NationStates Jolt Archive

Bet the title will get one of you.;)

As for the point of this thread it is weather or not should fetuses after six months be guratened a safe environment. My own thoughts on this are yes, such as protection from their mother smoking, drinking, drugs, from the Cookie monster, Vikings, etc.

As for the point of this thread it is weather or not should fetuses after six months be guratened a safe environment. My
...oh my? :confused:

I don't think the weather effects the insides of the womb all that much, but sure, we can come up with belly A/C-heater combos that deploy sunshades and umbrellas.

I doubt you'll get any woman to wear one, but why not?




:D

Lol, the use of "weather" and "safe environment" is pure gold.

Once the brain forms, it is a human being. No question; the brain is what makes us human, and its formation marks the development of the characteristics and thought processes that make up a human being. That places humanhood roughly at the first trimester, which is where most voluntary abortion laws draw the line to begin with.

I don't think the weather effects the insides of the womb all that much, but sure, we can come up with belly A/C-heater combos that deploy sunshades and umbrellas.

I doubt you'll get any woman to wear one, but why not?




:DWell, if it were not for my mom smoking so much I might have been the next Stalin. lol.

I voted wrong because I didn't read the post before hand.

Bet the title will get one of you.;)

As for the point of this thread it is weather or not should fetuses after six months be guratened a safe environment. My own thoughts on this are yes, such as protection from their mother smoking, drinking, drugs, from the Cookie monster, Vikings, etc.

Yes, because every baby that pops out will have a great safe life after they're born.

You forget:

"And Sean said unto That One Guy:

Upon the womb I shall create rain, and hail, and snow. All storms shall be upon the children of the womb. This is my word."

Book of Leftipodi, George 4:10

Wait, you mean WHETHER. Ah.

Well, as a person whose mother drank HEAVILY while pregnant with may, I must say that aside from the lazy-eye, random eye twitches, muscle jerks, hunchback, much shorter right leg than left, ceizures, and schizophrenia, I am perfectly fine.

the brain is what makes us human

Cows have brains.

Cows have brains.

Yeah, but not human brains.

Cows have brains.

Not human brains.

Not human brains.

Then you should identify the specific characteristics of the brain that make us human (and more importantly, morally worthy) - and make those the traits that must be possessed for giving an entity rights.

A brain in and of itself is insufficient.

Once the brain forms, it is a human being. No question; the brain is what makes us human, and its formation marks the development of the characteristics and thought processes that make up a human being. That places humanhood roughly at the first trimester, which is where most voluntary abortion laws draw the line to begin with.

I must agree, and since the timeframe for the poll is six months or older, I voted yes on the poll.

This isn't so much a question of the rights of the fetus as of both its and the rights of its mother. Regarding the fetus, we know its heart beats and the brain is active by definition. So a fetus is, by definition, an entity with its own life and mental processes, and is thus seperate from the mother. But the mother is a full-blown human being, and is entitled to rights as well: Should Mom be allowed to drink and smoke? Of course, she can do whatever she wants with her body. But when a mother is carrying a fetus, she is responsible for whatever happens to it as well as herself.

Which brings us back to the rights of the fetus. The fetus is an underdeveloped entity (see earlier), but an entity nonetheless, independent and entitled to at least basic rights: For one, the right to life. Drinking and smoking and snorting on the part of the mother should be considered an infringement upon this right, as they can cause birth defects that would hinder the child and deprive it of a normal life.

Just my two cents.

EDIT: Looking back at your posts, I think I did something wrong here. Doh.

Look, if babies don't want to be aborted they can just say so. If they dont mind then im sure that they will hold their tongue.

My basic stance without and recourse to explanation is that the mother should be held to account to any activity that could harm the fetus during the pregnancy, but I'll probably support abortions well into the third trimester.

Look, if babies don't want to be aborted they can just say so. If they dont mind then im sure that they will hold their tongue.

How about if the baby is holding a sign, visible in the ultrasound, that simply says 'Kill Me'?

I would take that over your method. If it has that sign, it is obviously forfeiting its right to life. Otherwise, I think we should give it the opportunity to at least get some air in its lungs to tell us itself.

I voted "depends". If the woman carrying the fetus intends to bring it to term, it has rights. If she doesn't, then it doesn't.

Once the brain forms, it is a human being. No question; the brain is what makes us human, and its formation marks the development of the characteristics and thought processes that make up a human being. That places humanhood roughly at the first trimester, which is where most voluntary abortion laws draw the line to begin with.

Wouldn't a more useful point be when the brain starts functioning?

Wouldn't a more useful point be when the brain starts functioning?

Yes, but having a safety margin is always a good idea.

Yes, but having a safety margin is always a good idea.

A safety margin that takes up over a whole trimester? There isn't a functioning brain until the start of the third trimester.

I don't consider fetuses human par se. They are not part of society and they don't have personal relationships with other people. Once they are born and they begin to interact with people, and form social relationships (which may only be one way until the baby is able to distinguish between two different people).

