Tobacco, alcohol, and pro-lifers

[Lord Zentei]

So, what are you saying? Women shouldn't be permitted to drink alcohol or smoke until they are past menopause because they might be pregnant at any time?

Duty of care. Any woman who has sex without contraception must be aware of the possibility of pregnancy and therefore has a duty of care to avoid alcohol and tobacco in order to avoid causing serious bodily harm. That is the kind of standard we apply for everybody else; if pro-lifers honestly believe fetuses should be treated the same as any child, then the standard applies for criminal negligence, if not outright assault.

In short, yes, any sexually active woman who is not using contraception should be disallowed from ever consuming any alcohol or tobacco if you subscribe to pro-lifers' rhetoric.

Unreasonable, you say? Well that's kind of the point I was trying to make, isn't it?

It is not unreasonable at all. The fact that the foetus will be harmed by drinking and smoking is reason enough to disallow these activities by pregnant women. Regardless of whether you subscribe to the idea of the foetus being fully human or not, the child, when born, will posess the disabilities caused by said smoking and drinking.

[Darth Servo]

Since when were drinking and smoking "rights"?

[Alyeska]

False delima. Most of us live in free countries. We do not need to write down specificaly what our rights are. The government has to have just cause to deny what would otherwise be our rights.

[Darth Servo]

False delima. Most of us live in free countries. We do not need to write down specificaly what our rights are. The government has to have just cause to deny what would otherwise be our rights.

The government DOES regulate them. No one under 18 is legally allowed to buy tobacco and under 21 for alcohol. And the government DID try to completely eliminate alcohol, thus indicating it is NOT considered a right. That was only repealed because it was unenforceable, caused increased crime and could generate revenue to help fight the great depression. Saying "drinking is a right" was NOT in the list.

[Alyeska]

They are still rights. Free speech and the right to vote change depending on age.

[SirNitram]

They are still rights. Free speech and the right to vote change depending on age.

Notably, neither allows you to directly contribute to the death or disfigurement of another person. This would make them quite seperate from the so-called 'right' to drinking and smoking vs. the risks of it in pregnancy.

[Darth Wong]

False delima. Most of us live in free countries. We do not need to write down specificaly what our rights are. The government has to have just cause to deny what would otherwise be our rights.

How the fuck is the subject of this thread a false dilemma? Or are you just randomly throwing out fallacy names without any regard for whether they fit?

[Alyeska]

Automaticaly declaring smoking and drinking non-rights creates a dilema that doesn't exist. I thought that was the meaning of the logical fallacy.

[Darth Wong]

Automaticaly declaring smoking and drinking non-rights creates a dilema that doesn't exist. I thought that was the meaning of the logical fallacy.

How is it a "dilemma" to say that smoking and drinking are not rights, moron? That is a statement of fact; it is impossible for a statement of fact to be a fallacy.

[SirNitram]

Automaticaly declaring smoking and drinking non-rights creates a dilema that doesn't exist. I thought that was the meaning of the logical fallacy.

'Right' or 'non-right' is a fucking red herring. Even if they are rights, they end when they endanger others. There's the only fallacy here.

[Broomstick]

So, what are you saying? Women shouldn't be permitted to drink alcohol or smoke until they are past menopause because they might be pregnant at any time?

Duty of care. Any woman who has sex without contraception must be aware of the possibility of pregnancy and therefore has a duty of care to avoid alcohol and tobacco in order to avoid causing serious bodily harm. That is the kind of standard we apply for everybody else; if pro-lifers honestly believe fetuses should be treated the same as any child, then the standard applies for criminal negligence, if not outright assault.

In short, yes, any sexually active woman who is not using contraception should be disallowed from ever consuming any alcohol or tobacco if you subscribe to pro-lifers' rhetoric.

Unreasonable, you say? Well that's kind of the point I was trying to make, isn't it?

It is not unreasonable at all. The fact that the foetus will be harmed by drinking and smoking is reason enough to disallow these activities by pregnant women. Regardless of whether you subscribe to the idea of the foetus being fully human or not, the child, when born, will posess the disabilities caused by said smoking and drinking.

Go back and re-read this line of reasoning - it's NOT "pregnant women should be banned from drinking and smoking", it's EVERY woman should be prohibited from drinking and smoking because she MIGHT become pregnant.

Following that line of reasoning (to protect potential babies) no fertile (not pregnant, just fertile) woman should ever receive accutane, any statin, any of a number of other therapeutic drugs because she MIGHT become pregnant. Or, at the very least, if she does require these drugs for her health, she may be forcibly put on birth control (even if she's not in a sexual relationship, or doesn't have sex with men) or prohibted from having sexual intercourse because she MIGHT become pregnant and what she's taking MIGHT harm a baby.

Essentially, that argument reduces women to wombs with legs.

Gee, maybe we should prohibit men from any job that involves radiation exposure since there testicles are so much more exposed and vulnerable to radiation than a woman's ovaries - solely to protect their future children, of course. So no men radiologists, airport luggage screeners (in fact, we'll have to carefully keep the male public at a distance from these machines), no more allowing men to work in nuclear plants, nuclear subs, nuclear aircraft carriers... won't someone think of the children? A man's obligation to ensure his progeny don't suffer from genetic defects outwieghs his so-called "right" to choose such a profession.

[Darth Wong]

Go back and re-read this line of reasoning - it's NOT "pregnant women should be banned from drinking and smoking", it's EVERY woman should be prohibited from drinking and smoking because she MIGHT become pregnant.

Every sexually active woman who is not using contraception. There is no need to exaggerate.

Essentially, that argument reduces women to wombs with legs.

Precisely how does acknowledgement of a woman's womb and its attendant responsibilities reduce her to nothing but a womb?

Gee, maybe we should prohibit men from any job that involves radiation exposure since there testicles are so much more exposed and vulnerable to radiation than a woman's ovaries - solely to protect their future children, of course. So no men radiologists, airport luggage screeners (in fact, we'll have to carefully keep the male public at a distance from these machines), no more allowing men to work in nuclear plants, nuclear subs, nuclear aircraft carriers... won't someone think of the children? A man's obligation to ensure his progeny don't suffer from genetic defects outwieghs his so-called "right" to choose such a profession.

You know, they do have shielded aprons for that sort of thing. Unless you're arguing that all risks above absolute zero should be treated identically, which is utterly absurd. The fetal health consequences of smoking and drinking mothers are severe and significant; you know that.

By the way, my wife stopped drinking any alcohol well before we started trying to have a child. It's not as if people are truly ignorant of when they are risking pregnancy, and as I said, if someone is going to treat a fetus as having all of the rights of any person, then it logically follows that people should have just as much duty of care with respect to the fetus as they would to any person.

[Broomstick]

Go back and re-read this line of reasoning - it's NOT "pregnant women should be banned from drinking and smoking", it's EVERY woman should be prohibited from drinking and smoking because she MIGHT become pregnant.

Every sexually active woman who is not using contraception. There is no need to exaggerate.

Ah, but it's more fun to argue with exaggeration!

But seriously - there are people who would take the extreme view on these things, and would say that since no contraception is 100% perfect we just can't take these chances.

I would argue that women who are celibate, who are exclusively lesbian in sexual activities, or whose partner(s) are known to be sterile would not need to use contraception yet could drink or smoke without risk to a fetus.

So maybe we should phrase that as any woman who is at significant risk of getting pregnant, meaning sexually active with fertile men and not using contraception.

Essentially, that argument reduces women to wombs with legs.

Precisely how does acknowledgement of a woman's womb and its attendant responsibilities reduce her to nothing but a womb?

By making all aspects of a woman's life subservient to her role as a producer of children, you reduce a woman to nothing but reproduction.

The act of reproduction - that is, conception, pregnancy, and breast-feeing - occupies only a small part of a modern woman's life. Assuming a rather generous four years per child for the process, and three children per woman, that's 12 years out of a 80 year lifespan even for an above average breeding woman - not much different than the length of childhood. We do not base the rules of an entire lifetime upon the limitations of childhood, nor should the entire adult life of a woman be based solely around those few years she's actively producing and feeding form her own body a new life. In truth, with the average woman producing about two children, and breastfeeding under two years in length, the slice of a lifetime we're looking at is only about four years on average - out of 80, on average.

Really, I find it ridiculous (and sad) to see these "conservative" women who have had advanced education, careers, and so forth prattle on about the "family values" agenda which, when you really analyse it, is predicated upon the idea of woman as baby-producing machine.

Now, if a woman wants a large family and sincerely desires to raise a half dozen or even a dozen children that's fine with me. What isn't fine is when someone who chooses that lifestyle, or idealizes that lifestyle, tries to ram it down my throat.

Gee, maybe we should prohibit men from any job that involves radiation exposure since there testicles are so much more exposed and vulnerable to radiation than a woman's ovaries - solely to protect their future children, of course. So no men radiologists, airport luggage screeners (in fact, we'll have to carefully keep the male public at a distance from these machines), no more allowing men to work in nuclear plants, nuclear subs, nuclear aircraft carriers... won't someone think of the children? A man's obligation to ensure his progeny don't suffer from genetic defects outwieghs his so-called "right" to choose such a profession.

You know, they do have shielded aprons for that sort of thing. Unless you're arguing that all risks above absolute zero should be treated identically, which is utterly absurd. The fetal health consequences of smoking and drinking mothers are severe and significant; you know that.

Yes, I know that. I also know that severe damage does not occur in all cases, that people make mistakes, contraception fails, and the real world is messy.

If a baby is born with (as an example) FAS characteristics the mother may, indeed, be vulnerable to judgement. However, FAS is not the only thing that causes facial deformities and other causes would need to be ruled out. You would also need to investigate and determine if alcohol consumption occured when the woman didn't know she was pregnant - if, for example, her contraception failed. Just because someone is injured does not automatically mean that person is the victim of malice or even of carelessness. Accidents do happen, more frequently than people think they do.

As for smoking - yes, it's linked respiratory difficulties in the child, but not all children of smokers have lung problems, and not all babies with lung problems are born to smokers. My niece is an example of the latter - my sister has never smoked, carefully avoided fetal-hazardous substances while pregnant, and my niece still spent most of her first year and a half in the hospital due to severe asthma and allergies, and 18 years later still requires daily medication to keep it under control A clear example of doing everything right, yet having a less than ideal outcome. So, again, it's not enough to say "the kid has a problem, the mother is at fault", you have to dig deeper.

Fact is, there is always a risk of something going wrong between conception and old age. You can NOT reduce the risk to zero. So... what constitues sufficient care for the welfare of others?

By the way, my wife stopped drinking any alcohol well before we started trying to have a child. It's not as if people are truly ignorant of when they are risking pregnancy, and as I said, if someone is going to treat a fetus as having all of the rights of any person, then it logically follows that people should have just as much duty of care with respect to the fetus as they would to any person.

Wong, you and your wife are highly intelligent, responsible people - much more so than the average human being. I suggest that perhaps you two are not the best example of average conduct and care.

I do agree, though, that if you consider a fetus to have the same rights as an adult in regard to "right to life" then yes, the duty of care standard applies. This will, however, have some potentially major impacts on the freedom of women to do what they want. Well, living in civilization does require us to submit to rules rather than have absolute freedom. The question is where the line is drawn.

But my example for the men, although not perfect, was given for a reason. It's NOT just about the mother - the father really does have an impact and he is under equal obligation to avoid damage to his sperm. Especially since there are some disorders that can ONLY be inherited from defective sperm (Since I know someone is going to want an example I'll give one - Prader-Willi syndrome. It occurs ONLY when a chromosome 15 with a specific defect is inherited from the father, or the father's chromosome 15 is absent) You could just as easily argue that if a child with such a defect is born you should investigate the father for sperm-hazardous activities and prosecute him if he is found to be culpable.

It's only fair if it cuts both ways.

[Darth Wong]

But seriously - there are people who would take the extreme view on these things, and would say that since no contraception is 100% perfect we just can't take these chances.

Of course, but then again, we are talking about "pro-lifers", for whom extremism is a way of life.

I would argue that women who are celibate, who are exclusively lesbian in sexual activities, or whose partner(s) are known to be sterile would not need to use contraception yet could drink or smoke without risk to a fetus.

So maybe we should phrase that as any woman who is at significant risk of getting pregnant, meaning sexually active with fertile men and not using contraception.

Fair enough.

Precisely how does acknowledgement of a woman's womb and its attendant responsibilities reduce her to nothing but a womb?

By making all aspects of a woman's life subservient to her role as a producer of children, you reduce a woman to nothing but reproduction.

Well, I know you say exaggeration is more fun, but again, I see no need to exaggerate tobacco and alcohol consumption into "all aspects of a woman's life", and those are the only aspects of a woman's life that we're actually talking about here.

Really, I find it ridiculous (and sad) to see these "conservative" women who have had advanced education, careers, and so forth prattle on about the "family values" agenda which, when you really analyse it, is predicated upon the idea of woman as baby-producing machine.

That's true, but I would hasten to point out that a lot of the hardcore social conservatives do promote the "stay at home, barefoot and pregnant, know your place" philosophy on women, so they're not all hypocrites; they're just nuts.

Now, if a woman wants a large family and sincerely desires to raise a half dozen or even a dozen children that's fine with me. What isn't fine is when someone who chooses that lifestyle, or idealizes that lifestyle, tries to ram it down my throat.

My pet peeve comes from the opposite direction: people taking government money for daycares because it's sooooo important that women be able to get back to work after childbirth that they will make everyone else help them pay for it ... even families who are trying to make ends meet on just one income. This is a political issue here in Canada which the conservatives amazingly let slide despite $5 billion in government money being thrown at this idiotic project, because they're completely obsessed with gay marriage

Yes, I know that. I also know that severe damage does not occur in all cases, that people make mistakes, contraception fails, and the real world is messy.

True, which is why "duty of care" stipulates that you take all reasonable measures to prevent the problem; it does not stipulate that you must make the problem impossible. Cessation of alcohol and tobacco consumption is a perfect reasonable measure, but from the pro-lifers' eyes, it suffers from the crucial flaw that many of them like alcohol and tobacco, and of those who don't, they know people who do. In short, it gets into their "my community" zone, as opposed to trampling over "somebody else's community".

If a baby is born with (as an example) FAS characteristics the mother may, indeed, be vulnerable to judgement. However, FAS is not the only thing that causes facial deformities and other causes would need to be ruled out. You would also need to investigate and determine if alcohol consumption occured when the woman didn't know she was pregnant - if, for example, her contraception failed. Just because someone is injured does not automatically mean that person is the victim of malice or even of carelessness. Accidents do happen, more frequently than people think they do.

True, but that does not absolve people of the responsibility to take all reasonable precautions. That's what duty of care is all about.

As for smoking - yes, it's linked respiratory difficulties in the child, but not all children of smokers have lung problems, and not all babies with lung problems are born to smokers. My niece is an example of the latter - my sister has never smoked, carefully avoided fetal-hazardous substances while pregnant, and my niece still spent most of her first year and a half in the hospital due to severe asthma and allergies, and 18 years later still requires daily medication to keep it under control A clear example of doing everything right, yet having a less than ideal outcome. So, again, it's not enough to say "the kid has a problem, the mother is at fault", you have to dig deeper.

Again, this does not refute the duty-of-care concept. It's like pointing out that not all traffic accidents are due to drunk driving and not all drunk drivers have accidents; it doesn't change the fact that a guy who gets in a car after drinking is negligent.

Fact is, there is always a risk of something going wrong between conception and old age. You can NOT reduce the risk to zero. So... what constitues sufficient care for the welfare of others?

You have to draw a line in the sand, somewhere in the grey area between black and white. Welcome to the concept of duty of care; it doesn't resolve into simple black and white solutions. But certainly, the cessation of alcohol and tobacco consumption is hardly an unreasonable requirement, since neither form of consumption is justified by any conceivable reason other than "I want to".

By the way, my wife stopped drinking any alcohol well before we started trying to have a child. It's not as if people are truly ignorant of when they are risking pregnancy, and as I said, if someone is going to treat a fetus as having all of the rights of any person, then it logically follows that people should have just as much duty of care with respect to the fetus as they would to any person.

Wong, you and your wife are highly intelligent, responsible people - much more so than the average human being. I suggest that perhaps you two are not the best example of average conduct and care.

Perhaps not, but I have never felt that average care was enough for my son

I do agree, though, that if you consider a fetus to have the same rights as an adult in regard to "right to life" then yes, the duty of care standard applies. This will, however, have some potentially major impacts on the freedom of women to do what they want. Well, living in civilization does require us to submit to rules rather than have absolute freedom. The question is where the line is drawn.

But my example for the men, although not perfect, was given for a reason. It's NOT just about the mother - the father really does have an impact and he is under equal obligation to avoid damage to his sperm. Especially since there are some disorders that can ONLY be inherited from defective sperm (Since I know someone is going to want an example I'll give one - Prader-Willi syndrome. It occurs ONLY when a chromosome 15 with a specific defect is inherited from the father, or the father's chromosome 15 is absent) You could just as easily argue that if a child with such a defect is born you should investigate the father for sperm-hazardous activities and prosecute him if he is found to be culpable.

It would be considerably more difficult for the father to resequence his DNA than for the mother to quit smoking and drinking. By the way, when my wife stopped drinking, I did too. Not that I was a huge drinker before, but it seemed the reasonable thing to do.

[Darth Servo]

They are still rights. Free speech and the right to vote change depending on age.

Bullshit. I don't remember EVER reading ANYWHERE in the writings of ANY of the great philosophers the right to get wasted. Kindly share where you got this crap from.

Your analogy is completely invalid. We're not talking about participating in the government. We're talking about buying things. Any 8-year-old can walk into a store and buy what ever he likes so long as he has the money. Except for alcohol, tobacco, porn and a few other substances.

[Queeb Salaron]

Even in our overtly capitalist USA, there is no such thing as a "right to buy" consumer goods. Nor is there a "Right to Consume." Most states have statutes that say certain stores and restaurants are allowed to refuse a customer service for any reason. If there is a right to buy or a right to consume, it is not granted by the state or federal governments, but by the establishments from which the goods are being bought or consumed.

That's how the market works. It's an issue of economics, not of civil rights.

[Mayabird]

Anyone remember the thread about that woman in Alabama (IIRC) who sued a vibrator manufacturer for giving her child birth defects, and the picture accompanying the article was of the pregnant mother smoking a cigarette? People like that should be shot. Twice. Right in the forehead.

It was Alabama, and the woman was sueing over the jackhammering that was being done near her house. She was saying that the noise might hurt her unborn baby, and yes, the picture of her showed her with her ample belly looking nervously at the construction site while smoking.

Yeah, I remember that.

[Durandal]

I'd say that parents who smoke around children and mothers who smoke while pregnant should be charged with criminal negligence and possibly assault.

Now, let's say a mother smokes while she is pregnant, but doesn't know it. She is unaware that she is doing harm to someone else. However, as an analogy, if you were dropping quarters off the Empire State Building and hit someone, could you reasonably say that you were unaware that there were people down on the street and expect to escape prosecution?

[Sam Or I]

Actually, I have used this argument against people who are pro-choice. If they think it is ok for a mother to drink and smoke or not.

[Sam Or I]

BTW most of the time they say no it is not right to smoke while pregnant.

Anyways, yes, I think it should be against the law.

[Broomstick]

Now, let's say a mother smokes while she is pregnant, but doesn't know it. She is unaware that she is doing harm to someone else. However, as an analogy, if you were dropping quarters off the Empire State Building and hit someone, could you reasonably say that you were unaware that there were people down on the street and expect to escape prosecution?

But what if you dropped a quarter by accident from a tall building? Should that be prosecuted?

Because, by saying "Well, she didn't know she was pregnant, but because she's adult and female she should have known she might be pregnant and might be endangering a fetus that might or might not suffer harm from her actions and therefore should be prosecuted" you essentially outlaw smoking for any woman of child-bearing years - and that's the vast majority of women pregnant or not, whether they intend to be pregnant or not, whether they are actively taking steps to avoid pregnancy or not.

Here's an analogy, geting back to dropping things off buildings: Lets say construction work is being done on a tall building, and when a crane operator is lifting some very heavy object the cables securing said object breaks, crushing one or several people. Now, there's no question harm has occured. There's no question that the crane operator was involved The question is really: is the crane operator responsible? If the accident occured through his/her carelessness then yes, and prosecution can proceed. If no - perhaps there was some defect in the cable the operator had no way of detecting - then it's an accident and the crane operator is NOT responsible. If you don't decide in this manner you'll find darn few people willing to operate cranes.

OK, back to pregnant women. Now, at least in this country, at least for now, it is recognized that an adult has some right to put him/herself at risk. This is why smoking and skydiving are both legal activities. However, you're not allowed to put others at risk. So, if a woman has reason to suspect she's pregnant, or is actively trying to get pregnant, I think we can all agree that smoking and alcohol drinking are Bad Ideas. But if the women doesn't know she's pregnant, might even have reason to believe she's not pregnant (such as using birth control, or being a rare woman who continues to menstruate even while pregnant) then I don't see her being liable for performing legal activities under such circumstances.

