Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Should Pregnant Women who drink/do drugs go to jail for child abuse?
  • Subject: Should Pregnant Women who drink/do drugs go to jail for child abuse?
Subject: Should Pregnant Women who drink/do drugs go to jail for child abuse?


Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: Christmas Swag
Anyone who says yes is an idiot who doesn't understand the difference between a child and a fetus.


Can you explain that difference?

Life is meaningless, we all die. Let it die not worrying about death.

  • 12.12.2012 5:45 PM PDT

Please do not send me group invites.


Posted by: Methew
Posted by: MadMax888
Because in order to punish someone for murder, they must murder a person.

Attempted murder is a crime. As is conspiracy to commit murder.
indeed it is.

  • 12.12.2012 5:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: Christmas Swag
Anyone who says yes is an idiot who doesn't understand the difference between a child and a fetus.


Can you explain that difference?

A child is a developed human being between the stages of birth and puberty. A fetus does not meet this criteria.

  • 12.12.2012 5:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:


Posted by: MadMax888

Posted by: Methew
Posted by: MadMax888
Because in order to punish someone for murder, they must murder a person.

Attempted murder is a crime. As is conspiracy to commit murder.
indeed it is.

You get my point though.

  • 12.12.2012 5:47 PM PDT

Please do not send me group invites.


Posted by: Methew

Posted by: MadMax888

Posted by: Methew
Posted by: MadMax888
Because in order to punish someone for murder, they must murder a person.

Attempted murder is a crime. As is conspiracy to commit murder.
indeed it is.

You get my point though.
Not really. You can't be charge with attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder on things that aren't people, so I'm not sure how that relates to the post you quoted.

  • 12.12.2012 5:48 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I find that Teh-Ziod is NOT attractive for the reasons
she/he does not correct format sentences, therefore for intelligent matured members of society that may interact with her/him, may find her/him UNattractive for the reason that she/he does not comprehend with their level to successfully have a conversation therefore it will be socially an awkward interaction which may be wanted to be avoided

second i do not find it physically possible for a PERSON to be a ice cream truck.


Posted by: DarkJet7
The difference is that the aborted fetus was never intended to become a child and never will, but the fetus that's inside the body of a drug addict or a drinker is intended to be a child, and may well be born someday, so why not try to protect the fetuses that actually will become children someday?
So you're telling me that someone can play that "I can do whatever I want with my body" card when it comes to abortion, but they can't play that same card for doing drugs while pregnant? It should be an all or nothing thing, you shouldn't be able to pick and choose when bodily anatomy is of higher priority or when the fetus's life is of higher priority. Either the woman need needs to compromise her bodily anatomy rights so that the fetus is protected or bodily anatomy needs to be seen as higher priority to the fetus's life in all scenarios. To do otherwise is hypocrisy.

  • 12.12.2012 5:49 PM PDT

**Devil's advocate of the Flood. My posts may or may not represent my personal opinion, I just enjoy disagreeing with people. None of my posts are representative of the official view of the Navy or any government agency.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae
Homework questions? Forget the Flood, join The Academy.
I've got a fan!


Posted by: MadMax888
I don't think that a first-trimester fetus can be considered a fully-functioning person, thus inheriting all of the rights that a regular person has.


Is a newborn baby a fully functioning person? They can't survive on their own. What about a toddler? It's possible they could survive on their own, but unlikely. What about a coma patient? Or a person with a mental of physical retardation? Are dead people still people? Humans aren't even fully cognitively developed until the late 20's, nor are they fully physically developed until their late teens or early 20's.

The fact is that fetuses are a genetically unique human being, totally separate from the mother in that sense. I think it's awfully arrogant of humanity to put boundaries on which humans are people, as if those are no longer synonymous. It seems horribly barbaric, like societies that still use slavery or consider women to be sub-human. The disturbing thing about that is, what if those people that don't consider humans to be "people" until birth or viability are wrong? Well, then we'd have to face that fact that as a planet of a conglomeration of "civilized" nations, we've committed a mass genocide that succeeds the works of the most reviled figures of the 1900's.