Abortion should be legal until the 3rd trimester AFTER birth... Until it can speak for itself I don't really consider it a human being, and I don't find babies particularly cute. The ancient Spartans had a pretty good system.

Bet the title will get one of you.;)

As for the point of this thread it is weather or not should fetuses after six months be guratened a safe environment. My own thoughts on this are yes, such as protection from their mother smoking, drinking, drugs, from the Cookie monster, Vikings, etc.
Ah yes, more efforts to ensure that pregnancy strips women of their most fundamental human rights. I guess it's all okay if we just dehumanize women by defining them as "environments" for fetuses.

Every time somebody accuses feminists of being shrill or bitchy or man-hating, my mind boggles just a little bit. We have people suggesting that female human beings should be treated as subhumans, and FEMINISTS are the ones who are hating?! Feminists are the ones who are bitches? Really? Not the people who want 51% of the population to be regarded as unworthy of human rights? Really?

Oh well.

Ah yes, more efforts to ensure that pregnancy strips women of their most fundamental human rights. I guess it's all okay if we just dehumanize women by defining them as "environments" for fetuses.

Every time somebody accuses feminists of being shrill or bitchy or man-hating, my mind boggles just a little bit. We have people suggesting that female human beings should be treated as subhumans, and FEMINISTS are the ones who are hating?! Feminists are the ones who are bitches? Really? Not the people who want 51% of the population to be regarded as unworthy of human rights? Really?

Oh well.

Bottle, wouldn't you say, though, that if a mother intends to bring it to term, and excessive drinking/smoking/drug abuse she partakes in can significantly harm the child, and therefore if she does those things she should be held accountable for any defects the child is born with?

I don't think anyone is advocated against abortion, merely that if the mother wants to keep the child, she shouldn't do things that would definitely cause it harm.

The rights of the woman override the rights of the foetus.

She is the carrier and so long as the foetus is in her womb, it is basically a parasite feeding off vital nutrients that her body needs. This foetus requires the woman to breath, as it can't until its lungs are fully developed and it requires food to develop. It needs access to the body that is supporting it.

For this reason, I believe that the foetus doesn't have any rights until at least the third trimester when it can, and has the greatest chance of surviving outside of the woman's body.

The rights of the woman override the rights of the foetus.

She is the carrier and so long as the foetus is in her womb, it is basically a parasite feeding off vital nutrients that her body needs. This foetus requires the woman to breath, as it can't until its lungs are fully developed and it requires food to develop. It needs access to the body that is supporting it.

For this reason, I believe that the foetus doesn't have any rights until at least the third trimester when it can, and has the greatest chance of surviving outside of the woman's body.

Should a woman who has goven birth and is breastfeeding be allowed to delibrately take medication she knows will pass into the breast milk with the intent of harming the child?

It is her body and the child is a parasite feeding off it - can she do what she wishes to her body in such an instance?

Yes Definately

Ah yes, more efforts to ensure that pregnancy strips women of their most fundamental human rights. I guess it's all okay if we just dehumanize women by defining them as "environments" for fetuses.

Every time somebody accuses feminists of being shrill or bitchy or man-hating, my mind boggles just a little bit. We have people suggesting that female human beings should be treated as subhumans, and FEMINISTS are the ones who are hating?! Feminists are the ones who are bitches? Really? Not the people who want 51% of the population to be regarded as unworthy of human rights? Really?

Oh well.

I am pretty sure that this is explicitly not a topic about abortion. It is a topic about women who have chosen to bring a pregnancy to term.

The question might better be phrased: Does a woman who has decided to bring a pregnancy to term have a responsibility to not delibrately engage in actions that she knows will cause harm to the foetus that will have long term ill effects on the child after birth.

For example - I know a girl who is adamant that she will smoke 20 cigarettes a day through any pregnancy she has with the intent of reducing the babys birth weight as much as possible for an easier birth... She is planning on consciously inflicting harm on her future children that she knows will have effects long past their time in her womb.

If the woman has decided not to keep the foetus then I don't care if she doses up on crack every day while she waits for her appointment at the abortion clinic - the only person to suffer as a result will be her.

Yes Definately

How is that different to feeding the baby the medication directly?

Are you also saying that a mother should be allowed to murder a child that has been born as long as she does so by passing the poison through her milk?

Should a woman who has goven birth and is breastfeeding be allowed to delibrately take medication she knows will pass into the breast milk with the intent of harming the child?

It is her body and the child is a parasite feeding off it - can she do what she wishes to her body in such an instance?

She needs to give the baby formula if she knows she's taking medication that will make her breastmilk unfit for the baby. To do otherwise would be no different than finding out that somone is spiking a baby bottle with a foriegn ingredient, like a booze or a sleeping pill etc., and I don't think anyone would defend that action.

She needs to give the baby formula if she knows she's taking medication that will make her breastmilk unfit for the baby. To do otherwise would be no different than finding out that somone is spiking a baby bottle with a foriegn ingredient, like a booze or a sleeping pill etc., and I don't think anyone would defend that action.

