Should pregnant women be denied alcohol?

@wolfgang59 said
yes

Wolf says that a twin who has been born, and is regarded as a child, has a brother still in the womb with his exact characteristics, status, etc who is not a child. This is a clear example of why folks like the Whodey person and few others have abandoned the forum, which, like Joe Biden, is an empty vessel of nonsense.

In my particularly case, of course, I can not see a way to respond to the Wolf person. Impossible. Somebody start a thread about Biden skipping a debate with Trump.

@no1marauder said
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."

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/alcohol-use.html

"There is no known safe amount of alcohol use during pregnancy or while trying to get pregnant. There is also no safe time during pregnancy to drink. All types of alcohol are equally harmful, including all wines and beer."

According to the CDC, the "logical line" may be at zero drinks.

If a law was made based on the CDC's conclusion that there is no safe time during pregnancy to drink, would you support letting businesses deny serving drinks to pregnant women?

@vivify said
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/alcohol-use.html

"There is no known safe amount of alcohol use during pregnancy or while trying to get pregnant. There is also no safe time during pregnancy to drink. All types of alcohol are equally harmful, including all wines and beer."

According to the CDC, the "logical line" may be at zero drinks.

If a law was made based on the C ...[text shortened]... ring pregnancy to drink, would you support letting businesses deny serving drinks to pregnant women?

Maybe you should read the whole post. I was talking about drawing a line between a pregnant woman's Behavior A which might cause health problems to a child and pregnant woman's Behaviors B, C, D ................................... Z which might cause health problems to a child.

I'm sure it's good advice from the CDC. But I've already told you I'm against any laws outlawing such behavior on such grounds or discriminating against pregnant woman for such reasons. I don't know what is unclear about the position I have stated.

@no1marauder said
Maybe you should read the whole post. I was talking about drawing a line between a pregnant woman's Behavior A which might cause health problems to a child and pregnant woman's Behaviors B, C, D ................................... Z which might cause health problems to a child.

I'm sure it's good advice from the CDC. But I've already told you I'm against any laws outl ...[text shortened]... inst pregnant woman for such reasons. I don't know what is unclear about the position I have stated.

You started your post with the "no logical line bit", so that seemed to be what you based the rest of your post on. So I posted this bit from the CDC showing that there is indeed a logical line, which seems to be at zero drinks, based on their "no safe time to drink" assessment for pregnant women.

Your comment about "behaviors" from B,C, D, etc., is irrelevant. This is specifically about alcohol. Trying to throw every possible unsafe activity for pregnant women into the mix only obfuscates things.

@vivify said
You started your post with the "no logical line bit", so that seemed to be what you based the rest of your post on. So I posted this bit from the CDC showing that there is indeed a logical line, which seems to be at zero drinks, based on their "no safe time to drink" assessment for pregnant women.

Your comment about "behaviors" from B,C, D, etc., is irrelevant. This is ...[text shortened]... ying to throw every possible unsafe activity for pregnant women into the mix only obfuscates things.

It's about establishing a limiting principle on State restrictions of the actions of persons who happen to be pregnant (which would, of course, be a subset of a debate about legitimate State power); something you seem incapable of discussing.

Such a discussion would be hardly "irrelevant" to the issue you introduced.

@no1marauder said
It's about establishing a limiting principle on State restrictions of the actions of persons who happen to be pregnant (which would, of course, be a subset of a debate about legitimate State power); something you seem incapable of discussing.

Such a discussion would be hardly "irrelevant" to the issue you introduced.

Your argument is basically "if it's legal to deny pregnant women alcohol then what about any/every conceivable other act harmful to pregnancies?"

In other words, a slippery slope argument.

@zahlanzi said
That's perhaps because it is a separate issue that doesn't have anything to do with this issue?

