ACLU Defending Woman Accused Of Using Drugs While Pregnant

[traderumor]

Truthfully, the argument begins and ends with: can a woman decide her bodily fate? That's the issue. Where life begins, who's more important, who's to blame, who's not paying child support, who's snorting what--secondary issues.

This ruling answers that question. No, women cannot decide their bodily fates.

It seems to me that the ruling decided that it was wrong for a mother to feed cocaine to her infant, whether in utero or after the child was born. I am so glad my ethic does not require me to conclude that another person is only relevant when that person is pushed completely through the birth canal. So, does relevance begin at the neck, or the shoulders, the chest, or does every little toe need to be out? I'm sure the head being out doesn't count, i.e. partial birth bludgeoning.

[traderumor]

Nice try. This case's precedent points DIRECTLY to other possible means of limiting the freedoms of women; it's a LEGAL precedent--the consequences could set all kinds of dominoes into motion.

Gay marriage does not open the door in ANY fundamental way to incestuous, bestial, human/inanimate marriages, as those relationships are different in KIND not DEGREE. In this case, you can easily transpose "cocaine" with "alcohol," and the finding would be the same. It's ruling about potential detrimental effects--the agent of harm is immaterial.

Alcohol is legal, as are cafeinne, nicotine, and all the other items mentioned by another slippery slope supporter. Cocaine is an illegal drug for the mother to take as well, whereas drinking or smoking while pregnant is stupid, but not illegal.

[Falls City Beer]

Alcohol is legal, as are cafeinne, nicotine, and all the other items mentioned by another slippery slope supporter. Cocaine is an illegal drug for the mother to take as well, whereas drinking or smoking while pregnant is stupid, but not illegal.

But she was not brought up on charges of cocaine possession or usage. That's what you're not understanding. The charges were reckless endangerment. Any agent, taken in the extreme, can endanger a fetus. Therefore, one must conclude that reckless endangerment could extend to any agent/behavior, including legal agents.

[traderumor]

But she was not brought up on charges of cocaine possession or usage. That's what you're not understanding. The charges were reckless endangerment. Any agent, taken in the extreme, can endanger a fetus. Therefore, one must conclude that reckless endangerment could extend to any agent/behavior, including legal agents.

Are you basing that on the ACLU's objection, or is that language from the actual decision? I would be surprised if the illicit/illegal nature of cocaine consumption had no bearing on the decision.

BTW, I never argued homosexual marriage would lead to the things you mentioned. My only slippery slope is what it would mean for the strength of families. Irrelevant here, but wanted to clarify that you were misrepresenting my position.

[Falls City Beer]

Are you basing that on the ACLU's objection, or is that language from the actual decision? I would be surprised if the illicit/illegal nature of cocaine consumption had no bearing on the decision.

BTW, I never argued homosexual marriage would lead to the things you mentioned. My only slippery slope is what it would mean for the strength of families. Irrelevant here, but wanted to clarify that you were misrepresenting my position.

Well, others were arguing my above-listed fallacious contentions, if not you specifically.

No, the decision says that she was found guilty on charges of reckless endangerment. Read the article.

[traderumor]

Well, others were arguing my above-listed fallacious contentions, if not you specifically.

No, the decision says that she was found guilty on charges of reckless endangerment. Read the article.

I did read the article. The ACLU was using the "not a person" defense. The article also says the charge was based on cocaine use (see first paragraph) and the baby testing positive for cocaine. That was the cause for reckless endangerment. Your point is taken, but as you know, slippery slope argumentation is always, well, slippery. I do not see any reasonable prosecutor dragging pregnant smokers and drinkers into court, and if they did, I would imagine a judge would throw out the charges immediately.

I think the slippery slope you should be more worried about is what Maryland says about personhood. The judge treated the baby as a person in utero, since that is where the cocaine was ingested by the child. That is the more dangerous precedent, which I'm sure someone has already pointed out.

[RFS62]

So many people I respect posting their opinions on this issue. Just what I hoped for, actually.

As long as it remains respectful. But that's a hard thing to wish for, with such difficult issues.

Myself, I oppose the death penalty, I support gay rights. I'm not an evangelical christian. I'm a conservative, but not because of any religious leanings. I don't understand how the debate for abortion doesn't start with answering the question "when does life begin". How any argument can not use the answer to that question as the starting point ot the discussion, I'll never know.

If it's fair for the science minded community to question evolution and the genesis based creation theory, why isn't it fair to ask this question and expect an exact, precise answer? It seems so disingenuous to me to skirt around the answer to this question when making your case, regardless of what side you come down on.

I don't base my beliefs on this issue on anything other than the question of when do we start to protect those who can't protect themselves, no matter who it inconviences, and no matter to what degree the inconvenience. But I understand the pain and extremity of the inconvience, and don't want to minimize that issue in my consideration of the issue.

I was born 2 months pre-mature. I had an enlarged heart, a collapsed lung, a heart murmur, and a 50 % chance at best to survive. I was in an incubator for the first two months of my life, and wouldn't have survived if born 50 years earlier.

Even if my mother hadn't been inclined to tough it out with me, which, with today's medical knowledge she would have been offered an option to terminate my life, her pregnancy, with no opposition, should my life have been decided on the degree of her inconvienence, even if she hadn't been willing to roll the dice and raise me?

From my point of view, I'll take my chances. Put me wherever you want in life. If you don't want me, fine. Give me to somebody who does, or even someone who doesn't. It's my life, not yours. What I make of it is all on me. Not you.

[George Foster]

When the child can survive independent of the mother's womb. Before then it's a fetus.

