Should it be okay for women to smoke while pregnant?

Post Reply New Topic

You WISH! Talk tough all you want, but you're not calling the shots around here kid.Even so, you're clearly losing the argument so now you're talking tough, but you still lose.




I may not have the right to control other people, but the STATE has the power to control people. I hope you understand the concept.

losing an argument?

you have barely argued, only proposed an idea that women should be legally bound to certain behaviors while pregnant, something that in any practical sense is impossible.
and you have spouted something that to my eyes is nothing but a personal view that in any real context is less than irrelevant.

the state also has limits on what it can and cant control, in case you didnt know

No. No!! ! The State is mother, the State is father. The State exists for our GOOD.

ruveyn

I must say there is a flaw in the "my body, my choice" argument here. Let's talk about smoking, there are laws already that prohibit it at certain places, because of the dangers of second hand smoke. With reason; people can smoke whatever they want if it only harms them, but when there are other people involved then they are directly harming others with their actions. Now the usual answer here would be "but the zef is not yet a person". It's true, it's not yet a person. But the main difference between smoking and abortion is that, while in the latter it will never be a person because, well, abortion, in the former, if the woman decides to carry it to term, it WILL eventually be one down the line. So the choices the woman makes at this point aren't affecting only her; they are affecting this future person as well, with potentially terrible consequences (we can at this point replace smoking by any dangerous activity that jeopardizes the future health of the zef). If the woman decides to carry the zef to term, she must be aware that some of the choices she makes are no longer solely affecting her, they are affecting her future baby, her future child, as well. To put an abstract thought experiment in that I think could be useful: if there is a button that makes a random person die in 20 years, and I press it knowing what it does, them I'm responsible for that death. If a woman is pregnant, KNOWS she's pregnant (if she doesn't, then it's more of a very unfortunate accident that can't be blamed on her) and endagers her zef and causes him or her later on to have health issues, then she's responsible for it.

As it has been mentioned before, passing laws would be way too inconvenient, and it doesn't look like a sensible option to me. But if a knowingly pregnant woman smokes too much or drinks too much while also knowing the dangers it entails, and is also going to carry the zef to term, then I'd find that morally reprehensible, and I sincereñy think she shouldn't be able to do that. There is one weird implication from this line of thought though, it would make abortion preferable. So be it, I guess, it may be counterintuitive but it's still self-consistent.

People should be free to smoke in places where they are not endangering others, as you say.

The basis for restriction should be whether the restricted behavior constitutes reckless endangerment to others.

ruveyn

It's rather interesting that the first ones to link tobacco with health risks (especially cancer) were - you guessed it - the Nazis. Hitler prohibited mothers from drinking and smoking in order to ensure the healthiest stock for the Reich. It is also rather intriguing that the people who tend to support the idea that pregnant women shouldn't smoke are often the same ones who feel abortion should be permitted. Isn't that slightly contradictory? Is that to say that it is fine to kill a potential human but not okay to confer upon it potential health problems, or is it because they simply do not wish to foot the bill for a sick baby and prefer it never existed to begin with (sounds similar to the Nazi campaign of eugenics). I cannot personally make a decision, since I am not a woman. It would be irrelevant for a male to weigh in on something they have no experience in. It would be akin to a neurosurgeon (who is not a chef) telling a chef how to do his job.

A pregnant woman who refuses an abortion(intending to carry the fetus to full term) AND smokes/drinks/uses drugs most certainly does constitute reckless endangerment(to someone else)!And finally: If you have a problem with Government and "statism", please move to Somalia which currently has not central government.














No, it is not contradictory at all. A life of suffering due to preventable birth defects caused by a woman's irresponsible stupidity and self-indulgence is much worse than being aborted before developing the brain structures necessary for consciousness. I support abortion because it is rational. And outlawing the behavior I'm describing is also rational. Selective abortion for LETHAL genetic conditions like Tay-Sachs, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, adrenoleukodystrophy, cystic fibrosis, etc eliminates needless suffering and has nearly wiped some of these diseases out of existence.

