Drugs/Alcohol During Pregnancy a Choice?

just_sayin

Logically, if one is consistent and believes the "my body my choice" then it is perfectly fine if a woman drinks or does drugs that result in her child's physical or mental deformity.  

The argument that abortion is about a woman's body is a lie.  If it were true than the woman would be dead after having an abortion.  Abortion is about the killing of an innocent human life that is not the progenitor.  It is not the progenitor's body that is ripped limb from limb in a D&E, but the unborn baby girl's body.

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers

The Argument of female specific amputation being called abortion in legislation is over the more perfect state of the union of preamble requirements, nothing more. The damage caused by inappropriate legislation is violations of law which require judicial actions or become white color form of vote fraud. The termination of a pregnancy is not a medical issue of life, it is an issue of reckless immigration as a United State of law throughout the world. Presuming innocense is not actual immunity over time, or the lack of association to guilt caused by our own actions. When a admission to a crime is hidden descretly in a legilsation of law it is a great threat to national security as it attacks the republics united state of democracy.

The judicial system knows from documented events that upon the conviction of felony crimes a voter may and has lost a right to vote for periods of time as punishment. Penalties of wrong are not always things a person of power and wealth can buy out of. Votes are documented and can be used against us, the people like many things in a court of law.

MayCaesar

I do not think that it should be limited in any way. That said, if a child is born with some sort of a disorder that is provably a consequence of his mother doing drugs or drinking alcohol during pregnancy, then it might be reasonable to expect him to be able to successfully sue her for damages. This gets really muddy though and might open a can of worms, with people suing their parents over everything that goes wrong in their lives ("If they made different choices, I would have different genes and never be in this situation!").

Generally, I am in favor of discouraging such behavior through purely social pressure and not through means of governmental intervention. The government should do the absolute minimum (which might be zero, although not necessarily so) to keep the individuals protected from each other's abuse and nothing beyond that.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

Im not sure i completely understand your point of view.
On the one hand you think it should not be limited in anyway but on the other you think it is reasonable for a child to sue for damages/abuse.
If you find it reasonable that a child could win that lawsuit, that would mean the act on some level is unlawful.

I think we can see by the fact that it happens with current state deterrents that zero government intervention doesnt protect from abuse in this case.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar

I do not think that it should be limited in any way. That said, if a child is born with some sort of a disorder that is provably a consequence of his mother doing drugs or drinking alcohol during pregnancy, then it might be reasonable to expect him to be able to successfully sue her for damages. 

You have already admitted to not fully understand the implication of violation made against the people under United States Constitutional rights due to malpractice of law, litigations are made against legal malpractice insurance companies or the states who obstruct female-specific amputation by illegal use of abortion in legislation of law. Why do you believe both lawyers and women have not wanted American Consitutional rights in this matter? Once United States Consitutional rights are addressed and ratifide it would mean that the Federal and State Goverment would be capable of a right to common defense tward the gedneral welfare of the insured tranquility of posterity and officaly bringing to a end recless pregancy's. Remember a warning had been issued many time about passing blame to the American Consitution for human greed and inablilaties of both men and women.

The scary fact here is that a State and/or Federal commission would be able to terminate a women’s pregnancy and she would need to show legal cause to remain pregnant. Not that people would abuse the idea of the possibility of this type of power as it becomes very real. For many minorities this possibility is a nightmare come true as civil unions become a staple outcome to child birth.

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@MayCaesar

Im not sure i completely understand your point of view.
On the one hand you think it should not be limited in anyway but on the other you think it is reasonable for a child to sue for damages/abuse.
If you find it reasonable that a child could win that lawsuit, that would mean the act on some level is unlawful.

I think we can see by the fact that it happens with current state deterrents that zero government intervention doesnt protect from abuse in this case.

I am talking about a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one. I do not think that drinking during pregnancy should be addressed by any particular law - however, as in case of any conflict between two individuals, there is always a possibility of employing civil courts to seek resolution.

As for your last point, it is not clear to me that this is "abuse". When someone does something that infringes on my fundamental rights, it is an act of abuse; on the other hand, when someone goes about their business and inadvertently happens to impact my life negatively, it is a completely separate category of, let us call it, misbehavior. For instance, my grandfather's drinking certainly has affected me negatively on many levels - but I cannot just show up in a criminal court and say, "Hey, guys, my grandfather has been a , and I want him imprisoned". Similarly, if you write something here that triggers a severe emotional reaction in me, it will be hard for me to make the case that you "abused" me.

