Posted on 06/30/2015 6:48:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Know someone who’s smoking while pregnant? They need to see this video made by Dr. Nadja Reissland, of Durham University. In it she shows that unborn babies of mothers who smoke may have delayed development of their central nervous systems.
Many people believe that abortion should be illegal — at least after a certain period — because it means killing an innocent life. Well, how about physically abusing one? Shouldn’t that be illegal, too? After all, you aren’t allowed to beat your born child until she has brain damage either. How’s this any different?
Dangerous philosophical ground you've got there. Mothers are often punished for subjecting their unborn children to cocaine and other toxins, so it's a tough argument to assert that they have no responsibility towards their child.
Just imagine how peaceful things could be.
Insuring the health and safety of an unborn child *IS* the business of everyone.
Child abuse has to be stopped and prevented.
This is opening the door just a crack so that they can also intrude on other behaviors and pregnancy is a great opportunity for the state to step in on health behavior matters. What about a pregnant woman who is over weight or eats too many French fries? What’s next—warning at restaurants that pregnant women should not eat this or that? Could the ambulance chasing lawyers be far behind? My client is suing MCDonald’s because they served her unhealthy meals throughout all nine months of her pregnancy. It sounds ridiculous but look at all the ridiculous things that are happening just about every day. The left is ridiculous. Ridiculous is the new norm.
Sorry, I disagree
Where will the lines be drawn? What if a pregnant woman does not smoke, but has the occasional glass of wine or beer? What is she does not smoke, but she rides on a motorcycle or in a boat? What if she does not smoke, but she goes mountain climbing or rides the roller coaster at Six Flags? Who is to decide which of these things are endangering? Will they assign a government issued guard to spend 24/7 with a pregnant woman to monitor her every activity?
The government should not fine them.
Their family, the doctor, and the baby daddy should slap them.
Their insurance provider should withhold payments for premature delivery and low delivery weight.
While I do not believe that government should be involved, I believe in family and capitalism.
If you read what I said, I did not say that mothers have no responsibility towards their child. I said it is not the business of the government.
Must be a Libertarian rather than a Burkean conservative.
And how is it not the business of the government to protect people from abuse? What are they supposed to do if not that?
Why not just get it over with and assign us all personal minders to follow us around 24/7 who will make sure we’re living and thinking “well.”
Maybe you could get a job at Healthcare.gov or the IRS. They are really into fining people.
The job of the government is defined in the Constitution.
People aren’t caring about the child in this case. They are using the child to extort money from people because they some how feel their governments aren’t bringing in enough money. Look at the California fines for driving. While this is not the same and I understand that, this is about getting every last ounce of money they can wherever they can. Should a woman stop smoking when pregnant, science says yes. If we take the argument used in abortion debate, it is the woman’s body (forget all the other argument’s here) then one must logically assume that if a woman chose to smoke whilst pregnant its her body and no one can her what to do with her body. Hmmm... maybe this should be the argument for bans on large sized drinks and other stuff we shove into our mouths. Give a person the choice and let them decide.
On the flip side to this argument, the woman, who is smoking, will eventually burden the tax payers in one of two ways, 1) when the baby is born with defects that need care but can’t afford the care so the child becomes a public charge or 2) the woman when she gets older will need taxpayer money for care but can’t afford the care because she no longer works. Which in the second case Obamacare will take care of her because of the death panels will say she chose to smoke and we told her not to, so we chose not to extend her care anymore. And just like that her death is signed sealed and delivered.
Who will determine what is, and what is not, “abuse”? Is this something that “the government” can decide? Will the government think it is abuse if the family does not recycle properly? Is it abuse if the family lets their children play outside? We are seeing some signs that “the government” finds that abusive. It is abuse to homeschool your children or take them to church twice a week? Is it abuse to keep your 14 year old from getting an abortion without your consent? Is it “abuse” if you do not allow your child to participate in Sharia Law week at the high school? Who will decide what is “abuse” from which the government is supposed to protect people?
Ya. And people paying the bills — the average tax payer.
Nah man, fining for every little thing, has been the left’s, and sometimes the right’s way, to take money from your pocket because they can’t raise taxes. Find an issue and you are likely able to find a monetary solution to that issue; whether it solved the issue or not.
Let’s see how the Libs twist themselves around on this one — does their hatred of smoking outweigh their blind belief that what is in the woman’s womb is just a clump of cells that is no different than a finger nail?
Just stop with your strawman argument. Exposing an unborn child to nicotine is harmful to the child. This is not a gray area, this is clearly bad for the child.
Well played, sir!
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.