ACLU Defends Pregnant Woman Using Drugs

[Gravitymaster 0]

I never viewed abortion rights as a religious issue. I think it's just a matter of who's rights are greater, an unborn child or the mother.

[AlexCrowley 0]

You didnt have to, everyone else did:)

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

You didnt have to, everyone else did:)

I know. Most likely to the detriment of the cause.

[billvon 3,118]

>I think it's just a matter of who's rights are greater, an unborn child or the mother.

An interesting way to phrase the question. There is no debate whatsoever that a mother has more rights than their (born) child. She can choose to essentially imprison the child, circumcise him, strike him/her, pierce various body parts, force him/her to adopt a given religion, all against his or her will - and most courts wouldn't bat an eye. I can't imagine that you think an unborn child has more rights than that; I suspect you meant something different.

[Guest]

Quote

> I guess it's not illegal to give birth to a turnip.

Fortunately. Eugenics is a nasty business.

Given the seemingly endless numbers of people who eat big bowls of stupid for breakfast and procreate like cockroaches, I increasingly find myself in favor of it.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I think it's just a matter of who's rights are greater, an unborn child or the mother.

Quote

An interesting way to phrase the question. There is no debate whatsoever that a mother has more rights than their (born) child. She can choose to essentially imprison the child

Child abuse.

,

Quote

circumcise him,

Yep, not ecactly abuse though.

Quote

strike him/her, pierce various body parts,

Child abuse is illegal.

Quote

force him/her to adopt a given religion,

Not sure I would call it force. That assumes a child is being made to do something against their will.

Quote

I can't imagine that you think an unborn child has more rights than that; I suspect you meant something different.

An unborn child doesn't have more right than that. The way I see the debate however, assumes the unborn child is a child and therefore has the expectation of protections against being forced to consume illegal drugs, alchohol or anything else that would prevent it's normal developement. Or does the mother have more or a right to torture and destroy him before he's born

Not going to get into an endless debate about whether it's a fetus or a child. I have my own opinion and am not going to change it, so lets not go there.

• Quote

[billvon 3,118]

>Child abuse.

You were never sent to your room?

>Child abuse is illegal.

Corporal punishment is not.

>Not sure I would call it force. That assumes a child is being made to
>do something against their will.

Happens all the time. Children are forced to go to church, eat their peas, go to bed at 8pm, do their homework etc. 99% of the US has no problems with such things, and would not refer to them as child abuse. They understand that children do not have the same rights as adults, and that parents make decisions for children even when the children disagree.

> The way I see the debate however, assumes the unborn child is a child
>and therefore has the expectation of protections against being forced to
> consume illegal drugs, alchohol . . .

Should things that put a fetus at risk be illegal? How about skydiving when a woman is pregnant? It is surely as unneccesary as, say, drinking alcohol, and there is no question it puts the fetus at risk.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Child abuse.

You were never sent to your room?

>Child abuse is illegal.

Corporal punishment is not.

>Not sure I would call it force. That assumes a child is being made to
>do something against their will.

Happens all the time. Children are forced to go to church, eat their peas, go to bed at 8pm, do their homework etc. 99% of the US has no problems with such things, and would not refer to them as child abuse. They understand that children do not have the same rights as adults, and that parents make decisions for children even when the children disagree.

> The way I see the debate however, assumes the unborn child is a child
>and therefore has the expectation of protections against being forced to
> consume illegal drugs, alchohol . . .

Should things that put a fetus at risk be illegal? How about skydiving when a woman is pregnant? It is surely as unneccesary as, say, drinking alcohol, and there is no question it puts the fetus at risk.

I hardly think skydiving while pregnant falls into the same catagory as doing drugs. I would personally have a problem with a woman pregnant with my child skydiving if I thught it would harm my child. I would also have a problem with her smoking cigarettes while pregnant. Sorry this conflicts with your "Everything Goes" views. You think it's OK for a woman to destroy her babys brain with drugs and alchohol while pregnant? How about a few jumps from 18K without oxygen?

[billvon 3,118]

>I hardly think skydiving while pregnant falls into the same catagory as
>doing drugs.

To you, perhaps. To a conservative lawmaker who puts skydiving in the same category as BASE jumping, street racing and running with the bulls, it may be about the same as smoking pot. All unneccesary risks that he certainly would not take.

> I would personally have a problem with a woman pregnant with my child
> skydiving if I thught it would harm my child.

That's exactly as it should be. You, as the parent, are the person who makes such decisions for the fetus (along with your partner/wife, of course.)

