Bar owners in New York told they cannot deny service to pregnant women

[MJHolland 12,725]

I mean if we allow women to vacuum out a fetus and kill it on a table, why can't a woman drink? It's her body. 

[bionic 50,111]

26 minutes ago, pink sushi said:

Also, lots of overweight women have belly fat that looks like a baby bump, so I can easily see how this could offend some people. Imagine going to a bar and being denied service because the bartender thinks you are pregnant when you aren't.... 

I'd like to think that it'd be enforced as a simple "I'm not pregnant" "That's fine, enjoy your drink then" policy rather than an absolute ban. It should be a preventative measure. 

29 minutes ago, Pablo said:

I guess that makes sense, can't to still buy cigarettes if you are pregnant. But in bars you order for there and cigarettes could be bought for someone else.

Its about being a responsible person. You wouldn't ban everybody from buying alcohol on the chance they'll give it to someone who is pregnant.

3 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

I mean if we allow women to vacuum out a fetus and kill it on a table, why can't a woman drink? It's her body. 

Because by remaining pregnant it is presumed that you plan on having the baby. You get an abortion to terminate the pregnancy. It is unfair to purposely disadvantage your unborn child because you fancy a drink.

[MJHolland 12,725]

1 minute ago, bionic said:

I'd like to think that it'd be enforced as a simple "I'm not pregnant" "That's fine, enjoy your drink then" policy rather than an absolute ban. It should be a preventative measure.

Its about being a responsible person.

Because by remaining pregnant it is presumed that you plan on having the baby. You get an abortion to terminate the pregnancy. It is unfair to purposely disadvantage your unborn child because you fancy a drink.

It's unfair to disadvantage a baby. Yet it's not unfair to murder that baby? Mhkay...

And plenty of women have a glass of wine and nothing bad happens to the development of their children. 

[LUO YI 6,089]

41 minutes ago, PaperIz said:

But it's not just like she's affecting her own life though. She's directly endangering her child. 

That's what I'm talking about. I didn't say it well.

18 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

It's certainly not them that'll be facing those consequences.

The woman, the child. I know. 

 

 

[bionic 50,111]

2 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

It's unfair to disadvantage a baby. Yet it's not unfair to murder that baby? Mhkay...

And plenty of women have a glass of wine and nothing bad happens to the development of their children. 

My line of thinking is that there is a cut-off age for an abortion, i.e. you can't abort a child 2 weeks from its due date. When discover you're pregnant you should avoid doing things that will harm the baby, even if you later decide to abort it.

Yes, you should have control over your body and have that choice to either continue the pregnancy or terminate it, but if you choose to keep the baby then you shouldn't be free to wilfully harm it.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

20 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

It's unfair to disadvantage a baby. Yet it's not unfair to murder that baby? Mhkay...

And plenty of women have a glass of wine and nothing bad happens to the development of their children. 

This is a very sensitive topic, so try to refrain from using words like murder. It carries connotations that are misleading. I'm going to discuss this in scientific terms, so if you disagree about some issues due to religious reasons, then we can't really get anywhere so I'll refrain from discussing it.

----

You can't kill something that isn't alive yet. Fetuses are nothing but a clump of cells that only vaguely begin to exhibit human characteristics at around 16 weeks and only gain forms of sentience at around 20 weeks. While the limit is usually 6 months, most abortions occur way before then. 

Personally I think the limit should be 12 weeks or 3 months, but I digress.

In any case, putting a baby you plan to give birth to in a disadvantage however not only affects your life but theirs for their entire lifetime. At this point it would be quite selfish of you to ruin the life of someone you decided to give birth to. Your choice was to have the baby. It is your choice to be responsible towards the child.

-----

Anyway I'm not arguing against this change of policy. If women want to be irresponsible then it should be their choice. That's the entire point of being pro-choice. Frankly, if a pregnant woman is stupid enough to drink consistently during her term, then the kid is probably ****ed anyway.

[MJHolland 12,725]

19 minutes ago, bionic said:

My line of thinking is that there is a cut-off age for an abortion, i.e. you can't abort a child 2 weeks from its due date. When discover you're pregnant you should avoid doing things that will harm the baby, even if you later decide to abort it.

Yes, you should have control over your body and have that choice to either continue the pregnancy or terminate it, but if you choose to keep the baby then you shouldn't be free to wilfully harm it.