So you think it's preferable for the child to not be born than to have a smoking mother?

I dunno, I'm not a psychopath or a burden to anyone. I put more in than I take out of society.

Also, my mother really wanted me. Would you take away her right to a family because she had a nasty habit she couldn't completely quit?

Even if the child is born with birth defects (it's not always a given), it's not always the case that the child is a net burden when they grow up either (everyone is a burden as a child, unless they're one of those poor ones who have to work). I don't know what caused my disabilities; it might not have anything to do with my mother smoking, or it might be a mix of factors, but I pay my way in life. Even if I didn't, then it might not be because of my disabilities. Lots of perfectly able people are a drain on society.

I do think that men are entitled to an opinion on this and on the abortion issue, as well. I believe both sexes can be right and wrong when it comes to the question of human rights and bodily integrity.

I actually don't have a good answer for that. I could try giving out a cold, hard, logic one, but when talking about actual human beings like you then that's way more cruel than I'm comfortable with. I can say that it would have been preferable that your mother hadn't smoked, and I can't say that I'm thrilled that she did, although if tobacco addiction is as strong as I've been told, to the point that smoking stops being a choice and starts being a necessity, then it's understandable. I wonder about the implications though, did I arrive to a contradiction there? Is it wrong to abort, is it right to take harmful drugs while pregnant, or is there something I failed to account for?

^The issue for me really comes down to whether the mother wants to abort. You cannot under any circumstance force someone to have an abortion. If a woman thinks, 'I cannot give up smoking, and I don't want to have a potentially disabled child, so I'll abort' then I'm fine with that. If the state is coercing someone like that I object on a human rights ground.

If my mother aborted me because she wanted to, then I wouldn't be around to complain about it. But if someone forced her to abort, then other people should be complaining for me.

No it should not, it's immoral. Whether or not it should be enforced is debatable but it's certainly not ethical.

Do you think the same about abortion?

The state might technically have the power to pass this law, but good bloody luck getting it to happen. Tobacco=biiiig money.

Also, I'm not talking tough so much as explaining that it simply isn't your choice. It's none of your business in the least.

You've answered your own question.



Don't care.

My consideration for the rights of "potential people" is limited at best.



......which is why I find discussions like this creepy.

There are many activities that could potentially cause "harm" to a fetus. There are also many circumstances that, while they may not be considered directly "harmful, are certainly not "ideal."

Where do we draw the line? Short of rounding pregnant women and forcing them into special camps where they can be monitored at all times to ensure that they don't do anything that could "harm" the fetus, I don't see how it's legally feasible without falling down a seriously slippery slope.



Don't care.

My consideration for the rights of "potential people" is limited at best.



Interestingly, I know of no laws in the U.S. which prohibit knowingly creating a diseased/deformed/ret*d/ect. fetus and carrying it to term.

There are many maladies and conditions that people are quite aware they have, and have a significant potential to be passed along to any offspring, but there are no legal ramifications for such people willfully creating children with a high probability to be born diseased/deformed/ret*d/ect. I can think of several real life examples of people doing precisely that.

If we're willing to pass laws to prohibit pregnant women from smoking and drinking because it might harm the "potential person," are we prepared to pass laws that say people with a high probability of producing a sick and/or malformed fetus are prohibited from breeding?

Yeah, the government doesn't "own" my body, or any part of my body.

"Ownership" of another human being's body is slavery, and I don't consent to being a slave just because I was born with a uterus.

Society doesn't get to "vote" on what I do with my lungs, liver, or kidneys, and society certainly doesn't get to "vote" on what I do with my reproductive bits. As long as the little parasite is utilizing MY biological resources to sustain its existence, it exists solely at my discretion.

I could only imagine the outcry if the definition of "potential person" was expanded to include sperm, and testicles were officially declared to be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.