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

[Dr.Drock]

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!

There's a reason why you don't counter what I say, because you can't. Hence why you didn't counter my point about me wishing I had a trillion dollars, it's not an emotion and I don't get emotional over the fact that I don't have a trillion dollars. You'll avoid that point again I'm sure, but so long as you are aware of it.

Your biggest problem with this current situation is you're on the same side as a (gasp) boogeyman heathen pro-choicer, AAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!

We want the same thing, it to be a state's issue, I hope you can make peace with being on the same side as me.

"I win I win I win!!! Hooray for me!!!!!!" Lol

 

[G.T.]

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.

But I'm not them, and so you see:

The people painting with a widebrush that "pro choicers are hipocrits" for taking both positions, are making a logical fallacy and then calling everyone else stupid and what not, like that teaparty bitch that nobody likes.

 

[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.

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!

You can view something as wrong, and not want government intervention, because others could have a different idea of what's wrong than you do and your desire for them to have freedom on an issue outweighs your desire for government regulation.

That isn't that complex is it?


I'm sure if I knew you I could come up with an example of something you find as wrong but don't want put into law.

 

[Jarhead]

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!

So are you saying it is crap for one to have conflicting sentiments about a social issue...perhaps one side guided by religious ideology and the other side guided by ones personal interpretation of the consitution?

 

[TheBrain]

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.

I don't wish to enter the whole debate, because we simply will never get an agreement between those who believe abortion is okay and those who don't; but I must tell you that it saddens me that some people consider an unborn baby to be nothing more than a growth inside a woman's body, something she can do with as she will. Like a baby is a wart to be cut off and disposed of if unwanted. It's kind of sick when you think about it.

 

[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.

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.

Oh nice try!

But the "health of the mother" issue was long ago refuted as phony. The "health of the mother" also included "mental health." Which mean if she felt "blue" about having a kid, then abortion was warranted for the "health" of the mother.

There are VERY FEW, DAMN FEW pregnancies that will kill the mother, that wouldn't kill the kid in the first place. Example, eptopic pregnancies.

Don't try this BS with me.

I've had three pregnancies. I've had a miscarriage.

Mothers surivive having babies all the time.

As for rape.

A) Why kill the kid for what the father did?

B) Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade claimed she was raped in her case. She admits now SHE WAS LYING.

Are all rape victims lying? Of course not.

Should all kid who were the product of rape, be murdered? Once again, of course not.

So, why murder them just because they are a little younger?

Neither argument washes.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

But I'm not them, and so you see:

The people painting with a widebrush that "pro choicers are hipocrits" for taking both positions, are making a logical fallacy and then calling everyone else stupid and what not, like that teaparty bitch that nobody likes.

Sort of like people referring to tea partyers as racist.
Or even better.....referring to those that had legitamate reasons to want to see the birth certificate as loony birthers...and yes...some had very legit reasons...as I did....not becuase I doubted him being a citizen...but becuase it irked me that the President of the United States refused to accommodate such a simple request.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Oh nice try!

But the "health of the mother" issue was long ago refuted as phony. The "health of the mother" also included "mental health." Which mean if she felt "blue" about having a kid, then abortion was warranted for the "health" of the mother.

There are VERY FEW, DAMN FEW pregnancies that will kill the mother, that wouldn't kill the kid in the first place. Example, eptopic pregnancies.

Don't try this BS with me.

I've had three pregnancies. I've had a miscarriage.

Mothers surivive having babies all the time.

As for rape.

A) Why kill the kid for what the father did?

B) Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade claimed she was raped in her case. She admits now SHE WAS LYING.

Are all rape victims lying? Of course not.

Should all kid who were the product of rape, be murdered? Once again, of course not.

So, why murder them just because they are a little younger?

Neither argument washes.

I don't want you to argue with my opinions, I want you to tell me how having these opinions and also thinking it's wrong to drink or smoke pregnant, are hypocritical? It's because they're not.

I don't give three shits what you have to say about my opinions on abortion, by having them at the same time as being against an unhealthy pregnancy is not hypocritical. Like I said, go back to math class and work on your word-problems over and over and over until you've reached a mindframe where logic is tangible.

 

[G.T.]

Sort of like people referring to tea partyers as racist.
Or even better.....referring to those that had legitamate reasons to want to see the birth certificate as loony birthers...and yes...some had very legit reasons...as I did....not becuase I doubted him being a citizen...but becuase it irked me that the President of the United States refused to accommodate such a simple request.

And I disagree with the legitimacy of those reasons.

 

[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.

Then do try some critical thinking TPS.

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

What if the "woman" is still in the womb? How about her body?

Where do you think YOUR BODY started, genius??

And you talk about "critical thinking?????"

You people remind me of the matriarchial religions of ancient Greece that rejected it was actually male sperm that gave them babies but it was actully the "East Wind from some Goddess" they let blow up their hoo hoo's afterwards. Thus is was the "goddess" that gave them babies. (Yes, trying reading Hoyle's Book of Greek Myth's. They really did think that)

 

[TheBrain]

what if we only made it illegal to smoke or drink during the third trimester? That sounds like a reasonable compromise?

 

[syrenn]

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.

I don't wish to enter the whole debate, because we simply will never get an agreement between those who believe abortion is okay and those who don't; but I must tell you that it saddens me that some people consider an unborn baby to be nothing more than a growth inside a woman's body, something she can do with as she will. Like a baby is a wart to be cut off and disposed of if unwanted. It's kind of sick when you think about it.

Agreed. And and that is where personal choice comes into play. Not everyone is the same. Not everyone thinks the same. Not everyone has the same values or beliefs. What saddens me is when people try and impose their values and beliefs onto others.

 

[Dr.Drock]

what if we only made it illegal to smoke or drink during the third trimester? That sounds like a reasonable compromise?