So once the woman decides she's going to carry the baby, then it has human right? Only then should the woman not be able to harm it?

But you know of course once she decides she doesn't want it she's allowed to kill it. 

Either a baby inside a woman's womb has its own rights or it doesn't. You simply cannot have it both ways, and your worry about the baby's wellbeing in this situation kind of proves that moral gray area that is abortion. You're trying to say a baby doesn't have rights until the woman grants it those rights, but after that point we can regulate and restrict the woman's freedom (in this case to drink what she wants). 

[pink sushi 4,351]

19 minutes ago, bionic said:

I'd like to think that it'd be enforced as a simple "I'm not pregnant" "That's fine, enjoy your drink then" policy rather than an absolute ban. It should be a preventative measure. 

Its about being a responsible person. You wouldn't ban everybody from buying alcohol on the chance they'll give it to someone who is pregnant.

Because by remaining pregnant it is presumed that you plan on having the baby. You get an abortion to terminate the pregnancy. It is unfair to purposely disadvantage your unborn child because you fancy a drink.

But it's no secret that you shouldn't have alcohol when pregnant. If a pregnant woman is ordering a drink, it's because she just does not care or is too much of an alcoholic to resist. So what's to stop her from just lying and saying she's not pregnant? 

And just bringing up pregnancy to someone who isn't really pregnant can be offensive. We've all heard of people going up to strangers who look pregnant asking when their due date is, only to find out they aren't pregnant..... 

[MJHolland 12,725]

8 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

This is a very sensitive topic, so try to refrain from using words like murder. It carries connotations that are misleading. I'm going to discuss this in scientific terms, so if you disagree about some issues due to religious reasons, then we can't really get anywhere so I'll refrain from discussing it.

----

You can't kill something that isn't alive yet. Fetuses are nothing but a clump of cells that only vaguely begin to exhibit human characteristics at around 16 weeks and only gain forms of sentience at around 20 weeks. While the limit is usually 6 months, most abortions occur way before then. 

Personally I think the limit should be 12 weeks or 3 months, but I digress.

In any case, putting a baby you plan to give birth to in a disadvantage however not only affects your life but theirs for their entire lifetime. At this point it would be quite selfish of you to ruin the life of someone you decided to give birth to. Your choice was to have the baby. It is your choice to be responsible towards the child.

-----

Anyway I'm not arguing against this change of policy. If women want to be irresponsible then it should be their choice. That's the entire point of being pro-choice. Frankly, if a pregnant woman is stupid enough to drink consistently during her term, then the kid is probably ****ed anyway.

I will continue to use words like murder because once a woman "decides" that baby has human rights, that is what killing it is. If a person kills a pregnant woman, that person is charged with double homicide. That's still true even if the woman is literally on her way to get an abortion. 

So, either we live in a society that values a life yet to be birthed that cannot defend itself and so we restrict the rights of the person carrying that life in their womb, or we live in a society where woman are allowed to have freedom over their bodies and everything that lives inside their bodies. 

I'm not a religious person whatsoever, being an atheist. In fact, I don't even have strong views on abortion. However, I loath hypocrisy, and it's hypocritical to decide the baby has human rights just because that day the woman happens to want to carry it to term. The very next day the woman could decide to abort that baby, and it wouldn't be considered murder? Really? Even though yesterday that baby had rights? 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

58 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

I will continue to use words like murder because once a woman "decides" that baby has human rights, that is what killing it is. If a person kills a pregnant woman, that person is charged with double homicide. That's still true even if the woman is literally on her way to get an abortion. 

So, either we live in a society that values a life yet to be birthed that cannot defend itself and so we restrict the rights of the person carrying that life in their womb, or we live in a society where woman are allowed to have freedom over their bodies and everything that lives inside their bodies. 

I'm not a religious person whatsoever, being an atheist. In fact, I don't even have strong views on abortion. However, I loath hypocrisy, and it's hypocritical to decide the baby has human rights just because that day the woman happens to want to carry it to term. The very next day the woman could decide to abort that baby, and it wouldn't be considered murder? Really? Even though yesterday that baby had rights? 

Why are you trying to use homicide to try to justify something? The woman has the right to her body. Until she gets the abortion, she has the right to decide whether to keep the fetus or not. Until that moment, nobody else has the right to decide that fate for her. 

