Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:07:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is something I have been thinking about due to a conversation with Juvanya, about how children can be born with serious birth defects due to exposure to alcohol, and the chemicals in cigarettes if it's the mother smoking. This may be the problem I have(I seem to have a few of the symptoms).

Anyway, should mothers who drink or smoke during pregnancy be subject to legal action if their child is born with defects? It is entirely the mother's doing, choosing to ingest harmful chemicals during the stages of fetal development.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:14:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 5:07:50 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This is something I have been thinking about due to a conversation with Juvanya, about how children can be born with serious birth defects due to exposure to alcohol, and the chemicals in cigarettes if it's the mother smoking. This may be the problem I have(I seem to have a few of the symptoms).

Anyway, should mothers who drink or smoke during pregnancy be subject to legal action if their child is born with defects? It is entirely the mother's doing, choosing to ingest harmful chemicals during the stages of fetal development.

I feel that by giving that sort of legal rights to the unborn child you would be giving the anti-choicers too much ammunition.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:18:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 5:14:58 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/22/2011 5:07:50 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This is something I have been thinking about due to a conversation with Juvanya, about how children can be born with serious birth defects due to exposure to alcohol, and the chemicals in cigarettes if it's the mother smoking. This may be the problem I have(I seem to have a few of the symptoms).

Anyway, should mothers who drink or smoke during pregnancy be subject to legal action if their child is born with defects? It is entirely the mother's doing, choosing to ingest harmful chemicals during the stages of fetal development.

I feel that by giving that sort of legal rights to the unborn child you would be giving the anti-choicers too much ammunition.

Perhaps, but it's a completely avoidable thing that the mother brought onto herself and her unborn child. Plus the effects are irreversible and can greatly affect a person's quality of life.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:25:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 5:18:39 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/22/2011 5:14:58 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/22/2011 5:07:50 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This is something I have been thinking about due to a conversation with Juvanya, about how children can be born with serious birth defects due to exposure to alcohol, and the chemicals in cigarettes if it's the mother smoking. This may be the problem I have(I seem to have a few of the symptoms).

Anyway, should mothers who drink or smoke during pregnancy be subject to legal action if their child is born with defects? It is entirely the mother's doing, choosing to ingest harmful chemicals during the stages of fetal development.

I feel that by giving that sort of legal rights to the unborn child you would be giving the anti-choicers too much ammunition.

Perhaps, but it's a completely avoidable thing that the mother brought onto herself and her unborn child. Plus the effects are irreversible and can greatly affect a person's quality of life.

Hmm... Re-read what you put and but change smoking to "abortions". Seems like it justifies anti-choice, which isn't really an acceptable outcome.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:28:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 5:25:33 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

Hmm... Re-read what you put and but change smoking to "abortions". Seems like it justifies anti-choice, which isn't really an acceptable outcome.

I don't really like the term "Anti-choice" being a Pro-lifer myself, but really that has nothing to do with my stance on this issue. I regard this as a serious issue in itself apart from abortion. There are so many children each year born with disabilities and many of them could have been preventable.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:33:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't think you can compare abortion to impairing a baby that you know will be born and will have to live through the life damaging effects. An aborted fetus doesn't suffer any life-long effects because it is never born to begin with, thus there is no problem.

So, I certainly would be in favor of laws prohibiting mothers from damaging their baby in the womb that will be born, but not in favor of laws prohibiting abortion.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:34:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 5:28:29 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/22/2011 5:25:33 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

Hmm... Re-read what you put and but change smoking to "abortions". Seems like it justifies anti-choice, which isn't really an acceptable outcome.

I don't really like the term "Anti-choice" being a Pro-lifer myself, but really that has nothing to do with my stance on this issue. I regard this as a serious issue in itself apart from abortion. There are so many children each year born with disabilities and many of them could have been preventable.

OK. Your stand point is consistent. From your POV, I would agree that mothers should be held legally responsible.
However, you can't seperate the two issues. In order to make the mothers responsible it would require giving rights to the fetus which would prevent abortion being legal.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:35:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 5:33:43 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I don't think you can compare abortion to impairing a baby that you know will be born and will have to live through the life damaging effects. An aborted fetus doesn't suffer any life-long effects because it is never born to begin with, thus there is no problem.

So, I certainly would be in favor of laws prohibiting mothers from damaging their baby in the womb that will be born, but not in favor of laws prohibiting abortion.

It is issue of the legal rights. If the baby has none, damages done to it, from aborting it, or smoking whilst pregnant, cannot be legally punished.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:35:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anyway, should mothers who drink or smoke during pregnancy be subject to legal action if their child is born with defects? It is entirely the mother's doing, choosing to ingest harmful chemicals during the stages of fetal development.:

I have a strong suspicion that my mother smoked when I was in the womb. Of course, that was in the 1970's and this was normal back then. It really wasn't until the 80's that cigarette smoking was investigated and by the 1990's became incontrovertibly bad.

