juvenile offenders to help them establish family relationships, build self-esteem, choose a career, and get an education that will help them pursue that career." Diana Kendall, Sociology in Our Times, Instructor&#39;s Edition, 2nd Edition.

According to the Faculty of Social Sciences of the Unversity of Ottawa, various programs were tested that targeted youth and found that they, in addition to helping them stay in school, reduced youth arrests by between 65%-70%, depending on the program. Also, the Youth Inclusion program seems to have reduced overall crime in teh communities of the program by 16-17%. The first program, Quantum Opportunities, was used in 17 American cities and the other was usd in England and Wales.

http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/ipc/e...p?topic=quantum (http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/ipc/eng/proven_youth.asp?topic=quantum)

Also, some selections from the website pertaining to hwo they know the programs they feature work:


In 1999, the Montréal-based International Centre for the Prevention of Crime also conducted a comparative analysis of studies on factors linked to crime and the impacts of interventions targeting those factors, as well as several sources of recommendation. The report demonstrated that:

* Crime prevention is successful when entities that are able to address the multiple causes of crime - governments, social services, schools, parents, recreational organizations - are included in diagnosing and tackling the problem.

* Crime prevention provides substantial collateral social benefits, by supporting children and youth at risk to successfully complete school, seek gainful employment, and assume responsible parenting roles, for example.


In 1996, the United States Congress required the U.S. Department of Justice to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of over &#036;3 Billion spent annually in crime prevention grants throughout the U.S. Lawrence Sherman at the University of Maryland and his colleagues (Sherman et al. 1997 and 2002) reviewed more than 600 evaluations of programs intended to prevent crime. Their conclusions are based on strict and scientifically rigorous criteria, and show that:

* preventing crime before it happens is more cost-effective than adding police officers or incarcerating more offenders;

* scientific evaluations of several well-known programs (ex: police-led Neighbourhood Watch, drug abuse resistance education (D.A.R.E.), boot camps, and scared straight) show that they do not reduce crime; and

* scientific evaluations of a variety of strategies to support communities, families, and schools, as well as a number of situational approaches, have proven effective in significantly reducing crime.

http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/ipc/e..._do_we_know.asp (http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/ipc/eng/how_do_we_know.asp)

Admittedly the studies cited are old, but I don&#39;t have the time currently to look for any newer evidence. The point is that one cannot just arrest people and then dump them back in the streets after a period and expect them to not do whatever it was that got them arrested in the first place. Perhaps not eliminate, but works such as above tend to show that we can reduce crime substantially.


The punishment is a deterrent and that&#39;s how they reduce crime without prior restraint.

OK, can you provide me with evidence that punishment will always deter crime? Crime has gone down between 1973 and 2004, but that doesn&#39;t mean anything because it could be for a wide variety of reasons.


Why do you insist on trying to dictate what we are talking about? As far as the OP is concerned, we are talking about what to do with someone who disregards education and common sense and does something arguably wrong anyways, something that objectively increases the burden on the rest of productive society without their input or consent.

Why do you ignore the rest of my post that you quoted? I said if anything we&#39;re putting a stigma on smoking/drinking while pregnant, not on having a defective child (because it is possible to still have a defective child even if one does everything possible to provide a healthy environment for the fetus, though this does obviously reduce the chance).

[pusher robot]

I said if anything we&#39;re putting a stigma on smoking/drinking while pregnant

Right, well, you also said that women would just do it in private where no one would know, and also it seems that you wouldn&#39;t favor punishment after the fact. So, you are leaving people only with the option to make assumptions about the mother&#39;s behavior given the birth of a defective child.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 29, 2007 10:48 am

I said if anything we&#39;re putting a stigma on smoking/drinking while pregnant

Right, well, you also said that women would just do it in private where no one would know, and also it seems that you wouldn&#39;t favor punishment after the fact. So, you are leaving people only with the option to make assumptions about the mother&#39;s behavior given the birth of a defective child.
THat would most likely depend on if the woman wanted the child to begin with. If the woman didn&#39;t want the child, it would cause problems to try to punish her for doing something to something she didn&#39;t want. If she did want the child, then doing something to her wouldn&#39;t be as big a problem, but it would only be after the fact and would defeat the purpose of prevention. Seems shitty, but it&#39;s probably one of the better ways of dealing with this.

But, in regards to woman who wouldn&#39;t want to carry a child when pregnant: while in the womb, the fetus is a parasite (which is what many people who study sexuality also consider it because the way the fetus interacts with the mother is the exact same way a parasite interacts with its host). Thus smoking and drinking would only harm the parasite but make the host feel better (mild amounts of, say, alcohol has been shown to relax people but can also harm the fetus).

This would probably tie into abortion too, because if abortion is illegal then it could complicate people who don&#39;t want a parasite attached to them because they can&#39;t just abort it. What kind of person would punish someone for getting pregnant (some how), not wanting the thing, drinking/smoking, and then being punished for it? Especially if they can&#39;t abort.

[Publius]

Alright, I&#39;m sufficiently convinced of the validity of you arguments.

[LOTFW]

Generally what JazzRemington wrote.

But I don&#39;t see how you can write a rule about this. Who would police it? Who would be the one to ask a woman whether she were pregnant or fat, or simply just had a miscarriage?

What is a drink?

What about preventing a woman from walking in the inner city with dense smog and gasses?

What about keeping her from "working out too stressfully"?

What about not letting her ride in a car?

Let&#39;s make her stay in her house. Yeah, that will do it.

[spartan]

I think that if the woman plans on keeping the baby then by all means a doctor can advise her not do those things but at the end of the day it is the woman, who is carrying the baby&#39;s, choice on what she wants to do.

It isnt anyone elses choice.

[RevSkeptic]

What if she wants a messed up retarded baby? Just for kicks and giggles, on purpose, so she smokes and drinks just for that.

If your OK with that, how is it different than a mom beating a newborn to mess it up, seeing as the outcome is exactly the same?

Yes, I can imagine this kind of scenario happening particularly with the "logic" that some posters on this thread has shown.

abort christian babies :lol: (laughing at TragicClowns signature)

Well, either fetuses aren&#39;t babies which would make your signature nonsensical or they are potential babies which would make you a discriminating bigot against certain lineages of babies. So, tell me do you believe the "sins" of of the father should be visited on the children? Or in this case the fetus? So, what&#39;s the difference between eugenics and aborting the babies of religious fathers? Not that I&#39;m against aborting potentially unfit fetuses to prevent a long suffering life, but using your "logic" of fetuses belonging exclusively to the mother from the time of conception to birth makes the scenario as mentioned above not only possible, but inevitable for sadists like yourself. Not that you would really care about logic or rationality otherwise you would have known that many atheists originally came from religious families so religious belief has no correlation with genetics.

But, let&#39;s be fair. I support brain damaged kids of negligent drug addicted mothers taking a baseball bat to her skull for a few hits.