what the hell

bells, there is something seriously wrong with you that rises way above the normal everyday evil and denial and stupidity. you are seriously fucked in the head.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One of the problems for this entire topic is connected to C-level science, which makes use of fear, via risk, to cloud rational judgements with emotions. The fear is used to make these very thin correlations look better that they are in cause and effect. The emotional cloud of fear disrupts the common sense part of the brain so 1 in 1000 looks like cause and effect. This C-level science creates hypotheticals beyond reality. Big government benefits by this since inefficiency works best with aform of science that is less than efficient, such as C-level science.

Here is what I would do. Let the C-level science stand. If it says such and such, and it does not occur, the criminals become those who adocate the C-level illusion. It should be illegal for C-level science to control the future of innocent people without any form of accountability when they are wrong. We need to figure out how to make the system accountabile, so if they and when they are wrong the advocates and illusionists of this C-level science are accountable.

There is no one-size fits all no matter how good the C-level illusion. Until the science can upgrade to at least B-level, I would not trust this scam, which is not accountable since they know what that would bring to them.

Don't get me wrong, the doom and gloom can occur, but the science needs to upgrade so they can pick one from the other and not condemn all and do so without any form for penality on their part.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No such thing. Get an education.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i agree, this is based on solid scientific evidence that ingesting certain things while pregnant may be harmful to the unborn child.

 

A human yolk sac is NOT like a yolk of an egg.
It contains no nourishment on it's own.
Indeed, it develops and can be seen by around the 5th week, but it is the transport mechanism of nutrients from the mother to the embryo, and it does indeed transport ethanol.

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/9/2509.full

And we are right back to mothers having to prove they did not cause any malformation or miscarriage.

Arthur

 

ok. it still doesn't seem to me as if the exposure would be as great as when the placenta is nourishing the baby, and particularly if the drinking was ongoing during the pregnancy. in the vast majority of cases there's a maximum 4 week window between conception and a missed period. i know there are exceptions, but that is the norm.

i really don't think we are. i think people are interpreting this as some kind of a witch hunt, and that's far from the truth. in my life, i've witnessed pregnant women smoke marijuana, cigarettes, and drink alcohol. i used to work with a woman who was pregnant and i know damn well she would have done any drug she could get her hands on with absolutely no regard for the baby.

miscarriages are too common for what you're suggesting, but if there is evidence, and it can be proven, that a mother ingested substances that are known to harm a baby, knowing she had one inside her, then it's a criminal case like any other. in a case like that it wouldn't be necessary for a miscarriage to even occur. it's the intent of the mother, and her negligence or actions toward the unborn child that's the issue.

i looked up some stats and read that there are about a half million people in the united states locked up on drug related charges, that didn't even involve hurting an innocent child. people get locked up for doing drugs constantly in the us. so if it's ok to lock someone who's not pregnant up for snorting cocaine, then please explain to me why it wouldn't be even more appropriate to lock someone up who is pregnant, knows it, knows that it can harm the baby, and is snorting it anyway.

 

you're a fucking liar bells. i was in no way gloating, i was stating what should be obvious to you if you weren't such a fucking liar. i want the world to be a better place not just for me, but for everyone. you're the heartless bitch that's just fine with it the way it is.

and it is well documented that the yolk sac provides nutrition until the placenta is formed, and the transition between the two is completed around the end of the first trimester. that was not only according to your source, but every other source out there.

you're fucking psycho.

 

Lori, the human ovum is only one cell, it's a large cell, about 120 micrometers in size, but it does not have sufficient nutrients for beyond about the first week (~to the point of Blastocyst implantation), after that, the mother is the only one who nourishes the developing embryo.
The mechanism as to how this is done changes over time, but not the source of nutrients.

Implantation:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

1. Decidua capsularis
2. Uterine wall
3. Uterine cavity
4. Placenta
5. Decidua parietalis
6. Decidua basalis
7. Chorion leave
8. Embryo
9. Connecting stalk
10. Yolk sac <== Note the small size of this in relation to the developing embryo
11. Chorion frondosum
12. Amnion
13. Chorionic cavity
14. Amniotic cavity

http://www.embryo.chronolab.com/implantation.htm

And again, we are right back to mothers having to prove that they didn't do these things if they have a miscarriage or deformed baby.

If a woman is found doing illegal drugs she can be locked up, regardless of if she is pregnant or not, so no change there.

 

fine.

no, that's like saying anyone who's caught with a case of the sniffles has to prove they weren't snorting cocaine.

what i'm saying is that there has to be more than a miscarriage (since miscarriages are common) to indict someone in a case like this. there has to be evidence, and a miscarriage would not qualify as evidence. drug possession would qualify, drug test results would qualify, witness testimony would qualify, being caught in the act would qualify, just like in any other crime.

exactly, but there could be additional charges brought against her. and what about the rat poison? i don't think that's an illegal drug necessarily, but it certainly is harmful if ingested, and if the baby is a victim...it seems like a pretty cut and dry case that could be medically/scientifically proven to me.

 

Yes, and if those involved illegal drugs there is no change from today, so in reality the things you are talking about, alcohol and even nicotine, aren't illegal so ingesting them isn't a crime today.

Why stop there?

If a woman drives in a car, and gets in a wreck and the baby is injured, shouldn't additional charges be brought against her?

I mean she intentionally drove the car and she knew it was a risk to the baby if she got in a wreck.

Right?

 

I think you're being silly and im not sure why you are doing that. It seems political. There are lines to be crossed in any case of abuse or negligence. Why would it be any different in a case like this?

