28 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI say it makes not difference in this case because the personhood of a baby postpartum (after birth) is not disputed. And the damage is present in the child. 'When' the harm was done does not change the damage is real. What the status of the child is at the time is one step further removed from what is under consideration.
It depends on if you think "personhood" is something we should value. I don't value it directly and I don't see any reason I would indirectly, though it's possible I could be persuaded otherwise in the latter case.
An aborted fetus is not a postpartum baby - and we need only concern ourselves with the born baby and what damage has been done to that baby - and if that damage can be regarded as child abuse.
(I'm giving you pro-choicers a logical out. )
28 Apr 05
Originally posted by Nyxie
I mean what I say.
You changed no1's quote to "one think's is right". How could we judge them against what they thought, and how could you prove it?
I do not want to judge anybody. What I am talking about is the morality of pregnant women smoking and drinking.
I have no intention of punishing anybody. This is the direction in which No1 and Nemesio is trying to stear the debate with me. I don't want to go there. My answer to the original question of this thread is "no".
You cannot read anybodies mind. You cannot read a women's mind.
However we can establish whether it is bad for an unborn child if his mother smokes or drinks. There have been enough serious scientific research projects which confirm this fact without any doubt.
The freedom of a woman lies in the possibility to chose what is right. In this case to chose what is right for her unborn child. This is a mature understanding of what constitutes freedom.
If you want to describe freedom simply as "doing what you want", then this is an immature childlike interpretation of freedom. Freedom cannot be true freedom without seriously considering the responsabilities you have towards others and towards yourself.
That's why I say:
Freedom is not doing what you want, but freedom is doing what is right.
28 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf you want to limit yourself to merely trying to persuade pregnant woman to act in a certain way, I have no problem with that. One would hope that that wouldn't include standing outside a Planned Parenthood screaming at woman going into the building (usually for birth control devices or counselling) "Don't kill your baby" as those people are generally considered a**holes, but hey it's a immaturely free country.
I do not want to judge anybody. What I am talking about is the morality of pregnant women smoking and drinking.
I have no intention of punishing anybody. This is the direction in which No1 and Nemesio is trying to stear the debate with me. I don't want to go there. My answer to the original question of this thread is "no".
You cannot read anybo ...[text shortened]... t's why I say:
Freedom is not doing what you want, but freedom is doing what is right.
But the premise of this thread and of anti-abortionists in the US is that they want the State to pass criminal laws punishing pregnant woman for certain behaviors. These types of laws would be severe restrictions on a woman's freedom. What is "right" or not is best decided by the invididual involved so long as it doesn't restrict others. What these groups want to do is impose their definition of "right" on unwilling others. This is not freedom, but coercion. Thus, your phrase is still Orwellian in my view.
28 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1, stop equating me with certain groups in the United States. I am not their spokesperson nor do I intend of becoming one.
If you want to limit yourself to merely trying to persuade pregnant woman to act in a certain way, I have no problem with that. One would hope that that wouldn't include standing outside a Planned Parenthood screaming at woman ...[text shortened]... om, but coercion. Thus, your phrase is still Orwellian in my view.
No1: "But the premise of this thread and of anti-abortionists in the US is that they want the State to pass criminal laws punishing pregnant woman for certain behaviors."
What are those behaviours ? Can you give one or two relevant links about this issue ?
28 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYou've given a very considered response, #1 and given me (us?)
Analysis of the language of child abuse and neglect laws only take you so far. The answer to your first question is basically "no"; the State doesn't have a "responsibility" to protect children. The most important concept that I tried to bring up is that the State itself is only another way to say what a group of individuals judgment is. Do y ...[text shortened]... tarved, sexually molested, etc. but I do not support the vague concept that you expressed above.
a lot to think about.
You wrote: I see no way that such a law will not be enforced in an arbitrary manner. And I do not see that it is the State's (i.e. the collective "us"😉 concern or competent sphere to determine that every child is properly raised by some indeterminate standard.
Let's return to the example of drunk driving. The BAC of .10 (which,
I believe, is a rather national standard) is an arbitrary one. I know
many people who, after one or two beers, would be utterly
incapacitated (but only have a BAC of .04). However, I know a few
people who, after many, many beers have such a tolerance that their
motor skills are only moderately affected.
In this case, the State has established an arbitrary standard, yet I
would imagine that you support drunk driving laws. Why are some
arbitrary laws permissible in your mind, but not others?
