So you think it's okay if a woman gives her babies fetal alcohol syndrome?? That should be perfectly legal?? You also seem to be okay with a woman giving herself five late-term abortions when she didn't have to? Oh my, the cost of "women's rights" !
FoxHastings: Between WHAT and the woman who gave her kids fetal alcohol syndrome??? What is the connection....there has to be at least two things if there is any "connection"...What TF connection are you going on about?? And NO you can't suspend someone's rights. SHOW EXACTLY WHERE I SAID THAT OR ADMIT YOUR "IMAGINATION " IS WORKING OVERTIME SHOW EXACTLY WHERE I SAID THAT OR ADMIT YOUR "IMAGINATION " IS WORKING OVERTIME SHOW EXACTLY WHERE I SAID THAT OR ADMIT YOUR "IMAGINATION " IS WORKING OVERTIME There is no "cost" to women's rights...
Well, if you don't believe that, then I don't think I have been understanding anything you have been saying. Are you aware of a little thing called logic, FoxHastings? It involves connections. Shall we examine your position in a little bit more detail? I think the simple fact is YOU KNOW AND DONT WANT TO SEE. You can't figure out a way to reconcile your position with reality, so you just act like a contradiction doesn't exist. You think a woman should be able to do whatever the heck she wants. That it's her body, her right. I asked what about in the case of a woman who gives her 5 children fetal alcohol syndrome in the womb. Either keeping them, or choosing a late-term abortion to cover up all the damage she's caused. You then acted like you couldn't see any connection between the two. That's not called lack of understanding, FoxHastings; that's called DENIAL. Then, on top of all that you claimed that you never said it's okay to for the woman to give her babies fetal alcohol syndrome. Well guess what, FoxHastings. LOGIC dictates that you have to take a position. You either believe that, or you believe it's okay for a woman to do whatever she wants with body. You can't have it both ways. THAT is the contradiction. Why your position simply isn't logically consistent.
the right wants to force drug addicts to have babies, then arrest them for their body not being the best environment to grow a baby I think it would be best for drug addicts not to have babies due to their current health condition, but still their choice I no more support forced Abortions... it's the women's choice, not the governments, not yours or mine
sometimes women should not have children, like in the case of Andea Yates, had she choose to abort on the 5th, 4 children may still be alive today
What's the alternative? Repeated abortion? Repeated utterly needless abortion. Maybe late-term? The only other option I could imagine would be a conveyor belt of butchery. (Something the left is okay with?)
Just a hypothetical, but, in your ethical/moral/legal normative view, do you believe women could carry on experimentation and genetic manipulation on her fetus, trying to create a monster? (I mean maybe someone else is paying the woman to do this.) She should be able to do that, because it is just an inanimate object, according to the pro-choice view. You now say it's her choice whether to have the baby or not. ... After doing that experimentation and genetic manipulation on the fetus, is she now entitled to bring it into the world? Look, I know this is an extreme, perhaps unlikely, hypothetical, but if the logic of your position doesn't hold up against a theoretical scenario (one which could exist) maybe that does strongly tend to suggest the logic in your position is not absolutely true, and may not be applicable in all situations.
What happens if the parent does something unhealthy to the fetus because the parent is poor? How do you avoid criminalizing poverty?
The government does provide nutritional health supplement programs for poor women. This links shows that if she can provide proof that she's pregnant and proof that's she's poor, she get's a free prenatal checkup: https://americanpregnancy.org/first-year-of-life/medicaid-for-pregnant-women/ Can you come up with a specific example of this that might hypothetically (even implausibly) exist in the United States?
That's not really helping your cause. You're assuming they can access that. Not all government programs are accessible, nor do they all apply the same way. Honestly that's the basic assumption you need to be operating under. A poor person can't afford to see a doctor so they end up having to give birth at home in an unsanitary environment. Is that punishable under your idea of how it should work? If your core assumption relies on the premise that poverty can be criminalized, you're going to end up with the wrong idea about how to help pregnant people.
you mean like eating a fruitarian diet or something, I may not agree with it, but yes, they can do it, their body
what is the alternative to not having an abortion.... you're saying it's so horrible, is it or not? I would recommend the option of Abortion, but again, her choice, not mine, yours or the governments
why not, if the child is not born healthy, would that not be the same thing? it's a slippery slope imo
Apparently there have been some documented cases where pregnant women were put in protective custody for their excessive alcohol abuse, or placed under court order with a probation officer and restrictive conditions: https://read.dukeupress.edu/jhppl/a...rests-of-and-Forced-Interventions-on-Pregnant https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2005/3/Linder.pdf As recently as 2005, in Wisconsin, a visibly pregnant woman seen drinking alcohol could be taken into police custody. In the 1990s, if a pregnant woman drank alcohol or used drugs, knowing this could harm her baby, it was considered a misdemeanor for child abuse in Tennessee. Similarly, a woman could be put into a treatment program against her will if the risk was deemed excessive to her unborn baby. Is it Illegal to Drink During Pregnancy? | Parents
in a country with so many obese.... prob not a good idea to give another reason for cops to harass people, how you gonna prove you're not pregnant
Fat women may likely be able to get away with it. Since no one can tell whether they're fat and pregnant or just really fat. It may not be so easy for women with thinner body frames. If police are suspicious, they'll conduct further investigation. I'm sure they can't just pull a fat woman aside when they're not entirely sure if she's pregnant. I'll admit, in some cases a transvaginal probe might be the only way for a woman to prove she's innocent, but I'm sure in most cases it won't come down to that.
Why not? Women aren't on a quota system for medical procedures… How TF would YOU know if it's needless or not....your opinion on someone else's medical procedure doesn't matter. LOL! Make up something Really Dramatic and then accuse others of saying this make believe thing is OK.... Pretty pathetic....
So you're saying women should be neutered like animals ??? Are you ever going to admit women are humans with the exact same rights as everyone else or just insist they are nothing more than pets ??
