Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?[W:150

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

But that doesn't make us property of the state.

The government telling you that you must live your own life and treat your own body the way they tell you absolutely does.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

It isn't hyperbole. It's the only logical justification for this, and it's a fact of the government telling the woman that the laws change for her and she can be incarcerated for not living the way the government dictates, or simply NOT KNOWING she's pregnant.

A lot of states allow alcohol consumption by minors subject to parental approval and supervision, which I support in all 50. So no, it would be considered the parents' decision based on the fitness of their child.

You aren't even the tiniest bit interested in fruitful debate. After all, you're the one giving the censor a good work-out, not I.

So you're saying you couldn't possibly see how someone who believes that 12+ week old fetuses are human beings, would want to also use the justice system to protect those human beings? Really?

It's such an extremist, horrible, monstrous position to tell one human being she can't kill another human being? Do murder laws makes us all government property?

Are you government property when the government tells you you can't drive unless you meet their requirements?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

The government telling you that you must live your own life and treat your own body the way they tell you absolutely does.

You should look up the definition of property.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

It is, as others said, a disingenuous question. Explaining why is a bit tough because what you're doing here is so slippery in its dishonesty, so I will put some words to that which, as of yet, no one else seems to have done.

You're asking whether evil, horrible people should be allowed to intentfully do evil horrible things.

Problem is, we're not talking about evil, horrible people intentfully doing evil horrible things.

We're talking about regular people who didn't know, or people who are suffering, or people with serious problems.

And your attempts to vilify that by whatever comic book narrative bloviating possible makes your question dishonest, and thus unanswerable as it is stated.

This is blatant mischaracterization of my question.

"Regular people who didn't know, or people who are suffering, or people with serious problems" are routinely impeded from carrying out harm to themselves and others. I'm asking if this particular scenario (pregnant woman harming the fetus, resulting in permanent damage) should result in any interference. I'm not talking about Good v. Evil or comic books.

No, the thread is about whether the woman should have the right to risk damage to the fetus, or whether she can be compelled not to do things that might harm it. Intentional harm is an entirely different subject.

No, not really. People's affairs are routinely interfered with when they endanger people (i.e. risk harm) or when they commit harm intentionally. Intent vs. no intent is incidental to this discussion. The question is much simpler: when this particular type of harm is being carried out, should society interfere in some way?

A woman's liberties should never be fewer merely because she is pregnant. Any right she possesses, any liberty, and choices she can make, must be exactly the same, whether she is pregnant or not. Anything else is discrimination against her merely on account of her sex. There is no escaping this situation, and there is no way to justify imposing extra legal duties upon a woman merely for becoming pregnant.

It's not "merely because she is pregnant" though. It's when she is pregnant AND committing acts resulting in a very high likelihood of permanent neurological damage of a fetus she intends to carry to term.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Heartbreaking reality, folks. Is interfering with substance-abusing pregnant women worse than this?

 

[polgara]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

This may be a little convoluted, but bare with me.

1. In a recent thread, we discussed a man who administered an abortive drug to his girlfriend causing her to miscarry, as the drug is meant to do.

2. In that case, the man was charged with murder - although according to all those who are pro-abortion will tell you that a fetus is not a human or a person, so murder seems to be misplaced.

3. The majority of women felt that the man should be charged with some form of assault or attempted murder because the drugs are dangerous if not taken appropriately and could kill the woman or at least cause her physical harm - we can agree on this.

4. If I understand the OP correctly, you're talking about a woman administering some substance to herself that will cause a miscarriage or damage the fetus in such a way that it will be stillborn or not come to term. Keep in mind that those who support abortion always claim that a fetus is not a separate entity, it is simply a "growth" attached to the woman's body and part of her body until such time as the fetus becomes viable.

5. If I understand the OP correctly, this is not a doctor prescribed action since no doctor would administer drugs to purposely brain-damage a fetus. That is outside the realm of what I would consider normal chemical abortion.

