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 ...
I oppose all forms of abortion. But I strongly disagree with the above statement.
A born child doesn't digest alcohol the same as an unborn when the mother drinks.
Why isn't a pregnant woman charged with abuse when she births a baby with fetal alcohol syndrome?
You can trade your rights anytime you want. Mine are off limits.
In fact, the conservative position is that we can't trust women to handle pregnancy "on their own" (nor men, for that matter), since, in fact, many women kill their children. It makes no sense for a conservative to argue that abortion is immoral but that it's perfectly moral to expose the same baby to harmful substances for no other reason than that the mother is addicted. Makes no sense whatever.
Bravo!
Who made that argument?
>>>In fact, the conservative position is that we can't trust women to handle pregnancy "on their own"
Who's conservative position is that?
It's also not a very conservative position to say that the state should have oversight of women's bodies while they have "occupants". Abortion can be legally restricted or outlawed, but the question here is how far a conservative is willing to go to limit a woman's freedom of action when she is pregnant. Some responses I'm seeing here are surprisingly totalitarian.
I put this down as no different from existing laws preventing parents from abusing or neglecting born children.
And I don't buy that it is the same thing to smoke and drink while pregnant as it is to smoke and drink in the presence of born children, since you're not forcing them to ingest them the way you are with unborn children.
Of course, I think it's highly irresponsible for a parent to smoke around small children or become intoxicated around their children.
Now that I think about it, it is illegal to give minors alcohol and cigarettes. A fetus is a minor.
Therefore, why do we need a 'new law' when this one is already on the books.
"unlike certain other posters" - no need to get pissy. The fact is that you do want to restrict people's personal decisionmaking because they're decisions you don't happen to like (and I don't like them either, just to be clear).
With smoke, you are indeed forcing born children to "ingest" it, so that's exactly the same thing whether in-utero or ex-utero.
Now, there's an interesting question. You're in a restaurant, you see a woman (whom you don't know), who appears to be pregnant, having a glass of white wine. Or a cigarette. Or just sitting at a smoky end of the room.
What, if anything, would you do?
Thanks for the ping!
Since some methods of "handling pregnancy" are illegal, then in point of fact, you can't handle pregnancy on your own. The state has already defined some methods of handling it that are unacceptable.
So we're not arguing about whether the line exists or not. We're arguing about the the right place to draw it.
Me? I wouldn't do anything.
But, I see this approach positionable.
If the 'powers that be' want to make it illegal for women to smoke while pregnant, I see it as an opportunity to recognize the laws that are already on the books about giving alcohol and cigarettes to minors. (and child abuse can be thrown in there too)
Therefore, backdooring the recognition that fetuses are minors.
Therefore, backdooring abortion as murder.
I have no idea what that reference is all about.
Of course, I think it's highly irresponsible for a parent to smoke around small children or become intoxicated around their children.
So do I. Which of course doesn't mean we need another government gun sticking in our gut.
Existing laws can be taken too far as well. The potential for abuse here is obvious to me, maybe less so to you.
I have no idea what you just said.
All I can say is wow. Thank goodness it is not a trading game as we are trying to keep what little rights we have as it is.
Thanks for the "nanny" ping.
This is all really a level of logic we shouldn't have to descend to on Free Republic. The state already has oversight of women's bodies while they have occupants. Already has. With your support. Are you unaware that it is illegal to pull your unborn child's head ("the occupant") out of the uterus and suck out the brain? If this is illegal at any point then, again, we are not arguing about the line. We are arguing about where to draw it.
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.