No pop for you! Bloomberg to ban Big Gulps.

[FMCoug]

Hasn't the nanny state ship pretty much already sailed?

How is this different than seat belt laws for example?

[RobinFinderson]

Hasn't the nanny state ship pretty much already sailed?

How is this different than seat belt laws for example?

Most people want a nanny state in one way or another. See abortion for a defining nanny issue for many conservatives.

[Jacob]

Hasn't the nanny state ship pretty much already sailed?

How is this different than seat belt laws for example?

No, it hasn't. Not entirely. Also, I oppose seat belt and smoking laws. But some seat-belt laws regarding children at least pretend to be about public safety of those unable to protect themselves.

Most people want a nanny state in one way or another. See abortion for a defining nanny issue for many conservatives.

Well, if we remove all meaning from the phrase "nanny state" I suppose it is everywhere. But the abortion issue is a pretty silly one to bring into the nanny state discussion, for reasons that are too obvious to bother arguing about here.

[RobinFinderson]

Well, if we remove all meaning from the phrase "nanny state" I suppose it is everywhere. But the abortion issue is a pretty silly one to bring into the nanny state discussion, for reasons that are too obvious to bother arguing about here.

I think that the government forcing women to disrupt their lives and risk their health by compelling them to carry unwanted babies to term is an issue at the very heart of "nanny state" politics.

[FMCoug]

No, it hasn't. Not entirely. Also, I oppose seat belt and smoking laws. But some seat-belt laws regarding children at least pretend to be about public safety of those unable to protect themselves.



Well, if we remove all meaning from the phrase "nanny state" I suppose it is everywhere. But the abortion issue is a pretty silly one to bring into the nanny state discussion, for reasons that are too obvious to bother arguing about here.

Many years ago, we (our parents/grandparents) decided as a society we no longer wanted to let people starve, die, be illiterate, etc. As a consequence of that, a degree of socialism was introduced. Which has progressed more and more over the years. Right or wrong, that's how it is.

Which is why things like seat belts, smoking, and the above are no longer just about individual choices. The fact of the matter is that everybody takes a hit for the consequences of those choices. If a guy is not wearing his seat belt and dies in an accident he could have walked away from, leaving a wife and kids destitute, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, WIC, etc. will all kick in, meaning we all pay for the consequences of his choice not to wear a seat belt.

[FMCoug]

I think that the government forcing women to disrupt their lives and risk their health by compelling them to carry unwanted babies to term is an issue at the very heart of "nanny state" politics.

You know very well that the counter argument to this is that abortion is taking the life of the innocent unborn child. To say abortion is JUST about the mother is ridiculous. You are smarter than that.

[Jacob]

Many years ago, we (our parents/grandparents) decided as a society we no longer wanted to let people starve, die, be illiterate, etc. As a consequence of that, a degree of socialism was introduced. Which has progressed more and more over the years. Right or wrong, that's how it is.

Which is why things like seat belts, smoking, and the above are no longer just about individual choices. The fact of the matter is that everybody takes a hit for the consequences of those choices. If a guy is not wearing his seat belt and dies in an accident he could have walked away from, leaving a wife and kids destitute, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, WIC, etc. will all kick in, meaning we all pay for the consequences of his choice not to wear a seat belt.

You asked whether the nanny state ship has sailed. I responded that it hasn't. We don't see these types of laws banning certain foods passing many places, and even when are proposed in liberal strongholds like SF (happy meal banning) the public typically combats it successfully.

You have now offered a justification for the nanny state. I disagree with your justification and think that the hit on individual liberty is not worth the meager benefits that may result from the government's further intrusion into private decisions which we generally talk about as nanny state policies i.e. smoking, seat-belt, trans-fat, sodas. I'm slightly saddened that so many people think this type of government intrusion is a-ok.

[FMCoug]

You asked whether the nanny state ship has sailed. I responded that it hasn't. We don't see these types of laws banning certain foods passing many places, and even when are proposed in liberal strongholds like SF (happy meal banning) the public typically combats it successfully.

You have now offered a justification for the nanny state. I disagree with your justification and think that the hit on individual liberty is not worth the meager benefits that may result from the government's further intrusion into private decisions which we generally talk about as nanny state policies i.e. smoking, seat-belt, trans-fat, sodas. I'm slightly saddened that so many people think this type of government intrusion is a-ok.