Are you claiming the fetus is an animal and this should be an animal abuse case? Are you claiming the fetus is someone's property and this should be a vandalism case?
Maybe the fetus is a river and dumping toxic waste (alcohol) in it is an environmental issue?
What are you ta ...[text shortened]... pregnant woman shouldn't imbibe alcohol other than the fact that the fetus is a person with rights?

I'm claiming that prohibiting harm against living things does not imply personhood of the living thing. Therefore this is false:

If you consider abortion ok because the child [fetus] doesn't exist as a person, then nothing the mother does until the child is considered a person can be held against her legally.

Killing animals is ok because the animal does not exist as a person*, but that does not mean you can torture them or mutilate them! Same principle holds for a fetus.

*e.g. Hunting, or when I had my dying cat anesthetized

@zahlanzi said
"To me, with the exception of rape and incest, she chose to become a mother when she let herself get pregnant."
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. Wome ...[text shortened]... as ever advocated a woman should be allowed to abort a 9 month pregnancy. You're being an ass again.

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!?!?!!?!?? - TheListener

Wolfgang59 Replied:

yes

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. - zahlanzi

?

Are you saying Wolfgang is insane ( I think its a given, but I would like to hear it from you directly ), or will you be retracting your statement?

@vivify said
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 changes things; the mother is now responsible for a human life and shouldn't engage in behavi ...[text shortened]... t have a right to deliberate negligence.

"Where do we draw the line?"

Let doctors decide that.

"I completely disagree with that. Whether you consider the fetus a person or not is irrelevant here."
I consider it is relevant. Because if you don't even consider the fetus a person, on what grounds do you aim to restrict a woman's freedom.

"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. "
The fetus doesn't magically become a human life just because the woman chooses to carry the pregnancy to term. The woman doesn't enter a contract . (with whom would she even? the non-person non-sentient fetus? with what is essentially a bundle of cells?)

"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. "
Exactly the argument pro-lifers use. The fetus will become a person, it has rights, it is life.

"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"
Drinking alcohol doesn't 100% lead to birth defects. It depends on chance and it depends on the amount. Are you going to be there to draw the line on how much and when a person can drink? I asked you before, what about eating mayonnaise. What about eating fish possibly containing mercury, again harmful to the child. Are you going to forbid the pregnant woman from eating them too? How? What punishment do you think appropriate for breaking said laws?


""Where do we draw the line?"

Let doctors decide that."

Doctors have already drawn the line. They however are trained in medicine, not law. Someone will have to make laws to enforce that line. Someone would have to set up punishments for those that cross that line. What would you think is fair? A fine for any pregnant woman caught drinking a glass of wine once a week? (which most gynecologists agree would not harm the fetus). Maybe setup surveillance to catch women drinking the second glass of wine? Maybe have informants willing to snitch on pregnant women who drink or eat raw eggs or don't take their recommended dosage of folic acid or miss a lamaze class. Why stop there, maybe we should setup monthly examinations on child care, if the woman doesn't know how to take care of the child surely it's just as harmful as drinking alcohol?

This is nanny state. The real kind, not the one the republican snowflakes whine about. This is you thinking you should make laws forcing women to do things one way. Once you go down this path, where would you stop? Do you stop at child birth or keep going? Surely any mother that doesn't have all natural blankets endangers the child? If she can't afford natural, no preservative, nutritious baby formula she is endangering her child? If she doesn't breast feed she also deserve to be punished because most doctors agree breastfeeding is good for the baby?

@vivify said
Your argument is basically "if it's legal to deny pregnant women alcohol then what about any/every conceivable other act harmful to pregnancies?"

In other words, a slippery slope argument.

