Whatever floats yer boat, buddy.. :unsure:




:teehee:
in a kind of "once you've had fish, you never go back" sorta thing I s'pose then... :hehe:

How can you eat Ariel? She doesn't have any legs.

If there's a will there's a way.

Edit: Agreed

If the woman paid out of pocket for all her malformed disabled child's needs (should the child have https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_syndrome or other health effects related to her drinking)... No, not even then. It is a form of abuse, if she plans to carry to term and the child suffers from her alcohol consumption.

As it stands, pregnant women shouldn't be served alcohol. My main reason is that it creates another preventable burden on taxpayers to fund the health care the child will need. If a person is going to be part of a welfare system, I feel that person should be obliged not to abuse it - i.e. the person should not take undue risks and make everyone else pay for the consequences. You give up part of your freedom when you bind yourself to a welfare system.

EDIT: I'm not saying welfare is bad, just that it comes with responsibilities. Or, at least it should.

Tough situation. I think it was wrong to fire the persons though, that's for sure. It's more of a moral discussion and human rights than anything, which is philosophy. Philosophy ignores many factors if you apply the wrong theory on a situation though. The argument about potential life can be drawn to the ridiculous, so I'm not going to go there.

Simply looking at the situation, a woman wanting to have one drink and happens to have a child inside her.. It's not like one drink will harm the child in any way. I'm actually going to be so bold as to say the pesticides used in everything we eat will harm the child more than one drink.

It's not good for what grows in the drinking woman. So I'd say I'm with those supposed to serve the drinks on that one.

A couple of posts have gone away.

Insulting people who do not agree with you is flaming. This is an abstract discussion which for the most part has remained civil - let's keep it that way or the thread will be locked and warnings issued.

I don't think that matters in this case, because it has consequences if the baby is actually born. I think there should be restrictions placed most definitely for the sake of a future child, which does not matter whether or not it is defined as "alive" at the present.

But if they wanted to make this law for alcohol, they'd have to do it for everything else, like smoking. Smoking may be harder, because that essentially requires you to cut it cold turkey if you find out that you're pregnant. My mother managed to at least, so I'm glad for that...

A different solution would just be to rally the industry together and create a "We don't serve pregnant women" rule at bars, but I highly doubt that would work out as easily as the video game industry making it a policy to not sell M-rated games to minors.