Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Bowerbird, Nov 15, 2019.
Put 'cure' in quotations and then you'll understand it.
But you didn't do that because addiction is a RECOGNIZED mental illness.
More accurately, there is no cure for what is not a disease.
Being weak-willed is not a mental illness.
Having an addictive personality is a mental illness according to those who are QUALIFIED to make that diagnosis.
If such is ultimately the case, then the so-called "war on drugs" is indeed necessary and justified, as the government is attempting to protect the people from themselves, when they supposedly simply cannot help themselves when it comes to engaging in illegal activity to feed their addictions.
If these individuals truly have no control over their actions, and simply cannot stop themselves from committing felonies because of their addictions, the government is justified in treating them as if they are nothing more than children, and punishing them when they do what they are told not to do.
In which case the charges against the mother are legally justified.
Another massive load of bovine excrement!
Should everyone who gets the flu be treated as criminals because they are spreading the virus to others?
Must YOUR GOP BIG GOVERNMENT set up a phony "war on flu" and incarcerate everyone who gets flu symptoms as a "virus dealer" and incarcerate them for 25 years to life?
Because that is exactly what your bovine excrement above is all about.
Is influenza currently classified as a prohibited substance in the united states?
Once an individual becomes infected with influenza, do they carry it for the duration of their natural lives?
If not, then there is no comparison to be made between the two standards.
Was marijuana ILLEGAL before your GOP BIG GOVERNMENT decided to classify is a prohibited substance in 1970??
First, marijuana was first criminalized in individual states in the year 1906 when it was classified as being a poisonous substance, years before the ratification of the eighteenth amendment.
Second, is marijuana the same thing as methamphetamine?
Third, none of the above serves to change the subject of discussion. If individuals truly cannot control themselves, and cannot help but become addicted to illicit narcotic substances through the use of such, the so-called "war on drugs" is justified if the united states government has a legitimate interest in protecting individuals from harming themselves.
Forget harming themselves, this is a prime example of drugs harming others.
As far as I'm concerned, the woman can jump off a cliff. That's her right.
But she can't be expected to take someone else with her.
Wrong, as usual!
REGULATING marijuana was NOT CRIMINALIZING it which only happened under your GOP's FAILED "war on drugs"!
But thanks for establishing that you do not have sufficient grasp of the subject matter to the point of understanding the stark difference between regulating and criminalizing.
Have a nice day!
False. The outright prohibition of marijuana began around the year of 1920, thus predating the so-called "war on drugs" by nearly decades.
An outright prohibition is still a regulation. Thus, depending on the degree, there is no difference between the two standards.
yet more bovine excrement duly noted and ignored for OBVIOUS reasons given that there is ZERO credible substantiation for those utterly BOGUS allegations.
Which allegation? That the prohibition on marijuana is far older than was expected? Or that a prohibition is still a regulation? Be specific when addressing others.
Do you usually just automatically write-off and ignore those who disagree with you?
What is it in particular about this debate that has you so flustered?
It seems to me some valid analogies have been made that you don't want to see.
Now you are much making up even MORE bovine excrement without substantiation.
Without credible substantiation all that remains are OPINIONS which don't carry any weight in a debate.
Why is it so difficult to grasp these basic debate concepts?
When you break a law, that removes the need for absolute proof of some other aspect of the crime they are accused of.
You may not think it fair, but that's how it works.
This woman will be punished much more since her baby died than if the baby came out and was perfectly healthy and seemed normal. She will, in effect, be held responsible, and assumed guilty. (or mostly guilty, or very likely guilty)
Since she did drugs while pregnant, and the baby tested positive, she won't get the benefit of the doubt.
And guess what? Even if she is not specifically convicted by the jury of causing the death of the fetus, the judge WILL STILL likely tack on extra punishment to circumvent the jury's verdict.
And due to the phenomena of charge stacking, there's NO LIMIT to the amount of punishment the judge can impose!
NONE of the above has anything at all to do with marijuana and the GOP's moronic war on drugs failure!
No it doesn't, but then again that's not the topic of this thread, is it?
The topic INCLUDES DRUGS which was being discussed when you jumped in without reading the CONTEXT!
find it very ironic you're accusing me of replying out of context
Face it, her drug habit led her astray down a dark crooked road, into committing MURDER.
(Yes, it's still murder even if you didn't want the death to happen, if you did something that you knew would almost certainly cause that death, and you didn't have a right to do it)
If it was up to me, she'd get third degree murder, but the law says second and third degree murder are not intentional.
Her act here was clearly intentional, she intentionally took those drugs, knowing what would happen.
Trying to say it's not intentional is like saying the wife who poisoned her husband didn't intend for him to die, she just wanted the insurance money. The fact of whether she particularly wanted him dead is besides the point.
Just like the wife in this example couldn't get the money without killing her husband, so too the woman in the story couldn't get her drugs without killing her fetus. It's actually the exact same sort of thing, in essence.
(And don't give me that useless "It was an addiction!" nonsense. Maybe the woman who killed her husband had a shopping addiction, or a gambling addiction. That doesn't in any way lessen what she did.)
She only has an ILLEGAL drug addiction because of the utterly moronic GOP war on drugs!
Had her addiction been TREATED as an ILLNESS instead of a CRIME the odds are that NONE OF THIS would have happened!
The BLAME for what happened is ENTIRELY the fault of the NEFARIOUS GOP war on drugs that has been a COMPLETE and UTTER FAILURE!
NOTHING positive has come out of the imbecilic GOP war on drugs!
Oh, so if the drugs were legal that fetus would be perfectly okay ?
Separate names with a comma.