1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat then is this bleating of sheep in my ears?
IvanH: "Tell me, what are you trying to achieve by punishing a pregnant woman who either smokes or/and drinks ? ... and what punishment would you like to propose ?"
If you would answer these questions then we will be able to continue o ...[text shortened]... ? ... and what punishment would you like to propose, Nemesio ?"
-- 1 Samuel 15:14
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHow would you resolve the dilemma? Should the pregnant woman be free to smoke and drink up to the point of viability? Is drinking a smoking morally permissible as long as she intends to have an abortion before a certain stage of development?
What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears?
-- 1 Samuel 15:14
Is is morally permissible for society to prevent a pregnant woman from drinking and smoking because it could potentially harm the baby?
You usually give an interesting answer to these kinds of questions.
3 edits
Originally posted by ColettiShould the pregnant woman be free to smoke and drink up to the point of viability?
Should the pregnant woman be free to smoke and drink up to the point of viability? Is drinking a smoking morally permissible as long as she intends to have an abortion before a certain stage of development?
Is is morally permissible for ...[text shortened]... ou usually give an interesting answer to these kinds of questions.
This is the most difficult of the questions to answer, and is the only one that seems like a dilemma to me. On the one hand, the non-viable fetus has no rights. On the other, there will exist a viable fetus who, but for the fact that it had not yet attained its anticipated personhood, will be born in the same condition as if its rights had been violated subsequent to attaining personhood.
If I may present an analogy. Suppose you set a bomb to go off in what is currently an empty office building. However, you time the bomb to go off during the next business day. At the time of your action, no humans were affected. However, you could reasonably predict that along the subsequent timeline, your action would indeed eventually affect people who had rights. Have you violated any human rights by planting such a bomb?
Is drinking a smoking morally permissible as long as she intends to have an abortion before a certain stage of development?
If it's taken as given that the non-viable fetus has no rights, then it should be permissible to use substances as long as the fetus is aborted before viability.
No person will ever have his rights violated in this case.
Is is morally permissible for society to prevent a pregnant woman from drinking and smoking because it could potentially harm the baby?
I don't think the fact that it's potential rather than certain has much bearing.
For example, In the U.S., people are not allowed to drive while intoxicated,
even though they only have a greater potential, but not certainty, of
causing injury to others.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhy just smoking and drinking when there are any number of things a pregnant woman can do that increase the risk of health problems for the baby? I gave some examples: Overweight, bad diet, not exercising enough, etc. A woman on a softball team that I used to be a coach on insisted on continuing to play in the first few months of her pregnancy; should there have been a criminal law banning her from doing so? I see no principled way to ban some potentially harmful to the fetus behavior without severe restrictions on a women's personal freedom during pregnancy (and they'll tell you they're restricted enough).
[b]Should the pregnant woman be free to smoke and drink up to the point of viability?
This is the most difficult of the questions to answer, and is the only one that seems like a dilemma to me. On the one hand, the non-viable fetus has no rights. On the other, there will exist a viable fetus who, but for the fact that it had not yet attain ...[text shortened]... n though they only have a greater potential, but not certainty, of
causing injury to others.
[/b]
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThat's how the US does things now - prevention. But go back 10 or 20 years and drinking and driving was not considered a big deal unless someone got hurt. - I don't agree with this position because it implies it's okay to risk doing great harm to other people when you could easily prevent the risk.
I don't think the fact that it's potential rather than certain has much bearing.
For example, In the U.S., people are not allowed to drink while intoxicated,
even though they only have a greater potential, but not certainty, of
causing injury to others.
Originally posted by no1marauderNor do I, unfortunately.
I see no principled way to ban some potentially harmful to the fetus behavior without severe restrictions on a women's personal freedom during pregnancy (and they'll tell you they're restricted enough).
I think that all babies have a right to be born without Fetal Alchohol Syndrome.
I can't establish why to my own satisfaction.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Why just smoking and drinking when there are any number of things a pregnant woman can do that increase the risk of health problems for the baby? I gave some examples: Overweight, bad diet, not exercising enough, etc. A woman on a softball team that I used to be a coach on insisted on continuing to play in the first few months of her pregnancy; ...[text shortened]... a women's personal freedom during pregnancy (and they'll tell you they're restricted enough).
You're again presenting the notion of "freedom" as an idol. Everything has to make way for your false god, including unborn human beings.
You touch upon a fundamental issue regarding modern society, regarding the "New Ideology" that is emerging. The establishing of the "untouchability" of personal human freedom and the abolishing of the "untouchability" or the "Sanctity" of life. The former is being established at the expense of the latter ...... and please don't turn this into some strawman reasoning which states I do not value human freedom.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
If you would answer these questions then we will be able to continue our discussion.
I do not believe that, in a society that finds abortion permissible,
any penalties can be imposed upon a mother who behaves in this
fashion.
You find the stance of abortion impermissible (as you call it murder).