Posted by: Christmas Swag

Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: Christmas Swag
Anyone who says yes is an idiot who doesn't understand the difference between a child and a fetus.


Can you explain that difference?

A child is a developed human being between the stages of birth and puberty. A fetus does not meet this criteria.
Neither do adults. Should we declassify them as humans as well?

[Edited on 12.12.2012 5:58 PM PST]

  • 12.12.2012 5:53 PM PDT

The world is not beautiful: And that, in a way, lends it a sort of beauty.

~Kino's Journey


Posted by: WhitestKidUKnow

Posted by: DarkJet7
The difference is that the aborted fetus was never intended to become a child and never will, but the fetus that's inside the body of a drug addict or a drinker is intended to be a child, and may well be born someday, so why not try to protect the fetuses that actually will become children someday?
So you're telling me that someone can play that "I can do whatever I want with my body" card when it comes to abortion, but they can't play that same card for doing drugs while pregnant? It should be an all or nothing thing, you shouldn't be able to pick and choose when bodily anatomy is of higher priority or when the fetus's life is of higher priority. Either the woman need needs to compromise her bodily anatomy rights so that the fetus is protected or bodily anatomy needs to be seen as higher priority to the fetus's life in all scenarios. To do otherwise is hypocrisy.
I don't know how many times i'm going to have to say this:

When having an abortion, the parents DO NOT want the fetus, the fetus will never be born, the fetus will never be "human"

When drinking/doing drugs while pregnant with a baby that the parents ACTUALLY WANT, that fetus will one day be born, and will have to live with the consequences of the mother's actions.

And just a side note, i've never seen a zero tolerance policy that works.

  • 12.12.2012 5:55 PM PDT

Please do not send me group invites.


Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: MadMax888
I don't think that a first-trimester fetus can be considered a fully-functioning person, thus inheriting all of the rights that a regular person has.


Is a newborn baby a fully functioning person? They can't survive on their own. What about a toddler? It's possible they could survive on their own, but unlikely. What about a coma patient? Or a person with a mental of physical retardation? Are dead people still people? Humans aren't even fully cognitively developed until the late 20's, now are they fully physically developed until their late teens or early 20's.
You know what I mean. A fetus is entirely dependent on its mother because it is literally connected to her, and receives all the nutrients it needs from its mother. That's the one thing that separates a fetus from a born baby. Premature babies can be born and survive because they've had enough development in the womb. A fetus of 2 months cannot do the same.

  • 12.12.2012 5:56 PM PDT

**Devil's advocate of the Flood. My posts may or may not represent my personal opinion, I just enjoy disagreeing with people. None of my posts are representative of the official view of the Navy or any government agency.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae
Homework questions? Forget the Flood, join The Academy.
I've got a fan!


Posted by: DarkJet7
the fetus will never be "human"


Fetuses are genetically human from conception, genotypically and phenotypically..

[Edited on 12.12.2012 5:56 PM PST]

  • 12.12.2012 5:56 PM PDT

**Devil's advocate of the Flood. My posts may or may not represent my personal opinion, I just enjoy disagreeing with people. None of my posts are representative of the official view of the Navy or any government agency.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae
Homework questions? Forget the Flood, join The Academy.
I've got a fan!


Posted by: MadMax888

Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: MadMax888
I don't think that a first-trimester fetus can be considered a fully-functioning person, thus inheriting all of the rights that a regular person has.


Is a newborn baby a fully functioning person? They can't survive on their own. What about a toddler? It's possible they could survive on their own, but unlikely. What about a coma patient? Or a person with a mental of physical retardation? Are dead people still people? Humans aren't even fully cognitively developed until the late 20's, now are they fully physically developed until their late teens or early 20's.
You know what I mean. A fetus is entirely dependent on its mother because it is literally connected to her, and receives all the nutrients it needs from its mother. That's the one thing that separates a fetus from a born baby. Premature babies can be born and survive because they've had enough development in the womb. A fetus of 2 months cannot do the same.


I'm still not understanding why that makes a difference.

