Should it be illegal to use (legal) drugs while pregnant?

Author: bmdrocks21

Posts

Total: 86
Topic's author
#1
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
Smoking while pregnant raises risk for preterm birth, low birth weight, sudden infant death syndrome, and birth defects. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/substance-abuse/substance-abuse-during-pregnancy.htm

Additionally, alcohol is linked to cognitive debilitation and other issues for the child.


This usually causes irreparable harm to another being, the child, and therefore should be considered as some sort of child neglect or child abuse. At the very least, this child should be taken away. It should probably also be illegal to sell either substance to a pregnant woman. As far as I know, all of these are merely discouraged, but not illegal.

What is your opinion on this? The only thing that I could see causing issues is the cutoff point(by when does the pregnant woman know that she is pregnant and is still neglecting her responsibilities). 
#2
FagCrusher1488
FagCrusher1488's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 17
0
0
0
FagCrusher1488's avatar
FagCrusher1488
0
0
0
-->
@bmdrocks21
I support criminalizing as many things as possible, but then only enforcing the law against people of color.
Topic's author
#3
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@FagCrusher1488
Why would you propose that?

#4
FagCrusher1488
FagCrusher1488's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 17
0
0
0
FagCrusher1488's avatar
FagCrusher1488
0
0
0
-->
@bmdrocks21
It's a very subtle but effective way of maximizing the country's racial purity.
Topic's author
#5
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@FagCrusher1488
That would only relocate them to prisons, where they will drain the h-white man's resources.

#6
FagCrusher1488
FagCrusher1488's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 17
0
0
0
FagCrusher1488's avatar
FagCrusher1488
0
0
0
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well it's better than letting them roam free, isn't it? 

I'm all in favor of using more cost-effective solutions like execution or deportation, but there would be too much whining from the cucks.
Topic's author
#7
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@FagCrusher1488
I see. Could you move this to a different thread? 

Also, are you a Type1 second account? 
#8
FagCrusher1488
FagCrusher1488's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 17
0
0
0
FagCrusher1488's avatar
FagCrusher1488
0
0
0
-->
@bmdrocks21
I've created a White People Appreciation Thread. Please feel free to express your thoughts there.


#9
shockthemonkey
shockthemonkey's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 3
0
0
3
shockthemonkey's avatar
shockthemonkey
0
0
3
many things while reprehensible must not be dictated by government restriction the government must stay out of peoples personal lives
#10
shockthemonkey
shockthemonkey's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 3
0
0
3
shockthemonkey's avatar
shockthemonkey
0
0
3
an intrusion into personal matters
#11
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@bmdrocks21
If someone wants to take that risk they can but only if, you pay all the costs associated with it, otherwise I have a say in what you can and can't do since it effects me, my money, whatever.  There's a saying (paraphrase)  Your rights end when they interfere with mine, something like that.
#12
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
This seems like it would get very tricky. The only way you could impose laws like that is if you legally establish the fetus to be a legal person. Therefore you are implementing the law to protect that legal person. 

Trying to decide when a fetus becomes a legal person is a big issue that would have significant side effects. It would likely be used as a wedge to try to roll back abortion rights. IE if you decide that a fetus is a legal person that should be protected from smoking, then they can also ban abortions because now it is a legal person with rights and protections. 

But if it is not a legal person, how can you punish a woman for ingesting toxins into her own body if there is no legal person being harmed. It would be a very divisive topic. 
Topic's author
#13
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't even find it quite necessary to consider the fetus a person for this particular law. Assuming no miscarriage or stillbirth occurs because of the smoking, that child will be born. They will likely have serious health issues. Many of these birth defects can be directly linked to the drugs, and from there you obviously know the culprit.