I didn't think anyone would either - however the guy I asked responded that she definately should be allowed to...

I saw that after I posted... but I'm not positive that they were talking to you, or the thread question in general?

The person whose post Shx quoted wasn't the same person who responded Yes, Definitely. I think that guy was responding to the OP.

we beat our women, and then go out with boys on friday

I didn't think anyone would either - however the guy I asked responded that she definately should be allowed to...


I saw that after I posted... but I'm not positive that they were talking to you, or the thread question in general?

The person whose post Shx quoted wasn't the same person who responded Yes, Definitely. I think that guy was responding to the OP.

Oops...

Damn people with odd names beginning with 'K'...

I retard.

Bottle, wouldn't you say, though, that if a mother intends to bring it to term, and excessive drinking/smoking/drug abuse she partakes in can significantly harm the child, and therefore if she does those things she should be held accountable for any defects the child is born with?

No. I believe that women should have the same rights to choose what they do with their bodies as everybody else does. I believe that pregnancy should not decrease a woman's civil or human rights. I do not believe that pregnant women should be reduced to less than full human status, or that pregnant women should be denied rights that we still extend to convicted serial killers.


I don't think anyone is advocated against abortion, merely that if the mother wants to keep the child, she shouldn't do things that would definitely cause it harm.
Do I think it would be BEST for a woman to refrain from smoking, drinking, etc while pregnant? Absofuckinglutely. I know, in graphic detail, many of the neurological and physiological problems that can result from poor maternal health care.

Do I believe that we should even remotely consider legally forcing women and pregnant women to give up their rights to their own bodies? Fuck no.

No. I believe that women should have the same rights to choose what they do with their bodies as everybody else does. I believe that pregnancy should not decrease a woman's civil or human rights. I do not believe that pregnant women should be reduced to less than full human status, or that pregnant women should be denied rights that we still extend to convicted serial killers.


Do I think it would be BEST for a woman to refrain from smoking, drinking, etc while pregnant? Absofuckinglutely. I know, in graphic detail, many of the neurological and physiological problems that can result from poor maternal health care.

Do I believe that we should even remotely consider legally forcing women and pregnant women to give up their rights to their own bodies? Fuck no.

Ok. That seems reasonable. I personally think that there should be some accountability though. I mean if you're put in the care of someone (granted this is someone who is already alive and a full human being) and knowingly poison them in pursuit of your own smoking/drinking/drug abuse, shouldn't you be held accountable?

I am pretty sure that this is explicitly not a topic about abortion. It is a topic about women who have chosen to bring a pregnancy to term.

Okay. So?


The question might better be phrased: Does a woman who has decided to bring a pregnancy to term have a responsibility to not delibrately engage in actions that she knows will cause harm to the foetus that will have long term ill effects on the child after birth.

And my answer is that EVERYBODY, including women, and including pregnant women, has the right to choose what they put into their own body.

I happen to think women shouldn't smoke cigarettes at all, even if they're not pregnant and never will be. I think it's a very unhealthy and unsafe choice. But I believe it is a choice for the individual to make. Even if that individual is female. Even if that individual is pregnant. It's still her body, even if she's pregnant.


For example - I know a girl who is adamant that she will smoke 20 cigarettes a day through any pregnancy she has with the intent of reducing the babys birth weight as much as possible for an easier birth... She is planning on consciously inflicting harm on her future children that she knows will have effects long past their time in her womb.

Do I agree with her choice? Nope. Do I believe it is hers to make, and it would be completely and totally inappropriate to try to take away her right to choose? Nope.


If the woman has decided not to keep the foetus then I don't care if she doses up on crack every day while she waits for her appointment at the abortion clinic - the only person to suffer as a result will be her.
My personal standards for good prenatal health may not line up with what another woman chooses, but I don't believe I (or anybody else) should be allowed to legally enforce my standards on another person's body.

My personal standards for good prenatal health may not line up with what another woman chooses, but I don't believe I (or anybody else) should be allowed to legally enforce my standards on another person's body.

But the pregnant woman *is* allowed to enforce her standards on the unborn child ?

No. I believe that women should have the same rights to choose what they do with their bodies as everybody else does. I believe that pregnancy should not decrease a woman's civil or human rights. I do not believe that pregnant women should be reduced to less than full human status, or that pregnant women should be denied rights that we still extend to convicted serial killers.


Do I think it would be BEST for a woman to refrain from smoking, drinking, etc while pregnant? Absofuckinglutely. I know, in graphic detail, many of the neurological and physiological problems that can result from poor maternal health care.

Do I believe that we should even remotely consider legally forcing women and pregnant women to give up their rights to their own bodies? Fuck no.

Well, if a woman wants an abortion, I believe she should have the right to get one (not that the state should subsidize it, though).

On the other hand, if she intends to have the child, and intentionally does something as extreme as doing heroin or smoking crack while she's pregnant, if the kid comes out badly, I believe that if the harm can be proved in court, she should go to prison for it.

