Should pregnant women be denied alcohol?

@wolfgang59 said
Should.
Talking about current legislation is irrelevant.

i am not talking about current legislation. I am talking about what future legislation you wish to make (if any) to enforce your idea that pregnant women should be denied alcohol and on what basis

@wolfgang59 said
That is a ridiculous stance.

If I say the Earth revolves around the sun, that is clear, but encorages speculation about other stars.

In fact it is difficult to think of a statement that does not open additional questions.

Perhaps you have one?

"If I say the Earth revolves around the sun, that is clear, but encorages speculation about other stars."
Bad analogy. This is a scientific fact. What we're talking about is a very debatable concept whose every details aren't resolved just in it's very short and simple statement.
You say pregnant women shouldn't be given alcohol. I asked you if you thought about the consequences.

"In fact it is difficult to think of a statement that does not open additional questions."
You're missing the point. There are statements that are clear in themselves and just lead you to inquire further on related subjects. And there are statements that cannot be solved themselves because there are hanging subjects.
"Earth revolves around the sun" is clear. I know what earth is, i know what the sun is and i know what revolution means. I don't have to debate whether the earth revolves around the sun or not, i don't have to make the earth revolve around the sun, it already does. And i don't have to think about establishing a fine or jail sentence for Earth if it one day refuses to revolve around the sun.

"All humans from now on are required to wear a yellow suit on their way to work". Is this clear? Where would those suits be procured? Why yellow? What about unemployed humans? Will there be tiny suits for children? Does school qualify as work?

And last but not least, what laws do you plan on making to enforce this?

@zahlanzi said
What we're talking about is a very debatable concept whose every details aren't resolved just in it's very short and simple statement.

This is the post you claim is unclear.
Abortion is before the child has come into existence.
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome will adversely affect the child all its life.

Which sentence is unclear to you?

@wolfgang59 said
This is the post you claim is unclear.
Abortion is before the child has come into existence.
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome will adversely affect the child all its life.

Which sentence is unclear to you?

already answered it, you haven't addressed it yet except to declare "the legality is irrelevant".

Here was my response so you don't have to look for it:

"The woman drinking is also before it has come into existence. If you consider abortion ok because the child doesn't exist as a person, then nothing the mother does until the child is considered a person can be held against her legally.

Is the fetus a person or is it not. The conservative right's entire argument against abortion is that the fetus will grow up into a person and it should be given the same protections one would give a child, to the detriment of the mother's rights. By considering the fetus will eventually grow into a child which has been harmed by the mother's alcohol consumption you are basically supporting the conservative right to make the case that abortion should also be considered as harmful to the very real human being that is a fetus."

@zahlanzi said
i am not talking about current legislation. I am talking about what future legislation you wish to make (if any) to enforce your idea that pregnant women should be denied alcohol and on what basis

You are completely bonkers and apparently unable to follow a conversation.

Where have I said I wish to make future legislation?

Where have I had the idea that pregnant women should be denied alcohol?

What could have been an interesting discussion has been derailed
by the inability of yourself and others to understand the simplest of
sentences. Instead you (and others) simply assume what is in the
minds of others. Try reading ... and I don't mean mind-reading!

@wolfgang59 said
You are completely bonkers and apparently unable to follow a conversation.

Where have I said I wish to make future legislation?

Where have I had the idea that pregnant women should be denied alcohol?

What could have been an interesting discussion has been derailed
by the inability of yourself and others to understand the simplest of
sentences. Instead you (and ...[text shortened]... hers) simply assume what is in the
minds of others. Try reading ... and I don't mean mind-reading!

"You are completely bonkers and apparently unable to follow a conversation."
Rude. Maybe i should stop treating you as a person and treat you more as an average joe

"Where have I said I wish to make future legislation?"
Like i said before, without legislation you can't enforce this. You can't stop pregnant women from being served alcohol and anyone refusing to do that can and will be sued for discrimination. Without discussing legislation this is meaningless. Yes, everybody agrees pregnant women shouldn't drink alcohol. What do you plan to do about it to move from a "shouldn't" to a "can't".


"Where have I had the idea that pregnant women should be denied alcohol?"
Huh? Wtf are you talking about? You just said that

"@zahlanzi said
Should pregnant women be denied alcohol? If yes, you need to make a law about it. If no, you need to make a law about it.
[You] Should."