This gets a bit stickier with current abortion laws. Let us assume that cutoff is now first trimester: that after that point you consider the parent to be perfectly on board with having the child. At that point I have an issue the most issue with it. Now, if laws stay the same, you would have to judge intention to have the child, and would essentially coerce an abortion unless they want jail time. That would obviously be terrible. Having the kid taken away would probably be the best bet with current abortion laws.
Topic's author
#14
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Yeah, but can you ever pay back that child for the brain trauma that the alcohol might cause? This obviously interferes with the "life" inalienable right when you decrease their quality of life and possibly their life expectancy.
#15
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
You have sort of touched on my point. In order for this law to work properly, you would need to settle other issues. Like when you can and cannot have an abortion. When the fetus becomes a person with rights etc. Otherwise you will create more legal hurdles such as the one you described where if a woman does drink during the pregnancy, she now has to choose between an abortion or jail. 
Topic's author
#16
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Yes, thanks for point that out. To be fair, I am in favor of reforms.

Would you think that CPS involvement would be fair in these cases? I am quite concerned that their little regard for their child's safety during pregnancy would also translate in the same sort of disregard after birth.
#17
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yeah, but can you ever pay back that child for the brain trauma that the alcohol might cause? This obviously interferes with the "life" inalienable right when you decrease their quality of life and possibly their life expectancy.
really there is no way they wouldn't be a burden to society (me)  Basically the criteria I mentioned isn't really attainable.  I see little difference between being pro illegal drug use while pregnant and being pro death (abortion).  The risks of birth defects and other abnormalities are not 100%, death is 100%.

#18
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Would you think that CPS involvement would be fair in these cases? I am quite concerned that their little regard for their child's safety during pregnancy would also translate in the same sort of disregard after birth.
Frankly, I think this whole area is one big mine field. Republicans have been doing everything in their power to try to find ways to make abortion impossible without technically banning abortion, since that would be illegal. So any attempts to increase protections for a fetus would absolutely be abused by republicans to undermine women's rights. 

If both sides of the debate could be trusted to engage in it fairly then it might be possible to find an acceptable common ground. But it has been turned into a completely partisan issue where republicans will lie and cheat to get their way. I don't think there is any way the discussion can even be had in the current political climate. 


Topic's author
#19
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
I think you put an undue amount of blame on Republicans. As you know, many of them consider it murder, so you can't really blame them for what they do. If they don't have such objections, do you really think they are like "muahahaha women have to raise a child now. How devious of us. Now they cannot dispel clumps of cells."

But anyways, Virginia tried to make post-birth abortions legal. What ever happened to "Safe, Legal, and Rare"? What do you guys do to discourage it and make it 'rare'? Or was that just a lie used by Democrats to make it legal? And Roe v Wade was a false case. The woman lied about being gang raped! So if you want to talk about lies used to push an agenda, don't try to act like this is on Republicans when these laws were passed on the basis of lies.
Topic's author
#20
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Ok, I see. So you are for this law because there would be indirect costs associated with their less productive (and likely government-dependent) lifestyle?
#21
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
I think you put an undue amount of blame on Republicans. As you know, many of them consider it murder, so you can't really blame them for what they do.
Yes, yes I can. They are going out of their way to infringe on women's rights as much as they possibly can. In many cases in illegal ways. Often they know the laws they are passing are illegal and will get struck down, they just want to undermine abortion rights as much as they possibly can. Actions like that are completely poisonous. How can anyone possibly have a conversation about this issue? Everyone knows that if any ground was given at all the republicans would abuse it in every way they can get away with. This just forces the other side to dig in as much as possible making the situation worse. 

But anyways, Virginia tried to make post-birth abortions legal. What ever happened to "Safe, Legal, and Rare"?
That is exactly my point. They did no such thing. They tried to relax the law to allow, in the extremely rare cases, where a woman with a nonviable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities went into labor the pregnancy could be aborted. The point was not to allow a mother to decide they didn't want the baby. The point was to allow non-viable pregnancies to be terminated. But republicans immediately went off like democrats were trying to murder newborns. How are you supposed to have an actual debate when one side is so actively lying and skewing the conversation?