Still an embarrasing waste of taxpayer dollars and government resources.

 

[Jarhead]

Sort of like people referring to tea partyers as racist.
Or even better.....referring to those that had legitamate reasons to want to see the birth certificate as loony birthers...and yes...some had very legit reasons...as I did....not becuase I doubted him being a citizen...but becuase it irked me that the President of the United States refused to accommodate such a simple request.

And I disagree with the legitimacy of those reasons.

And thus why we have the issues we have.

If it is not important to you...then it shouldnt be important to anyone.

Sorry...I find that arrogant and selfish.

 

[G.T.]

Sort of like people referring to tea partyers as racist.
Or even better.....referring to those that had legitamate reasons to want to see the birth certificate as loony birthers...and yes...some had very legit reasons...as I did....not becuase I doubted him being a citizen...but becuase it irked me that the President of the United States refused to accommodate such a simple request.

And I disagree with the legitimacy of those reasons.

And thus why we have the issues we have.

If it is not important to you...then it shouldnt be important to anyone.

Sorry...I find that arrogant and selfish.

No, you're mixing up my making a selfish emotional decision with my looking at the facts as they were and accepting them, and thinking it unreasonable based on facts and logic *not* to accept the facts as they were.

There was no reason to believe a state agency had faked or altered the originally released document, the one that says right on it that with the state seal, it's good in any court of law within the united states. It's conspiracy minded to believe that the state would break a law so large as to illigitimately allow a false POTUS.

That's not thinking arrogantly, that's being reasonable. Being arrogant is demanding more than what is legally admissible in any court of law.

 

[syrenn]

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.

What if the "woman" is still in the womb? How about her body?

Where do you think YOUR BODY started, genius??

And you talk about "critical thinking?????"

You people remind me of the matriarchial religions of ancient Greece that rejected it was actually male sperm that gave them babies but it was actully the "East Wind from some Goddess" they let blow up their hoo hoo's afterwards. Thus is was the "goddess" that gave them babies. (Yes, trying reading Hoyle's Book of Greek Myth's. They really did think that)

C- section it out genius and see if it lives at 12 weeks. If not, then it is not a stand alone life. It is a parasite requiring a host. If you want an abortion thread open one.

 

[TheBrain]

Then do try some critical thinking TPS.

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

I don't wish to enter the whole debate, because we simply will never get an agreement between those who believe abortion is okay and those who don't; but I must tell you that it saddens me that some people consider an unborn baby to be nothing more than a growth inside a woman's body, something she can do with as she will. Like a baby is a wart to be cut off and disposed of if unwanted. It's kind of sick when you think about it.

Agreed. And and that is where personal choice comes into play. Not everyone is the same. Not everyone thinks the same. Not everyone has the same values or beliefs. What saddens me is when people try and impose their values and beliefs onto others.

So you prefer anarchy and no standards of what is acceptable behavior? Or does that only apply at it concerns YOU having a choice whether to decide if an unborn child is indeed a life? Again I'm not arguing with you whether an unborn baby is life or not. I am arguing with you about not having a standard which all must accept.

 

[TheBrain]

what if we only made it illegal to smoke or drink during the third trimester? That sounds like a reasonable compromise?

Still an embarrasing waste of taxpayer dollars and government resources.

Frankly that's an empty argument. Every criminal that has EVER been arrested for ANY crime has said exactly the same thing. Why is the government wasting money chasing down speeders, drunk drivers, drug users, abusers.... right on down the line.

 

[syrenn]

I don't wish to enter the whole debate, because we simply will never get an agreement between those who believe abortion is okay and those who don't; but I must tell you that it saddens me that some people consider an unborn baby to be nothing more than a growth inside a woman's body, something she can do with as she will. Like a baby is a wart to be cut off and disposed of if unwanted. It's kind of sick when you think about it.

Agreed. And and that is where personal choice comes into play. Not everyone is the same. Not everyone thinks the same. Not everyone has the same values or beliefs. What saddens me is when people try and impose their values and beliefs onto others.

So you prefer anarchy and no standards of what is acceptable behavior? Or does that only apply at it concerns YOU having a choice whether to decide if an unborn child is indeed a life? Again I'm not arguing with you whether an unborn baby is life or not. I am arguing with you about not having a standard which all must accept.

As it stands the law supports a woman's right to choose what she does with her body. That is the standard that all must accept. I support that.

 

[Jarhead]

And I disagree with the legitimacy of those reasons.

And thus why we have the issues we have.

If it is not important to you...then it shouldnt be important to anyone.

Sorry...I find that arrogant and selfish.

No, you're mixing up my making a selfish emotional decision with my looking at the facts as they were and accepting them, and thinking it unreasonable based on facts and logic *not* to accept the facts as they were.

There was no reason to believe a state agency had faked or altered the originally released document, the one that says right on it that with the state seal, it's good in any court of law within the united states. It's conspiracy minded to believe that the state would break a law so large as to illigitimately allow a false POTUS.

That's not thinking arrogantly, that's being reasonable. Being arrogant is demanding more than what is legally admissible in any court of law.

And here was my thinking...

He was asked to prodfuce a BC....he didnt. Instead, he produced something that can be used as a BC...which you and I know kept the door open for some people to want to see more...and so many asked for more and were ridiculed for it.

And that irked me. It was an immature and calculated move so he and his party can play on the insecrutities of many on the right....and use it for political expediency.

So I wanted him to do the right thing and produce it seeing as a POTUS should not play with Americans for political gain.

And to really piss me off...he then SHOWS IT when it became politically beneficial for him to show it....as was evident by him using it to knock out the poll leader of the GOP....

If he was willing to show it...he should have at the beginning.....if he went out of his way to show the shorty...he could have shown the longy....