6. If we agree that this is not the normal process, similar to the previous case of the man administering the drug to his girlfriend outside the normal process, this also has the potential to physically harm and/or kill the woman.

7. When another person physically harms or potentially kills someone it's a crime, usually called attempted murder, when a person physically harms or potentially kills themselves, that's usually called suicide or attempted suicide.

8. Since suicide is illegal in all jurisdictions, at least that I know of, this would, therefore, be a crime against one's own person. Such crimes are not usually, if not never, charged with a crime but mandated by a court to get psychiatric treatment and care, then this would be the appropriate action to take in connection with any woman who took it upon herself to harm her body or any part of her body.

Therefore, in summary, as related to the OP, my answer would be no.

Good afternoon, CJ. :2wave:

In the case of your statement 2), how can it not be murder sometimes, and other times it is, just because someone says so? :werd: There have been recent cases in my State where a man has been charged with two counts of murder for shooting and killing a pregnant woman and her unborn fetus, and the charges stuck, and the men involved are serving prison time for same.

 

[Moot]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

There's nothing about protecting a kid from being abused and damaged by the mother that's incompatible with libertarian beliefs. You don't cry about the state owning your body when you're not allowed to drink under 21. Why can a woman drink while 8 months pregnant, but a child can't drink at say 5 years old? Or 15 years old? Does the state own everyone under the age of 21? What about disallowing you to drive without a license? Does the state own everyone in the US?

Advocating for government control over women's bodies isn't very Libertarian by any definition of the word.....

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration

Platform | Libertarian Party

Libertarian perspectives on abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And moot, it's not surprising that you refused to answer the question and just started ridiculous personal attacks.

You might want to check your own use of personal attacks, Mr. Pot.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Advocating for government control over women's bodies isn't very Libertarian by any definition of the word.....



You might want to check your own use of personal attacks, Mr. Pot.

So I guess you're not even going to address the rest of my post?

Libertarians are split very heavily on abortion. The party had to lean towards the side with less government.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Good afternoon, CJ. :2wave:

In the case of your statement 2), how can it not be murder sometimes, and other times it is, just because someone says so? :werd: There have been recent cases in my State where a man has been charged with two counts of murder for shooting and killing a pregnant woman and her unborn fetus, and the charges stuck, and the men involved are serving prison time for same.

Good evening Lady P.

Simply put, it's the confluence of the state's conflicted view of what constitutes life and when it begins. In each and every case, it chooses the one that benefits the woman and disregards the man. It is, in effect, the state's "war on men".

 

[Moot]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

So I guess you're not even going to address the rest of my post?

Since it wasn't addressed to me...no, I won't be addressing the rest of your post.

Libertarians are split very heavily on abortion. The party had to lean towards the side with less government.

Libertarians have always leaned toward less government and the so called libertarians that you describe are really just disgruntled conservatives that left the GOP and are now trying to hijack the Libertarian party just like they did to the republican party after the Civil Rights movement. Conservatives really should get a party of their own instead of trying to bastardize everyone elses. Hey, they could even call it the Conservative Party. What a concept.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Libertarians have always leaned toward less government and the so called libertarians that you describe are really just disgruntled conservatives that left the GOP and are now trying to hijack the Libertarian party just like they did to the republican party after the Civil Rights movement. Conservatives really should get a party of their own instead of trying to bastardize everyone elses. Hey, they could even call it the Conservative Party. What a concept.

Not even close to true. The split in the libertarian ranks all goes back to when the unborn can be considered a member of the species and the NAP principle.

If some libertarians were not looking for sentience in the unborn the divide would be considerably less.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

I love how women are always the object of condemnation when it comes to conception...etc.

There's a hell of a lot of information on "Damaged and Mutated DNA in SPERM"...which can cause serious problems in a conception.

Should men be prosecuted for ejaculating in a woman damaged sperm caused from drug abuse, which has potential cause birth defects or a short lived conception?

Should government force men to regularly have their sperm tested for DNA damage causes from exposure to environmental condition, chemo therapy...or from self abuse?