 

bells you're retarded.

the suggested crime is the same as with any case of negligence or abuse. how many times do i have to repeat this? the ONLY difference in a case like this is that the baby is inside the womb instead of outside the womb. otherwise there is no difference. a mother acts in a negligent or abusive fashion or engages in a negligent or abusive act towards the child and there is evidence to support the charge. the evidence, just like in any other case is presented to a court and a judgement is made. what the fuck don't you understand about that?

nobody is talking about criminalizing miscarriages you dumb bitch. we're talking about criminalizing negligent or abusive acts towards unborn children.

what i'd like to know from you and adoucette is, is your problem that you don't trust the system to be able to try a case based on evidence and reach a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt just like they do every fucking day? or is it that you think a mother should be able to do whatever irresponsible or malicious thing she wants to to her baby, and as long as it's inside the womb, that's ok?

i'm pregnant right now and i don't eat what i'm not supposed to eat, i don't smoke what i'm not supposed to smoke, i don't drink what i'm not supposed to drink, and i sure as hell am not snorting coke and ingesting rat poison. what the hell makes you think it's ok for pregnant mothers to do these things? it's one thing if you choose to do that to your own body, but there's another body inside a pregnant woman that needs and deserves protection. after the baby's born and the mother decides to be negligent or abusive to the child, the system steps in to protect the child. why shouldn't the system step in to protect the child before it's born as well?

why the fuck are you so caught up on a goddamn ham sandwich? i bet you're a fat bitch. what i'm saying is that the mother should be charged for eating a ham sandwich regardless of whether she miscarries. why not? we throw people in jail every fucking day for smoking a fucking joint, even when there are no children involved, and if big brother's going to rule, then i don't see why pregnant women should be exempt. why do you? cause you're a dumb bitch that's why.

 

My point is quite simple Lori, you are advocating a system where ultimately a mother who miscarries or has a deformed child will have to prove she didn't do something wrong.

How do you know what you are not supposed to eat?

How about being around smokers, possibly just as bad right?

,

What about before you knew you were pregnant?
Is that now a crime?


So Lori, have you ever done those things?

Do you know that if you did, you could have damaged one of your eggs, which if later becomes fertilized could lead to a spontaneous abortion or the birth of a malformed child?

Indeed, since your eggs are present from your youth and it's possible for you to become pregnant up until you are in your mid-forties, by your standards anything you do in your life that could possibly damage an egg, until you can no longer become pregnant, could be considered negligent.

Again, it's against the law to use illegal drugs so this is a red herring.

You want to add legal substances to the things that are illegal for a mother to use.

Where does the list stop Lori?

What if a mother eats Sushi?

http://www.pregnancybaby411.com/sushi-pregnancy-safe/

You see a lot of people like to spread BS (like the ones who wrote this article) and really do think that Sushi is not safe to eat when pregnant.

So much so that people end up believing that BS and so do you really want a jury of misinformed people deciding your fate because you ate a plate of Sashimi?

 

THIS!

Anything else Lori? Come on...I like you, but some of this stuff you're saying is just insane.

Maybe I should be charged because I just ingested some caffeine, and it could harm a hypothetical fetus if I were pregnant?

Maybe the fact that I have a hyperactive and frequently angry personality is a crime, too? I mean, all that adrenaline could harm a hypothetical fetus?

Oh and I'm off to judo class later, that could harm a fetus right? Getting pinned by a 30kg heavier guy isn't good for the baby I MIGHT be carrying, right?

What puke.

 

no i'm not. jesus christ, what is wrong with you people? i have explained this repeatedly now. fucking listen to me. i am advocating a system, just like the one that has been in place since the founding of this country, where restrictions are placed on behaviors, and if you act outside of those restrictions, you're cited.

ok, i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, because you may be a man, or a woman who's never been pregnant, but you're advised in writing by a doctor, and it's published everywhere. you would have to live in a fucking cave not to know what you're not supposed to eat when you're pregnant and why.

laws are established...

if you're driving a car, you're allowed to do this, you're not allowed to do that. if you're in public, you're allowed to do this, you're not allowed to do that. if you have children, you're allowed to do this to them, but you're not allowed to do that to them. and if you're pregnant, you could very well be allowed to do this, but not allowed to do that. same ol' same ol'...easy peasy lemon breezy. i have no idea what is straining your brain about this.

yes, and that's a great example; i'm glad you brought it up. where i live there are smoking laws that ban smoking in public for that very reason, because second hand smoke is a potential health risk. so, if someone lights up in a public place, and they're caught doing it, they can be cited. now you explain to me what the difference is between that scenario, and a pregnant woman being cited for smoking because it's a potential health risk to her baby? the difference is a law being put into place, and that law would be citing the same potential health risks.

,

have you ever heard of "intent"? it's an extremely common legal term that is used in cases every day.

well then those things would have to be outlawed, just like countless other things are outlawed, and the system could enforce violations. :shrug: this is every day in america here adoucette. that's what the law is all about...restrictions and violations for not adhering to them. are you telling me this is news to you?

wherever the law says it stops, just like with everything else.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:bugeye:

i've been told by an ob/gyn that it's unsafe to eat sushi and other food items, and you know what? i fucking LOVE sushi. but i ask you, what kind of dumb malicious bitch wouldn't refrain from eating sushi if she thought for one second it could harm her unborn child? sorry, but i'm not that bitch.

and again, the only time a jury would be involved is if the law determined ahead of time that it was illegal for a pregnant woman who knows she's pregnant to eat sushi. the only thing the jury would be determining is did she eat it or didn't she eat it, without a doubt, based on the evidence presented. again, just like any other crime.