If true, then let her be irresponsible. Irresponsible women who screw up their pregnancies should be allowed to return to their homes and consider what they've done. It's not my business, unless I'm there to offer advice..Quote by: ruksak
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
I think the mother should be punished either way (drugs are not something that should be permitted while caring for three children). That being said, I'm not so convinced that her negligible actions can be punishable based on intention to keep the unborn child. If she is legally entitled to intentionally terminate the pregnancy, how can she be charged for unintentionally reaching the same end?
These small decisions could easily undermine a prospective mother's rights to birth control. Once the child was born, the mother seemingly did nothing to it that would constitute criminal endangerment. She created a hostile environment for fetal development - but the discussion of fetus vs. human definitions is never-ending and will continue (much like abortions - they will happen despite any law).
I don't recall any hippies being quoted or reference either.
Does this board provide a crystal ball so you can fill in the gaps ?
Or lean to get around gross overgeneralizations.
Apparently, many Christians believe abortion -- or even a miscarriage -- is a common satanic practice. If they don't like you, you're a demon! Is this really how we do better as a country?
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
It is ad hominem. And I don't know that is an ad hominem attack.
However, his argument is that if you take steps to alter the natural course of a pregnancy to the negative...there should be accountability. I have a problem with that because you could put a whole list of things out there that might be a problem. Just walking in snow could restult in a slip that might inure a fetus. And what about walking in snow with a six month old.
We do get after parents who don't put their children in seat belts BTW.
Your argument is that just getting pregnent could be a problem. If we use your argument we should make it illegal for women with high probabilities of bad pregnancey outcomes to have children.
In once case...you get pregnent. In the other you injure the fetus.
There is some overlap, but I'd say it is more a strawman than anything on your part.
And how does this follow anything I said ?
You can make up more crap than the law allows.
In either case, a woman took an action she knew could result in a baby having birth defects, and in either case, that's what happened. Sure, Sarah Palin didn't intend for that to happen, but neither did this woman (assuming she even did cocaine while pregnant- a charge which hasn't been proven). You can make assertions about "moral differences" (without even specifying what they are), but in both instances, these women willfully took an action which they knew could endanger their child's wellbeing- the outcome is the same in either case.
"Hegel remarks that all the events and personalities of world history occur twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." -Karl Marx
Just to clear this up: I'm not referring to the woman who ingested cocaine while pregnant. I was referring to Amanda Kimbrough, the woman who faces 10 years in jail for a miscarriage.
As for the right wingers in Alabama:
Welcome to the Alabama State Legislature
Governor: Rick Bentley (R)
Lieutenant Governor: Kay Ivey (R)
"The place of the worst barbarism is that modern forest that makes use of us, this forest of chimneys and bayonets, machines and weapons, of strange inanimate beasts that feed on human flesh"
No, if we use my argument, we treat a pregnant woman as an actual human being instead of a walking uterus.
For everything else, see my previous post.
"Hegel remarks that all the events and personalities of world history occur twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." -Karl Marx
So you provide a current listing of the Alabama State Legislature when making refrence to a case that is being prosecuted on a "crime" that is 6 years old. Did I get that right. Or is Post Ex Facto now also gone ?
Why don't you just admit that you feel we should accept your tripe as gospel because you are on the moral side of health care.
I worry that the pattern won't go away. Other women may face similar treatment -- a danger of being exposed to governance.
And, of course, time a concrete cell magically solves such supposed problems.
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
Then your orginal argument does not hold and we should not prosecute Sarah Palin. That was your argument (extending the other to the extreme).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks