Should women who smoke or drink during pregnancy be charged with a crime?

[Anachronism]

How would you possibly enforce that?

Very simple.... blood and urine tests each time they go in for a doctor's appointment. Besides, most of them will be well known to their PCP as smokers and drinkers ahead of time. If the mother is known to have those issues it's reported to the insurance company who wipes their hands of any issues potentially related to those activities once the child is born.

You do realize that the vast majority affected by this will be the poor... don't you? Are we arguing that the poor should be held responsible for their choices?

Gee, it would be ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE to make somebody actually face the consequences and take responsibility for their own actions, wouldn't it? I mean that would just be Cruel and Unusual Punishment.... to force someone to deal with their own responsibilities for once in this fucked-up welfare state of a country we have going on right now.

The moment I was born my parents knew that they might be in for major medical expenses and problems due to my birthmark. Thankfully it didn't turn out as bad as it could have. In most cases kids born with issues like mine spend a ton of time in hospitals and doctor's offices. I spent my own fair share. You know what.... my parents never asked the government for a handout to help with those expenses. What the insurance didn't cover, they found a way to pay for.

Of course you couldn't have. That would require a functioning brain.

No. It requres a moral compass; something that you and the vast majority of the other worthless sacks of shit who call themselves Americans these days couldn't find with both hands if it was placed on a tabletop in front of you.

 

[Dr.Drock]

See, I knew it.

Didn't make a damn bit of difference to you, because all you care about is it being legal.

And you know how I know?

Because I already proved to you, ABORTION IS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, but you just went right on with the same failed argument.

You CLAIM returning the issue to the states won't make any difference BUT UNTIL YOU HAVE EVIDENCE, that's a RATIONALIZATION, and an unprovable hypothesis.

So nice try, but you are still trying to double talk.

Roe v. Wade IS the government intervention, YET your "moral" quandries didn't bother you a bit to learn that.

Which makes you a moral phony.

I agree with you that it should be a state issue. Calm down.

We're both just trying to predict what a hypothetical future would bring, in my opinion it would bring the same thing we have now in # of abortions.

I never said I have a moral issue with early abortions I don't, I said I wish there were never abortions.

Again, settle down, these abortion debates are a lot better when people don't let their emotions overtake their intellectual side.

That's like saying don't let your emotions "cloud" you on 9/11. IT IS AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE!

We are talking about BABIES. IT IS AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE!

AND AGAIN YOU ARE BEING PHONY AND HYPOCRITICAL AS HELL. You LECTURE ME about being emotional, yet YOUR DEFENSE about abortion is YOUR OWN FEELINGS?????????

You "wish" abortion would never happen. YOUR FEELINGS!

YET you are supposedly against the government intervention that would stop abortion, when in reality Roe v. Wade IS THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

Dr. Drock you can't have it both ways.

Nice try.

I didn't lecture you. I'm not making a defense about abortion.

I think the reason why you're emotional is you can't stand the fact that someone who's pro-choice has the exact same stance as you, wants it to be a state issue. You view me as the enemy, hence wanting me to have abortions handled in a different way, but that's not the case.

A wish isn't a feeling, I wish I had a trillion dollars, that's not an emotional feeling.

 

[G.T.]

There's no hipocrisy in being pro-choice while also being against smoking and drinking during pregnancy. If you can't understand that, then it's hard for you to think critically, and you should go back to doing word-problems in math class until you get them right.

 

[Anachronism]

There's no hipocrisy in being pro-choice while also being against smoking and drinking during pregnancy.

You're absolutely RIGHT. There is a total consistancy in that viewpoint. Of course being consistantly stupid, idiotic, and immoral is something I generally try to avoid, but if it works for these people, that's their choice.

 

[G.T.]

There's no hipocrisy in being pro-choice while also being against smoking and drinking during pregnancy.

You're absolutely RIGHT. There is a total consistancy in that viewpoint. Of course being consistantly stupid, idiotic, and immoral is something I generally try to avoid, but if it works for these people, that's their choice.

Of course you'd be wrong.

But that's alright. I don't need to walk you through it, do I?

 

[teapartysamurai]

I agree with you that it should be a state issue. Calm down.

We're both just trying to predict what a hypothetical future would bring, in my opinion it would bring the same thing we have now in # of abortions.

I never said I have a moral issue with early abortions I don't, I said I wish there were never abortions.

Again, settle down, these abortion debates are a lot better when people don't let their emotions overtake their intellectual side.

That's like saying don't let your emotions "cloud" you on 9/11. IT IS AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE!

We are talking about BABIES. IT IS AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE!

AND AGAIN YOU ARE BEING PHONY AND HYPOCRITICAL AS HELL. You LECTURE ME about being emotional, yet YOUR DEFENSE about abortion is YOUR OWN FEELINGS?????????

You "wish" abortion would never happen. YOUR FEELINGS!

YET you are supposedly against the government intervention that would stop abortion, when in reality Roe v. Wade IS THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

Dr. Drock you can't have it both ways.

Nice try.

I didn't lecture you. I'm not making a defense about abortion.

I think the reason why you're emotional is you can't stand the fact that someone who's pro-choice has the exact same stance as you, wants it to be a state issue. You view me as the enemy, hence wanting me to have abortions handled in a different way, but that's not the case.

A wish isn't a feeling, I wish I had a trillion dollars, that's not an emotional feeling.

First you lecture me about feelings on abortion while YOU use your feelings to justify your stance on abortion.

Now you try to project feelings onto me NOT IN EVIDENCE.

And THEN you tell me a "wish" isn't emotional????????????

Yeah, it's hard, cold, calculated fact!

You run with that!

You lost.

NEXT!

 

[teapartysamurai]

There's no hipocrisy in being pro-choice while also being against smoking and drinking during pregnancy. If you can't understand that, then it's hard for you to think critically, and you should go back to doing word-problems in math class until you get them right.

BWAHAHAHAHAA!

It's "critical thinking" to justify KILLING THE BABY in the womb, while being against smoking with a baby in the womb.

BWAHAHAHAAAA!

Wow, do we really need to say more about liberals.

They are just mental light weights.

 

[Dr.Drock]

That's like saying don't let your emotions "cloud" you on 9/11. IT IS AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE!

We are talking about BABIES. IT IS AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE!

AND AGAIN YOU ARE BEING PHONY AND HYPOCRITICAL AS HELL. You LECTURE ME about being emotional, yet YOUR DEFENSE about abortion is YOUR OWN FEELINGS?????????

You "wish" abortion would never happen. YOUR FEELINGS!

YET you are supposedly against the government intervention that would stop abortion, when in reality Roe v. Wade IS THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

Dr. Drock you can't have it both ways.

Nice try.

I didn't lecture you. I'm not making a defense about abortion.

I think the reason why you're emotional is you can't stand the fact that someone who's pro-choice has the exact same stance as you, wants it to be a state issue. You view me as the enemy, hence wanting me to have abortions handled in a different way, but that's not the case.

A wish isn't a feeling, I wish I had a trillion dollars, that's not an emotional feeling.

First you lecture me about feelings on abortion while YOU use your feelings to justify your stance on abortion.

Now you try to project feelings onto me NOT IN EVIDENCE.

And THEN you tell me a "wish" isn't emotional????????????

Yeah, it's hard, cold, calculated fact!

You run with that!

You lost.

NEXT!

Lol you admitted to being emotional about the subject. A wish isn't emotional, as I displayed and you again didn't counter. It's not a fact either. I will run with that.

I'm sad you feel the necessity to call yourself a winner in a debate, I remember feeling the need when I was an insecure middle school child, that need has subsided with age.

 

[Jarhead]

There's no hipocrisy in being pro-choice while also being against smoking and drinking during pregnancy. If you can't understand that, then it's hard for you to think critically, and you should go back to doing word-problems in math class until you get them right.

Laying the groundwork......I am pro choice....but I do not believe in abortions as I consider it the killing of a child....but my belief in freedom of choice trumps my religious beliefs.

That being said....

I do see it as hypocritical for the following reasons....

1) if you have the right to do with your body as you wish as the pro choicers advocate, then you have the right to do with your body as you wish....period.

2) if the fetus is not deemed as a living human being as is the arguyment of those that advocate abortions...then the affect to the fetus of smoking and drinking should not be in question.

If you are then going to add to the debate that the "health of the child" will be affected once it is born and a living human being.....I agree...but lets be honest here.....aborting most certainly would affect the health of the child as it is preventing the chil;d from becoming a living human being.

Sorry...I see it as hypocritical.

 

[TheBrain]

Why can't some people understand that not wanting abortions outlawed does not HAVE to equal being pro abortion? I am anti smoking, but I don't want cigarettes outlawed.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Why can't some people understand that not wanting abortions outlawed does not HAVE to equal being pro abortion? I am anti smoking, but I don't want cigarettes outlawed.

Great question, I dunno.

That's another good example, I put out about a half dozen and it still didn't sink in.

 

[G.T.]

There's no hipocrisy in being pro-choice while also being against smoking and drinking during pregnancy. If you can't understand that, then it's hard for you to think critically, and you should go back to doing word-problems in math class until you get them right.

BWAHAHAHAHAA!

It's "critical thinking" to justify KILLING THE BABY in the womb, while being against smoking with a baby in the womb.

BWAHAHAHAAAA!

Wow, do we really need to say more about liberals.

They are just mental light weights.

What part of my post doesn't make sense to you? I'll help you along.

Being pro choice, to some(namely, me), means that if the health of mom is in danger or if mom was raped, a very early abortion is moral. That's what pro-choice means, to me. That is my honest opinion.

I'm also against plaguing a child that you WILL bring to term with life-long suffering because of what health choices a chick makes during her pregnancy.

There is no hipocrisy in the two positions coming from the same place .... it's just that your brain can not differentiate the two very different and un-related points.

 

[teapartysamurai]

There's no hipocrisy in being pro-choice while also being against smoking and drinking during pregnancy.

You're absolutely RIGHT. There is a total consistancy in that viewpoint. Of course being consistantly stupid, idiotic, and immoral is something I generally try to avoid, but if it works for these people, that's their choice.

It's a riot.

I am still asking these idiots which kills more babies, smoking while pregnant or abortion while pregnant. I'm pretty damn sure, it's the latter!

 

[teapartysamurai]

There's no hipocrisy in being pro-choice while also being against smoking and drinking during pregnancy.

You're absolutely RIGHT. There is a total consistancy in that viewpoint. Of course being consistantly stupid, idiotic, and immoral is something I generally try to avoid, but if it works for these people, that's their choice.

Of course you'd be wrong.

But that's alright. I don't need to walk you through it, do I?

GT, which kills more babies in the womb?

A mother smoking while pregnant, or a mother getting an ABORTION while pregnant.

Watch you try to dance your idiotic way around that.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I didn't lecture you. I'm not making a defense about abortion.

I think the reason why you're emotional is you can't stand the fact that someone who's pro-choice has the exact same stance as you, wants it to be a state issue. You view me as the enemy, hence wanting me to have abortions handled in a different way, but that's not the case.

A wish isn't a feeling, I wish I had a trillion dollars, that's not an emotional feeling.

First you lecture me about feelings on abortion while YOU use your feelings to justify your stance on abortion.

Now you try to project feelings onto me NOT IN EVIDENCE.

And THEN you tell me a "wish" isn't emotional????????????

Yeah, it's hard, cold, calculated fact!

You run with that!

You lost.

NEXT!

Lol you admitted to being emotional about the subject. A wish isn't emotional, as I displayed and you again didn't counter. It's not a fact either. I will run with that.

I'm sad you feel the necessity to call yourself a winner in a debate, I remember feeling the need when I was an insecure middle school child, that need has subsided with age.

Well considering your position is a "wish" isn't emotional, I can do that with confidence.

You lost big time.

NEXT!

 

[syrenn]

There's no hipocrisy in being pro-choice while also being against smoking and drinking during pregnancy. If you can't understand that, then it's hard for you to think critically, and you should go back to doing word-problems in math class until you get them right.

BWAHAHAHAHAA!

It's "critical thinking" to justify KILLING THE BABY in the womb, while being against smoking with a baby in the womb.

BWAHAHAHAAAA!

Wow, do we really need to say more about liberals.

They are just mental light weights.

Then do try some critical thinking TPS.

Is its ALL about a woman's right to choose what she does with HER body.

 

[G.T.]

there's no hipocrisy in being pro-choice while also being against smoking and drinking during pregnancy. If you can't understand that, then it's hard for you to think critically, and you should go back to doing word-problems in math class until you get them right.

laying the groundwork......i am pro choice....but i do not believe in abortions as i consider it the killing of a child....but my belief in freedom of choice trumps my religious beliefs.

That being said....

I do see it as hypocritical for the following reasons....

1) if you have the right to do with your body as you wish as the pro choicers advocate, then you have the right to do with your body as you wish....period. unless that's not why you're pro choice.

2) if the fetus is not deemed as a living human being as is the arguyment of those that advocate abortions...then the affect to the fetus of smoking and drinking should not be in question. it becomes the effect on a living child, after birth. Two totally different scenarios: Someone that will never come to be / and someone you're bringing to term to plague with lifelong hardship as a result of health choices while pregnant. i

f you are then going to add to the debate that the "health of the child" will be affected once it is born and a living human being.....i agree...but lets be honest here.....aborting most certainly would affect the health of the child as it is preventing the chil;d from becoming a living human being. one could have a moral stance as to when abortion is ok, and still not want babies born with diseases due to frivolous and immoral behaviors of the mom. It's not that hard of a concept.
sorry...i see it as hypocritical.

me in bold.

 

[Jarhead]

There's no hipocrisy in being pro-choice while also being against smoking and drinking during pregnancy. If you can't understand that, then it's hard for you to think critically, and you should go back to doing word-problems in math class until you get them right.

BWAHAHAHAHAA!

It's "critical thinking" to justify KILLING THE BABY in the womb, while being against smoking with a baby in the womb.

BWAHAHAHAAAA!

Wow, do we really need to say more about liberals.

They are just mental light weights.

What part of my post doesn't make sense to you? I'll help you along.

Being pro choice, to some(namely, me), means that if the health of mom is in danger or if mom was raped, a very early abortion is moral. That's what pro-choice means, to me. That is my honest opinion.

I'm also against plaguing a child that you WILL bring to term with life-long suffering because of what health choices a chick makes during her pregnancy.

There is no hipocrisy in the two positions coming from the same place .... it's just that your brain can not differentiate the two very different and un-related points.

That is your position and yes, based on what you say it is not hypocritical.

But the popsition of many pro choicers is "a woman has the right to do with her body what she wishes"...and I agree.

For those people to ALSO push for outlawing smoking while pregnant....THAT would be hypocritical.

 

[Jarhead]

there's no hipocrisy in being pro-choice while also being against smoking and drinking during pregnancy. If you can't understand that, then it's hard for you to think critically, and you should go back to doing word-problems in math class until you get them right.

laying the groundwork......i am pro choice....but i do not believe in abortions as i consider it the killing of a child....but my belief in freedom of choice trumps my religious beliefs.

That being said....

I do see it as hypocritical for the following reasons....

1) if you have the right to do with your body as you wish as the pro choicers advocate, then you have the right to do with your body as you wish....period. unless that's not why you're pro choice.

2) if the fetus is not deemed as a living human being as is the arguyment of those that advocate abortions...then the affect to the fetus of smoking and drinking should not be in question. it becomes the effect on a living child, after birth. Two totally different scenarios: Someone that will never come to be / and someone you're bringing to term to plague with lifelong hardship as a result of health choices while pregnant. i

f you are then going to add to the debate that the "health of the child" will be affected once it is born and a living human being.....i agree...but lets be honest here.....aborting most certainly would affect the health of the child as it is preventing the chil;d from becoming a living human being. one could have a moral stance as to when abortion is ok, and still not want babies born with diseases due to frivolous and immoral behaviors of the mom. It's not that hard of a concept.
sorry...i see it as hypocritical.

me in bold.

while youi wrote this I read your post and wrote another.

And as I said....from your stance...it is not at all hypocritical.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Why can't some people understand that not wanting abortions outlawed does not HAVE to equal being pro abortion? I am anti smoking, but I don't want cigarettes outlawed.

Because it is like saying I'm against the Holocaust, but I want the Nazis to still have the choice to kill them.

I'm against murder, but I still want the criminal to have the "choice."

IT'S BALONEY!

IT'S EITHER WRONG, OR IT'S NOT.

You can't have it both ways, and pretend you aren't a part of it.

You don't fool anyone!