I happen to think women shouldn't smoke cigarettes at all, even if they're not pregnant and never will be. I think it's a very unhealthy and unsafe choice. But I believe it is a choice for the individual to make. Even if that individual is female. Even if that individual is pregnant. It's still her body, even if she's pregnant.
And she is knowingly harming another persons body - and the effects of that harm will be felt long after that other person is no longer inside her body.

And who, exactly, will be empowered to define what does and does not constitute "extreme"?

What about women who intentionally get pregnant even though they know they have physical problems of their own which will most likely result in risky or unhealthy pregnancies? Many such women have a far higher likelihood of producing a deformed or unhealthy baby than a woman who (for example) smokes during pregnancy, yet they knowingly choose to have biological children. Should they be held accountable if their child is born with serious medical problems?

What about older women? Their advanced age is a known risk factor for serious problems (like Down's Syndrome). Should an older woman be held criminally responsible for choosing to be pregnant if the child is born with Down's?

How exactly will it be proven that the particular ailments a child suffers were the direct result of the mother's behavior during pregnancy?

What if a woman does tons of heroin while pregnant, but gives birth to a totally healthy baby? What if one woman does heroin all through her pregnancy and has a healthy baby, while another woman had a couple of drinks and ends up with a baby with severe FAS?

The difference is that one is preventable while the other is not (please don't try and suggest that a person at risk of having a child with Down Syndrome can prevent this by not having the child). You can choose to not smoke crack and shoot heroin. You can alter your age or physiology.

On the other hand, if she intends to have the child, and intentionally does something as extreme as doing heroin or smoking crack while she's pregnant, if the kid comes out badly, I believe that if the harm can be proved in court, she should go to prison for it.
And who, exactly, will be empowered to define what does and does not constitute "extreme"?

What about women who intentionally get pregnant even though they know they have physical problems of their own which will most likely result in risky or unhealthy pregnancies? Many such women have a far higher likelihood of producing a deformed or unhealthy baby than a woman who (for example) smokes during pregnancy, yet they knowingly choose to have biological children. Should they be held accountable if their child is born with serious medical problems?

What about older women? Their advanced age is a known risk factor for serious problems (like Down's Syndrome). Should an older woman be held criminally responsible for choosing to be pregnant if the child is born with Down's?

How exactly will it be proven that the particular ailments a child suffers were the direct result of the mother's behavior during pregnancy?

What if a woman does tons of heroin while pregnant, but gives birth to a totally healthy baby? What if one woman does heroin all through her pregnancy and has a healthy baby, while another woman had a couple of drinks and ends up with a baby with severe FAS?

Whom do you propose will care for the children of the women you want to send to prison? Will you be adopting them?

And she is knowingly harming another persons body - and the effects of that harm will be felt long after that other person is no longer inside her body.
None of which changes my stance on the matter. A fetus does not have any rights which trump a woman's right to choose what she does with her body.

I voted wrong because I didn't read the post before hand.

Me too

I dont think it is right to commit abortion....The fetus should have the right to live....It doesnt matter how many days or weeks it is a fetus shouldnt be killed....Anyone wanting to do abortion should change the situatiuon around. Think about what if my mother had commited abortion....what would have been of me....I think everyone deserves a chancve to have a life no matter if its a fetus or already a human being....I think that the fetus is already a human being once it has started to develop, once it has started to grow......as soon as it was created.....So think about it......Fetus do deserve a chance and should have the right to live.\\

And who, exactly, will be empowered to define what does and does not constitute "extreme"?

What about women who intentionally get pregnant even though they know they have physical problems of their own which will most likely result in risky or unhealthy pregnancies? Many such women have a far higher likelihood of producing a deformed or unhealthy baby than a woman who (for example) smokes during pregnancy, yet they knowingly choose to have biological children. Should they be held accountable if their child is born with serious medical problems?

What about older women? Their advanced age is a known risk factor for serious problems (like Down's Syndrome). Should an older woman be held criminally responsible for choosing to be pregnant if the child is born with Down's?

How exactly will it be proven that the particular ailments a child suffers were the direct result of the mother's behavior during pregnancy?

What if a woman does tons of heroin while pregnant, but gives birth to a totally healthy baby? What if one woman does heroin all through her pregnancy and has a healthy baby, while another woman had a couple of drinks and ends up with a baby with severe FAS?

All of those instances are however inherent in the womans body already - in many cases they are a chance of harm if shoddy cromozones show up, and in none of those cases can the woman do anything to improve the baby she has chosen to bring into the world. She cannot choose to be 15 years younger, she cannot choose to have the right chromozones line up etc etc.

However if she does smoke excessively, or take certain drugs then she is choosing to behave in a way that she could easily avoid and that she knows will very likely harm her child. As such the harm is consciously delibrate and avoidable rather than unconscious or an unavoidable risk.

And who, exactly, will be empowered to define what does and does not constitute "extreme"?