Government is there to prevent abuse as in violation of some individuals' rights by other individuals. It is not to remedy the situation every time someone does something that someone else dislikes.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

Your analogy to your Grandpa isnt the same.  As you said this is emotional abuse which isnt treated the same as physical.

Drinking and doing drugs during pregnancy can cause physical defects.
So causing a physical deformity is not something I just dislike, it is physical abuse which i believe is a violation.

Bogan

In Australia, fetal alcohol syndrome is primarily concentrated among full blooded aboriginal people.     Full blooded aboriginal people have very low IQ's.    Therefore, the young aboriginal women who get pregnant early (there are 23 year old grandmothers) are far more prone to drinking alcohol when pregnant than any other group.       What caused fetal alcohol syndrome has been known for a long time.    Pregnant females from other ethnic groups who once may have drunk alcohol while pregnant, now realize the error of their ways, and do not do it anymore.  This syndrome is now rare in Australia, outside of the Australian aboriginal community.     It is very prevalent within the Australian full blooded aboriginal community.  As well as brain damaged kids due to sniffing petrol.    The reason for aboriginal dysfunction is not a lack of educational opportunities, it is not because of "unconscious white racism", it is not because of a lack of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.    It is caused by a lack of brains.  

Barnardot

@Bogan ; It is caused by a lack of brains.  

Thats right all right. It is caused by the lack of brains of the white criminals and governors who had more money than sents. Because what they did was treat the aboriginals so bad like taking all there land and kicking them in to the dessert and rapping the women and making the men in to slaves and treating them like dogs and the kids were sent to schools that taught them nothing except how to bend over for the wardens. So if your ancestors were treated like that for generations and couldn't get jobs and had crappy junk food to eat and resorted to drink and sniffing gas out of bags how do you think your brain would be. 

There brains might be pretty bad all right but I bet there no where near as bad as the brains in the bogins who made them that way in the first place. 

Barnardot

@MichaelElpers ;If it should be limited, why do we think killing them should be a legal option.

I see what your trying to get at but there are 2 different issues here. Having an abortion or not is a different argument and you can argue that till the cows go home and no body wins. But here were talking about weather women should be taking alcohol and drugs when there pregnant. And of course we cant make them not abuse them selves but I reckon we should be morally responsible and if we see a pregnant woman in a bar we should go up to her and say some thing like hay you dum bich what do you think your doing because you could give birth to a total spazo with half a brain and 3 legs and one arm and your going to look like a total tool pushing some thing like that in a stroller through the park. So the idea is to get to her on a personal level and make her stand out from her self and take a good look and feel the guilt. Because if she was going in to a bar in the first place then all she is thinking about is her self.

Barnardot

@MichaelElpers ;I think we can see by the fact that it happens with current state deterrents that zero government intervention doesnt protect from abuse in this case.

Okay so how about this then. A pregnant woman walks in to a bar and then the bar tender says no I cant serve you. Because thats what the law is about serving drunk people in bars and some bar owners have been done in court for serving drunk people who go kill people in there cars. And they have massive law suits so they should do the same with serving pregnant women.

Bogan

@Barnardot ;    Thats right all right. It is caused by the lack of brains of the white criminals and governors who had more money than sents. 

"Sense" is spelt s-e-n-s-e.    I take it from your appalling spelling and poor logic that you are a 13 year old?

MichaelElpers

@Barnardot

"you could give birth to a total spazo with half a brain and 3 legs and one arm and your going to look like a total tool pushing some thing like that in a stroller through the park."

My concern is not that they are trash or they look like trash.  Its that they performed an intentional action that harmed an innocent human being.

Barnardot

@Bogan ;"Sense" is spelt s-e-n-s-e.    I take it from your appalling spelling and poor logic that you are a 13 year old?

And I take it from your poor response that you cant be told that the problem with the blacks in your country was created by the bogin criminal whites who treated the abos like dog mess because they were highly racialist and wont accept that thats what racialism does and that the brains of blacks are the same as whites. Its just that the whites treated the blacks so bad that the abos resorted to drinking white mans fire water and gasoline and super glue which does there brains in. 

Barnardot

@MichaelElpers ; Its that they performed an intentional action that harmed an innocent human being.

Sure its a concern and there are many reasons why some women get like that. They could have had an abusive up bringing or there husbands could be smaking them up. In the end they have to take control of them selves and I think a bit of pro active help can help to sort of wake them up a bit so they realize what there doing is wrong.

