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 ...
Point taken. So, using my example above, what, if anything, would you do if you saw an apparently pregnant woman in a restaurant, having a glass of wine or smoking?
Argue that the law should be changed.
In other words, if you were given a choice. No one's arguing that you shouldn't be given a choice, or that you should choose to continue smoking.
After having a delightful morning and lunch with 2 of my grandsons I log on and read this crap. Day almost ruined. !!!!
If someone doesn't put a stop to this crazed man soon we are in for a long,tough ride. What an absolute crock.
As a woman,as a smoker,and as a person who believes in life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness this article made me angrier than most.
Madness---absolute madness!
Nonsense !
Nicotine is the "toxin-of-the month".
Many healthy babies were born to mothers who smoked,drank alcohol,and chugged gallons of coffee while pregnant.
I'm one of them, and there are millions more like me.
"Absolutely. I want unborn children to have the same rights as any other child."
That doesn't include doing "anything" which by its nature could usurp a born child's rights to protect the unborn. Be very carefule when you use such wide casting nets.
Just look at an old episode of "I Love Lucy". Lucy and Ricky smoked like chimneys, even through her pregnancy, because Philip Morris was their sponsor (and they were heavy smokers in any case).
"When you indulge in this level of hyperbole, it means that you have no real argument to make."
Well, you said anything. That anything would include internment camps, as a result the argument can't be hyperbolic.
Well, that settles that.
Wrong.
"With smoke, you are indeed forcing born children to "ingest" it, so that's exactly the same thing whether in-utero or ex-utero."
Additionally, how does an unborn child ingest smoke? Are they somehow breathing?
Don't let Banzhalfazzed ruin your day - he is not worth it.
I suppose everything gets passed along in one form or another through the mother. I don't suppose it's like a small, uterine barroom.
"Anything that creates more rights and protections for unborn children as a matter of law is a good thing."
You posted that in #3, then in #7 I asked you this, "Anything? You sure about that?"
To which you replied in #9 with this, "Absolutely."
So, no I am not wrong in that you would support anything, including internment camps. Unless you would like to back off of your "anything" stance. Which is precisely why I posed the question to you in the firstplace.
The nicotine would get passed along in the blood. Of course there are many foods that would contain nicotine. As a result, we should also ensure that we regulate the diet of expecting mothers to ensure that they are not passing along any form of nicotine.
Don't think that is not in Banzhaf's plans - remember he is using the identical lawsuit tactics on the fast food industry that he perfected against the tobacco industry.
"We" should ensure that "we" regulate what women eat? Now you want to enforce what they can and cannot eat? People thought I was over the top with internment camps, but there sure are some ideas floating around here that dovetail nicely with that kind of thing. Maybe we could call them "Gestation Centers", and women would get just the right foods delivered, three times a day.
Putting people who have committed no crimes in internment camps doesn't facilitate more rights and protections for the unborn.
One has nothing to do with the other in any way, shape or form.
For some reason I didn't think I needed the sarc tag. I'm not surprised by that, considering that it is very close to what some freepers post. Sorry about that.....
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.