Voters, like everything else.
What about women who intentionally get pregnant even though they know they have physical problems of their own which will most likely result in risky or unhealthy pregnancies? Many such women have a far higher likelihood of producing a deformed or unhealthy baby than a woman who (for example) smokes during pregnancy, yet they knowingly choose to have biological children. Should they be held accountable if their child is born with serious medical problems?
If abortion were more accessible, I believe that most of these problems would take care of themselves - how many women will have a baby, knowing that it's all fucked up, if they can get an abortion in late term?

What about older women? Their advanced age is a known risk factor for serious problems (like Down's Syndrome). Should an older woman be held criminally responsible for choosing to be pregnant if the child is born with Down's?
See previous answer.

How exactly will it be proven that the particular ailments a child suffers were the direct result of the mother's behavior during pregnancy?
It's apparently easy to do with crack babies.

What if a woman does tons of heroin while pregnant, but gives birth to a totally healthy baby? What if one woman does heroin all through her pregnancy and has a healthy baby, while another woman had a couple of drinks and ends up with a baby with severe FAS?
I already stated in my post - only prosecute if the baby comes out harmed. I might include FAS in the law.

Whom do you propose will care for the children of the women you want to send to prison? Will you be adopting them?

I have already adopted. I would encourage more people to do so.

I would also encourage women who, by ultrasound or other test, know that the fetus is in serious trouble, to abort.

None of which changes my stance on the matter. A fetus does not have any rights which trump a woman's right to choose what she does with her body.

Why not ?

None of which changes my stance on the matter. A fetus does not have any rights which trump a woman's right to choose what she does with her body.

However she is not doing it to just her body, she is carrying out an action that will have ill effects long after her body has nothing to do with child. In choosing to keep the child and in choosing to take part in behavior that she knows will have long term effects on the child she is choosing to cause permanent harm to a child/foetus she intends to bring to term.

I'm almost of the opinion that having a live birth that results in a malformed child (or severely brain damaged child), with said damage caused prior to the actual birth (birthing itself is a tricky thing), should be a crime.

There are plenty of tests that can show that the child should be aborted well beforehand.

The state should not only encourage it, but in such circumstances, the state should pay for it.

It's a lot cheaper to pay for the abortion, than to pay for the long term effects later.

And yes, we all get to enjoy paying for the child with flippers or Down's or FAS - and I don't want to keep paying for that.

from what I learned in pregnancy classes while I was having my kids, apparently if you are screwing around after the 6th month mark they are going to be pretty screwed anyway......I mean kids are pretty much done growing all their stuff by then, it's just not all in perfect working order yet.

I dont think it is right to commit abortion....The fetus should have the right to live....It doesnt matter how many days or weeks it is a fetus shouldnt be killed....Anyone wanting to do abortion should change the situatiuon around. Think about what if my mother had commited abortion....what would have been of me....

The exact same thing as if she had not had the sex with your dad which produced you. You would have never existed.

Should a woman who has given birth and is breastfeeding be allowed to delibrately take medication she knows will pass into the breast milk with the intent of harming the child?

It is her body and the child is a parasite feeding off it - can she do what she wishes to her body in such an instance?

If the medication is required to help her live a normal life then yes she should take it. But, she shouldn't feed the child. This is why baby formula exists, so that both mother and child don't have to make necessary sacrifices.

If the child is born, she has a right to protect it.

An unborn child has fewer, if any rights because it's not developed as a human.

Breast feeding, unlike pregnancy, is not 24/7.

Breast feeding doesn't drain the mother nearly as much as pregnancy, as the baby is not diverting all of the nutrients the mother's body needs to its own.

While I'm a believer of women's rights and that those rights supersede the rights of the foetus, I think any woman in her right mind would not take harmful substances during her pregnancy, especially if she intends to go to term.

Wouldn't a more useful point be when the brain starts functioning?

Well, it has been found that in the womb they have the ability to cry, dream (of what I can't be quite sure :confused:), be curious of their surroundings, as well of course as soothing themselves by sucking their thumb and so on. Personally, I view both the mother and child (fetus) as having rights and it's a very touchy subject of course. I also study birth 'defects' and although there are cases in which the child doesn't form correctly such as the case in anencephaly where because the neural tube doesn't close the child doesn't develop a proper head. Most of the brain doesn't develop as well as lacking a scalp/upper portion of the head. Children who are born with such things cannot survive, they cannot breath, hear, see, think, or feel pain. They are partially alive from the neck down but don't have the brain function.

That being said, I did say yes to the question although depends would work too. I don't support an abortion when it comes to healthy (not going to cause death or major pain for the child) babies or times when it wouldn't cause a major health problem or death for the mother. Of course most abortions are used as a form of birth control.

Major health problem or not I still feel the fetus is a baby and even if abortion is used should have more respect given to them. I also want to point out that even if a child does have a major health issue and has no chance of survival outside the womb that it would still be a great thing to bring them to term as many times the organs are mature enough and although one child cannot live the organs from that one child could help others who still could survive. Of course I understand it would be very painful for a woman to actually know of such things but still bring the child to term. Some women might be able to do such things for the greater good of others.

