@kevcvs57 saidTo me, with the exception of rape and incest, she chose to become a mother when she let herself get pregnant. Libs, being quite liberal, think it is acceptable to give her more choices, about the baby, after that. So, she wanted a baby in her body, and you think it is OK for her to 'change her mind', and stop the beating heart. A distinctive example of liberals' disregard for that little life, while we conservatives actually regard the life.
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?
What is your take on my note above that one twin is still in the womb, while the other twin (child) is in a diaper 5 feet away. A child, or not?
@thelistener said"To me, with the exception of rape and incest, she chose to become a mother when she let herself get pregnant."
To me, with the exception of rape and incest, she chose to become a mother when she let herself get pregnant. Libs, being quite liberal, think it is acceptable to give her more choices, about the baby, after that. So, she wanted a baby in her body, and you think it is OK for her to 'change her mind', and stop the beating heart. A distinctive example of liberals' disrega ...[text shortened]... in is still in the womb, while the other twin (child) is in a diaper 5 feet away. A child, or not?
You're only 50 years behind with your thinking. With patience and access to information i am sure you will stay right where you are but maybe there is still hope for your children or grandchildren.
No woman who chooses to become a mother wants an abortion. Women who choose to have sex and become pregnant might. Sex was intended, pregnancy wasn't. You fossils still have trouble separating procreation and sex.
"So, she wanted a baby in her body, and you think it is OK for her to 'change her mind', and stop the beating heart"
Incidentally, that's quite correct. She does have the right to change her mind. It's her body. Just like you aren't required by law to donate a kidney to your child or parent or anyone the society deems you have a responsibility to, she shouldn't be forced to carry a pregnancy to term.
"A distinctive example of liberals' disregard for that little life, while we conservatives actually regard the life."
It's no more a life than a tumor is.
" What is your take on my note above that one twin is still in the womb, while the other twin (child) is in a diaper 5 feet away. A child, or not?:"
Not a single sane person has ever advocated a woman should be allowed to abort a 9 month pregnancy. You're being an ass again.
1 edit
@zahlanzi saidI completely disagree with that. Whether you consider the fetus a person or not is irrelevant here.
We advocate for a woman's right to abortion precisely because we don't consider the fetus its own person. If you start advocating for women being forbidden to engage in any activity that might endanger the fetus you are going back on the notion that the fetus is not a person and are claiming that not only it is one but its rights trump the woman's. Is that what you're saying?
I advocate for women's rights because they should be able to decide what to do with their own body. If they choose to *keep* a pregnancy and intend to give birth to the child, that changes things; the mother is now responsible for a human life and shouldn't engage in behaviors known to endanger a fetus.
Given that a fetus will become a person, the idea that a fetus is just a piece of garbage to discard at your own discretion no longer applies if the mother actually intends to give birth.
If she wants to terminate the pregnancy, fine. If she intends to give birth, that's a different matter and no child should be born with birth defects that were otherwise preventable. In cases where the mother intends to birth a child, she doesn't have a right to deliberate negligence.
"Where do we draw the line?"
Let doctors decide that.
@vivify saidHere's one list of environmental factors a pregnant woman might expose herself and her fetus to that might adversely impact a baby's health:
I completely disagree with that. Whether you consider the fetus a person or not is irrelevant here.
I advocate for women's rights because they should be able to decide what to do with their own body. If they choose to *keep* a pregnancy and intend to give birth to the child, that makes changes things; the mother is now responsible for a human life and shouldn't engage in ...[text shortened]... t have a right to deliberate negligence.
"Where do we draw the line?"
Let doctors decide that.
"Environmental factors which have been implicated in adverse pregnancy outcome include smoking, video display terminals, anesthetic gases, antineoplastic drugs and exposure to lead, selenium and inorganic mercury. Amongst these, cigarette smoking during pregnancy has been the leading environmental factor for adverse pregnancy outcome. Cigarette Smoking during pregnancy continues to be a significant public health concern. Maternal smoking during pregnancy has been associated with low birth weight( < 2500g) Mothers who smoke during pregnancy are twice likely to give birth to low birth weight infants. Similarly air pollution, pesticide exposure, stress have also been associated with low birth weight and preterm delivery. "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2795358/
How many of those do you want to leave to the discretion of elected officials to decide whether a woman should be punished in some way or another for exposing a fetus to possible health problems?
@no1marauder saidThis is a dumb post. You named factors a woman might not be able to avoid, like the environment, and compared that to drinking alcohol.
Here's one list of environmental factors a pregnant woman might expose herself and her fetus to that might adversely impact a baby's health:
"Environmental factors which have been implicated in adverse pregnancy outcome include smoking, video display terminals, anesthetic gases, antineoplastic drugs and exposure to lead, selenium and inorganic mercury. Amongst these, c ...[text shortened]... a woman should be punished in some way or another for exposing a fetus to possible health problems?
As the strawman king, you misquoted me. I said let doctors decide, not "elected officials".
1 edit
@vivify saidThey might be able to avoid some; they might not. You also ignored my second post which is just a variation on the same theme.
This is a dumb post. You named factors a woman might not be able to avoid, like the environment, and compared that to drinking alcohol.
As the strawman king, you misquoted me. I said let doctors decide, not "elected officials".
How exactly are these doctors going to "decide" something and then make binding rules on pregnant women? You are being disingenuous to the point of dishonesty; in case you forgot the question in your OP:
"Should it be legal for bars or restaurants to deny serving pregnant women alcohol?"
Elected officials, not doctors, decide what is legal and what is not.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidCigarettes are a different matter. The seller has no way to know if a woman intends to smoke them or not, unlike an establishment that serves alcohol like a bar or restaurant, where a woman orders a drink for herself.
They might be able to avoid some; they might not. You also ignored my second post which is just a variation on the same theme.
How exactly are these doctors going to "decide" something and then make binding rules on pregnant women?
How do you think laws requiring warnings on cigarettes came about? Because doctors decided they were health hazards. Use your head. Obviously, politicians listened to the decisions of doctors.
@vivify saidLaws came about because elected officials passed them.
Cigarettes are a different matter. The seller has no way to know if a woman intends to smoke them or not, unlike an establishment that serves alcohol like a bar or restaurant, where a woman orders a drink for herself.
How exactly are these doctors going to "decide" something and then make binding rules on pregnant women?
How do you think laws requiring warnings on cigarettes came about? Because doctors decided they were health hazards. Use your head.
Use your head.
@no1marauder saidYou missed my edit, but it doesn't matter. Obviously, politicians listened to the decisions of doctors. Doctors decided cigarettes were health hazards, politicians listened.
Laws came about because elected officials passed them.
Use your head.
Why does that need to be spelled out for you?
@vivify saidDoctors have decided that children of women under 20 or over 35 or who are obese when they are pregnant are of higher risk of various health conditions, some of which are quite serious.
Cigarettes are a different matter. The seller has no way to know if a woman intends to smoke them or not, unlike an establishment that serves alcohol like a bar or restaurant, where a woman orders a drink for herself.
How exactly are these doctors going to "decide" something and then make binding rules on pregnant women?
How do you think laws requiring warnings ...[text shortened]... y were health hazards. Use your head. Obviously, politicians listened to the decisions of doctors.
Given what the doctors have decided, should laws be passed banning women in such categories from having children?
1 edit
@vivify saidObviously they didn't listen to the extent your OP argument implies as they didn't ban sale of or use of cigarettes by pregnant women.
You missed my edit, but it doesn't matter. Obviously, politicians listened to the decisions of doctors. Doctors decided cigarettes were health hazards, politicians listened.
Why does that need to be spelled out for you?
A seller of cigarettes doesn't know whether someone under 21 is going to smoke the cigarettes but the law still bars them from selling them to such persons.
@no1marauder saidThe OP doesn't "imply" anything, it just asks a question. The OP is about place that serves drinks where a pregnant woman clearly orders one for herself.
Obviously they didn't listen to the extent your OP argument implies as they didn't ban sale of or use of cigarettes by pregnant women.
A seller of cigarettes doesn't know whether someone under 21 is going to smoke the cigarettes but the law still bars them from selling them to such persons.
It seems you believe that since cigarettes are legal for pregnant women to purchase, it shouldn't be legal to deny them drinks. Correct?
1 edit
@vivify saidNo, though the analysis is similar, my conclusion is not dependent on what elected officials decided vis-a-vis cigarettes and pregnant women. I stated my reasoning in the last post on the prior page:
The OP doesn't "imply" anything, it just asks a question. The OP is about place that serves drinks where a pregnant woman clearly orders one for herself.
It seems you believe that since cigarettes are legal for pregnant women to purchase, it shouldn't be legal to deny them drinks. Correct?
"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."
@thelistener saidyes
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!?!?!!?!??