Bogan

@Barnardot

91 words in one sentence is far too many.    Sentences should not be longer than 20-30 words, and even then, they should be broken up with apostrophes.     The rule of thumb is, no more than two apostrophes per sentence.     You can fudge that a bit, but you risk making your text as garbled and incomprehensible a something written by Barnadot.   

Barnardot

@Bogan ;91 words in one sentence is far too many.

So what theres nothing wrong with that. Seven words in one of Bogans sentences is enough to make any one have a technicolor yawn like for example
It is caused by a lack of brains.  

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@MayCaesar

Your analogy to your Grandpa isnt the same.  As you said this is emotional abuse which isnt treated the same as physical.

Drinking and doing drugs during pregnancy can cause physical defects.
So causing a physical deformity is not something I just dislike, it is physical abuse which i believe is a violation.

Emotional abuse is very much punishable in all modern legal systems. If you scream at your worker every day and your worker has evidence of you doing so, he very well has a case against you. The key factor here is not that abuse was emotional (if your grandpa used to can you, you would not have a much better success at a lawsuit despite it being a clearly physical abuse), but that it happened in a very specific and private environment which, in modern legal cultures, is treated as mostly protected from the governmental involvement. There are many things that can legally occur within families, yet cannot occur within groups of individuals not related by blood.

As for your last sentence, you are opening a very big can of worms here. Should every child born in North Korea now treat their parents as criminals based on them forcing them into a life in such a miserable country? How about me? My family could leave for America back when the Soviet Union was collapsing, yet decided against it and had me grow up in that backwater - maybe I should sue them for that? Among other considerations when it comes to law is practicality: if the spirit of a particular law leads to complete chaos and endless lawsuits when applied consistently, then it is a poor law.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

I dont understand the can of worms.  The examples you gave were a lack of action. Drinking while pregnant is  direct abusive action.  It's the difference between not saving someone from drowning and physically drowning them yourself.

Barnardot

@MichaelElpers ; Its that they performed an intentional action that harmed an innocent human being.

Well thats true if you want to be black and white about it but the point that Im pointing out is that many people dont drink just because they want to deliberately drink. Sure they have to take respionsibility but a lot of these women get the crap beaten out of them by there parents or husband and treated like dog mess so they self medicvate to the point that they couldn't stop it if they tried. You just cant say like derr you are wrong so stop that or you will go in the slammer. Were got to show leeder ship and get these women out of there ruts rather than dissing them I reckon.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

So is breathing. A child born with a horrible genetic disorder might as well say, "My parents should have not been breathing, yet they did and here I am". This does not seem like a fruitful line of thought to me. Drinking alcohol, something almost everyone does every now and then, seems to qualify as much as abusive act as breathing to me. In fact, I am sipping on some nice caramel vodka as I am typing this, and it does not feel like a very special thing to me. Should it?

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

Breathing is a normal function that is required by a living human being.  It also doesnt deliver a harmful effect to the fetus.

Yes, sipping a caramel vodka should feel special depending on the circumstances.  For example doing it while driving would be a bad idea.  If your drinking physically impacted my health it may also be banned.  Similar to why smoking is banned in certain places. 
Do you think parents should be able to smoke with kids in the car just becauae smoking is "a normal thing to do"

Circumstance matters.

ZeusAres42

sorry @MichaelElpers that this is off topic but it's nice to see you again. This site seems very inactive these days. Nothing like it was a couple of years ago. 

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

One of the essential parts of development of a healthy child is an optimal air inflow inside the mother's body. That optimality is not automatic and requires that the mother does regular exercise, has a sensible diet, as well as other properties. For instance, one might make an argument along the lines you are arguing that obese women should not be allowed to give birth to children. Would you agree with it? And does it not feel dangerously close to eugenics to you, the desire to limit a person's freedom in order to have a healthier population?

As for smoking/drinking in a car, I do not think that legality of it should depend on whether there are kids in the car or not. Or do you think that drunk driving is not okay when there are kids in the car, but otherwise is fine? I fail to see what relevance your argument has otherwise.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar ;

I have no children so I have not looked at all health consequences related to obesity ect, but I do know obesity and alcohol do not quite present equal levels of harm.
Additionally I wouldnt create a government regulation that prevents people from having children, only ones that supply penalties to those that use obvious harmful behaviors like drugs and alcohol while pregnant.
Note not allowing obese women to give birth would kill the child, so that is not an alternative.

