Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thad]

Moving on back a bit:

Well, if she's taking illegal drugs she's liable for that whether she's pregnant or not.  As far as drinking...well, I'm inclined to agree with you (provided you can prove that she knew she was pregnant; drinking during the first few weeks shouldn't be prosecuted), though perhaps simply taking the child away is sufficient punishment.

My point in saying that was, of course, that even terrible parents generally do not want their children taken away from them, and find such to be a horrible, traumatic experience.

Case in point: the couple who decided methadone was a good treatment for their 2-year-old's toothache and who have been on the run from CPS out of fear of their children being taken away.

[Brentai]

The corollary here is that if you make abortion illegal then you must also make it illegal to smoke or drink during pregnancy, since that would be giving alcohol/tobacco to a minor.

Just realized that the Mississippi Personhood Amendment (random relevant news link) would actually make this hard law rather than pedantry.  Can't wait until somebody realizes that you can start prosecuting for this.

[Kashan]

The corollary here is that if you make abortion illegal then you must also make it illegal to smoke or drink during pregnancy, since that would be giving alcohol/tobacco to a minor.

Just realized that the Mississippi Personhood Amendment (random relevant news link) would actually make this hard law rather than pedantry.  Can't wait until somebody realizes that you can start prosecuting for this.

There was actually a case in Oklahoma were they tried to prosecute a woman for first degree murder because she had a miscarriage and she was taking heroine. Problem is drug use was unrelated to the miscarriage and they tried to push through the prosecution anyways.

[Catloaf]

The corollary here is that if you make abortion illegal then you must also make it illegal to smoke or drink during pregnancy, since that would be giving alcohol/tobacco to a minor.

Just realized that the Mississippi Personhood Amendment (random relevant news link) would actually make this hard law rather than pedantry.  Can't wait until somebody realizes that you can start prosecuting for this.

Yet the proponents, when shown this argument, simply decried it at reductio ad absurdum and acted like that meant that no one would actually implement/enforce such laws because it would be 'absurd'!

[Brentai]

Well, yes, I don't expect them to apply logic, humanity or even the basics of the Surgeon General's Warning to an issue that's never been more than fundamentalist dick-waving.  I expect them to suffer for a few years under the regime of a government whose only revenue is through litigation until they either start begging to have the shit reformed, or anybody who's worth a damn just leaves Mississippi to rot.

[Zaratustra]

no one would actually implement/enforce such laws because it would be 'absurd'!

Of course, which is why it will only be used to opress people at random, much like copyright laws.

[Büge]

At random? Don't be absurd. They'll use it often enough for political expediency, but sparingly enough to seem random.

[Ted Belmont]

At random? Don't be absurd. They'll use it often enough to rile up the base, but sparingly enough to seem random.

[Büge]

Mississippi is voting on whether or not a fertilized ovum counts as a "person."

[Friday]

if anyone ever posts "every sperm that's wasted" ever again I will shoot ketchup out of my eyes

[sei]

Oh Friday, please don't burn us.

[Disposable Ninja]

Insane Personhood Amendment does not pass.

It's good to know that there's such a thing as too backwater fundamentalist crazy for backwater fundamentalist crazies.

[Mongrel]

Never in my life did I think I'd have an opportunity to say "Way to go, Mississippi".

[Brentai]

Should be noted that a non-significant number of people speaking against the bill in Miss. were abortionists arguing that pushing the issue would backfire on them once the Supreme Court got involved.  So the cynical side of me wants to say the bill failed not because anybody there believed it was wrong, but because it wasn't sneaky enough to get past the Fed.

[Thad]

Pretty much, though I'd say it's more because it's too broad -- it would have denied medical treatment to pregnant women with cancer, banned a number of birth control pills -- basically the public realized it wouldn't just punish the "bad" people.

Similarly, Arizona's first attempt at a gay marriage ban failed because it would have denied benefits to unmarried straight couples.  Two years later they came back with another version that closed the loopholes and it passed.

[Büge]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/health/policy/sebelius-overrules-fda-on-freer-sale-of-emergency-contraceptives.html?_r=1

[Thad]

Never entrust women's health to a fucking Kansas politician.

[Büge]

A discussion on self-induced abortion and the criminalization thereof.

[Büge]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/12/08/385145/obama-backs-sebelius-decision-to-limit-availability-of-plan-b/

 

[Büge]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/health/policy/sebelius-overrules-fda-on-freer-sale-of-emergency-contraceptives.html?_r=1

Fourteen Senators demand an explanation for this bullshit