• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Mother Charged with Assault for using Meth during Pregnancy[W:8]

What evidence? She is a meth head worthless scumbag. The other person said "glass of wine". One is legal, one is not.

Legal means not-harmful?

BTW, 'meth head worthless scumbag'..... Yep, I can see this discussion is going to be productive. :roll:
 
Legal means not-harmful?

BTW, 'meth head worthless scumbag'..... Yep, I can see this discussion is going to be productive. :roll:
What kind of person ingests meth while pregnant? Fine upstanding, responsible mother to be?
 
What kind of person ingests meth while pregnant? Fine upstanding, responsible mother to be?

The same kind of person who drinks and gets drunk.

I'm not excusing drug use while pregnant - just pointing out the legal drug alcohol is just as risky. If you want to charge a meth head with manslaughter, fine. Levy the same charges on drinkers and we'll be on the same page. I think it's stupid and counter productive, but at least then you'll be consistently wrong IMO.

Sheesh, I'm not even opposed to the law. I found out what I suspected, which is the charges are a misdemeanor and the woman has the option under the law to enter treatment in lieu of jail.
 
The same kind of person who drinks and gets drunk.

I'm not excusing drug use while pregnant - just pointing out the legal drug alcohol is just as risky. If you want to charge a meth head with manslaughter, fine. Levy the same charges on drinkers and we'll be on the same page. I think it's stupid and counter productive, but at least then you'll be consistently wrong IMO.

Sheesh, I'm not even opposed to the law. I found out what I suspected, which is the charges are a misdemeanor and the woman has the option under the law to enter treatment in lieu of jail.
Pump the brakes, the comment was "glass of wine". Don't go to extremes to make a point.
 
Pump the brakes, the comment was "glass of wine". Don't go to extremes to make a point.

Alright. I should have let your original comment slide. There isn't actually any evidence reported so far to indicate how often the woman used meth. We know she did it at least once near the end of her pregnancy because some amount of meth was detected in the newborn, but that's all that's been reported.

From that you 'went to extremes to make a point' and made the outrageous suggestion that she be charged with attempted manslaughter. It was over the top and I should have just let it slide because you must assume she abused meth regularly and AND that drug use harmed the newborn. If you meant ANY use of an illegal drug, then you have to support similar penalties for women who drink AT ALL during pregnancy.
 
Show me some science on that. People used to put wiskey in the mouths of teething babies. I don't recall a medicinal use for meth.

What part of 'may be' did you not understand?

How about you show me that one hit of meth harms a baby?
 
What evidence? She is a meth head worthless scumbag. The other person said "glass of wine". One is legal, one is not.

Legal has nothing to do with it, that's ridiculous.

She'd be just as much of a loser if she was abusing prescription drugs.
 
Alright. I should have let your original comment slide. There isn't actually any evidence reported so far to indicate how often the woman used meth. We know she did it at least once near the end of her pregnancy because some amount of meth was detected in the newborn, but that's all that's been reported.

From that you 'went to extremes to make a point' and made the outrageous suggestion that she be charged with attempted manslaughter. It was over the top and I should have just let it slide because you must assume she abused meth regularly and AND that drug use harmed the newborn. If you meant ANY use of an illegal drug, then you have to support similar penalties for women who drink AT ALL during pregnancy.

Never met a meth user that is a one time user. And someone so into it that they are willing to use in the last part of her pregnancy is certainly not a one time user.
 
Never met a meth user that is a one time user. And someone so into it that they are willing to use in the last part of her pregnancy is certainly not a one time user.

Like I said, you assumed long term abuse during the pregnancy. But I do apologize for going to an extreme to make a point after you went to an extreme to make a point.
 
Like I said, you assumed long term abuse during the pregnancy. But I do apologize for going to an extreme to make a point after you went to an extreme to make a point.

I have gone to no extremes. There was a comparison of "a glass of wine" to meth use. Big difference.
 
I have gone to no extremes. There was a comparison of "a glass of wine" to meth use. Big difference.

No, you just suggested based on no evidence of long term use or damage to the infant (you assumed these things into the evidence) that she be charged with attempted manslaughter, which is totally NOT extreme at all....
 
No, you just suggested based on no evidence of long term use or damage to the infant (you assumed these things into the evidence) that she be charged with attempted manslaughter, which is totally NOT extreme at all....

My "assumption" in your opinion is based on real world experience with drug addicts and seeing more than one mother with a needle in her arm and a bun in the oven.
 
I have gone to no extremes. There was a comparison of "a glass of wine" to meth use. Big difference.

Clearly you have reading comprehension issues. The comparison was a 'glass' and a 'hit'. Not a 'glass' and 'use.'

Big difference.
 
Really? You must not know much about meth.

So then please link to how damaging a single hit of meth is on the unborn if you are such an expert.
 
My "assumption" in your opinion is based on real world experience with drug addicts and seeing more than one mother with a needle in her arm and a bun in the oven.

We're WAY past any hope of a productive discussion, but for the record it's not 'my opinion' - you made the dictionary definition of an assumption - "A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof."

Also, too 'assume:' suppose to be the case, without proof.
 
We're WAY past any hope of a productive discussion, but for the record it's not 'my opinion' - you made the dictionary definition of an assumption - "A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof."

Also, too 'assume:' suppose to be the case, without proof.
Pull on the uniform, pin on the badge, strap up and do the job. You will get all the proof you need.
 
Clearly you have reading comprehension issues. The comparison was a 'glass' and a 'hit'. Not a 'glass' and 'use.'

Big difference.
So basically you are saying its her right to turn her unborn into an addict. Ever witnessed a child born addicted? But I degress, I am sure it was her "first time". LOL
 
Pull on the uniform, pin on the badge, strap up and do the job. You will get all the proof you need.

So when you wore this badge, let's say you saw Susan do something, say inject heroin while she's pregnant. And you investigate her and find out through interviews and testimony that Susan used heroin, and smoked meth, nearly daily while she was pregnant.

Now some time later, you see Beth taking a hit of meth while she is pregnant. And the "proof" you'd use to charge her with "involuntary manslaighter" is what Susan did?

Judge: Officer, please tell us how you determined that Beth abused meth throughout her pregnancy.
You: Your honor, the proof is I investigated Susan a while back and we determined Susan had a long history of near daily drug use while pregnant, and based on this, we have proof that Beth also abused drugs nearly every day.
Judge: You're joking, right?
You: Not joking at all. What Susan did is proof of what Beth did. These worthless scum drug addicts are all the same.
 
So basically you are saying its her right to turn her unborn into an addict. Ever witnessed a child born addicted? But I degress, I am sure it was her "first time". LOL

LMAO

And further reinforcement that your reading comprehension is non-existent. How on Earth did you get that from this?

Clearly you have reading comprehension issues. The comparison was a 'glass' and a 'hit'. Not a 'glass' and 'use.'

Big difference.
 
Back
Top Bottom