Yikes! The Uterus Police!

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by searching4truth
The law being proposed, and your initial argument was that you supported the investigation and prosecution of miscarriages.

Incorrect that was never my position.

Your position has been that many miscarriages is a result of abuse/neglect.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just a few, as you're aware there are many more. Now for the past few pages you have dwindled it down to women who drink while pregnant, which as you have said (and I sure many would agree) would fall under the category of abuse or neglect.

This thread, in case you forget, is about enacting a law that would require mandatory investigation and possible prosecution for miscarriages, where fault can be proven.

It appears now you are focusing on only prosecuting alcoholics who continue to drink while pregnant whether or not a miscarriage occurs, or at the very least to make it illegal for pregnant women to drink alcohol. I don't think anyone here would say that it is ok for a preggo to drink. However, I were the only person on the planet that was responsible for the decision to make another law I would have to see the rates of misdiagnosis, as it is now FAS is diagnosed by physical traits until the child is old enough to exhibit other symptoms. I need harder evidence before I go rounding up kids and throwing their parents in jail. just my opinion.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by searching4truth
My point remains then that for a woman who "might be pregnant" to safely ensure proper behavior she would never leave her bed.

Once again "leaving her bed" or eating a tuna fish sandwich is not the kind of willfully irresponsible and reckless behavior that I'm talking about.

Your attempts to misrepresent my position are getting tiresome.

I am not misrepresenting your position, unless you genuinely do not know all the external factors that COULD lead to defect or death. High mercury levels in tuna fish has been demonstrated to cause birth defects, as has sitting a bath or pool over 100 degrees, as has the jolting of a rollercoaster. All of these behaviors carry risks, and if done everyday or a few times a week, or even once can demonstrate neglect.

What is the difference between knowingly poisoning your baby with mercury or poisoning them alcohol? Both are toxic substances to a fetus.

Originally posted by searching4truth
Your position has been that many miscarriages is a result of abuse/neglect.

Right, and?

Originally posted by searching4truth
Now for the past few pages you have dwindled it down to women who drink while pregnant, which as you have said (and I sure many would agree) would fall under the category of abuse or neglect.

I would only punish blatant cases of abuse and neglect such as getting drunk all the time etc. etc.... there are many things that cause miscarraiges and other health problems for the unborn that I consider irresponsible that I would not punish.

Originally posted by searching4truth
This thread, in case you forget, is about enacting a law that would require mandatory investigation and possible prosecution for miscarriages, where fault can be proven.

Yes and? I've said I disagree with that. I've said that I think we should punish the irresponsible and reckless behavior itself and not predicate it upon it actually causing harm (we punish drunk driving even if no one is harmed, don't you think only punishing drunk drivers when they kill or maim someone would be somewhat stupid?).

reply to post by SevenBeans

[color=mediumorchid]
Its not that I don't want to agree with what you have said...

I just don't want to agree because its you. I am not accustomed to dealing with people who are as impossible as you are. It's frustrating.

No offense.

It seems you value her "right" to get wasted more than you value the well-being of the soon to be born child (who will probably suffer horribly because of the Mother's irresponsible behavior).

[color=deeppink]Thats not it all. I never said she had the "right" to get wasted. I said that testing every single miscarriage violates the rights of those who behave themselves during pregnancy.

You argued before about the drunk driving (Over and over actually. Please find a new analogy, I am growing bored with that one.).

• Should we make every person get a breathalyzer box installed on their vehicle because some people drink and drive?
  
  
• Should we go give everyone a psych eval because some people are unstable and might hurt someone?
  
  
• Should we investigate everyone with children because some people abuse their children?
  

[color=deepskyblue](See, I can make analogies too.)

What if you had health problems and the pregnant drunk was a surrogate, carrying your child? No way to stop her from getting drunk and leaving you with a brain-damaged baby. How would you feel about that?

[color=deeppink]
I don't know how I would feel. I have no problems getting pregnant, so I doubt I would face such a situation. Hopefully not many do.

The way things are headed, you will not be able to start up and drive an automobile until you insert the factory installed anal probe first and the brain wave detector cap. Once it has fully analyzed every body function, and has determined you are clean, sober and sane enough to drive, then you may proceed. If should happen to have a head ache, or be partially PMS...forget it, your not going anywhere...

All your information will be held in a centralized information data collection center. Your insurance rates will be determined on this information. The more you fart or belch in your car, and pollute the planet, points will be added to your risk factor. George Jetson will be proud!

All law makers and corporate lawyers should be made into lion chow!
Men who think women carry alien parasitical bugs in their wombs after he deposits his living, swimming sperm in to her, do not deserve to have sex in the first place.

This is why I would not date in today's world. Way too many nut cases...

Originally posted by SevenBeans
If you're having sex and could be pregnant it's irresponsible to get drunk, do drugs etc. etc. so yes it's obviously her fault (who else's fault would it be?).

Having said that, I could live with some reasonable time frame into the pregnancy before there would be a punishment.



