In the news today there is a story about how a law the protects the fetus of a drug user woman has been challenged as unconstitutional.
Here are my thoughts about what the relevant issues discussed and not discussed are:
"the law is aimed at protecting the unborn fetuses and embryos of women with a ""SEVERE DEGREE" of drug use that poses a "SUBSTANTIAL RISK" to the fetus or would "SERIOUSLY EFFECT" a child upon birth.
What scientific evidence has revealed is that even a small amount of alcohol poses a "SUBSTANTIAL RISK" to the fetus and that risk does cause a "SERIOUS EFFECT." So that law should be expanded to take into account current science with regard to alcohol.
The goal of the law should be redrafted or an addendum added so that the goal is that the mothers strive that their is absolutely no birth defects of any kind whatsoever!
Fetal Alcohol spectrum disorders are the leading cause of mental retardation in the Western Hemisphere. And it costs $3.2 to treat an autistic child (not having a single genius type skill as originally defined) over their lifetime. And if you can't figure out what that means and who it benefits you might indeed be one of the ones with the defective hippocampus yourself.
A person who is known to have a history of drug abuse should be tested every month while pregnant and that fetus aborted if she has used drugs.
A social worker recommended the woman in the news item take the drug Suboxone.
Why is a social worker recommending that a pregnant woman use a drug that can cause birth defects? It should be illegal for anyone to recommend a pregnant woman use a drug- OF ANY KIND!
If the law was expanded would their be evil nurses that spiked the food of pregnant women they were jealous of so that the fetus became aborted? These are types of future consequences and any new laws created should take things like this into account. It is a planning for when the bad side of human nature reveals itself in opportunity to defy human beings principle. Is there a basis for what you would term this to be - a paranoid belief? Just look at the prior paragraph- that is the basis!
Do we even want to give people who protest their rights to be drug users while pregnant and immediately before the right to leave the country or be evicted or deported? No. Because that $3.2 million dollar birth defect would burden foreign countries and come back to haunt us!
Should Wisconsin residents be given a alcohol drinking card? You can't drink it or posses it unless you have one? Nor can alcohol be in your home if you are Actively Denied One! And you cannot buy alcohol without the Card! And you can not buy more than a beer a day with it and not prestocking! That is how it should be. And how about this, all women who are of childbearing age are denied the card as well as men of their same age. And if a couple marries with plans to have a baby as the purpose of marriage is their card is then revoked!
That law is there to protect the mother as well as the baby. An ectopic pregnancy is one that can kill the mother. What we know from science is that certain substances are more likely to cause ectopic pregnancies such as pine tar in cigarettes creating fold in the placenta and strangling the fetus. (Read Culpeppers Complete Herbal for the effects of Pine on a fetus- it causes abortion!) So there is another one a pregnant woman should not come anywhere near or be allowed to buy- cigarette smoke and cigarettes!
I am being mean to that woman? I am limiting her rights? No! A healthy baby makes for a happy mother!
Both women and men that want to abuse substances and have sex should indeed go in and get sterilized. It is a black and white choice! Either you want to create a healthy baby and be a loving normal parent or you are something else in my humble opinion! For the same reason and to prevent the spread of aides I believe that all gays and lesbians should go in and get sterilized- I mean come on you have already made the choice not in favor of human procreation! And believe me I get the heat for what I write! That must mean it is good?
So who would want to defeat a law like this? Someone that was mentally defective already! And it can be proven. The mentally defective should not be allowed to cast down laws that are designed from creating unhappy people or the mentally or birth defective from being created! What human being does not stand up and say, "I want all of women's babies to be protected from being born without toes?" or "I never want the conditions precedent for a mentally retarded baby to be born!"
No one fights more for human rights than someone that stands up with those beliefs!
And what man takes a drink before he has sex with his newlywed wife and says to her, "Any child conceived might be missing its big toe but I am willing to tolerate that because I don't believe it to be a "SERIOUS EFFECT?" No MAN thinks that way! What does it tell us? It is a business concept? Or a concept that is favorable to an inanimate business over a human being? It is like there are heartless genocidal robots among us already and they are called business interest? What is a business interest like that really supporting? Someone that knows if their business is diminished they cannot compete with the rest of us or legitimate human beings!
That law, as it stands today, forms the basis of what our future should be and it should be expanded! Or rather the interpretation of it can be expanded because we have much greater scientific knowledge than when it was written...not too long ago 1998!
Copyright 2013 Thomas Paul Murphy
Originally published on 10 25 2013 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com
PS. If a woman willfully defeats that law is it grounds that she not receive government aid $3.2 to treat that defective child over its lifetime? YES! Can she then be given the leave that child out on the ice because it couldn't keep up provision? They are saying that the diagnosis of mental retardation can not be made until age 8. Something about that poses a great burden upon society.
Here is a link to the source article; it is like they already know what I am going to say so it is not open to having a comment section for the article on the website! So there are some whiny women out there who don't like what I wrote. You same types might not also like some Governor, had "this law expanded" been in place he might not ever have been Governor or indeed on the path to Presidency of the United States!