• 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]

LMAO

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

Clearly some of you are trying to, one. Push your legalization of drugs agenda and two. Trying to equate being a meth addict to "a glass of wine" as reinforcement.
Pretty pathetic.
Oh, and bolster your pro abortion stance by minimizing the effects of dope on the unborn.
 
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.
She would be charged with whatever the state law was at the time based on the information and evidence. And yes, worthless scum drug addicts are all the same until they prove otherwise.
 
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

Nobody is saying that. What we were debating before this silly diversion is whether charging those women with a crime would result in fewer babies being born addicted. If I thought all you had to do was charge a couple of women with manslaughter and then all the rest of the addicts would sober up and live clean while they're pregnant, I'd be all for it. I just doubt that's all it takes. In my experience, addicts don't worry a whole lot about potential arrest while they're in active addiction.

Maybe a criminal charge used as a stick, with treatment options, works. Who knows. Like I said, I'm not opposed to trying that strategy.
 
Tell ya what, you win. Meth is a hellava drug and should be injected by all pregnant mothers. Baby dies, so what? Baby born with defects and or other issues? So what? The government will continue to care for them and their scum mothers.
 
Clearly some of you are trying to, one. Push your legalization of drugs agenda and two. Trying to equate being a meth addict to "a glass of wine" as reinforcement.
Pretty pathetic.
Oh, and bolster your pro abortion stance by minimizing the effects of dope on the unborn.

What is pathetic is your grasp of the written word. You are having your own little conversations in your head because your responses have little or nothing to do with what is on the screen. Including about minimizing the effects of dope on the unborn, as I clearly call out 'users' period. Doesnt have to be illegal dope.

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

How about you show me that one hit of meth harms the unborn?
She'd be just as much of a loser if she was abusing prescription drugs.

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

Big difference.
 
She would be charged with whatever the state law was at the time based on the information and evidence. And yes, worthless scum drug addicts are all the same until they prove otherwise.

And the information and evidence would be what you could show BETH did. Not what you saw Susan do six months or 10 years earlier.
 
What is pathetic is your grasp of the written word. You are having your own little conversations in your head because your responses have little or nothing to do with what is on the screen. Including about minimizing the effects of dope on the unborn, as I clearly call out 'users' period. Doesnt have to be illegal dope.

Clearly you don't see an issue with her drug use during pregnancy. So you can stop now. You told me every thing I need to know about your opinion based on your desire to legalize dope and your pro abortion stance.
Sad to think that liberalism has no bounds of decency when it comes to the unborn.
 
Keep playing dumb. Its really suiting you well.

It is a game for me.

Sadly you are proving with every post that it is not for you.
 
And the information and evidence would be what you could show BETH did. Not what you saw Susan do six months or 10 years earlier.

Any time a child is born addicted, or with dope in its system the mother is investigated. The police only get involved if they are arrested prior to birth. I just happen to think the punishment is not harsh enough.
 
Clearly you don't see an issue with her drug use during pregnancy. So you can stop now. You told me every thing I need to know about your opinion based on your desire to legalize dope and your pro abortion stance.
Sad to think that liberalism has no bounds of decency when it comes to the unborn.

Oh My God

You really cannot understand the written word at all.

Lursa said:
She'd be just as much of a loser if she was abusing prescription drugs.

CC you are just embarassing yourself.
 
Tell ya what, you win. Meth is a hellava drug and should be injected by all pregnant mothers. Baby dies, so what? Baby born with defects and or other issues? So what? The government will continue to care for them and their scum mothers.

Goodness, all you want to do is create strawmen to beat the crap out of. I think I'll bow out of this discussion.
 
It is a game for me.

Sadly you are proving with every post that it is not for you.

You win, you are dumb as a box of rocks thinking nothing is wrong with doing meth compared to a "glass of wine" during pregnancy. You win.
 
Goodness, all you want to do is create strawmen to beat the crap out of. I think I'll bow out of this discussion.

What strawman did I create? I never even used a "what if". Only gave my real world opinion. I am not the one that tried to equate meth to a glass of wine.
 
You win, you are dumb as a box of rocks thinking nothing is wrong with doing meth compared to a "glass of wine" during pregnancy. You win.

Heh heh, I never wrote that nor implied it. And it's all there in black and white. Quoted more than once in a (failed) effort to help you.


Dont dump YOUR box of rocks as you stick your tail between your legs reading my signature below...in green.
 
Heh heh, I never wrote that nor implied it. And it's all there in black and white. Quoted more than once in a (failed) effort to help you.


Dont dump YOUR box of rocks as you stick your tail between your legs reading my signature below...in green.
Don't worry about my tail, you win. Meth use during pregnancy is clearly fine as with you. Yea, you are will versed in drug use during pregnancy, you got it all figured out you think she is well within her rights.
I mean its HER body right?
 
What strawman did I create? I never even used a "what if". Only gave my real world opinion. I am not the one that tried to equate meth to a glass of wine.

