Becoming pregnant is a natural thing mothers have endured since the dawn of our species. Drinking isn't. Invalid argument, actually I don't even get your point. I just feel like stating how ludicrous your statement is.

Why exactly is it ludicrous? Men urinating " is a natural thing" and they have been doing it "since the dawn of our species", does that mean they should be able to do it anytime and anywhere they want with no thought at all?

then it should be illegal for women to have children. because every thing a parent does with their child has the potential to endanger their life. the arguement for infringing (and yes it is a matter of personal freedom when you are controlling what food and drinks people are permited to consume) peoples rights to do things based on its danger to them selfs or others is invalid because every action you do in a day has the potential to kill you and has already killed some one else. only acts of diliberate violence or acts intending death or harm towards others should be considered illegal, moral majority should not dictate what we can do when we choose to.

I think a pregnant woman needs to be either 100% committed to bringing up a healthy baby or 100% committed not to have a baby. I support abortions for women who don't feel prepared to have a child, but I most certainly do not support it when a woman only halfheartedly goes through pregnancy drinking and smoking putting her child at risk of having a worse life than it could have if she didn't drink and smoke during the pregnancy.

So I wouldn't serve a pregnant woman alcohol intended for her consumption and I don't think it should be allowed. It's not just a matter of what happens to her, but what happens to her child, parents are already obligated by law to take good care of the children they produce and I see no reason not to extend upon that.



Sure there is food that could end up harming you but most food is in the base not poisonous/toxic or generally bad for you. You may choke on a peanut, but hey, accidents happen. But the peanut isn't going to be directly bad for the child and you don't eat it with the conscious thought of "this is going to harm the kid". I really don't see why people can't lay off toxic substances for a mere 9 months, honestly if that's so impossible the person may be a bit more addicted than she may wish to admit.

If I was a pregnant woman who liked to drink I know I'd be able to lay off beer during those 9 months and possibly a while after during the months of briastfeeding. If a woman can't do that it just goes to show she doesn't care.

I think everything has to be done with caution and foresight, to not think about what your about to do is foolish.

As for Gunn I have no idea what I'm arguing. I'll wait until they elaborate more on their point. Feels like something just flew over my head.

This pretty much sums up what I was going to say.

I think it was right that she was denied alcohol.. if a woman can't go nine months without drinking or smoking for such a huge change in her life then she isn't ready to have a baby. And it's not like alcohol is a necessity, it's a luxury, if people think they need it then they have a problem (or an addiction).

Well I'm not going to be popular for this, but yeah I do think that they should have been fired. They were bar staff who's job was to serve drinks to customers.

If I want moral/medical guidance then I'll talk to a priest/doctor not some guy behind a bar. If they refused to serve her because she was underage/too drunk already etc then that would be fine IMO because that is part of their job. But last time I worked in a pub "Serve as a self appointed moral compass to the idiots in the community" wasn't part of the job description.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that she was in the right to be drinking while pregnant. Personally I find it disgusting that she was risking her child's health.

But she was doing nothing illegal and it wasn't the employee's place to refuse her. Were I their boss I'd have fired them too, because when they start refusing service based on their beliefs then where does it end? Would they eventually refuse to serve alcohol to customers at all as it can lead to liver failure, alcohol poisening and all manner of other nasty [censored]? They were being payed to do a job and they refused to do it, I don't think that the employer had a choice other than fire them.

yet we don't have the right to jump into other people's lives and make that commitment for them. people have a right to be irresponsible, its fine if you look down upon them, but criminalizing things simply because other people disagree or find those actions unpleasant is stripping of some one of their freedom.

Yeah this is my basic view as well.

Although, a lot of things can happen in nine months that can affect their commitment.

Don't we? Society works better as a collective coherent whole even with all of it's diversity. If the life of the young is in peril because of irresponsible parents wouldn't you do something? What's freedom if you go and burn yourself to the ground?

Edit
I don't care if you burn yourself to the ground, so long as your not taking anyone else with you who doesn't want to or hasn't the ability to make their own choice yet.

Life isn't fair, we've been given the gift to try and make it so.

no. but thats because I think there is a population problem. but yes to the part about burning my self to the ground. In a way I am doing so now. I eat alot of cheese burgers, almost every other day, I am probably eating my self to death. but if some one were to try and stop me I would do every thing in my power to do with my life as I choose, fight maim and even kill to preserve my ability to remain in complete control of my life.

and what you describe as society working better as a collective coherent is basicly suggesting that society should adhire to a common set of morals and beliefs of what is right and wrong. but there is no right or wrong in nature, it just is. its human perspective that adds the black and white. but even if there is right and wrong, there is also gray and alot of things fall into the gray including the current debate. and you must admit you would no more like my perspective forced on you than I would yours on me.

I never said there was no room for diversity. Just said it works together better as a whole, but... sometimes the majority has to move on. The few get left behind... it's a sad fact of life. In this case I think the newborn children are of the greater good, and their parents can whine and suffer at least until the child is gone or ready to be given away to someone who can care for it properly. If people want to burn themselves and everything around them down to the ground with them they can certainly try, but there's always going to be people there to make sure everyone gets a choice and a chance. Something nature never seen fit to do. There isn't any right or wrong in nature, but that doesn't mean we can't make it so.

Of course there's a population problem. 99% of the worlds problems could be fixed by reducing it and limiting it to how many people can be born to keep it in a certain range, but nobody's going to do anything about it but good old nature. Maybe the second time they will, if they get that chance.