>I would also have a problem with her smoking cigarettes while pregnant.

Again, no problem.

>Sorry this conflicts with your "Everything Goes" views.

I don't have an 'everything goes' view. I just think that you are better suited to decide what risks to take with your child than the government.

>You think it's OK for a woman to destroy her babys brain with drugs
>and alchohol while pregnant?

Up to you and your wife/partner.

>How about a few jumps from 18K without oxygen?

Up to you and your wife/partner.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Which bring us back to the beginning. I have a real problem with someone who destroys the brain of their unborn child. I think the issue is whether the child has equal rights of protection. A parent cannot legally give their child drugs and alchohol after the child is born because at that point, under current law, the child gains some rights it doesn't have before it is born. I'm sure you are really glad your mother didn't destroy you and leave you to a life of institutions for the mentally handicapped, while she partied on......

[Botellines 0]

Quote

You think it's OK for a woman to destroy her babys brain with drugs and alchohol while pregnant?

First it was cocaine, which i agree is somethig very stupid to do if you are pregnant (it is even stupid if you are not pregnant). Now you include alcohol as well. Do you know how many pregnant women around the world drinks alcohol (wine), even if it is only to toast for the fact that they are pregnant?
It seems to me that this is a move to further advance an agenda. This is really not a path you want to go. What is next, put in jail any sexually active woman who drinks alcohol because she may be pregnant?

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

I think we may be hearing that with increasing frequency in the era of the 'patriot'.

I guess your talking about the Patriot Act. What in the hell does that have to do with this woman doing coke while preg?

No, not the legislation, the people. The ones who either can't see the rapid creep of govt authority into our lives in increasing ways ...or the ones who believe that "I'm from the govt and I'm here to help you" is a true statement.


jen

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

You think it's OK for a woman to destroy her babys brain with drugs and alchohol while pregnant?

First it was cocaine, which i agree is somethig very stupid to do if you are pregnant (it is even stupid if you are not pregnant). Now you include alcohol as well. Do you know how many pregnant women around the world drinks alcohol (wine), even if it is only to toast for the fact that they are pregnant?
It seems to me that this is a move to further advance an agenda. This is really not a path you want to go. What is next, put in jail any sexually active woman who drinks alcohol because she may be pregnant?

I'm guessing you have never heard of Fetal Alchohol Syndrome? This discussion, in case you were unable to keep up with it, is whether a pregnant womans rights trump those of her unborn child, when those choices, by the mother cause permanent damage to the child. We aren't talking about toasting the fact the woman is pregnant. Obviously a woman who is celebrating her pregnancy isn't likely to intentionally do something she thinks will harm her baby. I think it goes to the use of words to descibe a pregnancy. A "Fetus" is more likely to be abused than a "Baby."

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

What is next, put in jail any sexually active woman who drinks alcohol because she may be pregnant?

If that was the case 90% of all women would be in jail. How do you think us guys get laid. We rely on good ole Jack!

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think we may be hearing that with increasing frequency in the era of the 'patriot'.

I guess your talking about the Patriot Act. What in the hell does that have to do with this woman doing coke while preg?

No, not the legislation, the people. The ones who either can't see the rapid creep of govt authority into our lives in increasing ways ...or the ones who believe that "I'm from the govt and I'm here to help you" is a true statement.


jen

That's been happening for at least a couple decades...where've you been?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

it's not a question of whether she put a child she was carrying to term at risk for birth defects, its just a legal question of where we draw the line between fetus and baby.

Kris - do you realize that the statement above is either contradictory or explanatory?

The judge in this issue answered the question without making a determination of whether the fetus was or was not a child. The judge found that the risk carried to the child after the child was born, and seemed to be based on foreseeability of harm.

I'll put it this way. Was the newborn child "harmed?" If the answer to that question is "yes" then who harmed the child? If it was the mother, then was the risk of harm to the child congizable considering the circumstances of what caused the harm? If yes, then it sounds like there is a case.

I have a problem with the argument that she cannot risk harm to something that is not a person yet. Bullshit. The judge found that the mother's activities caused risk of harm to the "newborn," not to the "fetus."

This is an important distinction, isn't it?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

I guess your talking about the Patriot Act. What in the hell does that have to do with this woman doing coke while preg?

I think the concern is being convicted of breaking a law that was non-existent at the time of the "crime." Many of those who pay more than lip service to freedom in America find themselves justifiably concerned when such things happen.

