Should it be okay for women to smoke while pregnant?

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry, but the US environmental pollution is affecting not only one person, but a whole planet, including every child born on this planet. Still i think everybody would agree that it would be quiet idiotic to discuss if we should invent some laws to jail the citizens of the United States. No other country produces more pollution/citizen then the United States. So recording to you, the only right thing to do for you, would be to let yourself getting jailed by me, so i can ensure you cannot pollute my children anymore for useless consum sh**. I´d be happy ybout it but picture or it didn´t happen. ^^

Sorry, but it seems for me personally, that all that exreme topics are just about having fun being a fanatic. If you would really be interested in negative effects on children then you would not focus just on the topic "innocent unborn babies i, the paladin of USAria, sparkle in the dark" have to protect but on thousend of other things thats negative effecting children too. Capitalism, the food mafia, lousy school systems, the worldwide environmental politic leading to negative effects to all our children in the whole world, waste of ressources that belongs to our children, medical insurance depending on their parents income, social and advertisial pressure trying to force our children to bath in chemicals in cosmetica, wearing crippling shoes, being slaves of consume, depending their self esteem on being the best consume slave of all, killing our innerself through years of unnecessary hormon therapy, right now in this moment crippling the water reserves of the coming generations just to pull out more useless oil out of the earth, killing the corall riffs, main producer of plankton, which is the main food of everything living in the sea . And dont even try do discuss that topic with me, i´m engineer for environmental technique.

Actually, what we all are doing is making a gigantic piece of poo right on the heads of all our children, so gigantic, that we should train our children how to swim in sh** to prevent them from drowningt. And what for? I-Phones. Being the alpha chimp. *head -> desk"

So if you would really be thinking, that there should be laws to allow arresting people, causing negative effects on children, where are your petitions? Where is your scream out of outrage on all the negative effects we are all causing? Where is your demonstration for the arrest of george bush for ignoring the kyoto protocols? Sorry, but for me it seems you are just a hypocrite, pretending to be fanatically interested in other people but in reality just using random topics to grouse around to feel importance. Its not about any topic, its just about grousing and trolling.

I mena if you really meant your proposal, and just didnt mention it to troll around, so how did you think of controlling that law? Installing cameras in every private house? O_o Sorry, in europe i am supposed to be called conservative, but that lousy arguments, pretending to discuss when just sabbling around, its just overwhelming.

You WISH! Talk tough all you want, but you're not calling the shots around here kid.Even so, you're clearly losing the argument so now you're talking tough, but you still lose.




I may not have the right to control other people, but the STATE has the power to control people. I hope you understand the concept.

Don't care.

My consideration for the rights of "potential people" is limited at best.

......which is why I find discussions like this creepy.

There are many activities that could potentially cause "harm" to a fetus. There are also many circumstances that, while they may not be considered directly "harmful, are certainly not "ideal."

Where do we draw the line? Short of rounding pregnant women and forcing them into special camps where they can be monitored at all times to ensure that they don't do anything that could "harm" the fetus, I don't see how it's legally feasible without falling down a seriously slippery slope.

Don't care.

My consideration for the rights of "potential people" is limited at best.

Interestingly, I know of no laws in the U.S. which prohibit knowingly creating a diseased/deformed/ret*d/ect. fetus and carrying it to term.

There are many maladies and conditions that people are quite aware they have, and have a significant potential to be passed along to any offspring, but there are no legal ramifications for such people willfully creating children with a high probability to be born diseased/deformed/ret*d/ect. I can think of several real life examples of people doing precisely that.

If we're willing to pass laws to prohibit pregnant women from smoking and drinking because it might harm the "potential person," are we prepared to pass laws that say people with a high probability of producing a sick and/or malformed fetus are prohibited from breeding?

You've answered your own question.



Don't care.

My consideration for the rights of "potential people" is limited at best.



......which is why I find discussions like this creepy.

There are many activities that could potentially cause "harm" to a fetus. There are also many circumstances that, while they may not be considered directly "harmful, are certainly not "ideal."