  • 12.12.2012 5:57 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"


Posted by: DarkJet7

Posted by: SweetTRIX
Because both instances happen to a fetus, which is not legally considered human. Not as big a leap in logic as you think.

The difference is that the aborted fetus was never intended to become a child and never will, but the fetus that's inside the body of a drug addict or a drinker is intended to be a child, and may well be born someday, so why not try to protect the fetuses that actually will become children someday?

This difference is irrelevant. You cannot charge someone for abuse based on an intention. They are either damaging the fetus, or they aren't. If that is to be considered child abuse, it would fly in the face of current legal precedent, as fetus' are not considered children. Legally, you cannot allow abortion under the principle that fetus are not human, and then charge a pregnant woman for child abuse based on damage caused to a fetus.

The parents desires/intentions/wants regarding the fetus has nothing to do with the charge.

[Edited on 12.12.2012 5:59 PM PST]

  • 12.12.2012 5:58 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey
Neither do adults. Should we declassify them as humans as well?

You clearly didn't comprehend my post, so I'm not going to waste my time.

[Edited on 12.12.2012 5:59 PM PST]

  • 12.12.2012 5:58 PM PDT

**Devil's advocate of the Flood. My posts may or may not represent my personal opinion, I just enjoy disagreeing with people. None of my posts are representative of the official view of the Navy or any government agency.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae
Homework questions? Forget the Flood, join The Academy.
I've got a fan!


Posted by: Christmas Swag

Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey
Neither do adults. Should we declassify them as humans as well?

You clearly didn't comprehend my post, so I'm not going to waste my time.


What exactly did I not comprehend?

Here is the post:

Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: Christmas Swag
Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: Christmas Swag
Anyone who says yes is an idiot who doesn't understand the difference between a child and a fetus.


Can you explain that difference?

A child is a developed human being between the stages of birth and puberty. A fetus does not meet this criteria.
Neither do adults. Should we declassify them as humans as well?


[Edited on 12.12.2012 6:01 PM PST]

  • 12.12.2012 5:59 PM PDT

Life?
I have the internet and Doctor Who; i don't need a life.


Posted by: DarkJet7

Posted by: WhitestKidUKnow

Posted by: DarkJet7
The difference is that the aborted fetus was never intended to become a child and never will, but the fetus that's inside the body of a drug addict or a drinker is intended to be a child, and may well be born someday, so why not try to protect the fetuses that actually will become children someday?
So you're telling me that someone can play that "I can do whatever I want with my body" card when it comes to abortion, but they can't play that same card for doing drugs while pregnant? It should be an all or nothing thing, you shouldn't be able to pick and choose when bodily anatomy is of higher priority or when the fetus's life is of higher priority. Either the woman need needs to compromise her bodily anatomy rights so that the fetus is protected or bodily anatomy needs to be seen as higher priority to the fetus's life in all scenarios. To do otherwise is hypocrisy.
I don't know how many times i'm going to have to say this:

When having an abortion, the parents DO NOT want the fetus, the fetus will never be born, the fetus will never be "human"

When drinking/doing drugs while pregnant with a baby that the parents ACTUALLY WANT, that fetus will one day be born, and will have to live with the consequences of the mother's actions.

And just a side note, i've never seen a zero tolerance policy that works.
*sigh*

  • 12.12.2012 6:00 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: Christmas Swag

Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey
Neither do adults. Should we declassify them as humans as well?

You clearly didn't comprehend my post, so I'm not going to waste my time.


What exactly did I not comprehend?

The part where it says child and not human. I'm not arguing if they're human or not, which you seem to be implying.

  • 12.12.2012 6:01 PM PDT

The world is not beautiful: And that, in a way, lends it a sort of beauty.

~Kino's Journey


Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: DarkJet7
the fetus will never be "human"


Fetuses are genetically human from conception, genotypically and phenotypically..
That's why I added the quotes, the fetus is technically human, but if it was intended to be aborted then it will never grow an experience life and do all the things that we atribute to being human, things that could be impaired by a mother drinking/doing drugs while pregnant.


