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

[Katharine Hepburn 4,607]

Women (and everyone else) should be educated about the risks so alcohol and smoking on pregnancy. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is awful and ruins lives. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

22 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

"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.

You're right. Babies are cancer. Let's just murder them all and allocate federal funds to allow women to murder as many babies as their hearts desire. They have no rights after all, because we're quantifying life based on if something can blink or not now.

There are legal abortions that happen in this country where the baby is removed and it gasps for air and the doctor has to kill it on the operating table. That is why the vacuum they use has teeth in it to kill the baby so it doesn't flop around on the table. How does that not bother you.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

16 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

You're right. Babies are cancer. Let's just murder them all and allocate federal funds to allow women to murder as many babies as their hearts desire. They have no rights after all, because we're quantifying life based on if something can blink or not now.

There are legal abortions that happen in this country where the baby is removed and it gasps for air and the doctor has to kill it on the operating table. That is why the vacuum they use has teeth in it to kill the baby so it doesn't flop around on the table. How does that not bother you.

You trivialize the issue a lot. What's the point of hyperbole? You're using the same slippery slope argument that anti gay people use. Letting women have abortions won't suddenly cause a massive spike in them. Those who want abortions will get them. This will only make them have to suffer less through the process.

That flilopping is called involuntary tissue contractions. In any case, it's odd that you're using the most extreme example for your stance. Youre deliberately doing it to stir guilt. Abortions like that happen only when the mother is at risk from death. 

 

[MJHolland 12,725]

14 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

You trivialize the issue a lot. What's the point of hyperbole? You're using the same slippery slope argument that anti gay people use. Letting women have abortions won't suddenly cause a massive spike in them. Those who want abortions will get them. This will only make them have to suffer less through the process.

That flilopping is called involuntary tissue contractions. In any case, it's odd that you're using the most extreme example for your stance. Youre deliberately doing it to stir guilt. Abortions like that happen only when the mother is at risk from death. 

 

I'm not talking about slippery slopes. I don't care if women have more abortions. You're the only trivializing it. "It's just like removing a kidney or a lung."

I would like to think another human life if a little more important than that. 

The only argument I'm trying to make her is that it's hypocritical to say this woman shouldn't be allowed to drink because it's harmful for the baby, yet she has total freedom to do the absolute most harmful thing to that baby -- killing it.

So let me get this straight. You can inflict harm onto a fetus as long as you make sure it dies? Because if it doesn't die and it lives to term and is born it could be "disadvantaged"? seems creepy as f*ck.

[Sizzily 14,571]

If they wanna drink, why not just get an abortion instead of possibly ****ing up their child?

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

26 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

I'm not talking about slippery slopes. I don't care if women have more abortions. 

"You're right. Babies are cancer. Let's just murder them all and allocate federal funds to allow women to murder as many babies as their hearts desire. They have no rights after all, because we're quantifying life based on if something can blink or not now."

This is a slippery slope argument. You're saying that this will lead to everyone murdering their babies just because they have the right to get abortions. Women that want abortions will get them. Prohibition didn't work. Banning abortion won't either. They'll just go to some creepy doctor's basement or fly to Mexico. 

And yes the entire point of human life is it being sentient. In any case this is getting into philosophical and theological discussions on what constitutes "moment of life" and better people than either have us have not answered it.

26 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

You're the only trivializing it. "It's just like removing a kidney or a lung."

I would like to think another human life if a little more important than that. 

 

I am absolutely not trivializing the issue. I am only countering your arguments with scientific and physiological arguments, ones that are relevant when discussing the rights people have for their own bodies. I never once brought up the personal or psychological aspect because abortion will always be ugly for everyone involved. The entire point however is to extract ourselves from that emotion to discuss this on an impersonal level, because this is most definitely not a trivial issue and needs to be treated with respect. What WE think of it is irrelevant. 

Just like you say it's OK to kill someone for committing a crime, one must handle this with facts and not feelings. 

FYI, I am not supporting abortions. I am supporting a woman's right to make that decision for herself. If I were a woman, I'd never get an abortion. In fact, I'm one of those picket fence gays who wants 10 kids.

