I’ll take your word for it.
It doesn’t matter if she changed her mind. She isn’t the authority on abortion because she is attached to the case.
3 Likes
Never said she was.
He made a comment about meeting her and having a conversation where she claimed to regret her past. I simply asked how he felt about her “deathbed confession”. Doesn’t seem like he’s aware of it so I’m just pointing it out.
What? I mean if they’re specifically and solely in your care, maybe, but otherwise, no? You can drink as much as you want when your wife is taking care of the kids, if they’re asleep, etc. I’m not sure I understand this.
If it’s illegal to get plastered while having a 7 year old… I might be in trouble. lol.
I think Pat is right on this one. The actual lady involved did change her mind and was a pro life activist. some pro life people point this out as if it some sort of evidence that their position is the correct one. It doesn’t matter though.
1 Like
right. Roe’s personal opinion/ abortion stance, at any point in her life, was never relevant to the constitution. I don’t know what that has to do with anything. That’s not remotely connected to supreme court decisions.
1 Like
Yes this, similar to a pregnant woman. Having them in your care is what I mean by being a parent. But even when they aren’t in your care so you can go drinking, your required to responsibly provide alternative guardians first. There are many things you must and can’t do as a parent. I don’t even think you can get smashed while they are asleep as you’d still be required by law to provide them basic protections, though you might get away with it 99.9% of the time.
1 Like
And this is, specifically, where laws regarding pregnant women and alcohol can get tricky, or even downright silly. Or, you could envision abuse on the part of law enforcement, basically a new ‘your taillight was out’ excuse to fuck with people. Only in the most egregious cases could you enforce it. And the science on the subject isn’t even particularly settled, in terms of how much a woman can drink and when during a pregnancy. Plenty of doctors will say none, period. Plenty of doctors think this is rubbish. On top of that, you’d have to prove the woman is actually pregnant in the first place if you’re making an arrest for ‘alcohol consumption while pregnant’. Which could be an EXTREMELY slippery, and potentially very embarrassing slope, for women. You could have a cop that just doesn’t like fat people arresting women at bars. You could have women that look legitimately pregnant, but aren’t, and a cop acting in earnest, and embarrassing the absolute fuck out of women. And this is really just the tip of the iceberg.
It’s a terrible idea, and absolutely not enforceable.
4 Likes
I don’t disagree with any of that. And I largely agree it’s probably an unenforceable and general bad idea. It’s just not unheard of or some fundamental rights infringement to put legal burdens on behavior for people who choose to be parents. It just bugs me the way people go straight to women’s rights on this isolated situation and don’t think through all the thousands of other existing laws.
because that’s just a ‘whatabout-ism’ argument. That’s like saying ‘why are you supporting X organization that’s funding prostate cancer research? What about breast cancer, and lung cancer, and thyroid cancer? Why aren’t we talking about those things too? And why aren’t we saving whales and lemurs?’
It’s perfectly appropriate to address one grievance with the law at a time. When a person says ‘I have a problem with X policy’, they aren’t inherently saying ‘I’m ok with A-W policies’. Also, abortion rights, or lack thereof, may be an ‘isolated situation’… but it’s a pretty big, important isolated situation, and one that commands more attention than thousands of other laws.
Pragmatically this doesn’t happen. But if the wrong person calls the Department of Children and Families you might find yourself caught up in the system trying to retain custody of your children. But you will not find yourself in jail, if you assault the official taking the child out of your possession.
You’re insinuating that you think people are also against neglect and abuse laws? It’s not what about ism, it’s hard core hypocrisy. And I think it’s well within the scope of the conversation to discuss hypocrisy. Good law if founded on thought through concepts with good limiting principals. If you are in favor of making it a civil rights violation to burden a woman with providing for the basic needs of a child, you need to think that through.
The horror stories of stuff like this terrifies me to be honest. Nothing makes me want to build an off-the-grid log cabin like hearing stories of the state taking kids away for ridiculous reasons.
3 Likes
Terrifies me too.
I know I wouldn’t respond well and would probably end up on national news.
3 Likes
This is why I believe all this “talk” about the limits of the law concerning women’s rights is not grounded in reality.
Legal for a pregnant woman to get drunk or not, pragmatically means nothing. The real concern is not remotely connected to abortion rights and fairness. It is being consumed by the “system” (if you want to keep the child.)
I have seen the power of the Department of Children and Families in action when we were trying to adopt an abandoned baby girl.
3 Likes
But why?
1 Like
After reading your posts, I’m reminded why I support a woman’s right to an abortion.
That is incorrect. Ultimately, it’s politicians who will decide what the definition of a human being is.
Human the noun or the adjective?
both.
As a stand alone word “human” is a noun.
When used as “human being”, it is an adjective.
What is accomplished with this dispute over proper English?
3 Likes