Where do we draw the line? Short of rounding pregnant women and forcing them into special camps where they can be monitored at all times to ensure that they don't do anything that could "harm" the fetus, I don't see how it's legally feasible without falling down a seriously slippery slope.



Don't care.

My consideration for the rights of "potential people" is limited at best.



Interestingly, I know of no laws in the U.S. which prohibit knowingly creating a diseased/deformed/ret*d/ect. fetus and carrying it to term.

There are many maladies and conditions that people are quite aware they have, and have a significant potential to be passed along to any offspring, but there are no legal ramifications for such people willfully creating children with a high probability to be born diseased/deformed/ret*d/ect. I can think of several real life examples of people doing precisely that.

If we're willing to pass laws to prohibit pregnant women from smoking and drinking because it might harm the "potential person," are we prepared to pass laws that say people with a high probability of producing a sick and/or malformed fetus are prohibited from breeding?

Luckily for me and my fellow women, the majority of US citizens also agree with me.

I'm curious, AspieRogue; do you think that "the state," by whatever definition, should be able to force a woman to have a c-section against her will (as opposed to trying for a vaginal delivery) if the doctor says it is necessary for the health of the soon-to-be child? Should the state be able to force a woman to deliver in the hospital, vs. at home? Should the state be able to force the woman to receive injections that will start the production of surfactant in the fetus' lungs if she is expected to deliver early?
Should the state be able to force the woman to abort if, for example, she is diagnosed with cancer part-way through pregnancy and needs to take chemotherapy drugs? Should they be able to force her to abort if she's on antidepressants or other medically prescribed drugs?

@LKL: When I talk about the "state" in this context I am talking about Uncle Sam and not any State legislature! The reason you think that my ideas are extreme is because I happen to be stuck in a country founded on the naive and stupid idea that Freedumb is something that people are entitled to; not matter how stupid and destructive they are with how they make use of it.

That's why I'm not talking about potential people per se, I'm talking about the actual person that will be 5, 10, 20, 50 years down the line.

I'm not talking about solutions, and have not yet proposed one. I understand the slippery slope issue, and that's why I've refrained from it so far. I've stated at least twice that making laws about it would be unfeasible and undesirable.

Let's put a somewhat less abstract thought experiment then. If a knowingly pregnant woman eats a pill that will make her fetus blind and she knows it, then carries it to term and it grows to be an blind but otherwise healthy person, do you think the woman had the right to do that? Or that there was nothing wrong with what she did?

Some of the reasoning behind incest laws, and behind the taboo of incest in general, is that it increases the odds of having an unhealthy child.

And to talk a bit about solutions, well, it seems at the moment we're doing just fine. Pregnant woman who want to keep their baby usually take steps on their own to avoid causing it any harm, and there is a certain social pressure for doing that, and that's as good as it can get before getting the law involved, which again, is not desirable.

Since all of us own our own bodies each of us have the right to harm our own bodies (or contents thereof) as long as they do no harm to any other honest to goodness person.

-That- is the essence of Freedumb. If we all have the right to life then we have the right to death (suicide) and the right to damage ourselves.

ruveyn

just how much should a woman's freedom be subsumed by her potential role as a childbearer? And, if we can take away her freedom in these ways, why not take away her freedom to abort, as well?

Yeah, the government doesn't "own" my body, or any part of my body.

"Ownership" of another human being's body is slavery, and I don't consent to being a slave just because I was born with a uterus.

Society doesn't get to "vote" on what I do with my lungs, liver, or kidneys, and society certainly doesn't get to "vote" on what I do with my reproductive bits. As long as the little parasite is utilizing MY biological resources to sustain its existence, it exists solely at my discretion.

I could only imagine the outcry if the definition of "potential person" was expanded to include sperm, and testicles were officially declared to be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.

So my testicles and sperm belong to the government?!

They belong solely to you, which is the way it should be.

No it harms the child in the womb.