26 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

The only argument I'm trying to make her is that it's hypocritical to say this woman shouldn't be allowed to drink because it's harmful for the baby, yet she has total freedom to do the absolute most harmful thing to that baby -- killing it.

It's not hypocritical. Just like you take care of a newborn child once it's born, once you decide to keep the fetus you have a responsibility for that baby's future because now it WILL be alive some day and it is the parent's responsibility to guide the child to a successful life.

If a child will never manifest then there is no responsibility to be had.

26 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

So let me get this straight. You can inflict harm onto a fetus as long as you make sure it dies? Because if it doesn't die and it lives to term and is born it could be "disadvantaged"? seems creepy as f*ck.

The "should" is exactly what it is: should. I have already stated in an earlier post that I agree with the statement that you cannot deny pregnant women alcohol, because the entire point of being pro-choice is letting the woman make the decisions for herself.

That does not however deny the fact that drinking while pregnant is irresponsible, asinine, and incredibly selfish given that you have actually chosen to carry the child.

[Curunir 7,510]

@LebaneseDude I am in awe of your restraint and composure 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

14 minutes ago, Curunir said:

@LebaneseDude I am in awe of your restraint and composure 

[Dorothy Gale 7,575]

This is absolutely terrible. Drinking while pregnant should be illegal. What about coming out of a birth canal grants you human rights?

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, AntiPotCrusader said:

This is absolutely terrible. Drinking while pregnant should be illegal. What about coming out of a birth canal grants you human rights?

Well not illegal, but I think the bartenders should make sure to remind the woman that she is being stupid. Also judgmental staring. A lot of it.

[Nicole 1,809]

The thing is, the effects of drinking while pregnant in minimal quantities is actually unclear in studies - doctors/experts recommends not to drink during pregnancy because they don't want to be held accountable if something were to happen because the line between harmful and harmless alcohol intake is still unclear and many women are unaware of their own bodies in regards to consumption of alcohol.

By making the serving of alcohol to pregnant women illegal you are assuming they are binge drinking their way to having a baby with foetal alcohol syndrome, you're also assuming the drinks they are ordering is even for them. What if the drink they are ordering for themselves is the only one they would have had the entire pregnancy? What if she had sought medical advice before choosing to have this one drink? 

Obviously there are many women who drink too much during pregnancy and foetal alcohol syndrome is a serious issue. However, before denying service to a whole cohort of women, start a serious dialogue about the effects of drinking and improve avenues for mothers-to-be to come forward and access support if they feel like they have a problem without being judged and stigmatised. Alcohol addiction is a thing and it doesn't just magically disappear once you come pregnant. 

EDIT: Just do add, the whole "what mother eats/drinks baby gets" is a very misleading statement. Baby + mother have separate blood streams. Their blood never comes into contact with each other while the baby is in the womb. The placenta transfers nutrients and oxygens from the mother's blood to the baby - not directly what the mother eats/drinks. However, the membrane that separates mothers blood from the blood vessels of the baby is extremely thin, and blood CAN pass through the membrane. Not all the blood passes through, disputing the "however much alcohol the mother consumes the same goes to the baby" because by that assumption the membrane doesn't even exist. Small amounts of alcohol is harmless and probably won't even pass through the membrane. But in relation to binge drinking where any time the blood passes through it has extremely high levels of alcohol in it - that's a problem. 

[Economy 52,857]

6 hours ago, OBEY said:

Well, drinking while being pregnant is legal so... (even though it's dumb af)

Alcohol abuse yes

 

but most studies have revealed small amounts of alcohol do no harm

 

the plascent pretty much blocks all alcohol from going thru. You have to get like drunk or at least heavily buzzed to cause harm

[MJHolland 12,725]

52 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

That does not however deny the fact that drinking while pregnant is irresponsible, asinine, and incredibly selfish given that you have actually chosen to carry the child.

I'm not waging a slippery slope argument. I do not care at all if a woman has an abortion. The argument bores me, I really really do not care if abortion is legal or not. Whatever "slipper slope" argument you're reading in to is just that - you reading into something too much. To add to that, I'm neither being theological (atheist) nor philosophical. I'm simply just pointing out inconsistencies in members' logic. You're simply making things up to try to paint a picture of me pulling this off the topic you've set. I'm not doing any of the things you're accusing me of and you kind of look like you're just making sh*t up because you're losing an argument... 