But registerthis is right, this issue of a mother's culpability is different--I led the discussion astray, unintentionally, but I did.

So I assume that you are against late term abortions, and people that do them should be charged with murder. Right? Your post just said a child is "a child" if it can live outside the mothers womb. So killing a "child" is murder...right? I'm glad to see you are becoming more conservative. Don't contradict yourself when you replay.

[RosieRed]

So many people I respect posting their opinions on this issue. Just what I hoped for, actually.

As long as it remains respectful. But that's a hard thing to wish for, with such difficult issues.

Myself, I oppose the death penalty, I support gay rights. I'm not an evangelical christian. I'm a conservative, but not because of any religious leanings. I don't understand how the debate for abortion doesn't start with answering the question "when does life begin". How any argument can not use the answer to that question as the starting point ot the discussion, I'll never know.

If it's fair for the science minded community to question evolution and the genesis based creation theory, why isn't it fair to ask this question and expect an exact, precise answer? It seems so disingenuous to me to skirt around the answer to this question when making your case, regardless of what side you come down on.

Just my take on things ...

I don't know that there can be an exact, precise answer to the question of when life begins. If you have a fertilized embryo, you have the possibility of life. Is that life? I don't know. Who would answer that question anyway? The government? Scientists? Court justices? And how would they know, exactly? How does one even define life in this case?

When it comes to abortion, I honestly don't know if the debate starts with "when does life begin". Let's say hypothetically that life definitely begins at conception. Well, then what? No more abortions? For me personally, if it were decided and accepted that life begins at conception, that would not change my opinion of abortion. (Which is that I think they should remain legal.) I would still think a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy. You can call it life, you can call it a cluster of cells, and I'm still going to think the same thing.

If we were talking about late-stage pregnancies, I think the life question becomes more valuable to the discussion. At least to me, anyway.

Whenever I'm talking about or thinking about this issue, I always think "I could never have an abortion. I just couldn't." I fully and totally support a woman's right to choose for herself; it's something I very much believe in, but I always just think I would never have one. And then all these "what ifs" start popping up in my head ... and then I'm just glad I live somewhere where I would have the choice, should it come to that. Because I would really hate to not have any say in what happens to my body.

[Rojo]

Truthfully, the argument begins and ends with: can a woman decide her bodily fate? That's the issue. Where life begins, who's more important, who's to blame, who's not paying child support, who's snorting what--secondary issues.

This ruling answers that question. No, women cannot decide their bodily fates.

That's exactly right. It is about a woman and her body. It is not about whether or not your or I think it would be better if some children didn't enter this world.

[GAC]

"I dont know of anyone who opposes abortion who would oppose tax dollars being used to support programs to achieve that goal."

I do. I know about 58 million of 'em.

No you don't.

[GAC]

What initiatives/programs have been defeated by groups that support abortion?

Off the top of my head? How about the huge oppostion to faith-based programs. Many have gone after these initiatives because of this huge fear/paranoia of proselytization (totally unfounded). And the initiatives cover all charities (both religious and secular). The goal is to help families within our communities isn't it?

Here are some interesting stats though....

The public acknowledges that religious organizations play a constructive role in American life. Three-quarters of Americans say churches, synagogues and other houses of worship contribute to solving important social problems.

When asked, in general, who can do the best job at this, 37% of Americans say religious organizations, 28% choose federal and state government agencies and 27% opt for non-religious, community-based groups.

Why not use ALL these organizations (both secular and religious) to help families/children in need? As I stated before - let the government be the watchdog; but let these organizations do the "field work". You are gonna get a more personal, hands-on approach from caring charities then simply getting a check in the mail every month.

How about any government program that wants to teach abstinence?

And what "monies now spent to fund abortions" are you talking about?

Just as it says - taxpayer monies to fund abortions. Are you saying our government is not doing so?

[GAC]

No, the decision says that she was found guilty on charges of reckless endangerment. Read the article.

The article says this....

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union are appealing the conviction of an Easton woman who was accused of endangering a child by using cocaine while she was pregnant.

Cruz was charged in February, about a month after giving birth to a premature baby boy who tested positive for cocaine.

Gee- I wonder how that kid got cocaine in his system?

The ACLU's argument is simply ridiculous - but that's the ACLU for you. And it's due to their own position on abortion. Their argument?- that there was never a risk of harm to another person, because it's a fetus. But again, what does medical science define a fetus as?.... does it say it's not a person? No. it says it's a developing human being at 8 weeks.

But the baby was tested positive for cocaine after it was out of the womb. And do you think her drug use was the reason it was born premature? I'd say so.

Are you gonna try and convince everyone here that her cocaine usage is not an issue here, and that it posed no harm to that baby, whether inside the womb or after birth?

Simply ridiculous IMO.

Have you ever READ any studies on what the effects of illegal drugs, such as cocaine and crack have on these babies later in life? The bottom line of these studies is that the exposed children, overall, had more behavioral problems as they grew older and into school age. Studies have shown where these children were more socially aggressive, suffered cognitive development effects, and lower I.Q's.

I hope the kid is taken away from her. At least until she straightens her life out.

[Johnny Footstool]

How about the huge oppostion to faith-based programs.

The opposition is based on the Establishment Clause.

On the flip side, how about the huge opposition to birth control/contraception?

[GAC]

The opposition is based on the Establishment Clause

It's already been shown in the courts that it doesn't violate the establishment clause because it does not respect an establishment of religion when it includes other religions and secular charities. As long as certian guidelines are met, then no one can be excluded.