Should it be okay for women to smoke while pregnant?

Post Reply New Topic

I have some strong feelings about things and this is one of them. I don't blame my mother for not having tubes put in my ears sooner because she did her personal best. I used to be angry at her for having me and not letting me die at birth. But that was back in 6th grade when I was unhappy with myself and found out I had AS. I was also going through depression and a nervous breakdown and then finding out I wasn't truly normal. So I felt better off if I never was born. I even wanted to kill myself because I felt I couldn't handle it anymore.

But smoking and drugs, I feel so different about.

LOLWUT?

You should be encouraging of women to smoke, drink, and get high while pregnant since Satanism is more-or-less extreme individualism.

Beat me to it! I was going to be *slightly* less direct and point out that "the State" is just a collection of people, and people, as we all know, have a noted weakness to high velocity projectiles, among other things, but your way works too.

Considering suicide-by-cop?

Last edited by AspieRogue on 20 Nov 2012, 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, they can't kill the woman because then they'd be guilty of harming a zef.

A woman smoker should be allowed to voluntarily go to a prison for 9 months.

You ever seen the cops shoot? You're in more danger if you're adjacent to what they're shooting at than if you're the actual target.

Hey Mario do you think women should smoke while theyre pregnant? [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwz7YN1AQmQ[/youtube]

I was willing to let this slide, but today I am in a bad mood, so here we go.

The OP is strawmanning. Remember abortion thread in which we said things about women being entitled to being able to control their own bodies? So Jitro came up with this bogus argument that then it is ok to let women smoke while pregnant.

But I call BS.

There are 600 differences between this and abortion. The key difference is that smoking while pregnant can eventually affect a human being different than the mother, whilst abortion only effects the mother's body.

And that realization also solves the whole moral issue and the pseudotarian argument.

It should not be illegal or wrong to smoke while pregnant. But what is wrong and should be illegal is to give birth to a baby that turned out with deformities or issues because of smoking while pregnant.

And thus, the thread is ended.

Why can't a woman volunteer for rehab?

Being subtle isn't one of my finer virtues.

I expect the FBI will be arriving at my door shortly.

Found this
http://www.dailymail.com/News/201208120092

Really, it's sad that we have to pay a price in exchange of freedom (yep the freedom of doing idiotic things that will have repercussions in society or towards other people)

Yes I have. It's one thing when regular patrol cops shoot with their service pistols, but if they call out the SWAT team or a QRT with officers armed with AR-15s AND a few sharp shooters and they decide to open fire....Your chances of surviving are practically zero. Don't think for a moment that you can take on the US Government and win. Many folks with the same attitude as you and XFilesGeek have died trying.

I'm not many folks, and open conflict really isn't my thing. I'd much rather be the model of compliance in public, and then slip a cylinder of phosgene into the basement of a federal building or two, blow up a few of the responsible politicians and bureaucrats, snipe the occasional ideologue, the usual asymmetrical playbook. It's not about taking on the US government, it's about killing the responsible people, and THAT is very doable.

Also, the SWAT teams are plenty good at shooting each other, dogs, unarmed people, etc, but are still hardly respectable as a combat force. They tend to overcome through surprise and numbers, not superior technique. I still wouldn't go head to head with one if possible, unless it involved a large planted explosive or gas device and a phony call about a hostage situation...

Killing the responsible people will result in you either being captured, sentenced to death, and rotting away in a place like the Florence Colorado Supermax with deprivation of stimuli. Or shot to death by some of the best trained federal law enforcement and/or military snipers. After 9/11, the posse comitatus act has been partially repealed which means the military can assist law enforcement in the pursuit of terrorists. That means instead of the SWAT team, you'll be hunted by militarily trained snipers. We could argue about this endlessly but at the end of the day the proof is in the pudding.

I actually side more morally with AspieRogue. The right to smoke and drink is not so absolute that it morally trumps the concern for the child/person that can result from these behaviors. This isn't out of concern for a zef, screw the zef, it's about the outcome. If we take the most extreme version, a woman takes a pill and her child suffers from severe psychological problems and massive deformities, then that's a clear problem, and it's not really acceptable.

Against those who use the rights argument:
1) If control over one's body is absolute, when is this first received? If at birth, then wouldn't compulsory schooling contradict it? If at adulthood, wouldn't adulthood need to be defined?
2) If control over one's body is absolute, then what do we make of the prohibition against murder? That's clearly a limiting issue on the control of one's body.
3) If control over one's body is absolute, why not extend this to the fruits of one's labor? If one extends this to the fruits of one's labor, then wouldn't this invalidate ANY possible government? If one DOESN'T isn't this a failed criterion of freedom, as with a 100% tax rate one has no effective freedom.
4) If control over one's body is absolute, doesn't this entail that even hard drugs are mandatory to legalize, regardless of social costs? Even if the hard drug in question was significantly socially destabilizing and would result in real harm to others?

Now note: I accept that there are possible answers. What I don't accept is that these answers actually fit perfectly with the original intuition or are more intuitive than other options. We have to either make amendments, or ride this hog to the slaughterhouse, and neither is acceptable. Even if one tries to rebut these particular issues, the problem is that ALL rights-based moral frameworks tend to have huge gaping holes because they don't mesh well with messy realities, and they can't be taken consistently because they're often poorly grounded and unable to deal with fuzzy borders. This problem is seen often in libertarianism. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2174534 The issue is that if a moral framework can't mesh well with a messy reality or handle a fuzzy border, then it can't be absolutely correct, and so applications of this framework need to be applied with a grain of salt. I can't say "RIGHTS!", I have to say "RIGHTS! ...and other moral arguments aren't *that* compelling in opposition, or tend to agree". If LKL(and others promoting this view) really want to test whether her conception of rights is fully consistent, and fully compatible with a reasonable perspective on reality, then that can be the next direction to go, but without that, I'd think pragmatic arguments would be better.

I do think that LKL's point of the practical problems of 1st trimester enforcement relative to the harms done is a good point. However, LKL is using this point as a buttress to an ideology, and as such, I don't see much to evaluate the cost-benefit of a rule like this. So, what is the expected harm if a woman starts drinking per trimester? Even if a large percentage of the harm is done before a woman can really be held accountable for knowing, if the harm that could be done in remaining trimesters is sufficient, legislation could be justified based upon the framework that LKL is trying to rebut with this kind of argument. However, just guessing, the benefits to women from their freedom to drink, and possibly smoke, can be perceived as outweighing the potential harm to fetuses.

I'm not sure enforcement costs have to be the end of everything. People will follow rules above and beyond the enforcement to some degree based upon the degree of legitimacy the rule has. Rules like this rule aren't *that* illegitimate either given that a large set of laws with similar kinds of anti-rights justifications can be found. I mean, if the law is a pointless law, then the net harm done by it is close to 0, it clutters the books but is soon forgotten, but if it aids some people by preventing harm to their forms before they emerge out of them, then that's good.