Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
what?
the article measured the baby's BAC, johnny pro-life, not the mother's - and, if you want 'baby's rights' then you'll have to apply the law to the babies as well, so the legal limit is still .10 (or .08 if you live in a quaker state like illinios or cali).
here's where the hypocrisy kicks in: if the mother died during delivery, under the logic we're seing, shouldn't the baby be convicted of manslaughter?
Valkyrie is completely correct, in my mind, in the way she's broken the situation down. Are you going to start putting mothers in jail for not getting enough folic acid? it's a simple extension of the principle being stated already, and the consequences are nearly as bad.
|
actually mr. obnoxious, i am the most pro-choice person you could ever meet. so how about you leave out the sarcastic remarks and i'll do the same. thanks.
i completely don't get you're statement on the baby being convicted of manslaughter. that is just ridiculous.
we're not talking about folic acid. i don't know where you come up with these examples. if you are 9 months pregnant you should not be drinking alcohol or smoking. at all. you'd have to be a pretty selfish person to chance harming your baby because you had to have the gratification of alcohol or nicotine. wait until the baby is born and then do what you want.
have you ever known a pregnant lady or held an infant? how could anyone in their right mind want to harm a child because they are selfish? if you choose to have a baby, there are certain things you should not do. it's as simple as that. if you choose to do them then you have serious problems.
Threaded Mode