Last thing, I love how you say it's selfish to drink while pregnant... yet it's not selfish to kill a human life because you don't want to eat for 2 for 9 months, get stretch marks, and give it away. That's totally selfless reasoning. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

40 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

I'm not waging a slippery slope argument. I do not care at all if a woman has an abortion. The argument bores me, I really really do not care if abortion is legal or not. Whatever "slipper slope" argument you're reading in to is just that - you reading into something too much. To add to that, I'm neither being theological (atheist) nor philosophical. I'm simply just pointing out inconsistencies in members' logic. You're simply making things up to try to paint a picture of me pulling this off the topic you've set. I'm not doing any of the things you're accusing me of and you kind of look like you're just making sh*t up because you're losing an argument...  

What? 

You aren't proving anyone's logic wrong, because there is a fundamental difference in context. You're trying to relate the two situations together somehow by interweaving some form of morality clause.

The fact of the matter is that this particular "law" (more like a moral responsibility) corresponds to women who plan to have the baby. If the woman decides to keep the fetus, then it is her responsibility to make sure it is not harmed and has a future. She has chosen. She has a responsibility.

It merits a completely different discussion from one where the fetus is potentially not going to be born to begin with due to a variety of factors that you are undermining.

40 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

 it's not selfish to kill a human life 

You are one again very briefly touching on a discussion that merits far greater attention than you are implying.

What constitutes a "human life" is still very much debated today. Some say it's on conception. Other say it's on sentience.

The former relies on a theological justification because it is very much a fact that a fetus is not sentient nor physically independent from the mother so it is not as we define a unique living organism. The entire basis of that argument is the existence of the human spirit.

The latter relies on the fact that a fetus becomes alive once it becomes sentient and fully capable of surviving outside of the mothers' womb (with proper medical care). A clump of unicellular organisms is not sentient nor human as we know it.

So stop using the word "kill a human life". You are implying that the fetus is alive when it isn't, unless you are assuming the theological definition. In that case, there's no point in arguing because we have different notions on what constitutes "alive".

What we do however agree on is that once a child is alive, it is up to the carrier to be responsible for the well-being of the baby.

40 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

I love how you say it's selfish to drink while pregnant... yet it's not selfish to kill a human life because you don't want to eat for 2 for 9 months, get stretch marks, and give it away. That's totally selfless reasoning. 

I addressed some of the points in this statement above, but I just want to point out how much you are trivializing the issue by claiming people get abortions for superficial reasons. You completely undermine how much 9 months of your life can throw your life off trajectory.

It's not selfish at all to want to spare the child from a rough childhood while preserving yours.

Do you think it's OK being a pregnant girl in school? It's a traumatizing and disruptive experience. What about young athletes who need to remain in shape for their livelihood? What about women who are at risk from developing serious health problems? What about fetuses with terminal illnesses? What about women who get pregnant over the age of 50 when mutations are very likely? The range of potential issues is staggering and you lump them up into "stretch marks and food"?

 

This is further made ironic by the fact that you have repeatedly stated in other threads that you are for social responsibility. Unwanted children are much more likely to end up suffering, and women that cannot afford raising a child will end up requiring excessive help in the form of welfare, etc...

I can't understand how you are so adamant on protecting a human life before it's born, but are very willing to toss humans to the side when they are alive. This is a certain hypocrisy I've noticed in Republican politics where life only matters until it is born. I hope you aren't perpetuating that.

[Curunir 7,510]

26 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

I'm not waging a slippery slope argument. I do not care at all if a woman has an abortion. The argument bores me, I really really do not care if abortion is legal or not. Whatever "slipper slope" argument you're reading in to is just that - you reading into something too much. To add to that, I'm neither being theological (atheist) nor philosophical. I'm simply just pointing out inconsistencies in members' logic. You're simply making things up to try to paint a picture of me pulling this off the topic you've set. I'm not doing any of the things you're accusing me of and you kind of look like you're just making sh*t up because you're losing an argument... 

Last thing, I love how you say it's selfish to drink while pregnant... yet it's not selfish to kill a human life because you don't want to eat for 2 for 9 months, get stretch marks, and give it away. That's totally selfless reasoning.