So I would say that the timing really depends on the situation. Anywhere past, say, the 1990 mark has no excuse.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:35:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 5:28:29 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/22/2011 5:25:33 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

Hmm... Re-read what you put and but change smoking to "abortions". Seems like it justifies anti-choice, which isn't really an acceptable outcome.

I don't really like the term "Anti-choice" being a Pro-lifer myself, but really that has nothing to do with my stance on this issue. I regard this as a serious issue in itself apart from abortion. There are so many children each year born with disabilities and many of them could have been preventable.

Also I apologise for the use of Anti-choice.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:38:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 5:33:43 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I don't think you can compare abortion to impairing a baby that you know will be born and will have to live through the life damaging effects. An aborted fetus doesn't suffer any life-long effects because it is never born to begin with, thus there is no problem.

So, I certainly would be in favor of laws prohibiting mothers from damaging their baby in the womb that will be born, but not in favor of laws prohibiting abortion.

Very well-said.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:41:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 5:35:28 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Anyway, should mothers who drink or smoke during pregnancy be subject to legal action if their child is born with defects? It is entirely the mother's doing, choosing to ingest harmful chemicals during the stages of fetal development.:

I have a strong suspicion that my mother smoked when I was in the womb. Of course, that was in the 1970's and this was normal back then. It really wasn't until the 80's that cigarette smoking was investigated and by the 1990's became incontrovertibly bad.

So I would say that the timing really depends on the situation. Anywhere past, say, the 1990 mark has no excuse.

Well that's mainly what I'm talking about, now. I can't really speak for previous to the 1990's, but we have done enough research by now to know that the chemicals in alcohol and cigarettes can impair an unborn child. With that said, it should be a punishable offense.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:51:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 5:41:29 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/22/2011 5:35:28 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Anyway, should mothers who drink or smoke during pregnancy be subject to legal action if their child is born with defects? It is entirely the mother's doing, choosing to ingest harmful chemicals during the stages of fetal development.:

I have a strong suspicion that my mother smoked when I was in the womb. Of course, that was in the 1970's and this was normal back then. It really wasn't until the 80's that cigarette smoking was investigated and by the 1990's became incontrovertibly bad.

So I would say that the timing really depends on the situation. Anywhere past, say, the 1990 mark has no excuse.

Well that's mainly what I'm talking about, now. I can't really speak for previous to the 1990's, but we have done enough research by now to know that the chemicals in alcohol and cigarettes can impair an unborn child. With that said, it should be a punishable offense.

To legally punish someone for causing harm to a being, that being must have legal rights to prevent harm. Unborn babies do not. If you were to change the law to give them legal rights, abortion would become untenable.
It is a fairly douche-y thing for the mother to do, but I don't believe it should be punishable by law.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:53:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 5:51:49 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

To legally punish someone for causing harm to a being, that being must have legal rights to prevent harm. Unborn babies do not. If you were to change the law to give them legal rights, abortion would become untenable.
It is a fairly douche-y thing for the mother to do, but I don't believe it should be punishable by law.

It will have rights once it's born. In fact, children are especially vulnerable so are subject to special rights.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 6:00:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 5:53:46 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/22/2011 5:51:49 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

To legally punish someone for causing harm to a being, that being must have legal rights to prevent harm. Unborn babies do not. If you were to change the law to give them legal rights, abortion would become untenable.
It is a fairly douche-y thing for the mother to do, but I don't believe it should be punishable by law.

It will have rights once it's born. In fact, children are especially vulnerable so are subject to special rights.

You can't retro-actively apply rights.* The damage was done before birth, when it did not have rights.

*an example being the abolition of slavery. People who had owned slaves were not prosecuted for actions done to the slaves whilst the slaves did not have the right to freedom
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 7:16:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 6:58:32 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Sure, if it is also legal to sue them for eating unhealthily. http://findarticles.com...

we disallow kids from drinking and smoking cigarettes, and fine or imprison anyone caught giving them to them. that's not to say we should do anything, just to say what we do :)
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 7:21:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 7:16:14 AM, badger wrote:
At 2/22/2011 6:58:32 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Sure, if it is also legal to sue them for eating unhealthily. http://findarticles.com...

we disallow kids from drinking and smoking cigarettes, and fine or imprison anyone caught giving them to them. that's not to say we should do anything, just to say what we do :)

though i am in favour of protecting kids from their sometimes fvcked up parents.
signature