Posted on 06/22/2006 7:20:19 AM PDT by NRA1995
First they came for the workplace, then for people’s homes and cars, and then the great outdoors. Now the anti-tobacco jihadists, having helped ban smoking in most public and many private places, have turned their attention to the most private space of all — the womb.
John Banzhaf, the heavyweight George Washington University law professor who for years has led the anti-smoking brigade is setting his sights on fetal rights related to their smoking mums. While it is legally defensible to abort a fetus up until moments before birth, it is apparently inconceivable that a woman would expose her unborn child to the harmful effects of smoking.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
"It's my body" is a convenient lie. Technically an infant is "blood of my blood" but killing it still wouldn't be right.
And an infant isn't viable for quite some time. Can't move (walk/crawl), can't seek out food itself. It still has rights.
Anything that creates more rights and protections for unborn children as a matter of law is a good thing. If it negatively impacts smokers, it's a shame, but too bad.
Ultimate Nanny State Ping.
For those unaware, this clown Banzhaf is also a major player in the food police...........
leda - what do you think of this one?
No hypocracy here, nothing to see, move along, typical leftist logic, can't wait to see the FReeper support for more government invasion on persons individual liberty.
"Anything that creates more rights and protections for unborn children as a matter of law is a good thing."
Anything? You sure about that?
Since the fetus is a baby, killing it is murder, and exposing it to avoidable toxins for personal pleasure is child abuse.
Absolutely. I want unborn children to have the same rights as any other child.
A surprising place to find a defense of the "Nanny State"....
Gee, I don't recall lawsuits against mothers who took crack and other recreational drugs while pregnant, even when those mothers gave birth to crack addicted babies.
And I'm quite unapologetic about it.
Well, a mother can smoke - and drink - around a born child, so the unborn have the same "right" to be exposed to it. Or would you forbid it for women who have born children, or are simply in their reproductive years, whether they've ever been pregnant or not, just to be on the safe side?
>>>>Absolutely. I want unborn children to have the same rights as any other child.
Logically that makes sense....
But then I think of scary people like John Edwards, 'channeling fetuses'...
I'm envisioning John Edwards types suing mothers on behalf of the channeled child for eating a chocolate bar (SUGAR!) while with child.
Interesting for marking for ProLife articles.
Obviously (to some here, it seems) the answer is internment camps for pregnant women, to make sure that the moment a woman gets pregnant, she eats right, sleeps enough, doesn't drink or smoke or do anything else bad. We can't trust women to handle something as important as pregnancy on their own.
(Do I need to do the "/sarc" thing?)
When you indulge in this level of hyperbole, it means that you have no real argument to make.
We hold parents legally liable for abuse and negligence of their born children as well - apparently you are under the delusion that all American parents are currently housed in internment camps.
No, but I don't see the answer given, when you say you want "unborn" to have the same rights as the "born". The born are exposed to smoke and sometimes to drinking mothers. Your okaying of limiting a woman's right to do that - even if you don't like the quality of their decision - means you're at the same level of hyperbole, as far as I'm concerned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.