Pregnant woman walks into a bar: In NYC, you must serve her

[Ikari]

That would be hypocritical. If they serve someone more than one or two drinks, they are harming another. It's not like alcohol in large quantities is 'healthy.' And in that visit, just how much damage do you think a drink or two will harm the unborn? More than the mother or any other person? We really cant tell for ANY of them...the liver damage, lost brain cells, etc.

So please, it's getting a bit melodramatic and extremely selective. More like it's about judging women than really being concerned about a single bar visit's effect on the unborn and a single bartender's decision. In such a case, the results on the unborn would be negligible.

An individual chooses to drink, the unborn does not.

Should one be forced to labor towards an event that can harm another?

 

[Lursa]

You simply ask them a question. No one has a right to not be offended. If a fat women doesn't want be seen as pregnant she can lose weight.

LOL It will be a problem for the business owner, not the women. Many people...including the men with women, ESP in bars where men like to find women....will not go to such establishments.

 

[Ikari]

Again, he'll be watching his bottom line. I wrote it earlier. What will it do to a bar or restaurant when women are regularly questioned *based on appearance* (specifically weight) in public? On a date? With family? LOLOLOLOL

Maybe he is watching the bottom line, maybe not. The question isn't how one knows, the knowledge is supposed in the question. He does know, should he be forced to labor towards something that can harm another particularly against the will of the one being harmed?

 

[Lursa]

An individual chooses to drink, the unborn does not.

Should one be forced to labor towards an event that can harm another?

Ah, moving the goal posts. You said 'not harm other individuals.'

And your second statement reiterates it.

Since the 'harm' (as I wrote and you ignored') is not quantifiable and not even guaranteed, just how self-righteous do you think people should be allowed to be towards others? Well, we all know that in general, there are few real life restrictions, legal or otherwise preventing that.

But it's interesting to see you promoting it.

 

[Ikari]

Ah, moving the goal posts. You said 'not harm other individuals.'

And your second statement reiterates it.

Since the 'harm' (as I wrote and you ignored') is not quantifiable and not even guaranteed, just how self-righteous do you think people should be allowed to be towards others? Well, we all know that in general, there are few real life restrictions, legal or otherwise preventing that.

But it's interesting to see you promoting it.

No goal posts have been moved, lying is not an good debate tactic.

It is well known that alcohol consumption interferes with the development of a child. And this can cause significant harm to the child. Should one be forced to labor towards that end?

I like how it's just deflection after deflection with you and that you never answer my question. But it's pretty well SOP.

 

[Lursa]

Those issues aren't even comparable. :lol: Did you just list a whole bunch of random stuff off the top of your head?

To casual sex? You're right, most or all of those can cause way more mental health issues.

So...no sources that casual sex causes more mental health issues relative to anything else in life?

 

[Lursa]

Maybe he is watching the bottom line, maybe not. The question isn't how one knows, the knowledge is supposed in the question. He does know, should he be forced to labor towards something that can harm another particularly against the will of the one being harmed?

It's an ethical question, not one of law. Because it cant be enforced nor, in many people's opinions...people here have opinions on both sides...is it even wrong for her to 'have a drink.' Not even Drs. agree on that.

It's not enforceable by law so it's silly to propose it from that perspective.

It would be nice if people would recognize that it is punitive and disrespectful towards women...to take their decisions out of their own hands and decide for them, like they are 5 yr olds. If a woman wants to have a drink...who says that is harmful to the unborn? Not even the medical community will claim a drink WILL harm the unborn.

Like I said, it's about the person that wants to make the decision for women, not about the unborn. Realistically, that's not quantifiable at all. It's self-righteousness and why on Earth should that be promoted by law?

 

[Lursa]

No goal posts have been moved, lying is not an good debate tactic.

It is well known that alcohol consumption interferes with the development of a child. And this can cause significant harm to the child. Should one be forced to labor towards that end?

I like how it's just deflection after deflection with you and that you never answer my question. But it's pretty well SOP.

You have no idea if this is the one and only drink a woman will have during a pregnancy. And again, there is no medical science that says how much *may* do harm. So you think bartenders should play Dr? Or God (it seems). It enables the control of women, it enables treating them like 5 yr olds. It assumes the purveyor of spirits is in the position to judge a stranger and her circumstances.

Again, it's promoting the legislation of self-righteousness.

 

[Henrin]

To casual sex? You're right, most or all of those can cause way more mental health issues.

So...no sources that casual sex causes more mental health issues relative to anything else in life?

Yes, they can all cause mental health issues, but they're all unrelated topics and do not cause mental health problems for reasons that are related to the topic.

 

[Henrin]

LOL It will be a problem for the business owner, not the women. Many people...including the men with women, ESP in bars where men like to find women....will not go to such establishments.

That's silly. It's just a question that she is free to answer or not. I highly doubt most men or women would even care about it one way or another.

 

[Henrin]

You have no idea if this is the one and only drink a woman will have during a pregnancy. And again, there is no medical science that says how much *may* do harm. So you think bartenders should play Dr? Or God (it seems). It enables the control of women, it enables treating them like 5 yr olds. It assumes the purveyor of spirits is in the position to judge a stranger and her circumstances.

Again, it's promoting the legislation of self-righteousness.

Someone asking you questions or making judgement calls to determine if they want to take part in the transaction doesn't treat you like a child. It is taking the steps the individual feels is necessary to determine if they consent to take part in the transaction. People being comfortable about things is an important element in voluntary transactions and is not at all about treating you like a child.

 

[Lursa]

Yes, they can all cause mental health issues, but they're all unrelated topics and do not cause mental health problems for reasons that are related to the topic.

So then many common everyday things cause mental health issues. Stuff we 'choose' to do all the time. I guess we have to accept the consequences of our actions, right? And we all seem to get alot of positive things FROM those activities as well. Again...it's our choice. Millions love casual sex and suffer no consequences.

But just saying 'casual sex causes mental health issues' like it's something out of the ordinary, when it's not, ends up meaning little since we all choose to do many things that *may possibly but not definitely* cause that.

 

[Lursa]

That's silly. It's just a question that she is free to answer or not. I highly doubt most men or women would even care about it one way or another.

Bull****. It's a personal question directly connected to a woman's appearance: her weight. That is sensitive for both men and women. And who wants to be out and asked that in front of friends, family, a date?

And she's not free to not answer it because if she does not, she cannot drink. So, they'd leave. Again...the businesses would be screwed.

 

[Lursa]

Someone asking you questions or making judgement calls to determine if they want to take part in the transaction doesn't treat you like a child. It is taking the steps the individual feels is necessary to determine if they consent to take part in the transaction. People being comfortable about things is an important element in voluntary transactions and is not at all about treating you like a child.

You can couch it in any terms you want, asking personal questions that are none of your business, related directly to someone's appearance, weight, will cause offense in most cases and lose business.

What if a woman just says, no, I'm not pregnant? Will the bartender or server just choose to deny her a drink?

Again, it's total bull****...unenforceable, a breach of privacy, a breach of manners...rude to bring up someone's excess wieght, and since businesses would end up losing money, not even close to being implemented.

it's total BS that this isnt about controlling women. Of course it is...it's about people judging and wanting the 'power' to force their opinions on women. The transaction tripe is just dishonest BS.

 

[Henrin]

You can couch it in any terms you want, asking personal questions that are none of your business, related directly to someone's appearance, weight, will cause offense in most cases and lose business.

What if a woman just says, no, I'm not pregnant? Will the bartender or server just choose to deny her a drink?

Again, it's total bull****...unenforceable, a breach of privacy, a breach of manners...rude to bring up someone's excess wieght, and since businesses would end up losing money, not even close to being implemented.

it's total BS that this isnt about controlling women. Of course it is...it's about people judging and wanting the 'power' to force their opinions on women. The transaction tripe is just dishonest BS.

This is not just some random question that has no bearing on the transaction like what is her cup size or something, but a question that has bearing on the health and well belling of a possible unborn child that could be harmed as a consequence of her ingesting the product being sold. She doesn't have to answer the question if she finds it inappropriate. It is not an breach of her privacy nor is it rude, but information that the bartender feels is needed for them to make an informed decision.

There is also nothing to enforce as it's not a rule of any sort. There is also no control present in the equation. Parties involved in a transaction want to be informed about what they are getting into and it's not at all rare for questions to be asked to make that possible.

Will the bartender serve her if she says no? Well, that is up to the bartender. They might feel ok at that point and give her alcohol or they might still feel uncomfortable and decline.

 

[WCH]

No. Her right to not tell you her reproductive state is her private business. In order to find that state out, it violates her right to privacy. Are you saying that women only are not entitled to the right to privacy? Because otherwise, your rights would have to be included in the amendment interpretations as well. Are you willing to abdicate your right to privacy in order to keep pregnant women from drinking?

I don't need to abdicate anything...the State will do it for me.

 

[WCH]

Can't fix stupid or evil.

 

[Ikari]

You have no idea if this is the one and only drink a woman will have during a pregnancy. And again, there is no medical science that says how much *may* do harm. So you think bartenders should play Dr? Or God (it seems). It enables the control of women, it enables treating them like 5 yr olds. It assumes the purveyor of spirits is in the position to judge a stranger and her circumstances.

Again, it's promoting the legislation of self-righteousness.

So because one has no idea, they should be forced to contribute? Who is playing doctor or God, that's a stupid comparison. A bartender refusing refusing to serve a pregnant woman isn't saying she cannot drink or somehow "playing God" (lol). Just that she cannot drink at their establishment because they are not comfortable being party to the possibility of harming the fetus.

If a woman wants to drink her kid retarded, I suppose that's her prerogative. Though it seems rather callous (at best) to allow addiction to harm another human. But some people don't want to be party to that process. Should one be forced to labor towards such ends against their will?

 

[Ikari]

It's an ethical question, not one of law. Because it cant be enforced nor, in many people's opinions...people here have opinions on both sides...is it even wrong for her to 'have a drink.' Not even Drs. agree on that.

It's not enforceable by law so it's silly to propose it from that perspective.

It would be nice if people would recognize that it is punitive and disrespectful towards women...to take their decisions out of their own hands and decide for them, like they are 5 yr olds. If a woman wants to have a drink...who says that is harmful to the unborn? Not even the medical community will claim a drink WILL harm the unborn.

Like I said, it's about the person that wants to make the decision for women, not about the unborn. Realistically, that's not quantifiable at all. It's self-righteousness and why on Earth should that be promoted by law?

It is an ethical question, and one may find it morally wrong to help facilitate the damage of a developing baby.

Your last paragraph is completely imagined by you to produce the conclusion you want. It's a circular argument. Someone may have an actual ethical objection based on the health of the fetus towards serving alcohol to a pregnant woman. You made up the assertion that it's done solely to take power away from.women because you have to state it that way to get the conclusion you want.

But invented motivations don't prove your side. It just.proves you're willing to engage in reckless speculation and baseless invention to try to make a point.