I think "promoting healthy population"  is a simplistic misframing. I am looking to prevent the ability of one individual to unjustly harm another.
Is preventing release of poisonois gas like chlorine simply limiting freedom to promote a healthy population?

Well thats because drinking and smoking have different consequences on the people.  Drunk driving is always wrong because it is placing high level of danger to others on the road.
Smoking generally only effects the individuals in the immediate area and kids have no ability to not consent.
If me drinking made my kids drunk or have developmental brain damage it most certainly would always be wrong.

ZeusAres42

MichaelElpers said: If my body my choice is really absolute, should there be any laws against pregnant women drinking alcohol or doing meth even though it may have permanent negative effects on their children?  If it should be limited, why do we think killing them should be a legal option. 

This was a great attempt at reductio ad absurdum. However, it doesn't work due to several things that you are assuming such as:

• The idea that "my body, my choice" is absolute and unqualified.
• Harm caused to a child as result of subtance use/abuse during pregnancy is on par or comparable with abortion.
• That it is the only default option that one should oppose abortion if they are for restricting the use of substance so as to avoid contradicting themselves. It is not generally absurd to be against substance use during pregnancy and for abortion. 

Let's explore this a little further. The principle "my body, my choice" is rooted in the idea of bodily autonomy, but it doesn't imply that decisions made are without ethical or societal implications. When discussing substance use during pregnancy, the concern revolves around potential harm to a future individual who will live outside the womb, implying a duty of care from the mother to the unborn child. On the other hand, the debate on abortion primarily centers on the balance of rights between the mother and the fetus, particularly when personhood begins. It's possible to advocate for a woman's autonomy in making decisions about her pregnancy while also supporting guidelines that promote the health and wellbeing of both mother and future child. The two stances aren't inherently contradictory; they're facets of a broader conversation about the responsibilities and rights associated with pregnancy.

@MichaelElpers

MichaelElpers

@ZeusAres42

I disagree with your initial assessment.

1. Most pro choice advocates believe bodily autonomy is absolute.  That is usually summed up by my body my choice
2. I never made the assumption drugs/ alcohol harm and abortion is comparable.  Im arguing we limit the first and killing is worse.
3.  I have no statements about having other default options.  My argument is if we dont consider laws against alcohol abuse as absurd, then why does it follow killing them is?

"When discussing substance use during pregnancy, the concern revolves around potential harm to a future individual who will live outside the womb, implying a duty of care from the mother to the unborn child."

This is a better argument. The fetus remains the same individual through the states of developmental change evidence of them keeping the same DNA and the impact alcohol has while in the fetal state.

My issue is the viewing killing of the human organism as ethical, but damaging its future as unethical.  If a fetus is just a "potential person" and has no rights than Im not sure how their could be laws against damaging it period.

Supporting health of a potential child that supposedly has no rights by legal means is contradictory to abortion.

Bogan

Let's say that there was a town somewhere in Australia populated entirely with white Anglo-Saxon residents.

 In that town, there were 23 year old grandmothers with grandchildren born with foetal alcohol syndrome at a rate 7.5 times higher than for the whole of Australia.     There was rampant sexual abuse of children with kids under five being routinely screened for gonorrhoea.     The women in the town routinely alleged widespread sexual abuse committed upon them by the town's “big men” male leaders.     These women were 34 times more likely to be hospitalised for domestic violence and 15 times more likely to be murdered than the women in surrounding towns.

 The entire adult population of that white town was almost entirely on intergenerational social welfare, and every two weeks when the government cheques rolled in, the whole town went on a three day drinking binge resulting in widespread violence and even riots where government supplied houses were burned to the ground.     Almost all of the workers who run the essential services in the town are fly in/ fly out workers who did whatever was necessary, from building new homes, repairing old homes, and maintaining power and water services.

  The town's children suffered from lice and ringworm.    The kids would not go to school, and the government had to bribe parents with extra benefits to make their kids go to school.   In addition, the government had to provide cars, chauffeurs, and petrol to take the kids to school and feed the kids, because their parents didn't bother.     These kids were five times more likely to be hospitalised for domestic assaults than the kids from surrounding towns.  

 Children from within this town had a reputation for petrol sniffing, which could only be prevented by a government ordinance mandating the use of special fuels in this town which are unable to be inhaled.     Despite education money being spent on educating the towns children at a rate four times higher than for the children of other towns, 90% of the children failed NAPLAN testing.   Meanwhile, activists from this town demand that the government increase spending on the town's children's education, to "close the gap". which strangely, never closes.  