And Roe v Wade was a false case. The woman lied about being gang raped!
I don't know anything about that. But whether or not a woman was raped should have no bearing on her right to an abortion.
Topic's author
#22
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
"Right to have an abortion". No such thing exists. Also, a gang rape was used for the specific purpose of wrongfully swaying the Court decision.


Again, how have Democrats made it "Safe, legal, and rare"? It is legal. It is kinda safe. But it is certainly not rare. Do you in any way discourage it? Do you think over 600,000/year is rare?
#23
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
"Right to have an abortion". No such thing exists.
Roe v. Wade would disagree. It establishes a women has the liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.

Again, how have Democrats made it "Safe, legal, and rare"? It is legal. It is kinda safe. But it is certainly not rare. Do you in any way discourage it?
Yes. If you want to avoid abortions, you need to give people better access to knowledge and ability to avoid pregnancy. Things like mandatory, proper sex ed for every student. Easy access to the morning after pill so that if they do make a mistake (or get raped) they have a way to prevent the pregnancy. The biggest factor would likely be financial support though. if a person cannot afford to have a child, they won't have the child. If you want more people to go through with pregnancies you need to significantly increase social spending. 

But republicans are opposed to literally everything that might help to prevent abortions. They want to prevent women having the option to abort a pregnancy, but they don't actually want to do anything that might prevent the need for an abortion either. 
Topic's author
#24
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Roe v Wade was passed based on the "right to privacy", which is something never expressly stated in the Constitution. Then somehow abortion is related to privacy. Based on the Constitution, it had no right getting passed. Not sure how "excessive government restriction" is classified.

Republicans don't force people to have sex. If people don't want a child, there is a 100% chance method to not get pregnant: don't have sex. Throwing money at the problem doesn't fix it. When you do that, they can afford to have more kids. Especially when you provide more money per kid.

Sure, teach better sex ed. People need to cut the disconnect between sex and pregnancy and the responsibilities that come with it.

I feel like we need an abortion thread, lol. Any other thoughts on using drugs during pregnancy?

#25
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Republicans don't force people to have sex. If people don't want a child, there is a 100% chance method to not get pregnant: don't have sex.
This is a bit like saying, "you don't want to choke? Then don't eat. it is 100% successful". Sex is a part of life. It is a biological urge and part of the human experience. Telling people that they should just abstain from life is hardly a solution. Not only would that be draconian, it very obviously does not work. Abortion was illegal in alot of places for a long time. it never stopped abortions from taking place. 

Throwing money at the problem doesn't fix it. When you do that, they can afford to have more kids. Especially when you provide more money per kid.
 I'm not sure I understand your point. You say money wont' fix it, then explain how money would help fix it. 

Sure, teach better sex ed. People need to cut the disconnect between sex and pregnancy and the responsibilities that come with it.
Totally agree. Alot of religious people are dead set against this though. They don't want their children to know how to have safe sex or the consequences if they should fail to do so. This is a massive part of the problem. If all children were taught this there would be less pregnancies. 

I feel like we need an abortion thread, lol. Any other thoughts on using drugs during pregnancy?
Agreed. I think that your underling point is valid. Trying to find ways to prevent women from taking substances that would harm the development of a child would be a good thing. But since the republicans have poisoned the well for this topic, I seriously doubt any agreement could be reached until abortion rights are codified in law. Once those rights are protected, then I would imagine it would be much easier to make progress. 
Topic's author
#26
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
I would say, "only eat when you are hungry". As in "only have sex when you want a kid". In both cases, if you do it more than you should, various problems will arise.

No, I'm saying that throwing money at the problem will result in more kids that are dependent on welfare. If you cannot afford a kid, don't have one. Sure, buy contraception, but if that fails, deal with the consequences of your actions like an adult. Don't make me pay for it.

I can see where the religious folks are coming from. They want you to wait until marriage, which is the best result. People have higher divorce rates based on how many sexual partners they have had before that marriage. So they try to prevent all of that. Realistically, I don't think that works, and we should teach about contraception to avoid as many unwanted pregnancies as possible.