I'm all for individual liberty. But in the scenario above, would you advocate just letting the guy's wife and kids starve? If not, then the government has a financial interest in ensuring the guy wears a seat belt.

[RobinFinderson]

You know very well that the counter argument to this is that abortion is taking the life of the innocent unborn child. To say abortion is JUST about the mother is ridiculous. You are smarter than that.

There is no right to attach yourself to another person's body. If you do, without the person's consent, you will be 'aborted.' Trust me on this, you don't want to try it.

I realize I probably sound like I am making light of the issue, but I am not. Even if fetuses are eventually formally recognized as human beings with rights, they should not be extended the 'special right' to physically attach themselves to another person's body without that person's consent.

It sucks that these babies/fetuses have to die because they inadvertently attached themselves to a woman's body without her consent, but it is (and should continue to be) a basic human right that no person should be compelled to have his/her body play host to a different organism without the human's consent.

From a cultural standpoint, we can encourage women to carry babies to term, but from a rights perspective, we should not create a 'special right' for anyone person (consciously or inadvertently) to attach their body to another person without that person's consent.

[Indy Coug]

There is no right to attach yourself to another person's body. If you do, without the person's consent, you will be 'aborted.' Trust me on this, you don't want to try it.

I realize I probably sound like I am making light of the issue, but I am not. Even if fetuses are eventually formally recognized as human beings with rights, they should not be extended the 'special right' to physically attach themselves to another person's body without that person's consent.

It sucks that these babies/fetuses have to die because they inadvertently attached themselves to a woman's body without her consent, but it is (and should continue to be) a basic human right that no person should be compelled to have his/her body play host to a different organism without the human's consent.

From a cultural standpoint, we can encourage women to carry babies to term, but from a rights perspective, we should not create a 'special right' for anyone person (consciously or inadvertently) to attach their body to another person without that person's consent.

I would say that intercourse is implied consent.

[Jacob]

I'm all for individual liberty. But in the scenario above, would you advocate just letting the guy's wife and kids starve? If not, then the government has a financial interest in ensuring the guy wears a seat belt.

That is a huge stretch. I don't accept your premise. It is not a matter of starving widows and children. What a silly argument. Also, I don't care whether the government has a financial interest. It doesn't. But to the extent that tax-payers have an interest in reducing tax dollars to widows and orphans, I don't think that interest outweighs the liberty interest at stake. And I don't think seat-belt laws much affect such an interest.

[Jacob]

I would say that intercourse is implied consent.

No, no, no. The attachment was entirely inadvertent. [/sarcasm]

What an astoundingly ridiculous argument.

[smokymountainrain]

I would say that intercourse is implied consent.

FIFY.

[RobinFinderson]

I would say that intercourse is implied consent.

Even if sex were a contract, it is doubtful (given the typical state of mind of at least one party to the contract), that it would be enforceable.

That said, the consent would be between the woman and the fetus. You can't consent with a fetus before it exists, and it doesn't exist until after an egg has been fertilized. At that point the baby isn't even attached to the woman's uterus (which is why 'the day after' pills work... they prevent uteral attachment). So the sex has happened, the baby exists, but it isn't yet attached to the woman's body. Whether folks like it or not, as a basic human right, the woman should be able to realistically decline consent to having another human being physically attach to her body, regardless of the method by which the baby was attached.

[Indy Coug]

Even if sex were a contract, it is doubtful (given the typical state of mind of at least one party to the contract), that it would be enforceable.

That said, the consent would be between the woman and the fetus. You can't consent with a fetus before it exists, and it doesn't exist until after an egg has been fertilized. At that point the baby isn't even attached to the woman's uterus (which is why 'the day after' pills work... they prevent uteral attachment). So the sex has happened, the baby exists, but it isn't yet attached to the woman's body. Whether folks like it or not, as a basic human right, the woman should be able to realistically decline consent to having another human being physically attach to her body, regardless of the method by which the baby was attached.

Unless the fetus was 18 years old, they couldn't legally enter into a contract with its mother. At least that's what Liar, Liar has led me to believe.