And yes, you DO have to mention that distinction, because if you write sloppy laws you get sloppy results and sloppy justice isn't pretty. Setting a precedent where a woman of child-bearing years can't do X or Y because she might be pregnant and might harm a fetus leads to an urge to outlaw Z... and maybe other things as well. Which will severely restrict the freedom of adult women (at least until menopause) or force them to choose between their fertility and full freedom. And I, for one, don't find that acceptable.

[Darth Wong]

Because, by saying "Well, she didn't know she was pregnant, but because she's adult and female she should have known she might be pregnant and might be endangering a fetus that might or might not suffer harm from her actions and therefore should be prosecuted" you essentially outlaw smoking for any woman of child-bearing years - and that's the vast majority of women pregnant or not, whether they intend to be pregnant or not, whether they are actively taking steps to avoid pregnancy or not.

No you aren't. For the second time, duty of care requires that you take reasonable precautions; it does not require that you make something impossible. You are allowing your emotions to overwhelm your reading comprehension.

Here's an analogy, geting back to dropping things off buildings: Lets say construction work is being done on a tall building, and when a crane operator is lifting some very heavy object the cables securing said object breaks, crushing one or several people. Now, there's no question harm has occured. There's no question that the crane operator was involved The question is really: is the crane operator responsible? If the accident occured through his/her carelessness then yes, and prosecution can proceed. If no - perhaps there was some defect in the cable the operator had no way of detecting - then it's an accident and the crane operator is NOT responsible. If you don't decide in this manner you'll find darn few people willing to operate cranes.

Yet again, I must point out that duty of care requires reasonable precautions, and in the case of pregnancy, that means contraception. It's possible to get pregnant while using contraception, just as it's possible to have a car accident without driving recklessly. But as long as you use contraception (or refrain from alcohol and tobacco if you choose not to), you have met your duty of care. It's not that difficult, and I don't see why you are so insistent on trying to distort the idea until it becomes sort of towering and impossible obstacle to overcome.

OK, back to pregnant women. Now, at least in this country, at least for now, it is recognized that an adult has some right to put him/herself at risk. This is why smoking and skydiving are both legal activities. However, you're not allowed to put others at risk. So, if a woman has reason to suspect she's pregnant, or is actively trying to get pregnant, I think we can all agree that smoking and alcohol drinking are Bad Ideas. But if the women doesn't know she's pregnant, might even have reason to believe she's not pregnant (such as using birth control, or being a rare woman who continues to menstruate even while pregnant) then I don't see her being liable for performing legal activities under such circumstances.

Are you trying to ignore the way duty of care works?

And yes, you DO have to mention that distinction, because if you write sloppy laws you get sloppy results and sloppy justice isn't pretty. Setting a precedent where a woman of child-bearing years can't do X or Y because she might be pregnant and might harm a fetus leads to an urge to outlaw Z... and maybe other things as well. Which will severely restrict the freedom of adult women (at least until menopause) or force them to choose between their fertility and full freedom. And I, for one, don't find that acceptable.

See above.

[Broomstick]

Actually, Wong I am doing two things here.

First of all, I am criticizing the sloppiness of those who say "throw the bitch in jail" because they aren't making allowances for unusual circumstances.

Second, I am recalling the experience of the State of Illinois which at one point enacted laws that pretty much did exactly that - throw a woman in jail for "fetal abuse". The result? They found that by simply jailing women using potentially fetal-toxic substances, rather than taking them to a medical facility, you were far more likely to wind up with a miscariage than a live baby. About 80% miscarriages.

You keep saying the worst case scenario won't happen. I say it already did - you're just not aware of it.

You are correct in that contraception is an easy concept. However, we also have a rather active group of nutjobs in my country who not only wish to deny sex education and contraception to the underage, but seek to make it very difficult even for adults to obtain. Perhaps you do not have to contend with this where you live.