 A special government program instituted to alleviate the towns chronic unemployment was a complete failure with 30% of the townspeople bothering to apply to the program.    The costings reveal that an incredible $430,000 thousand dollars was spent by the program to place each worker in a job which lasted more than six months. And only 30% of those jobs involved "structured work with mutual obligations." This means that 70% of the jobs bought for $430,000 dollars by the Aussie taxpayer involved nothing more than the candidate picking up litter from around his community, if he or she felt like it.    When the young men of the town were farmed out to government subsidised jobs outside of their community, most had to be sent back because 75% of them failed drug and alcohol testing.

 

Then I think that any intelligent and rational person would conclude that the town's population was a bunch of low IQ morons, commonly referred to as dumb white trash.

 

But of course, we can never say aboriginal people are dumb black trash.     That is racism.   And racism is a no no.     They must be considered equal to other races, in every way.       Even if they obviously are not.

ZeusAres42

MichaelElpers said:

@ZeusAres42

I disagree with your initial assessment.

1. Most pro choice advocates believe bodily autonomy is absolute.  That is usually summed up by my body my choice
2. I never made the assumption drugs/ alcohol harm and abortion is comparable.  Im arguing we limit the first and killing is worse.
3.  I have no statements about having other default options.  My argument is if we dont consider laws against alcohol abuse as absurd, then why does it follow killing them is?

"When discussing substance use during pregnancy, the concern revolves around potential harm to a future individual who will live outside the womb, implying a duty of care from the mother to the unborn child."

This is a better argument. The fetus remains the same individual through the states of developmental change evidence of them keeping the same DNA and the impact alcohol has while in the fetal state.

My issue is the viewing killing of the human organism as ethical, but damaging its future as unethical.  If a fetus is just a "potential person" and has no rights than Im not sure how their could be laws against damaging it period.

Supporting health of a potential child that supposedly has no rights by legal means is contradictory to abortion.

Your argument appears to draw attention to the perceived inconsistency between laws that restrict harm to a fetus through substance abuse and laws that permit abortion. At the heart of this is the premise that if the fetus is seen as worthy of protection from harm, it should also be protected from termination.

However, rights  exist on a spectrum, rather than as absolutes. While a fetus may not be accorded full rights of personhood in the early stages of pregnancy, it could still be viewed as having some level of protection from potential harm. This acknowledges a gradient of rights that intensify as the fetus develops, rather than an all-or-nothing approach.

Additionally, there's a differentiation to be made between the potential harms caused by substance abuse and the decision to terminate a pregnancy. The former can be seen as preventable harm to an eventual child who will be born, while the latter is a complex decision intertwined with issues of health, socio-economic conditions, and personal choice. Abortion, in many cases, isn't a decision made lightly or in isolation but is influenced by a myriad of external factors that go beyond the singular issue of fetal rights.

Furthermore, the concept of "my body, my choice" doesn't necessarily advocate for an absolute, unchecked autonomy but emphasizes the primacy of women's rights in making decisions related to their reproductive health. This principle recognizes the unique burden and responsibilities pregnancy places on women, and thus, women should have a central role in decisions about their bodies. In this view, while society can encourage health and well-being during pregnancy, the ultimate decision, especially in the complex realm of abortion, rests with the individual.

MichaelElpers

Dreamer

Argument Topic: With alcohol and drugs way to much attention is given to the individual addict in the United States.

Woman who are outspoken on this subject think it is a sin to drink or smoke while pregnant. Too much harm is done to the fetus.Yet, this alleviates Big Tobacco and Booze of all responsibility while CEOs of these companies are often billionaires.

This ignores that Big Tobacco made cigarettes as addictive as possible and the long and intense misinformation campaign. Remember Joe Camel? It would take a lot of effort to realize the full extent that Big Tobacco has lied or otherwise used unsavory tactics. Yellow star of David signs and Industry front groups, and more.

Then, there is Big Booze.

"Unfortunately, and predictably, the alcohol industry successfully intervened and the labelling research was halted by the government a few months in. One industry strategy was to claim this research was unlawful, a claim experts later termed “groundless”, part of a game plan the industry has employed successfully in other jurisdictions." Jann Bellamy on January 28, 2021

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/consumer-and-public-health-groups-push-for-cancer-warning-on-alcoholic-beverages/

Next, there is the correlation between addiction, historic trauma, and other health disparities. Finally, let's not forget fake abortion clinics outnumbering real 4-1. I don't know how it is in other countries, but I am so sick of the individual responsibility blaming the victim card being used to justify in accordance with cognitive dissonance theory and excuse the actions of ultra rich and powerful players.