"What could have been an interesting discussion has been derailed
by the inability of yourself and others to understand the simplest of
sentences. Instead you (and others) simply assume what is in the
minds of others. Try reading ... and I don't mean mind-reading!"
You keep declaring things without supporting them in any way. Are you just lazy? Or you don't actually have arguments.

Let's make it simple: Do you support making it illegal for pregnant women to be served alcohol?

@zahlanzi said
Let's make it simple: Do you support making it illegal for pregnant women to be served alcohol?

No. Try reading my first post in this thread. 😵

@wolfgang59 said
No. Try reading my first post in this thread. 😵

Good, then there is nothing more to discuss.

You have an idea but with no way to get to it. Kind of like me thinking there shouldn't be any poverty in the world.

@wolfgang59 said
It was conservatives telling gay people they could not have sex.
It was conservatives saying women should not vote.

It is the right-wing that wants to tell people what they can't do.
Liberals give people rights.

Contrare', I am saying the GOVT made the law about sodomy, and so on, so it was libs and Cons that made the law,,,,thus, the government. In tlday's world, liberals absolutely love government control

@wolfgang59 said
This is the post you claim is unclear.
Abortion is before the child has come into existence.
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome will adversely affect the child all its life.

Which sentence is unclear to you?

Definitely, the first sentence. If I am a twin, and my brother was born on Monday, as a child, but I was not born until Saturday, 5 days later, was I a child during those 5 extra days in the womb? My brother is in a crib 5 feet away in the nursery, I am in the womb........He is a child, but I am NOT!?!?!!?!??

@wolfgang59 said
It was conservatives telling gay people they could not have sex.
It was conservatives saying women should not vote.

It is the right-wing that wants to tell people what they can't do.
Liberals give people rights.

This is amazing. Liberal people give people rights? We conservatives are quite sure that liberals want to take away liberty ..... If you want more government control; (See definition of Liberals anywhere), then you want to take away liberty. What a heck of a conflict.

And you think liberals are progressive? You are anything but. Libs do nothing. Neither Biden himself, nor Bernie, have ever progressed to anything. Trump (not to get political) 'progressed' about 100 times, look it up. Obama did little to help the black people. Sorry....thnk I am off-subject!

@wolfgang59 said
Good - we both don't believe in fairies.
Now ...
Why do you think zahlannzi is my buddy?

You are being unnecessarily criptic...

So I don't have to read your mind: We have different belief sets. The natural question is does there exist any intersection of said beliefs or not? If you are of the position that a child can be partially born and executed ( like zahlannzi ) we can just stop talking.

@thelistener said
This is amazing. Liberal people give people rights? We conservatives are quite sure that liberals want to take away liberty ..... If you want more government control; (See definition of Liberals anywhere), then you want to take away liberty. What a heck of a conflict.

And you think liberals are progressive? You are anything but. Libs do nothing. Neither Biden hims ...[text shortened]... 100 times, look it up. Obama did little to help the black people. Sorry....thnk I am off-subject!

This is a discussion about whether women should have agency over their own bodies and freedom to choose whether or not they become mothers.
These are freedoms they’ve had to wrestle from conservatives and which are constantly under threat from them.
But you think liberals are control freaks whilst conservatives are all about personal freedoms. Any idea how ridiculous a stance that is?

@kevcvs57 said
This is a discussion about whether women should have agency over their own bodies and freedom to choose whether or not they become mothers.
These are freedoms they’ve had to wrestle from conservatives and which are constantly under threat from them.
But you think liberals are control freaks whilst conservatives are all about personal freedoms. Any idea how ridiculous a stance that is?

Actually, this is a discussion about whether those mothers who "choose" to have children have the right to intentionally mentally handicap them or not.

Personally, I don't think a law needs to be made. I just think the conversation is pretty disturbing. The amount of women that would actually do this kind of thing to a baby they intend to keep is next to nil.

If they are going to have an abortion from the start, I guess it is irrelevant whether or not they damage the child.

@vivify said
That's a completely different issue. Terminating a pregnancy isn't the same as potentially giving birth to a child with physical problems that could last it's entire life.

A woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy; does that mean she also has the right cause her child to have birth defects?

There are many things a pregnant woman can do or decide not to do that might have potential physical consequences for the fetus she is carrying.

There is no logical place to draw a line limiting her behavior, at least prior to fetal viability. Therefore, the State and publicly regulated businesses shouldn't be allowed to infringe on her bodily sovereignty in such a discriminatory manner.