What it seems to me that the State has done is said that, for the
most part, it is clear that people in general have a significantly
diminished capacity to drive and pose a rise to others, therefore we
will set our maximum BAC at .10. Consequently, a person's right to
drive while drunk is less valuable than another innocent person's right
to have no drunk drivers on the road.
I do not see how this is different than saying: it is clear that children
in general will have a signficantly decreased quality of life if
they are exposed to second-hand smoke, therefore people may not
smoke inside the house with children present. Consequently, a
person's right to smoke where they please is less valuable than
another innocent person's right to be free of second-hand smoke.
Do you see my problem, #1?
Nemesio
28 Apr 05
3 edits
[i/]Originally posted by Nemesio[/i]You are incorrect: I don't support BAC laws. Drunk driving laws existed before BAC laws and exist concurrently with them today. IMO, a BAC law is arbitrary for the reasons you gave and is simply a way to make the proof in a DUI case arbitrarily easier. I would abolish them and simply use the drunk driving laws where your intoxication is proven by how you act, not an arbitrary standard. Since I don't agree with your premise, I don't agree with your conclusion.
You've given a very considered response, #1 and given me (us?)
a lot to think about.
You wrote: [i/]I see no way that such a law will not be enforced in an arbitrary manner. And I do not see that it is the State's (i.e. the collectiv ...[text shortened]... e of second-hand smoke.
Do you see my problem, #1?
Nemesio
28 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeDo I have to give a link to this thread? Read DoctorScribbles' first post.
No1, stop equating me with certain groups in the United States. I am not their spokesperson nor do I intend of becoming one.
No1: "But the premise of this thread and of anti-abortionists in the US is that they want the State to pass criminal laws punishing pregnant woman for certain behaviors."
What are those behaviours ? Can you give one or two relevant links about this issue ?
If you want links to show that anti-abortionists want to overturn Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court decision that declared criminal laws against abortion unconstitutional, just type in Right to Life in a Google search. I presume you are simply being disingenous as usual.
28 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderPoetic justice for the M.A.D.D. women
Do I have to give a link to this thread? Read DoctorScribbles' first post.
If you want links to show that anti-abortionists want to overturn Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court decision that declared criminal laws ...[text shortened]... ogle search. I presume you are simply being disingenous as usual.
28 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
Do I have to give a link to this thread? Read DoctorScribbles' first post.
If you want links to show that anti-abortionists want to overturn Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court decision that declared criminal laws against abortion unconstitutional, just type in Right to Life in a Google search. I presume you are simply being disingenous as usual.
I am through with you.
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeAre these anti-catholic sayings:
I am through with you.
In a column called "The Gadfly," Ed Raymond discussed the sex education guide issued by the Vatican, charging "It’s interesting that it was assembled by a group of men who live together in a big house without women, who wear skirts and gowns and who kiss each other’s hands."
On NBC’s Late Show with Conan O’Brien, the host said that the Pope was a "soccer goalie in his youth--even as a young man he tried to stop people from scoring."
On Comedy Central Paul Alexander sang the Ave Maria off key and with blood coming out of his ears. His part was called Ave Maria Stigmata.
While on location, Tonight Show host Jay Leno made a joke to the effect: "Chicago is so in love with pizza that even the Catholic Church is serving up deep-dish Communion."
Saturday Night Live aired a skit during which an electronic nativity scene comes to life. The Baby Jesus is crying, whining and screaming.
excerpts from: Catholic League's 1996 Report on Anti-Catholicism
http://www.catholicleague.org/1996report/media96.htm
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWouldn't you say that this is as arbitrary a standard as could exist?
I would abolish them and simply use the drunk driving laws where your intoxication is proven by how you act, not an arbitrary standard.
I mean, whether or not you get punished is contingent on which
officer you get and his/her mood at the time! At least BAC is a
measurable arbitrary standard.
In any event, let us take the example of drunk driving without the
BAC issue. The State has indicated that a person's 'right' to drink
and drive is far less important than an innocent person's right to be
safe from incapacitated drivers. I assume that the State does this
because it feels that the inconvenience posed to the potential driver
is minimal next to the risks posed to the potential victim.
Why do you feel that the State cannot do the same with the example
at present? Why does a person have a 'right' to smoke in the face
of their innocent child? Does the child's right not to be normative
cancer rates not trump the inconvenienced posed to a parent by
making a law forcing them to smoke outside?
I am not advocating making such laws, but I see the merit motivating
them. Please compel me to see the merit behind opposing them.
As it stands, I see a very reasonable analogy between drunk driving
and smoking in your kid's face. Break it down for me.
Nemesio