MichaelElpers

@ZeusAres42

Im not sure how one can say a individual like the fetus has a right to be protected and refuse the most fundamental protection.
This acknowledges a gradient of rights that intensify as the fetus develops, rather than an all-or-nothing approach.
The spectrum/gradient youre showing is that of the protection itself not the right to protection.  Youd think basic protection starts with life and then would continue.
Kind of like saying, a perp wouldnt have the ability to punch certain individuals but they could kill them.

"The former can be seen as preventable harm to an eventual child who will be born, while the latter is a complex decision intertwined with issues of health, socio-economic conditions, and personal choice"

So, drinking would be allowed as long as it is deemed a complex decision?
Drinking while pregnant could fit all of the things you listed.

Rights are not dictated based on an assumption of whether an individual will live or die.  People with terminal cancer dont lose rights.

My body, my choice pretty much is  advocating for absolute bodily autonomy.  Where are they not? And if they aren't, theyre most likely being giant hypocrites.
What would top being able to directly kill someone else for bodily autonomy.  Where's the spectrum?

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@MayCaesar ;

I have no children so I have not looked at all health consequences related to obesity ect, but I do know obesity and alcohol do not quite present equal levels of harm.
Additionally I wouldnt create a government regulation that prevents people from having children, only ones that supply penalties to those that use obvious harmful behaviors like drugs and alcohol while pregnant.
Note not allowing obese women to give birth would kill the child, so that is not an alternative.

I think "promoting healthy population"  is a simplistic misframing. I am looking to prevent the ability of one individual to unjustly harm another.
Is preventing release of poisonois gas like chlorine simply limiting freedom to promote a healthy population?

Well thats because drinking and smoking have different consequences on the people.  Drunk driving is always wrong because it is placing high level of danger to others on the road.
Smoking generally only effects the individuals in the immediate area and kids have no ability to not consent.
If me drinking made my kids drunk or have developmental brain damage it most certainly would always be wrong.

Depends on the degrees of both. Almost certainly having a small glass of wine every Sunday is less damaging to the upcoming child than eating at McDonalds 5 times a day and weighting 400 pounds. Which, by the way, creates another challenge for the type of policy you are advocating for: establishment of boundaries. Would you prefer having penalties for any consumption of alcohol by pregnant women, or only certain amounts? If so, by what standards should those amounts be determined?

What constitutes "unjust" harm is a question that opens an entirely different can of worms. I look at it as a human rights issue, not as a justice issue. And from the human rights' perspective, it is metaphysically impossible to violate rights of someone who has not been born yet.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you believe that any behavior that poses any threat at all to someone who has not consented to damages, regardless of how small, should be penalized. Is that your position? If so, it is impossible to not be penalized when within the vicinity of a child: for example, there is always a non-zero probability that I am carrying some sort of contagious disease without any symptoms so far, and as such being close to children should be seen as hazardous. Similar to how a pregnant woman doing something that increases the change of genetic damage by 1% of however much is seen as hazardous.
It seems to me that the world in which your philosophy is adopted would be miserable to live in, with everyone having to walk on eggshells all the time, afraid of accidentally scratching someone.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

You base it on the data and how damaging it is.
Ill give an example, Assualt.  How we determine what is considered assault.  If I flick you with my finger, does that meet the definition?

This debate isnt not focused on whether rights should start at birth or another stage.  Its more about if we find legal consequences with drinking while pregnant why not killing.

I think there is a threshold of damages that developmental brain damage or high elevated cancer risk meets.  Ultimately decided by society.
This again goes back to my assault by flicking example.
Feasible ignorance also plays a role.  There are certain contagious diseases that it is not plausible for you to know you have.
However if you knowingly have a disease like HIV and choose to conceal it, thats an issue.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

That is determined in court given the context, the intent of the perpetrator, et cetera. The damage (or the projected damage) has to be somewhat substantial. Given how little is understood about the effects alcohol consumption during pregnancy has on the fetus' development, the parallels here are very hard to draw.

Yet it is an essential part of the debate. If an unborn creature has no rights, then it makes no sense to talk about legally punishable harm inflicted on it by anyone.

