What evidence? She is a meth head worthless scumbag. The other person said "glass of wine". One is legal, one is not.
What kind of person ingests meth while pregnant? Fine upstanding, responsible mother to be?Legal means not-harmful?
BTW, 'meth head worthless scumbag'..... Yep, I can see this discussion is going to be productive. :roll:
What kind of person ingests meth while pregnant? Fine upstanding, responsible mother to be?
Pump the brakes, the comment was "glass of wine". Don't go to extremes to make a point.The same kind of person who drinks and gets drunk.
I'm not excusing drug use while pregnant - just pointing out the legal drug alcohol is just as risky. If you want to charge a meth head with manslaughter, fine. Levy the same charges on drinkers and we'll be on the same page. I think it's stupid and counter productive, but at least then you'll be consistently wrong IMO.
Sheesh, I'm not even opposed to the law. I found out what I suspected, which is the charges are a misdemeanor and the woman has the option under the law to enter treatment in lieu of jail.
Pump the brakes, the comment was "glass of wine". Don't go to extremes to make a point.
Show me some science on that. People used to put wiskey in the mouths of teething babies. I don't recall a medicinal use for meth.
What evidence? She is a meth head worthless scumbag. The other person said "glass of wine". One is legal, one is not.
Legal has nothing to do with it, that's ridiculous.
She'd be just as much of a loser if she was abusing prescription drugs.
What part of 'may be' did you not understand?
How about you show me that one hit of meth harms a baby?
Alright. I should have let your original comment slide. There isn't actually any evidence reported so far to indicate how often the woman used meth. We know she did it at least once near the end of her pregnancy because some amount of meth was detected in the newborn, but that's all that's been reported.
From that you 'went to extremes to make a point' and made the outrageous suggestion that she be charged with attempted manslaughter. It was over the top and I should have just let it slide because you must assume she abused meth regularly and AND that drug use harmed the newborn. If you meant ANY use of an illegal drug, then you have to support similar penalties for women who drink AT ALL during pregnancy.
Never met a meth user that is a one time user. And someone so into it that they are willing to use in the last part of her pregnancy is certainly not a one time user.
Like I said, you assumed long term abuse during the pregnancy. But I do apologize for going to an extreme to make a point after you went to an extreme to make a point.
I have gone to no extremes. There was a comparison of "a glass of wine" to meth use. Big difference.
No, you just suggested based on no evidence of long term use or damage to the infant (you assumed these things into the evidence) that she be charged with attempted manslaughter, which is totally NOT extreme at all....
So you equate "a glass of wine" to hits of meth.
I have gone to no extremes. There was a comparison of "a glass of wine" to meth use. Big difference.
Really? You must not know much about meth.
My "assumption" in your opinion is based on real world experience with drug addicts and seeing more than one mother with a needle in her arm and a bun in the oven.
Do you have any idea what meth is made of?So then please link to how damaging a single hit of meth is on the unborn if you are such an expert.
Pull on the uniform, pin on the badge, strap up and do the job. You will get all the proof you need.We're WAY past any hope of a productive discussion, but for the record it's not 'my opinion' - you made the dictionary definition of an assumption - "A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof."
Also, too 'assume:' suppose to be the case, without proof.
So basically you are saying its her right to turn her unborn into an addict. Ever witnessed a child born addicted? But I degress, I am sure it was her "first time". LOLClearly you have reading comprehension issues. The comparison was a 'glass' and a 'hit'. Not a 'glass' and 'use.'
Big difference.
So then please link to how damaging a single hit of meth is on the unborn if you are such an expert.
Pull on the uniform, pin on the badge, strap up and do the job. You will get all the proof you need.
So basically you are saying its her right to turn her unborn into an addict. Ever witnessed a child born addicted? But I degress, I am sure it was her "first time". LOL
Clearly you have reading comprehension issues. The comparison was a 'glass' and a 'hit'. Not a 'glass' and 'use.'
Big difference.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?