What turned things around in Illinois was a change in the law - if you're found to be using a fetal-toxic substance - for whatever reason - you have two choices: give it up for the duration of the pregnancy, or lose all custody to the kid. However, there is still no provision in that law for circumstances where the woman did not know she was pregnant, or in cases of rape where she certainly wasn't intending to get pregnant. Nor does it shield a woman who is taking a medication under a doctor's supervision, is using contraception, and still finds herself pregnant. She then has three choices: abort the kid (never mind these same yahoos have made abortions more difficult to obtain, the Catholics are buying up hospitals in the area, which further limits choices, and the same state that will incarcerate such a woman for decades is unwilling to give a destitute woman one dime towards an abortion), or discontinue the medication (tough shit if it's one you need), or continue to use the medication and risk losing your child. Nevermind that there are damn few substances that are a hard-and-fast take-this-you-fuck-with-your-kid situations. (Thalidomide and Accutane being two notable exceptions, but in both cases contraception is required or you don't get them, and niether, to the best of my knowledge, treat conditions where you couldn't give them up for nine months.)

At present, the state's prosecuting attorneys pick and choose who to prosecute on their whim. This is NOT "my emotions running away with me", it's an example of the bullshit that has actually occured in the real world. Maybe YOUR country/province/city is more elightened, it's a possibility, but this isn't really entirely hypothetical. If, when you discuss these issues, you don't make clear conditions and exceptions there are enough people out there willing to take things literally to make life very uncomfortable for people.

[Durandal]

But what if you dropped a quarter by accident from a tall building? Should that be prosecuted?

Because, by saying "Well, she didn't know she was pregnant, but because she's adult and female she should have known she might be pregnant and might be endangering a fetus that might or might not suffer harm from her actions and therefore should be prosecuted" you essentially outlaw smoking for any woman of child-bearing years - and that's the vast majority of women pregnant or not, whether they intend to be pregnant or not, whether they are actively taking steps to avoid pregnancy or not.

Don't be absurd. There are better ways to deal with the problem. Doctors can report smoking pregnant women (with intent to deliver the child) to authorities, who can then obtain a court order for her to stop. If during regular check-ups, her blood shows traces of nicotine, she is violating that order. Granted, this does nothing to stop women who simply don't know they're pregnant, but saying that we shouldn't do what we can to minimize the problem if completely eradicating it is impossible is ridiculous.

Here's an analogy, geting back to dropping things off buildings: Lets say construction work is being done on a tall building, and when a crane operator is lifting some very heavy object the cables securing said object breaks, crushing one or several people. Now, there's no question harm has occured. There's no question that the crane operator was involved The question is really: is the crane operator responsible? If the accident occured through his/her carelessness then yes, and prosecution can proceed. If no - perhaps there was some defect in the cable the operator had no way of detecting - then it's an accident and the crane operator is NOT responsible. If you don't decide in this manner you'll find darn few people willing to operate cranes.

In that case, the person responsible for certifying the integrity of the cables is to blame. Or the crane operator is to blame if he was lifting a load heavier than the cables are rated for. Or, if it's a manufacturer defect, the manufacturer is to blame. Only in the case that this was a complete freak accident is the analogy even remotely applicable, and in that case, obviously no one is to blame.

But as far as the analogy goes, it doesn't fit the situation. Smoking a cigarette (the event which brings harm to the other party) is not an accident. Cables breaking on the crane is.

Taking my other analogy further, Johnny is a kid who (somehow) got to the top of the Empire State Building at 3 in the morning. He figures since it's so late, there's little chance of him hitting anyone if he drops some quarters. But Johnny puts one through some wandering drunk's skull. This is an act of criminal negligence, and Johnny can be arrested for it.

Now Susie is a sexually active woman. She smokes and is on the pill. She figures that, since she is on the pill, there is little chance of her getting pregnant. Only she does, and she winds up injuring the fetus with cigarette smoke. This is analogous to the above scenario. So Johnny can be prosecuted, but Susie cannot be?

Now, I'll admit that there's something about the implications of this conclusion that disturbs me a whole lot, but that's the logic as I see it, so unless someone can refute it, I'm going to stick with it.

[Queeb Salaron]

Durandal's got it right. The implications behind this argument are that pregnant women should be charged for willfully harming their children. And if we take that conclusion one step further, we see that abortion could be on sketchy ground. The difference, of course, is that the child does not have to live with the effects of abortive procedures, whereas a child born to, say, a drinking mother obviously will demonstrate severe impairments. I haven't really thought this through -- is there perhaps a more sound argument for abortion while keeping the thread's line of reasoning in mind?