Society decides such things in an ochlocracy / direct democracy. In a representative democracy that is not the case.
Regarding feasible ignorance, what about real ignorance of science regarding effects of alcohol on human body and on conceived creatures? It is known well, for instance, that alcohol consumption is not directly correlated with all-cause mortality: the curve is U-shaped. There is no existing biological explanation of this phenomenon. Even less is known about correlation, let alone causation, between alcohol consumption and development of defects in the unborn child. Given that, it is absolutely impossible to determine for an individual what save alcohol consumption would look like. If a pregnant woman is chugging bottle after bottle of strong liquor and almost never leaves the drunken haze, it is probably too much - but what if she, again, only drinks a small glass of wine once a week? Would you suggest erring on the side of safety (i.e. totalitarianism) and outright banning alcohol consumption by pregnant women? And what about their husbands, are they free to drink themselves into stupor as their wives watch helplessly?

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

 I think the effect of alcohol on pregnancy is fairly well understood that it has negative consequences. In medicine it is harder to find exact effects vs amount of consumption due to so many variables.
Additionally knowing the negative consequences getting exact data points would require damaging fetal development which seems pretty unethical.

Id suggest outlawing based on best data we have.  We can only make rational decisions based on that data.
While i have a personal issue with a husband drinking heavily i do not see it as a legal issue because the act of drinking isnt harming someone else.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

The extent of those negative consequences matters, and that is very poorly understood. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, evidence is inconclusive with respect to overall influence of small/moderate alcohol amounts. Imagine if 20 years later biologists establish beyond a reasonable doubt that, say, consuming between 50 and 100 mg of alcohol per week maximizes the expected well-being of the child - how will the type of policy you support look then?

Let me ask you this though: given how incredibly psychologically damaging a father's heavy drinking is to a born child, should such drinking be outlawed as well?

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

Anything looks bad when you find counteractive evidence to what you previously believed.  As i stated before that is not what current data supports, nor is there evidence of that in any developmental stage of the human organism, so its highly unlikely.

If it turns to abuse a fathers drinking does become an issue.  The issue during pregnancy is the drinking itself causes the damage.

just_sayin

You can't argue that its the woman's body so its her choice and then turn around and say that she can't drink because it would harm the baby.  That's an inconsistent position.  Either it is her body or not.  If the living human being inside her is not her body, then the argument that it is OK to kill the unborn child because it is her body is invalid.  It is illogical to argue that it is OK to kill an innocent human life that is not your life because 'it's my body, my choice',  and then to claim that you can't have a drink because it will hurt the baby in the woman's body.  

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@MayCaesar

Anything looks bad when you find counteractive evidence to what you previously believed.  As i stated before that is not what current data supports, nor is there evidence of that in any developmental stage of the human organism, so its highly unlikely.

If it turns to abuse a fathers drinking does become an issue.  The issue during pregnancy is the drinking itself causes the damage.

But what does current data support? Which is more statistically damaging for the future child: drinking 40 mg of alcohol a week, or eating 5 cheeseburgers a week? As far as I can tell, all these calls for forceful limiting of consumption of alcohol by pregnant women is based on nothing more than "drinking alcohol is supposed to be hurtful to the child" - which is too vague to be worth any consideration in lawmaking. It is like saying that exercising is better than not exercising, then doing 1 push-up and saying, "I have done my work for the day; I am healthy now!"

Dee

So there's no laws against taking meth in the US? Wow , you learn something  new everyday.

why do we think killing them should be a legal option.

You mean why does a woman want rid of a fetus that's in her body by her permission? Why not ask individual women why? 

jack

MichaelElpers said:

If my body my choice is really absolute, should there be any laws against pregnant women drinking alcohol or doing meth even though it may have permanent negative effects on their children?  

If it should be limited, why do we think killing them should be a legal option.

Hello M:

Absolutely..  The moment a woman becomes pregnant, she should come under the control of the The United States Womb Squad and Abortion Authority... Lots of reporting.  Loss of privacy.  No, drinking, no drugs, no smoking, no YELLING, and definitely NO abortion..

Yeah..  We NEED that..

excon

ZeusAres42

MichaelElpers said:

@ZeusAres42

Im not sure how one can say a individual like the fetus has a right to be protected and refuse the most fundamental protection.
This acknowledges a gradient of rights that intensify as the fetus develops, rather than an all-or-nothing approach.
The spectrum/gradient youre showing is that of the protection itself not the right to protection.  Youd think basic protection starts with life and then would continue.
Kind of like saying, a perp wouldnt have the ability to punch certain individuals but they could kill them.