A pregnant women gets falling down drunk, yes, completely irresponsible and reckless behavior. The result isn't what I base the punishment on, it's the behavior. Whether the baby turns out fine or whether the baby probably would have died anyway, it's still completely irresponsible. If I run down a terminal cancer patient when I'm drunk or harm them to a lesser extent, it doesn't matter that they were about to die anyway.

Not knowing you're pregnant is a lame excuse.

If a pregnant woman insists on acting in ways which could result in a life of misery for her unborn child she should be given a choice... either you're confined in a minimum security facitlity until you give birth so that responsible people can prevent your neglect and abuse, or you get an abortion.

And I'll also say this... a miscarraige due to neglect/abuse can cause the unborn horrific suffering during the later stages of pregnancy, so it is not only something that can effect a life that doesn't feel.

edit on 24-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

Wow, there's only 3 words to describe you, seven beans - you're completely unbalanced! You whine about the pregnant woman acting in a way that could cause misery to her unborn child. Did you not get that in the examples the woman didn't know she was pregnant?
Is every sexually active woman to avoid alcohol her whole life? Is every fertile woman (who isn't sexually active) to avoid alcohol her whole life in case she gets raped and might get pregnant? Does this apply to women who don't even know they're fertile? (Perhaps they have been diagnosed as infertile, but that diagnosis is wrong? Perhaps she's on the Pill but it failed as it sometimes does? Perhaps she's perimenopausal, has one period in 6 months, yet released an egg she didn't think even existed?)
Get real. You are a strange, and woefully ignorant man.
Vicky

reply to post by pikappa


You have a different view of what right and wrong is. Everyone does. You shouldn't expect someone to do something they obviously can't handle just because "I expect you to take responsibility" from someone they don't know or even care about. They should, in fact, be facing the consequences of not using protection or whatever the case is, that these ladies got pregnant in the first place. But, you cannot force someone to think the way you do. It's wrong. It's wrong to tell someone what to do when it isn't your life. If they dont want to keep their child, obviously they aren't worthy of being responsible in any way.

Originally posted by daryllyn
Do I still think men should have to pay child support? Yes. They have to have regulations in place because there are too many men out there that wouldn't do pay it if they didn't have to.

Why should any man have to pay for the results of a woman's unilateral choices? Have you ever been forced to pay for the results of a man's unilateral choices under threat of jail?

You made the choice to have sex. No protection? Accidental? Deal with the consequences of your actions.
You knew pregnancy could happen.

Originally posted by Vicky32
Wow, there's only 3 words to describe you, seven beans - you're completely unbalanced! You whine about the pregnant woman acting in a way that could cause misery to her unborn child. Did you not get that in the examples the woman didn't know she was pregnant?

If there's a chance that you're pregnant a responsible person doesn't get drunk, take medications that can harm the unborn, cause brain damage etc. etc. I know being responsible is very inconvienant sometimes, but that's life. It really is that simple.

If that makes me "unbalanced" so be it.

"Sorry about the brain damage little guy, but I didn't know I was pregnant so it's not MY fault!"

Originally posted by celimonster
You made the choice to have sex. No protection? Accidental? Deal with the consequences of your actions.
You knew pregnancy could happen.

The consequences of my actions are a lump of tissue that the woman can unilaterally throw in the garbage for absolutely any reason.

Only the unilateral choice of the woman can result in a child requiring 20 years of support.

Expecting someone else to pay for the results of your own unilateral choices is pathetic.

I happily support my kids because I love them (not because "I'm equally responsible for them being here" because I'm not - they are here because of a unilateral choice that my wife made).

reply to post by SevenBeans

Not knowing you're pregnant is a lame excuse.

I disagree. Not knowing you are pregnant is a good excuse, it is not neglect when there is nothing to be neglected from womans point of view. Women that know they are pregnant and engage in irresponsible behaviour should be punished, but in the beginning of pregnancy, plenty of women do not know they are pregnant for some time. These women do not have bad intent then, abd should not be punished.

Originally posted by daryllyn
Thats not it all. I never said she had the "right" to get wasted. I said that testing every single miscarriage violates the rights of those who behave themselves during pregnancy.

I don't support investigating every single miscarraige.

I support making it illegal to get drunk every day while pregnant.

Originally posted by daryllyn
You argued before about the drunk driving (Over and over actually. Please find a new analogy, I am growing bored with that one.).

• Should we make every person get a breathalyzer box installed on their vehicle because some people drink and drive?

Obviously not but when they're all over the road they should be pulled over and if found to be drunk they should be arrested and not allowed to keep driving around just because they haven't hurt anyone yet.

Likewise we should arrest pregnant women who insist on getting drunk etc. etc. so that responsible people can prevent their reckless abusive behavior until they give birth.

Originally posted by daryllyn

Should we go give everyone a psych eval because some people are unstable and might hurt someone?

No...

Originally posted by daryllyn

Should we investigate everyone with children because some people abuse their children?

Obviously not, my position isn't even remotely analagous to such a thing.

The proposal in the original post is analagous to doing an investigation every time a child shows up at school with a bruise, and as I've said I think that would be absurd.