Including the ones burning themselves and everything around them to the ground?

Depends what they choose, but it'll certainly be offered. I hope. Why wouldn't it? Unfortunately humans can be stupid simple things at times, I can only have faith they would offer it to them.

a few do get left behind. but if society gives the moral majority the right to dictate what every one can and can't do eventually a few becomes many and many becomes a singularity where only one ideal can either hold out or that moral majority collapses as the oppressed out number the oppressors. there are many times in history this has happened.

and I don't disagree about actions that affect other peoples ability, but fetuses (and I know people will disagree and thats fine, although they are technically wrong) are not individuals seperate from there mothers, they don't have a brain and make no choices on their own. you could debate that some day they will make their own choices but as long as they are physically apart of their mother they are nothing more than an apendage. I won't argue if you say I am wrong about that since its something that rarely can be resonably debated.

I personally do not think mothers should drink, but I won't be apart of a larger group of people dictating what people do with their own life, because I have strong beliefs upon what I can do with my own.

discount this... some how I managed to qoute myself.

what I meant to do was add this: EDIT: being told when you are allowed to make your choices is not free will but is merely slavery under the condition that an overseeing force will occasionally grant that you make a choice of your own but only when its conveniant to the overseeing force.

What if the women is only a few months pregnant and isn't showing yet, or what of the woman doesn't know herself yet?

Should every woman have to take a pregnancy test at your bar before you are willing to serve them?

This. As I said earlier, it is wrong that she was drinking but it was also wrong for barstaff to appoint themselves as her conscience.

No, I don't think the ignorant or neglectful should be allowed to give their child F.A.S.

I agree, you can't let society have too much of a singularity, it needs divisiveness to generate new ideas to use for any number of applications. It depends on the circumstance, and whatever I figure the greater good to be. Sometimes an idea can be worth more than a lot of people, but this hasn't happened in quite some time. It's a balancing game.

Oh so ironic the truth... on a quantum scale. The second a child is conceived it's impacted the world forever. People have these debates, the physical pain, the memories, the horrors, the scars, and so much more life experience. Even if it is never conceived you have that memory shaping you for all of time, and anyone you share it with. It's only been conceived, it hasn't done anything by it's own accord and it's already had such a momentously large impact in life. Now imagine once it's out and a living person, going into the world to live and make it's own choices that we have no idea how to evaluate now, and how it affects all those around it. Generating new... everything. Simply astounding really. There's a lot of power in a life, something too few people give credit too.

Edit
The more you experience life and learn, the more you realize you've never been free. I find this a dubious claim, just for starters you have your own moral system already biased to your own view, your not free at all. Not any more then anyone else.

but who decides which circumstance is the right circumstance. its a snake eating its own tail, you'd have to apoint a second overseeing force to make sure that its morally just for the first force to oppose the "right" morality.

and I have had debates like this enter the territory of; but that child could have a impact for the greater good of the world. but just as easily as the previous supposition that child could have a negative impact that could change the world into something worse than we could fear. what if is not justification for restricting actions.

just to point this out too, btw, I am not angrily debating this subject. I just rarely if never at all get to have these conversations out side of the CD.

EDIT: I reject the notion that my own perspective prevents my own freedom. I am the master of my destiny and I will never compramize that belief.

They shouldn't be served anything like tobacco, but for alcohol, they should receive a special coupon that tells pubs, clubs, shops etc. if they have bought any alcohol that day. They should only be able to buy the minimum they can drink.

This ends up being a rather touchy subject since both parties can be right. Basically there is the party that thinks women should have freedom over what happens to their baby and there is the party that doesn't. Now where I stand I think women should be presented with a choice. Either...

A ) Keep the baby.

or

B ) Don't keep the baby.

A rather hard decision to make on the fly but it's one that needs to be answered quickly. If a woman decides to keep the baby she needs to make sure she does everything in her power to make it a success, but that's not really enough, others need to do the same. Think of it this way, a child can have either one of two different types of mothers, the responsible type and the irresponsible type.

If the child′s mother was the responsible type and it was born healthy then that's great.

If she however was not the responsible type and he child is born with health problems related to its mothers habit of drinking then do you not think the child during later years would not advocate against mothers being able to drink during pregnancy ? Do you not think it would wish that someone had stepped in and made sure his or her mother did not drink while carrying him/her ? I know I would if I was in that position.

The problem with this though is that it only touches upon something that comes years later after the pregnancy. It starts out being a violation to the mothers rights to enjoy herself and have a good time. But later on it ends up defending the persons right to live life as a healthy human being. And I think the latter right is the more important one.

Now why do I say a pregnant woman needs to decide if she's going to have the child early on or not then when it comes to this subject ? Well because if she's not going to have it then that invalidates whatever "rights" the child would "end up" having. This is a key factor because really children don't really have any rights until they've been born. A woman should be able to opt out of having a child whenever she wants because a lot of things can happen that no one foresees. But as long as it is public that the woman is going to have the child she only has half her rights against the child's other half.

I wanna apologize in advance if what I say offends someone on a personal level or if I missed some key detail that proves me completely wrong, I′m always up for a good debate, especially about public morals yet I can only be so worldly with so few years behind me. What I write is just my opinion given on how I see things from my perspective given the information I have.



Then that′s called an accident, if neither party knows about the baby then there is little that can be done and the woman can not be blamed to have any malice behind her intentions. Really I′m not saying there should be some eternal punishment for screwing up, but intentionally doing things that can put your child at harm with the full knowledge that you can do that is just wrong.