No one on here defended meth use. We all see a HUGE problem with drug use (including alcohol) during pregnancy. The only question is what is the best way to have FEWER addicted babies. I don't think charging them with manslaughter helps, not unless there are treatment options and manslaughter is reserved for cases where someone can PROVE reckless, continuous and damaging use, and even then I'm not sure what we accomplish by jailing that mother for perhaps 10 years. We fill a prison bed, which is nice, and get sweet vengeance, but we've got prisons full of drug users and use and abuse of illegal drugs hasn't seemed to slow a whole lot so long sentences don't appear to be an effective way to lessen drug addictions and the problems that come with it. That's what the evidence suggests. And I see no reason why long jail terms would work better with pregnant women than it does with all other addicts.

And I brought up wine because in my world, the addiction of choice is to alcohol and I see far more women with drinking problems or who have admitted to abusive drinking while pregnant than I've seen addicted to meth. The ones I've talked to didn't need a 10 year jail sentence, they needed treatment for an addiction. And frankly, while the woman is pregnant, if treatment (for alcohol, meth, heroin, cocaine, oxy, speed, etc.) doesn't work, and it often does NOT work, I'm OK with incarceration to protect the child, except it makes more sense to lock them in a treatment facility than an ordinary prison.
 
Last edited:
No one on here defended meth use. We all see a HUGE problem with drug use (including alcohol) during pregnancy. The only question is what is the best way to have FEWER addicted babies. I don't think charging them with manslaughter helps, not unless there are treatment options and manslaughter is reserved for cases where someone can PROVE reckless, continuous and damaging use, and even then I'm not sure what we accomplish by jailing that mother for perhaps 10 years. We fill a prison bed, which is nice, and get sweet vengeance, but we've got prisons full of drug users and use and abuse of illegal drugs hasn't seemed to slow a whole lot so long sentences don't appear to be an effective way to lessen drug addictions and the problems that come with it. That's what the evidence suggests. And I see no reason why long jail terms would work better with pregnant women than it does with all other addicts.

And I brought up wine because in my world, the addiction of choice is to alcohol and I see far more women with drinking problems or who have admitted to abusive drinking while pregnant than I've seen addicted to meth. The ones I've talked to didn't need a 10 year jail sentence, they needed treatment for an addiction. And frankly, while the woman is pregnant, if treatment (for alcohol, meth, heroin, cocaine, oxy, speed, etc.) doesn't work, and it often does NOT work, I'm OK with incarceration to protect the child, except it makes more sense to lock them in a treatment facility than an ordinary prison.
Lock up or sterilize mothers who bare addicted children. That fixes the first problem you mentioned.
 
Lock up or sterilize mothers who bare addicted children. That fixes the first problem you mentioned.

Sounds reasonable. Bring back eugenics. While we're at it, we could also sterilize all women, and then have each of them apply to have it temporarily reversed if they're determined to be good breeding stock, pass a drug test, have sufficient assets to raise the kids, etc. I don't see any problems with that.....

BTW, looked up the number of children born with fetal alcohol syndrome or less severe alcohol related issues. It's about 50,000 per year or so and another 13,000 per year addicted to drugs. So we need to either crank up the sterilization clinics or start building a lot more jails to house the 63,000 new inmates per year. At $24,000 or so per year, per prisoner, that's about $1.5 billion per year the first year and will escalate after that. Good news for the for-profit prison industry!
 
Sounds reasonable. Bring back eugenics. While we're at it, we could also sterilize all women, and then have each of them apply to have it temporarily reversed if they're determined to be good breeding stock, pass a drug test, have sufficient assets to raise the kids, etc. I don't see any problems with that.....

BTW, looked up the number of children born with fetal alcohol syndrome or less severe alcohol related issues. It's about 50,000 per year or so and another 13,000 per year addicted to drugs. So we need to either crank up the sterilization clinics or start building a lot more jails to house the 63,000 new inmates per year. At $24,000 or so per year, per prisoner, that's about $1.5 billion per year the first year and will escalate after that. Good news for the for-profit prison industry!
My responses have been in the comparison of meth and "a glass of wine", not alcoholism. Nice try though.
 
My responses have been in the comparison of meth and "a glass of wine", not alcoholism. Nice try though.

You said "addicted children." I quoted the number of kids born with fetal alcohol syndrome or other serious health problems due to alcohol abuse by the mother. That's not due to "a glass of wine." Nice try though.
 
You said "addicted children." I quoted the number of kids born with fetal alcohol syndrome or other serious health problems due to alcohol abuse by the mother. That's not due to "a glass of wine." Nice try though.

I am not the one that brought up "a glass of wine" in comparison to meth. Nice try.
 
Re: New Mother Charged with Assault for using Meth during Pregnancy

...it causes you to do messed up stuff but, once you know you're going to be a parent, that should be enough reason to seek help and beat your addiction.
Is this sheer ignorance or just plain naivete?
 
Back
Top Bottom