Posted by: SweetTRIX

Posted by: DarkJet7

Posted by: SweetTRIX
Because both instances happen to a fetus, which is not legally considered human. Not as big a leap in logic as you think.

The difference is that the aborted fetus was never intended to become a child and never will, but the fetus that's inside the body of a drug addict or a drinker is intended to be a child, and may well be born someday, so why not try to protect the fetuses that actually will become children someday?

This difference is irrelevant. You cannot charge someone for abuse based on an intention. They are either damaging the fetus, or they aren't. If that is to be considered child abuse, it would fly in the face of current legal precedent, as fetus' are not considered children. Legally, you cannot allow abortion under the principle that fetus are not human, and then charge a pregnant woman for child abuse based on damage caused to a fetus.

The parents desires/intentions/wants regarding the fetus has nothing to do with the charge.
First off, i'm not saying it's child abuse, OP's title is misleading.

I'm not trying to "charge someone for abuse based on an intention", i'm trying to charge people based on the effects of their actions.

  • 12.12.2012 6:03 PM PDT

**Devil's advocate of the Flood. My posts may or may not represent my personal opinion, I just enjoy disagreeing with people. None of my posts are representative of the official view of the Navy or any government agency.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae
Homework questions? Forget the Flood, join The Academy.
I've got a fan!


Posted by: Christmas Swag

Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: Christmas Swag

Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey
Neither do adults. Should we declassify them as humans as well?

You clearly didn't comprehend my post, so I'm not going to waste my time.


What exactly did I not comprehend?

The part where it says child and not human. I'm not arguing if they're human or not, which you seem to be implying.


Then what are you arguing? You said the differences between a fetus and a child are:

1. A child is a developed human
2. A child is between a fetus and puberty

I'm not sure what either of those criteria have to do with fetuses not being "people".

  • 12.12.2012 6:03 PM PDT

The world is not beautiful: And that, in a way, lends it a sort of beauty.

~Kino's Journey

Posted by: CultMiester4000
*sigh*
And?

  • 12.12.2012 6:06 PM PDT

**Devil's advocate of the Flood. My posts may or may not represent my personal opinion, I just enjoy disagreeing with people. None of my posts are representative of the official view of the Navy or any government agency.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae
Homework questions? Forget the Flood, join The Academy.
I've got a fan!


Posted by: DarkJet7
but if it was intended to be aborted then it will never grow an experience life and do all the things that we atribute to being human


How does that do anything but make the fetus' death any less tragic? Do you not see the problem with being outraged that a mother is potentially harming her child by drinking alcohol during pregnancy, but not being outraged by a mother that is harming her unborn child by killing it?

[Edited on 12.12.2012 6:07 PM PST]

  • 12.12.2012 6:06 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:

Posted by: MadMax888
Not really. You can't be charge with attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder on things that aren't people, so I'm not sure how that relates to the post you quoted.

It goes to their intent.

No crime was committed but they planned and wanted to commit a crime. Assuming the very best out of a pregnant woman drinking is that she is ignoring her responsibilities as a soon to be mother.

  • 12.12.2012 6:07 PM PDT

Posted by: Baph117
Some asses just aren't worth the trouble.


Posted by: Postwarbean85

Posted by: ODSTworrior94
I wouldn't count it as child abuse, but yes it should be illegal.

  • 12.12.2012 6:09 PM PDT

Everything starts with prevention. IF they weren't alcoholics and druggies in the first place then we would not have a problem would we?

  • 12.12.2012 6:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:

Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey
Do you not see the problem with being outraged that a mother is potentially harming her child by drinking alcohol during pregnancy, but not being outraged by a mother that is harming her unborn child by killing it?

The outrage comes from the fact that the mother is going to birth the child damaged by drugs and alcohol.

  • 12.12.2012 6:10 PM PDT

Life?
I have the internet and Doctor Who; i don't need a life.


Posted by: DarkJet7
Posted by: CultMiester4000
*sigh*
And?
i was pointing out how in regards to that argument the discussion is going round and round in circles.
i wasn't stating anything more so i have no idea why you responded to it.

  • 12.12.2012 6:11 PM PDT