There is an aggressive assault against women's rights in this nation.

 

[Moot]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Not even close to true. The split in the libertarian ranks all goes back to when the unborn can be considered a member of the species and the NAP principle.

If some libertarians were not looking for sentience in the unborn the divide would be considerably less.

How far back does the split go? My guess is not that long ago.

The same conservative libertarians that support pro-life also support more military intervention and military build ups. How do you (they) reconcile that hypocrisy with the NAP priniciple?

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

How far back does the split go? My guess is not that long ago.

The same conservative libertarians that support pro-life also support more military intervention and military build ups. How do you (they) reconcile that hypocrisy with the NAP priniciple?

Well, really...all they have to do is change from the name "Pro-life" to "Pro-birth", which is what I've begun to use more and more in my post. But you're completely right about the "HYPOCRISY". There's tons of hypocrisy among those who claim to be pro-life...and in so many different ways.

 

[Moot]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Well, really...all they have to do is change from the name "Pro-life" to "Pro-birth", which is what I've begun to use more and more in my post. But you're completely right about the "HYPOCRISY". There's tons of hypocrisy among those who claim to be pro-life...and in so many different ways.

"Pro-birth" is just more tautology and this issue seems to have more than its share of that. I still mostly just use "anti-abortion" and "pro-life" with a small "p" because after the birth the anti-abortionists are anything but pro-life.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Your hyperbole makes your argument very weak. There are thousands of every day things that the government prevents you from doing (or at least attempts). Why don't you whine about all of those other things?

How do you know if she does or doesn't? This forum is for discussions about abortion, not those 'thousands of every day things ...."

 

[Henrin]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

How far back does the split go? My guess is not that long ago.

I have no idea, but I would figure all the way back.

The same conservative libertarians that support pro-life also support more military intervention and military build ups. How do you (they) reconcile that hypocrisy with the NAP priniciple?

libertarians are not interventionists.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Are you government property when the government tells you you can't drive unless you meet their requirements?

You can drive on your own property, just not on public roads. It's a public safety issue.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

"Pro-birth" is just more tautology and this issue seems to have more than its share of that. I still mostly just use "anti-abortion" and "pro-life" with a small "p" because after the birth the anti-abortionists are anything but pro-life.

Very well stated...

 

[tessaesque]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

The government telling you that you must live your own life and treat your own body the way they tell you absolutely does.

They do it every day in a multitude of ways which are largely accepted (if only by the mere lack of objection, if not outright consent) and nobody balks...but when it's about women and their vaginas all of a sudden the rules shouldn't apply, no matter what the cost to the fetus or the rest of society may be. It's a bit lacking in continuity.

 

[Your Star]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

No, much like I don't have the right to force someone to drink a substance that may leave them brain damaged. A knowingly pregnant woman shouldn't have the right to try and abuse her unborn child. It's not her property and the child is not her body.

While I agree that it's a ****ty thing to do, and one shouldn't drink, and other stuff while pregnant.

The child IS HER BODY, until it is born. That is a simple fact that can't be ignored.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

The child IS HER BODY, until it is born. That is a simple fact that can't be ignored.

Completely ridiculous. No, your kids are not part of your body; they are never and were never. At no point in our lifespan are we part of our mothers.

That is not "a fact," it is simply absurd.

 

[Your Star]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Completely ridiculous. No, your kids are not part of your body; they are never and were never. At no point in our lifespan are we part of our mothers.

That is not "a fact," it is simply absurd.

You do know that the fetus is carried inside the mother during pregnancy yes?

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

You do know that the fetus is carried inside the mother during pregnancy yes?

Yes. Being inside one's mother for a long time during the early parts of our lifespan is what we mammals do.

It does not make us literally PART OF OUR MOTHERS. That's inane.

 

[tessaesque]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

You do know that the fetus is carried inside the mother during pregnancy yes?

That doesn't mean the mother has a "right" to knowingly commit actions which harm it.