I voted wrong. It probably helps to read the post before voting.

When the fetus can survive on its own outside of the mother I believe it has rights (unless the mother's life is in jeopardy).

I like the way the abortion laws are in my state:
First trimester- Anyone can have an abortion no questions.
Second trimester- A doctor must sign off on an abortion.
Third trimester- Two doctors must sign off. They can only sign off if the mother's life is in jeopardy or with some other extraordinary circumstances.

Bottle has already pointed out some of the big problems with the idea that a fetus has the "right" to a completely safe environment, but here's one more:

So far we've been talking pretty exclusively about protecting fetuses from their mothers' alcohol/nicotine/cocaine habits. While I support people's rights to drink and smoke, no one, least of all me, is going to argue that stopping drinking or smoking for a few months is a terrible hardship. What about prescription drugs, though? There are many such drugs that are known to cause birth defects in some cases. Should a mother be forced to stop taking them, too?

Before you answer, let me give one example. I took a drug for my bipolar II disorder a while back that has been shown to cause problems for developing fetuses. Now, it didn't happen to be the medication for me, but it is an immensely helpful drug for many people, and can make a world of difference in staving off major depressions. If you haven't experienced a severe depressive downswing, let me tell you a little about what can happen to someone when she's entirely unmedicated: She can't get out of bed for days, save to go to the bathroom. She cries constantly. She feels like she's utterly worthless, like her life is meaningless, and like the world would be much better off if she had never been born. She may start deliberately or subconsciously doing things to harm herself, physically or otherwise. She alienates her friends and family; if she has a job, she very probably loses it. In short, she goes through hell and thoroughly trashes her life in the process.

Now, I'd consider it reasonable to suggest that a woman stop taking the medication in question if she becomes pregnant, but to legally require her to go through what I've described would be ludicrous and reprehensible. So, now, instead of "the fetus has a right to be protected from all unsafe substances," we have "the fetus has a right to be protected from all unsafe substances that we deem the mother to be taking for comparatively less 'worthy' reasons." Hopefully you can see the problems with making and enforcing such a rule. It seems a great deal more sensible to me to educate prospective mothers on the risks associated with all their choices, and then let them decide for themselves which behaviors are important enough to risk harming their future baby and which are not.

Then you should identify the specific characteristics of the brain that make us human (and more importantly, morally worthy) - and make those the traits that must be possessed for giving an entity rights.

A brain in and of itself is insufficient.

Not really. The human brain is unique; even though it shares similar structures and mechanisms of operation as other animals' brains, it is unique to humans just like their brains are unique to them. A human being wouldn't survive if we implanted another organism's brain in them.

Now, I'd consider it reasonable to suggest that a woman stop taking the medication in question if she becomes pregnant, but to legally require her to go through what I've described would be ludicrous and reprehensible.

How about simply forbidding her to have children in these circumstances ?

Not really. The human brain is unique; even though it shares similar structures and mechanisms of operation as other animals' brains, it is unique to humans just like their brains are unique to them. A human being wouldn't survive if we implanted another organism's brain in them.

Like to see you try and prove that 'belief'...

Once the brain forms, it is a human being. No question; the brain is what makes us human, and its formation marks the development of the characteristics and thought processes that make up a human being.
I have to disagree. Simply having that brain is not sfficient. The brain must be developed and functional, and that doesn't happen meaningfully until after birth.

Like to see you try and prove that 'belief'...

Not addressed to me, but:
if one considers the brain to be the seat of conciousness, putting a pigs brain in a human body would not produce a human - but a humanshaped (and therefor terribly malformed) pig.

I have to disagree. Simply having that brain is not sfficient. The brain must be developed and functional, and that doesn't happen meaningfully until after birth.

Untrue. There are however many weeks of pregnancy before the brain and neural net fire up.

How about simply forbidding her to have children in these circumstances ?

The patient’s doctors determine the medication for the situation, as best overall. The very question, as presented, was a false dichotomy because a patient who was prescribed something and then becomes pregnant should go back to their doctor because their medical condition has changed since the prescription was made.

It’s not a, take this and hurt the baby, or not take it and hurt me question, there are other options that a medical professional would try and treat both patients (the mother and the baby) when there is a pregnant mother in question prescriptions frequently need to be changed to remain affective and less harmful.

Not addressed to me, but:
if one considers the brain to be the seat of conciousness, putting a pigs brain in a human body would not produce a human - but a humanshaped (and therefor terribly malformed) pig.

A fetus pigs brain matter, if introduced to human hormones... Who knows what you'd get.

What about pigs altered to grow human tissue for human replacement, perhaps human brain tissue for stoke victims?

That would obviously also be ludicrous and reprehensible. I'm hoping you're kidding...

Why would it be reprehensible ? Do you WANT to put more deformed and/or terminally ill children on this planet ?

How about simply forbidding her to have children in these circumstances ?

That would obviously also be ludicrous and reprehensible. I'm hoping you're kidding...