Originally posted by Maslo
I disagree. Not knowing you are pregnant is a good excuse, it is not neglect when there is nothing to be neglected from womans point of view. Women that know they are pregnant and engage in irresponsible behaviour should be punished, but in the beginning of pregnancy, plenty of women do not know they are pregnant for some time. These women do not have bad intent then, abd should not be punished.

I said before that they shouldn't be punished early in the pregnancy, I think it makes some sense to only apply these things some time into the pregnancy... see how reasonable I am?

But it's certainly incredibly irresponsible.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Vicky32
Wow, there's only 3 words to describe you, seven beans - you're completely unbalanced! You whine about the pregnant woman acting in a way that could cause misery to her unborn child. Did you not get that in the examples the woman didn't know she was pregnant?

If there's a chance that you're pregnant a responsible person doesn't get drunk, take medications that can harm the unborn, cause brain damage etc. etc. I know being responsible is very inconvienant sometimes, but that's life. It really is that simple.

If that makes me "unbalanced" so be it.

"Sorry about the brain damage little guy, but I didn't know I was pregnant so it's not MY fault!"

edit on 25-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

As proof of being somewhat unbalanced, I note you ignored almost all of my post.
But that's what you typically do, hey?
Does your wife know you have such contempt for her regarding the children? I'd be out of there so fast my head would spin, if I were her.

Originally posted by Vicky32
As proof of being somewhat unbalanced, I note you ignored almost all of my post.

I ignored nothing, my response addresses everything that you wrote. If you might be pregnant it's irresponsible to get drunk. It's that simple. Acting in a responsible manner is inconvienant sometimes.

Originally posted by Vicky32
Does your wife know you have such contempt for her regarding the children? I'd be out of there so fast my head would spin, if I were her.

What contempt? Pointing out simple facts means that I feel contempt? And I'm the unbalanced one? I feel nothing but respect for my wife (regarding the children and in every other context).

Are you hearing voices or seeing words in front of your eyes that no one wrote? I think your head is already spinning. My wife doesn't get drunk, I have no idea where you get this idea of contempt from.

My kids wouldn't be here if she hadn't made the unilateral choice to carry them to term rather than abort.

Simple facts, that's all.

Originally posted by searching4truth
I am not misrepresenting your position, unless you genuinely do not know all the external factors that COULD lead to defect or death. High mercury levels in tuna fish has been demonstrated to cause birth defects, as has sitting a bath or pool over 100 degrees, as has the jolting of a rollercoaster. All of these behaviors carry risks, and if done everyday or a few times a week, or even once can demonstrate neglect.

Yes, getting out of bed carries risk etc. etc. As I've said a million times now, I would only punish the most blatant, willfully negligent behavior.

Originally posted by searching4truth
What is the difference between knowingly poisoning your baby with mercury or poisoning them alcohol? Both are toxic substances to a fetus.

Eating tuna while pregnant or riding a roller coaster is irresponsible but I don't think it's blatant, wilfully abusive behavior (like getting drunk every day is).

Originally posted by SevenBeans


I ignored nothing, my response addresses everything that you wrote.

edit on 25-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

It doesn't of course, but keep on lying. Frak it, I am out of here. You bore me to tears.

Originally posted by Vicky32
It doesn't of course, but keep on lying. Frak it, I am out of here.

It does.

You asked about a variety of particular circumstances in which someone might be pregnant. I responded by saying that if you might be pregnant it's irresponsible to get drunk.

Pointing out that it would be a real drag never to get drunk if you might be pregnant is very juvenile. It is also completely irrelevent when talking about whether the behavior is responsible or irresponsible.

If you get drunk one night and the next day you discover that you're 3 months pregnant... you wouldn't feel badly at all about that?

reply to post by SevenBeans


So then am I to come to the conclusion that the most negligent willful behavior is only the daily drinking of alcohol ?

Personally, as it stands I would not support making it a law (even though a separate law for drunks is off topic) . The main reason is that there is no way to enforce it, unless you want to pay someone to follow her around every minute of the day. I have seen obviously pregnant women attempt to order a drink, and I have seen the server or establishment deny them, of their own choice. If a woman is truly hellbent on damaging the baby willingly or just hoping the child won't suffer will find a way to satisfy her vices. Alcohol does not stay in the body system long enough to determine if a woman drinks alcohol while pregnant, the only way to determine it is to see if the child has signs of FAS. However, like I said it has been misdiagnosed (although the studies do not show how frequently some case's are not FAS other cases should have been classified as such the early classifying system, well sucks for lack of a better word.

So, to fully enforce such a law we would in fact have to lock up all pregnant women in a facility that can monitor their every action, it's ridiculous.

Also, since you said that it was your wife's unilateral decision to have the children, am I also to surmise that the two of you never discussed having children or that you told her you did not want them? It is not a unilateral decision, and if you didn't want them then you should have worn a rain coat.

At first I thought the title must be a gross exaggeration, but, damn, it isn't!

This Mr Franklin sure took literally the phrase "Devil went down to Georgia." If he bills himself as the "the conscience of the Republican Caucus", then the GOP needs some serious, serious examination of conscience.

He might be a good or Godly man, but there appears to be an aspect of sociopath about him. Mr Franklin, why do you have no compassion for women?