That it happened to a coke user does not make it right, or even better.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What is next, put in jail any sexually active woman who drinks alcohol because she may be pregnant?

What about this fine young American mother.

So, I ask you this question - do you believe that this woman - or the woman in the case at the start of this thread - did anything wrong whatsoever? If these women DID do something wrong, what should be the penalty?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>You think it's OK for a woman to destroy her babies brain with drugs and alchohol while pregnant?

Up to you and your wife/partner.

That's certainly a strong position.

Of course this kind of position comes with an assumption that the woman and her partner will be solely responsible for that child's upbringing and not expect the rest of society to pay for the deformities and mental problems they unecessarily created in that child. (Of course with the exception that when this child grows up he gets discounted lift tickets).

Don't you agree they are or should be directly and solely responsible for their bad decisions?

Or does the position change 5 or 15 years laters about how it's not the kid's fault and that society should help him from the bad home? {this is my only sticking point in your position - by your politics, we can't have a say in keeping the baby healthy, but eventually still have to pay for him - responsibility without authority over the mistakes of those with authority but not responsibility is big flaw in policies of the major political parties' policies - maybe the liberal side is more blatant about it, but both sides still have it).

What is the woman wants to dope up while pregnant, but the 'partner' doesn't - who trumps?

What about after the baby is born? "Should" the woman and her 'partner' have the same rights to dope and drunk up the baby?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

I guess your talking about the Patriot Act. What in the hell does that have to do with this woman doing coke while preg?

I think the concern is being convicted of breaking a law that was non-existent at the time of the "crime." Many of those who pay more than lip service to freedom in America find themselves justifiably concerned when such things happen.

That it happened to a coke user does not make it right, or even better.

You have to look at the language that the ACLU attorneys used, if it is being properly reported. Apparently, the ACLU attorneys say that "prosecuting women for their actions during pregnancy is unprecedented elsewhere in Maryland..." In other words, while the statute is there that authorizes this prosecution, the ACLU claims that this county is the only county that uses the statute to prosecute pregnant mothers.

The ACLU apparently claims "selective enforcement" as a defense - not the non-existence of a statute. The judge found that the wording of the statute supports this action.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

This discussion, in case you were unable to keep up with it, is whether a pregnant womans rights trump those of her unborn child, when those choices, by the mother cause permanent damage to the child.

Allow me to expedite things, then. Roe v. Wade says the mother's rights do, in fact, trump the rights of her unborn offspring.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

This discussion, in case you were unable to keep up with it, is whether a pregnant womans rights trump those of her unborn child, when those choices, by the mother cause permanent damage to the child.

Allow me to expedite things, then. Roe v. Wade says the mother's rights do, in fact, trump the rights of her unborn offspring.

Up to the end of the second trimester. The mother's rights to do whatever she wants under Roe v. Wade stop at the third trimester, if I recall correctly. Note that I am no expert on this case.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

mother's rights do, in fact, trump the rights of her unborn offspring.

Does the mother have the right to engage in ILLEGAL behavior? Its illegal to use cocaine, and at least in the county in question, it is illegal to endanger the child even before birth... The mother had no right to use coke, and now she is faced with the consequences of endangering the child, who because of her endangerment will in all likelyhood, with or without this legal action, be a burden on society.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

This discussion, in case you were unable to keep up with it, is whether a pregnant womans rights trump those of her unborn child, when those choices, by the mother cause permanent damage to the child.

Allow me to expedite things, then. Roe v. Wade says the mother's rights do, in fact, trump the rights of her unborn offspring.

Only as it relates to abortion. What the court appears to be saying in this case is that a woman can be held responsible for damage she intentionally inflicts on an unborn child once the child is born. There's no legal issue if she aborts the child by the third trimester.

[billvon 3,118]

>Which bring us back to the beginning. I have a real problem with
>someone who destroys the brain of their unborn child.

I do too.

>I think the issue is whether the child has equal rights of protection.

You are correct there. As I've pointed out, young children certainly do not have the same rights as adults do; I think it's a safe bet that unborn children do not have the same rights under the law either.

>A parent cannot legally give their child drugs and alchohol after the
> child is born because at that point, under current law, the child gains
> some rights it doesn't have before it is born.

Hmm. I have often seen children given alcohol by their parents; allowing a 17 year old to drink a toast (with champagne or wine) was pretty common in our family. Indeed, evidence indicates that children that start drinking in that manner end up with a lot fewer problems with alcohol than children who have to hide their drinking. I have not seen a law that pertains specifically to that situation (parents allowing children to drink at home.)