Another question. Why are you trying to paint the woman as a hypocrite? The fetus is a part of the woman until birth. It would be no different than a kidney or a lung. You can remove them if you want, but they are still your right to keep or dispose of as you see fit.

The difference here is that this particular clump of cells will EVENTUALLY develop into another human if left alone.

At some point the difference between carrier (mother) and child becomes significant enough to warrant a separate status. That is around 20 weeks old when the fetus becomes a sentient human. As soon as the fetus becomes sentient, any form of abortion essentially becomes murder, because the fetus is now alive.

 

[pink sushi 4,351]

1 hour ago, MJHolland said:

I mean if we allow women to vacuum out a fetus and kill it on a table, why can't a woman drink? It's her body. 

You have a very good point.

However, when most people think of abortion, they think of aborting a baby within the first month or two of pregnancy. At this point the baby is still just a small cluster of cells and hasn't had the chance to develop into human form. Not many people consider it ok to abort a baby during like the 7th month.

If a pregnant woman has alcohol, it's more like she's abusing the child because she is planning on bringing the child into the world and the child may have disabilities because of her actions. 

 

[RAMROD 117,066]

Well.., it is scientifically proven that pregnant women can drink, but just  a little,

between one and two units of alcohol once or twice a week.

Any more than that it may be risky,

as it is potentially to cause permanent brain damage to their baby and other birth defects.

So, the solution is not to ban but to remind them when they drink too much.

 

[MJHolland 12,725]

33 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Why are you trying to use homicide to try to justify something? The woman has the right to her body. Until she gets the abortion, she has the right to decide whether to keep the fetus or not. Until that moment, nobody else has the right to decide that fate for her. 

Another question. Why are you trying to paint the woman as a hypocrite? The fetus is a part of the woman until birth. It would be no different than a kidney or a lung. You can remove them if you want, but they are still your right to keep or dispose of as you see fit.

The difference here is that this particular clump of cells will EVENTUALLY develop into another human if left alone.

At some point the difference between carrier (mother) and child becomes significant enough to warrant a separate status. That is around 20 weeks old when the fetus becomes a sentient human. As soon as the fetus becomes sentient, any form of abortion essentially becomes murder, because the fetus is now alive.

 

Yeah it's just like a kidney or lung except it posses the DNA of another person. Yup just the same.

I'm not justifying anything. You're the one justifying terminating a life, because even if you kill a single cell, that cell was still alive. A cell isn't some undead particle floating around. It is a living and literally breathing organism, and to terminate its life is to kill it.

Quote me again when you respond to the question I gave you in my previous posts that you oh so conveniently avoided. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

21 minutes ago, pink sushi said:

Not many people consider it ok to abort a baby during like the 7th month.. 

 

They better as hell not consider it OK. At 7 months the fetus is alive and can survive outside the womb. In fact, a fetus can survive outside the mother at 5 months, exactly the time before abortions become illegal.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

20 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Yeah it's just like a kidney or lung except it posses the DNA of another person. Yup just the same.

I'm not justifying anything. You're the one justifying terminating a life, because even if you kill a single cell, that cell was still alive. A cell isn't some undead particle floating around. It is a living and literally breathing organism, and to terminate its life is to kill it.

Quote me again when you respond to the question I gave you in my previous posts that you oh so conveniently avoided. 

"DNA" is irrelevant. A cancer tumor has different DNA than you. You can take organs from other people. They're still yours when they're placed into you. It doesn't matter.

Well if you're going into semantics, yes the cells are alive on a unicellular level but the multicellular organism has not formed and is not sentient.

Why do I have to answer your question explicitly when I answered it implicitly? I told you that it's not the baby that has rights. It's the mother who has rights to her own body. Your unborn fetus has the right to be left alone and not be interfered with by others just like your own organs have the right to be yours and not be interfered with by others. The organ and fetus are yours and can be dealt with in any way you deem appropriate. There are other factors clearly such as the father's rights and the patient's health, but that warrants a deeper discussion.

But as I have already mentioned, the fetus has the potential to develop into a human, and therefore once it becomes sentient, one should treat it as a human like any other.  In fact, fetuses at that age can survive outside the mother. 

If you want to quote laws, remember that nothing is simple and factors interfere with one another.

If you're persistent, note the difference between someone assaulting you to take your organs and you deciding to give your organ to a transplant patient. Think about it.