"Going back to her doctor" and "considering trying other medications" do not preclude staying on her current meds, and many doctors would recommend she do so. I've dealt with my mood disorder for most of my life, and during that time I have tried literally dozens of different drugs. Guess how many of them have done me any good at all (at least, without intolerable side effects). I'll give you a hint: it's somewhere between 0 and 2. This is not at all an uncommon position for mental patients; many, like me, will spend years trying drug after drug after drug before they find one that works for them. Do you really think it likely that, upon becoming pregnant, every single one of those women will immediately be able to find a functional drug with no risks to fetuses? Really?

I didn't make that claim... You are making a strawman argument.

The patient’s doctors determine the medication for the situation, as best overall. The very question, as presented, was a false dichotomy because a patient who was prescribed something and then becomes present should go back to their doctor because their medical condition has changed since the prescription was made.

It’s not a, take this and hurt the baby, or not take it and hurt me question, there are other options that a medical professional would try and treat both patients (the mother and the baby) when there is a pregnant mother in question prescriptions frequently need to be changed to remain affective and less harmful.

"Going back to her doctor" and "considering trying other medications" do not preclude staying on her current meds, and many doctors would recommend she do so. I've dealt with my mood disorder for most of my life, and during that time I have tried literally dozens of different drugs. Guess how many of them have done me any good at all (at least, without intolerable side effects). I'll give you a hint: it's somewhere between 0 and 2. This is not at all an uncommon position for mental patients; many, like me, will spend years trying drug after drug after drug before they find one that works for them. Do you really think it likely that, upon becoming pregnant, every single one of those women will immediately be able to find a functional drug with no risks to fetuses? Really?

Why would it be reprehensible ? Do you WANT to put more deformed and/or terminally ill children on this planet ?

apparently not as much as you want to control other people's bodies.

apparently not as much as you want to control other people's bodies.

As far as I am concerned a woman is free to do with her body whatever she wants, including getting pregnant and having an abortion.
However, at some point (for me: when the neural net activates) the fetus also becomes a person worthy of protection. And deliberately making sure that person will be deformed for no good reason* is not something I think should be allowed.
If that means that some people cannot naturally procreate.. so be it. Plenty of kids to adopt on ths planet.

* I am undecided on the "deaf couple want a deaf child, since they can make that happier than a hearing one" issue.

Why would it be reprehensible ? Do you WANT to put more deformed and/or terminally ill children on this planet ?

Not particularly, but then, I also don't want to put more stupid people on the planet. Perhaps we should forcibly sterilize anyone with an IQ under 100, too? Or we can just make everyone take a test to prove theur suitability as parents before they are permitted to have sex and issue "Sex Licenses." We can have police stationed in every bedroom to check licenses before people start getting their freak on. It'll be great!

Or, y'know, we could just respect everyone's right to bodily autonomy, which would rather obviously extend to their right to become pregnant...

As far as I am concerned a woman is free to do with her body whatever she wants, including getting pregnant and having an abortion.
However, at some point (for me: when the neural net activates) the fetus also becomes a person worthy of protection. And deliberately making sure that person will be deformed for no good reason* is not something I think should be allowed.
If that means that some people cannot naturally procreate.. so be it. Plenty of kids to adopt on ths planet.

* I am undecided on the "deaf couple want a deaf child, since they can make that happier than a hearing one" issue.
where do you draw the line of "deformed"?

I didn't make that claim... You are making a strawman argument.

No, I didn't say that you believed this. I asked. Note the question mark at the end of the sentence, followed by the word "Really" and a secnd question mark, emphasizing the degree to which I believe this to be an unlikely position for you or anyone to take. My point was that unless you believed this, your claim that I had presented a false dichotomy and that a woman would not be faced with a choice between taking a particular drug and risking harming her fetus and not taking said drug and harming herself was demonstrably false.

No, I didn't say that you believed this. I asked. Note the question mark at the end of the sentence, followed by the word "Really" and a secnd question mark, emphasizing the degree to which I believe this to be an unlikely position for you or anyone to take. My point was that unless you believed this, your claim that I had presented a false dichotomy and that a woman would not be faced with a choice between taking a particular drug and risking harming her fetus and not taking said drug and harming herself was demonstrably false.

The false dichotomy part I was referring to was when the question was presented without the required consultation with the medical professionals first in order to present the options. If the questions is, self protection with risk to the baby vs. no risk to the baby and allow harm to self, then your analogy was fit. But the question being discussed was the responsibility, or not, of blatant disregard for the baby’s well being. I.e.., taking non-prescribed drugs, illegal drugs and narcotics, recreational drugs like alcohol or cigarettes, etc., not about taking doctor prescribed medications. IMO

The human brain is unique; even though it shares similar structures and mechanisms of operation as other animals' brains, it is unique to humans just like their brains are unique to them. A human being wouldn't survive if we implanted another organism's brain in them.

So?

What about a human brain makes it morally different from any other brain?

So?

What about a human brain makes it morally different from any other brain?
This is an important question. If your relevant characteristic is simply that its human you're making a distinction very much that of hardcore racists (these people are wirth 3/5 of a man because they're black). To do better than that you need to explain why being human matters. What relevant charactersistics does being human grant?