No, because a "slippery slope argument" says:

The general idea here is that those opposed to the initial policy are not opposed to it on ethical or moral grounds. In itself the action is acceptable. But, they see passing the policy as taking a first step down a slippery slope, at the bottom of which is
something very ethically pernicious, or bad or wrong. Once you take the first step, the claim is, you'll slide unavoidably to the bottom. And so they argue that the first step should not be taken.

https://www.embl.de/aboutus/science_society/discussion/discussion_2004/ref14may04.pdf

That doesn't apply here. I've already said I oppose the proposal on its own lack of merits as an infringement on bodily sovereignty and invidious discrimination against pregnant women. You've failed to even address these points; one way you could do so would be to explain why this particular infringement should be allowable, but others which could use a similar rationale i.e. factors affecting the pregnant woman would lead to a higher risk of the child developing health problems - would be unacceptable.

What else is there to debate? Surely you didn't expect anyone to take the position that pregnant women should drink alcohol but you don't seem to want to offer a rationalization why the State should be in the business of banning such (or allowing private businesses to do so).

@vivify said
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".

"This is a dumb post."
Try to keep your cool. Argue first and let the audience decide that for themselves.

"You named factors a woman might not be able to avoid, like the environment,"
Sure she can. She could avoid going out. She could spend her life savings to ensure she is only surrounded by all natural products. She could move to a farm somewhere to have her child.

" I said let doctors decide, not "elected officials"."
Doctors cannot decide. They can only advise. Elected officials will have to create laws and punishments to enforce these guidelines if we would accept your point of view.

@vivify said
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.

"How do you think laws requiring warnings on cigarettes came about?"
Is that all? Fine, all bartenders should be required to tell a pregnant woman before serving her alcohol that 9 out of 10 doctors say pregnant women shouldn't drink alcohol. Would that be sufficient for you?

"Obviously, politicians listened to the decisions of doctors."
Ha!

@athousandyoung said
I'm claiming that prohibiting harm against living things does not imply personhood of the living thing. Therefore this is false:

If you consider abortion ok because the child [fetus] doesn't exist as a person, then nothing the mother does until the child is considered a person can be held against her legally.

Killing animals is ok because the anim ...[text shortened]... te them! Same principle holds for a fetus.

*e.g. Hunting, or when I had my dying cat anesthetized

Except you're forgetting that in the case of animal abuse, the human performs actions on another entity, actions that are harmful. A pregnant woman drinking alcohol is exercising her right to drink alcohol. A right that you wish to take away because it might hurt a bundle of cells taking vacancy inside her body, body which she is the sole owner of. She is performing actions on herself, actions she is entitled to, actions that are legal for any other human being, women and men.

If you don't establish that the fetus is a person that has rights, it is no more entitled to protection from the law than that woman's liver is. Or if you want to go the route of animal abuse, establish that the fetus is a species of animal. Maybe take it away and send it to a fetus farm, to be cared for by loving mothers instead of abusive ones. (/joke)

There are many things that the woman can do or avoid to ensure her pregnancy is taken to term successfully and even then there is no guarantee. To make laws on each and every one of those things is to effectively punish a woman with limiting her freedom because she chose to have a baby.

@zahlanzi said
Except you're forgetting that in the case of animal abuse, the human performs actions on another entity, actions that are harmful. A pregnant woman drinking alcohol is exercising her right to drink alcohol. A right that you wish to take away because it might hurt a bundle of cells taking vacancy inside her body, body which she is the sole owner of. She is performing actions ...[text shortened]... things is to effectively punish a woman with limiting her freedom because she chose to have a baby.

What is the argument? I have already proved, at Wolf’s expense, that the twin brother of a child inside a womb is a child, as is his twin brother outside the womb. Plain logic. I have also proven, by logic, that a woman who knows how to avoid pregnancy wants to get pregnant if she does not avoid pregnancy.

I see a poor person sitting on a porch everyday. Doing nothing. No work. Just sits. I would say he wants to be poor. Logic.

So what theheck are you gentlemen raving on about? Will Biden face up to Trump and tremble on a stage?

@thelistener said
Wolf says that a twin who has been born, and is regarded as a child, has a brother still in the womb with his exact characteristics, status, etc who is not a child.

No I did not.
Yet another idiot with reading difficulty.

You asked
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?

And I replied YES.