"The former can be seen as preventable harm to an eventual child who will be born, while the latter is a complex decision intertwined with issues of health, socio-economic conditions, and personal choice"

So, drinking would be allowed as long as it is deemed a complex decision?
Drinking while pregnant could fit all of the things you listed.

Rights are not dictated based on an assumption of whether an individual will live or die.  People with terminal cancer dont lose rights.

My body, my choice pretty much is  advocating for absolute bodily autonomy.  Where are they not? And if they aren't, theyre most likely being giant hypocrites.
What would top being able to directly kill someone else for bodily autonomy.  Where's the spectrum?

@MichaelElpers

The assumption that protection should automatically follow the beginning of life implies a universally accepted definition of when "life" commences. This is an area of contention across various disciplines. When discussing the progression or continuum of rights and protections, it's about acknowledging the varied perspectives on when and how these rights should be applied. Differences in a fetus's viability and consciousness during gestation are among the factors considered by some.

Using the analogy of a perpetrator being allowed to inflict different types of harm based on severity doesn't capture the full depth and complexity of decisions related to pregnancy, be it substance use or abortion. Every situation, and the circumstances surrounding it, is unique.

When touching on the topic of drinking during pregnancy, the main ethical dilemma is not about the allowance due to its "complex nature." Instead, it's about the challenges of implementing and enforcing such prohibitions without infringing on a woman's rights. While numerous regulations discourage harmful behaviors during pregnancy, criminalizing them could lead to unwanted scrutiny of pregnant individuals, posing ethical challenges.

Regarding the "my body, my choice" principle, it undoubtedly promotes bodily autonomy. However, rights come with boundaries. Even our most fundamental rights have limitations, especially when another potential right is involved. The essence of the abortion discussion is this intersection: the rights of the pregnant individual versus the potential rights of the fetus.

Your arguments shed light on the need for a consistent application of rights. However, at the same time it's vital to take into account the web of ethical, biological, and societal factors intertwined in these discussions. Issues like abortion are part of a more extensive dialogue about autonomy, rights, and societal roles.

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers

If my body my choice is really absolute, should there be any laws against pregnant women drinking alcohol or doing meth even though it may have permanent negative effects on their children?  
If it should be limited, why do we think killing them should be a legal option.

Her border her choice. The body the ambassade shares is not the boarder the mother holds as ambassador. You are making a public legal claim that all application of lethal force is murder. Abortion makes that same legal public claim, against American men and women, be it true or false. We don't think killing the ambassade is legal option, you, others, and legislation of law are using abortion as name for medical treatment are saying it is. death is an occurrence of the applications of lethal forces to which there is no evidence without as of year 2000 breaks Federal law violating the right to medical privacy. On top of this obstacle death the ambassade creates against the mother is not only random it is often medically unpredictable and is limited in possible charges as crime. 

I am not saying that the American constitutional right of filed grievance publicly should be stopped, as it relates to abortion and if those who claim it as freedom are in fact willing to pay equally in the real hidden cost. What is to take placed by United States Constitutional right of Female-specific Amputation, we the people are to ensure tranquility between women and the people by stating when a pregnant woman dies while she is Ambassador of the Ambassade their relatives represent victims both Ambassador and Ambassade can file charges of murder against those who advocate abortion in the unconstitutional legislation into law. That is all. 

Yes, that precedent does mean in some very limited states in America a person who cries abortion is murder may go to prison for murder themselves. However, in most states in America it will simply mean the person who claims abortion is murder will possibly be convicted of a felony and lose a Constitutional right to vote accordingly. Equality under law legislation without legal prejudice. All women are created equal by holding them as Presadera while under oath before United States American Constitution there are thousands of reasons why women and voters alike no longer be held from such a high standard as perfection as a burden to state of the union with established justice.

John_C_87

Clueless 
Is there a R ?   _hat is a Ame_ican Constitutional  _ ight

Law holds no rights as a united state, the law holds wrong as so it can be weighed as applicable by legal conditions to which it was written.

If a Nation can be raped by a di-constitutional people National Specific amputation is the medical treatment not abortion to bring about the end of assault against poor connection to established justice. The fact is both sides face the same crime with no legal prejudice, that's a better connection than just one side facing it alone. RIGHT?

piloteer

@MichaelElpers

The law should NOT be limited. If there is a person in MY stomach, they will be taking anything and everything that I take. Just like there is no limitations for which type of foods I eat when I'm pregnant, there should be no limitations for which drugs I take.