This is why my question to you regarding the pre-born child is totally
relevant and on-topic. You feel that this pre-born child is a person
entitled to all the rights and privileges I have. As such, you call
abortion murder.
There is an analogy between the concepts of 'abortion/infanticide'
and 'smoking while pregnant/child abuse.' This is why this discussion
is very much on topic.
If you want to call abortion 'murder,' then you are compelled to call
smoking while pregnant 'child abuse.' However, if you don't want to
penalize either abortion or smoking while pregnant with the same
penalties as 'murder' and 'child abuse' (respectively), then the terms
'murder' and 'child abuse' are simply rhetorical devices to compel
people to a position which is internally inconsistent.
"Tell me, what are you trying to achieve by punishing a pregnant woman who either smokes or/and drinks ? ... and what punishment would you like to propose, Nemesio ?"
Regarding question #2, I do not propose a punishment, therefore
question #1 is irrelevant.
Question: Do you feel that the penalties for pre-born murder should be the same as
infanticide? If not, why not? Please note that this discussion is directly relevant as
I explained above, because of its strong analagous properties.
Question: By smoking, is a woman 'abusing' her (unborn) child and, if so, should
she be punished for this abuse? And, if she should be punished, should her punishment
be commensurate with similar penalties for (post-partum) child abuse?
I look forward to your answers.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeGo stick it. Lockean fundamental rights theory ain't a "new ideology"; it's what the US is based on. Don't create a "strawman"? What are YOU doing; "freedom" v. "the Sanctity of Life"? If you don't agree with the fundamental principles that the US was founded on fine; but don't pretend they're anything "new". If you want a theocracy, you can hang out in Iran.
You're again presenting the notion of "freedom" as an idol. Everything has to make way for your false god, including unborn human beings.
You touch upon a fundamental issue regarding modern society, regarding the "New Ideology" that is emerging. The establishing of the "untouchability" of personal human freedom and the abolishing of the "unto ...[text shortened]... ase don't turn this into some strawman reasoning which states I do not value human freedom.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLet me ask you this, Doc.
Nor do I, unfortunately.
I think that all babies have a right to be born without Fetal Alchohol Syndrome.
I can't establish why to my own satisfaction.
We know definitively the deleterious effects of second-hand smoke.
The percentage increases of diseases from those who are regularly
exposed to it are astronomical and irrefutable.
Do you think that parents of born children should be legally
punished for not smoking outdoors? Does the child's right not to have
his/her risk of getting heart disease by about 30% and lung cancer
risk by 25% (Surgeon General's numbers for those exposed to
second-hand smoke; I have to imagine that the %s are higher in
children given their smaller lungs and constant exposure)?
This seems analagous to the drunk driving comparison. Driving drunk
increases the risk of bad things' occuring; so, too, does a parent
smoking indoors with an infant in the house.
Who's right is more precious: the right for the mother to smoke
indoors, or the right for the kid to not have an increased chance of a
variety of horrible diseases?
Any thoughts?
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "I do not believe that, in a society that finds abortion permissible,
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]If you would answer these questions then we will be able to continue our discussion.
I do not believe that, in a society that finds abortion permissible,
any penalties can be imposed upon a mo ...[text shortened]... um[/i]) child abuse?
I look forward to your answers.
Nemesio[/b]
any penalties can be imposed upon a mother who behaves in this
fashion."
I agree.
Nemesio: "This is why my question to you regarding the pre-born child is totally
relevant and on-topic."
I disagree.
Nemesio: "There is an analogy between the concepts of 'abortion/infanticide'
and 'smoking while pregnant/child abuse.' This is why this discussion
is very much on topic."
I strongly disagree.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Go stick it. Lockean fundamental rights theory ain't a "new ideology"; it's what the US is based on. Don't create a "strawman"? What are YOU doing; "freedom" v. "the Sanctity of Life"? If you don't agree with the fundamental principles that the US was founded on fine; but don't pretend they're anything "new". If you want a theocracy, you can hang out in Iran.
No1, I never ever called you stupid, please don't tempt me into doing it now. Your answer is simply not relevant in any way.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThen I will ask you this:
Nemesio: "I do not believe that, in a society that finds abortion permissible,
any penalties can be imposed upon a mother who behaves in this
fashion."
I agree.
Nemesio: "This is why my question to you regarding the pre-born child is totally
relevant and on-topic."
I disagree.
Nemesio: "There is an analogy between the concepts of 'abo ...[text shortened]... abuse.' This is why this discussion
is very much on topic."
I strongly disagree.
In the society that you prefer -- one that eschews the Culture of
Death and penalizes actions which contribute to it (such as making
abortion illegal) -- do you feel that a mother who smokes during her
pregnancy is committing a crime?
If yes, how would you label such a crime?
If yes to #1, what should the penalty for that crime be, assuming that
she performed it with reasonable knowledge of its implications?
Nemesio
P.S., Please note: three questions to be answered.