And then, you could conceivably apply these standards to other life forms should they come to satisfy them.

You forget:

"And Sean said unto That One Guy:

Upon the womb I shall create rain, and hail, and snow. All storms shall be upon the children of the womb. This is my word."

Book of Leftipodi, George 4:10

Wait, you mean WHETHER. Ah.

Well, as a person whose mother drank HEAVILY while pregnant with may, I must say that aside from the lazy-eye, random eye twitches, muscle jerks, hunchback, much shorter right leg than left, ceizures, and schizophrenia, I am perfectly fine.

Damn it. I wanted to point that out first. You can bet my post would've made the OP feel stupider than yours. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Bottle
And who, exactly, will be empowered to define what does and does not constitute "extreme"?

What about women who intentionally get pregnant even though they know they have physical problems of their own which will most likely result in risky or unhealthy pregnancies? Many such women have a far higher likelihood of producing a deformed or unhealthy baby than a woman who (for example) smokes during pregnancy, yet they knowingly choose to have biological children. Should they be held accountable if their child is born with serious medical problems?

What about older women? Their advanced age is a known risk factor for serious problems (like Down's Syndrome). Should an older woman be held criminally responsible for choosing to be pregnant if the child is born with Down's?

How exactly will it be proven that the particular ailments a child suffers were the direct result of the mother's behavior during pregnancy?

What if a woman does tons of heroin while pregnant, but gives birth to a totally healthy baby? What if one woman does heroin all through her pregnancy and has a healthy baby, while another woman had a couple of drinks and ends up with a baby with severe FAS?

All of those instances are however inherent in the womans body already - in many cases they are a chance of harm if shoddy cromozones show up, and in none of those cases can the woman do anything to improve the baby she has chosen to bring into the world. She cannot choose to be 15 years younger, she cannot choose to have the right chromozones line up etc etc.

However if she does smoke excessively, or take certain drugs then she is choosing to behave in a way that she could easily avoid and that she knows will very likely harm her child. As such the harm is consciously delibrate and avoidable rather than unconscious or an unavoidable risk.
Shx, all you seem to be doing in your argument is advocating punishing/controlling selected behaviors -- not all behaviors that are potentially detrimental. This invalidates your argument because it renders it judgemental against women, not protective of fetuses.

Consider: If we lived in a reality where a stated intention to give birth created an enforceable obligation on the part of the woman to prevent harm to the fetus inside her, then any woman who knowingly became pregnant while suffering a health condition that created a risk of harm to the fetus, would have violated her obligation to the same extent as if she had chosen to drink or smoke during pregnancy.

By trying to create a bogus distinction between a health condition she cannot control and a lifestyle choice she can control, you reveal the true nature of your argument. You are proposing to punish women for making personal choices, and that is all. But I remind you that, except in cases of rape or birth control failure, the woman chooses to become pregnant, so, if you are going to restrict her freedoms based on pregnancy, then you must base that on the pregnancy choice, not on any others. And if you are going to punish women for smoking during pregnancy because it endangers the fetus, then you must also punish women for becoming pregnant while suffering certain diseases or being above or below a certain age or having certain physiological abnormalities, etc., that also endangers the fetus.

Remember, there would be no risk to the fetus from any cause whatsoever, if she never got pregnant in the first place, so in the case of women who know they have pregnancy-threatening conditions, surely getting pregnant at all would be a deliberate choice to put a fetus at risk.

By the way, for the record, I should say that I disagree with the OP completely, for the following reasons:

1) It attacks the right of self determination for women;

2) It would be unenforceable;

3) There is no such thing as a guaranteed safe environment; and

4) Therefore, the OP suggestion is ridiculous.

I'm almost of the opinion that having a live birth that results in a malformed child (or severely brain damaged child), with said damage caused prior to the actual birth (birthing itself is a tricky thing), should be a crime.

There are plenty of tests that can show that the child should be aborted well beforehand.

The state should not only encourage it, but in such circumstances, the state should pay for it.

It's a lot cheaper to pay for the abortion, than to pay for the long term effects later.

And yes, we all get to enjoy paying for the child with flippers or Down's or FAS - and I don't want to keep paying for that.
Welcome to Eugenics-land.

And I on ly have 5 votes. :(

How about simply forbidding her to have children in these circumstances ?
I would only love to hear how you would propose to implement such a plan.

How is that different to feeding the baby the medication directly?

Are you also saying that a mother should be allowed to murder a child that has been born as long as she does so by passing the poison through her milk?


I am against anyone murdering children, already born or not! I was saying that fetus' should have the right to live. What the heck are you talking about?

I don't consider fetuses human par se. They are not part of society and they don't have personal relationships with other people. Once they are born and they begin to interact with people, and form social relationships (which may only be one way until the baby is able to distinguish between two different people).

Its funny cuz i know quite a few people who also have no personal relationships with other people as well. Kinda weird they are.