I think we will have to disagree on who poisoned what. In the future, we can discuss this more in general. I tried to hold back my strong opinions on the matter and just keep it about the drugs aspect.
#27
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
I would say, "only eat when you are hungry". As in "only have sex when you want a kid". In both cases, if you do it more than you should, various problems will arise.
If you should only eat to sustain your life then we should have strict controls on when you are allowed to eat and how you are allowed to eat. I mean desert would definitely need to be illegal. If that is your world view then having strict laws about what a woman can do with their own body would make sense. But i doubt most people would be ok with that. 

No, I'm saying that throwing money at the problem will result in more kids that are dependent on welfare. If you cannot afford a kid, don't have one. Sure, buy contraception, but if that fails, deal with the consequences of your actions like an adult.
Much of the problem is the structural issues with the economy. The american system rewards rich people who already have money while punishing poor people who dont have money. This pushes more and more people into more and more desperate situations. If you want people to be able to afford to have children, we desperately need structural economic reform. 

I can see where the religious folks are coming from. They want you to wait until marriage, which is the best result. People have higher divorce rates based on how many sexual partners they have had before that marriage. So they try to prevent all of that. Realistically, I don't think that works, and we should avoid as many unwanted pregnancies as possible.
Is it the best result though? You may be more likely to stay in a marriage if you have never had any experience outside of a marriage. But that doesn't mean you are happy in your marriage. It just means you a culturally indoctrinated to believe you can't/shouldn't leave a bad marriage. i'm glad you agree that abstinence campaigns don't work. People are going to have sex. Nothing anyone can do will prevent that. Once you eliminate trying to stop people doing what their biology is telling them to do, you can move on to things that might actually work. 

I think we will have to disagree on who poisoned what. In the future, we can discuss this more in general. I tried to hold back my strong opinions on the matter and just keep it about the drugs aspect.
Understood. Unfortunately, if the issues around women's rights are not settled 1st, I don't see any way a political discussion around drugs can happen. Both sides will assume the other is acting in bad faith and just dig in.  
Topic's author
#28
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Really, the reason for my position is that I don't believe that a fetus is the woman. I don't believe that the science supports that. So, I don't ban eating dessert because that only affects you, but I would put restrictions on abortion. (I am for junk food taxes if we have government-run healthcare, though, so I guess I kind of want to ban dessert ;)   )

I agree we need economic reform. Just probably the exact opposite of what you are thinking.

Well I think that promiscuity is a rather large problem. It breaks up marriages, leaving kids with only one parent. I'm not telling you to stay in a bad marriage. Having relations with someone causes a chemical bond to form, which makes it less likely to bond with whoever your spouse ends up being. 

Yes, further reflection on abortion must be completed before these laws would come into effect. I'm glad we find that we often have the same goal, we just go about it differently. 
#29
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@bmdrocks21
not exactly, what I'm saying is if someone is pro-death (abortion) because, their body, their choice, then that must extend to whatever they wish to put into their bodies.  it would be hypocritical to say you can't do x because it would be bad/harmful to the baby, but if you want us to kill it, we can do that for you.
a pregnant female who uses drugs,alcohol etc puts the unborn at risk for potential problems, it's a risk, not a guarantee, death is a guarantee.


#30
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
 the reason for my position is that I don't believe that a fetus is the woman. I don't believe that the science supports that.
I'm not sure anyone argues that the fetus is the woman. If some people do, I haven't heard that argument. The argument is that the fetus is alive, but it is not a legal person. The science does support that. 

Well I think that promiscuity is a rather large problem. It breaks up marriages, leaving kids with only one parent.
Promiscuity is no more a problem today than it has ever been. The only thing that has changed is that people now have the ability to leave a bad marriage when before they were trapped in it. Is it better for people to remain unhappy in a bad marriage? That probably isn't doing much good for their children either.