The grand ol Imperial City is currently at it again, now with a warped definition of "pervasive" and "discriminatory".

For the first time, the city is explicitly prohibiting restaurants and bars from refusing alcoholic drink orders to mothers-to-be, with new guidelines that say doing so would represent discrimination under the city’s Human Rights Law.

“While covered entities may attempt to justify certain categorical exclusions based on maternal or fetal safety, using safety as a pretext for discrimination or as a way to reinforce traditional gender norms or stereotypes is unlawful,” the guidance released by the Commission on Human Rights on Friday says.

Here's a little gold nugget from the aspiring hopefuls in that God forsaken city:

“I looked forward to my Friday night margarita during each of my pregnancies, and I think they contributed to a happier, healthier pregnancy for both mom and baby,” wrote one New York Times commenter.

I've been to NYC, visited for about a month of two different occasions. It's great if you're a millionaire with money to blow, it's shit for literally everyone else though. Laws like these only drive home that fact, in about seven years, kids will be forced to go to school and socialize with someone who could have been normal but is now mentally stunted because mommy decided to get shit faced at the bar and they were required to serve her because common sense is dead.

This isn't a new thing for NYC, we all remember Bloomberg wanting to ban large sodas because he thought his people were too stupid to glug down Mt. Dew in moderation. NYC simply doesn't have any sense of what they should be moderating. It has nothing to do with being left or right, it's the simple fact that higher ups in Manhattan have their head so far up their own ass they can't tell what's actually worth regulating.

If you want to make it about politics though, I sure as shit hold no love for their current mayor. Literally using his diversive family as a weapon to use against his opposing candidate "Why don't you have a mixed family :^)?" Yeah, that's a scumbag thing to do no matter what party you're in.

You people are so divided.

HAHA FUCKING LIBTARD AIRHEADS LMAO WE'RE MUCH BETTER THAN THEM BECAUSE OF SOMETHING

HAHAHAAAA FUCKING REDNECK CONSERVITARDS GO FUCK YOUR SISTER WHO IS ACTUALLY A FARM ANIMAL LMAOOOOOO

Can't you just make the thread saying "look at this retarded legislation" instead of generalizing a whole group of people and saying an entire city is trash? Jesus ever since Obama was elected Americans have become so divided if anybody had any balls left there probably would've been another civil war.

I'm attacking the people that do like the legislation, hence the quote I posted from the article. There's clearly sensible people in that city that oppose this, but from what I see coming out of that city, it's an increasing minority because everyone with common sense is jumping ship.

My point here is just the way you're talking about this is just so divisive. Like you're attacking random people that live there who probably dislike the legislation as much as you do.

Well if a barkeep can't refuse a woman because she looks pregnant than he has no right to refuse me service if I look intoxicated.
MY BODY MY RIGHT
FASHIES GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I can understand it from a purely legal standpoint. Drawing comparisons to the abortion argument, it's been deemed that the woman's bodily autonomy takes precedence to an unborn child. Drawing from that same comparison, why should the woman be denied ingesting substances that she wants to if her autonomy is more important than the child? I'm honestly not in support of NYC's law, but can see the autonomy argument being even more of a shitfest when you say "x is allowed but y isn't."

Well there is a very clear distinction between forcing a baby to go through their life with fetal alcohol syndrome and other developmental disorders and not forcing that baby to go through anything. Maybe this is a by-product of mainstream adherence to the notion that non-existence is worse than any living condition.

"Abortion is a woman's right. A fetus is not a person and she should be able to abort it with no legal hindrance because muh autonomy"

"DONT DRINK WHILE PREGNANT U MIGHT HURT DA BABBY!!!!!1!"

Is it a fucking child or not you faggots, pick one

wow what a dumb post lol

Aborting a fetus kills it. It can't be hurt, because it's fucking dead. It's suffering is over. There's nothing to worry about.

Subjecting a fetus to something like FAS doesn't kill it. You're basically guaranteeing your child a shit life.

Something tells me it wouldn't want to be dead if you could ask it

Really? Because if I were given some kind of brochure, prior to my birth, detailing exactly what I'll be experiencing in life--all the discomfort, all the disease, all the people, all the emotions, and all the sensations--I would've been like, "Yeah, no, I think I'll wait to be born in the Perpetual Orgasm Universe instead. Thanks!"

That's just me, though.

Well that's retarded.

the fetus is a part of her body.

Except it isn't.

Quote from: SecondClass on May 15, 2016, 02:10:28 PM

the fetus is a part of her body.

Except it isn't.

Except it is.

Quote from: SecondClass on May 15, 2016, 02:51:26 PM

Quote from: Zen on May 15, 2016, 02:41:19 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on May 15, 2016, 02:10:28 PM

Quote from: Zen on May 15, 2016, 12:15:41 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on May 15, 2016, 11:06:24 AM

Quote from: Zen on May 15, 2016, 05:54:30 AM

I can understand it from a purely legal standpoint. Drawing comparisons to the abortion argument, it's been deemed that the woman's bodily autonomy takes precedence to an unborn child. Drawing from that same comparison, why should the woman be denied ingesting substances that she wants to if her autonomy is more important than the child? I'm honestly not in support of NYC's law, but can see the autonomy argument being even more of a shitfest when you say "x is allowed but y isn't."

Well there is a very clear distinction between forcing a baby to go through their life with fetal alcohol syndrome and other developmental disorders and not forcing that baby to go through anything. Maybe this is a by-product of mainstream adherence to the notion that non-existence is worse than any living condition.

imo, the end result of what happens to the fetus doesn't count as a variable because the argument is that a woman's autonomy should not be compromised because she is pregnant. Abortion deals with the woman having the autonomy to do with her body that surgery. Ingesting drugs is also an argument from autonomy. If the woman's bodily autonomy is more important than a fetus up to a certain point of development, there shouldn't be all this situational cherrypicking, because that just counters their original claim.

A woman, and anyone in the world, has complete bodily autonomy unless it affects other people. An abortion only affects the woman, because the fetus is a part of her body. Drinking alcohol and doing drugs affects the unborn child because you're not destroying the fetus by doing so. You're still letting it develop and grow into a human, but with significant physical and mental birth defects. That's the difference. I didn't think this needed explaining, but bodily autonomy only applies to affecting your body.

You just said it yourself, at the time of pregnancy the fetus is part of her body. Ergo, drinking while pregnant means she is only affecting herself at the time. This whole applying person hood to the fetus in one case but not the other is just silly. Shit man, I'm pro choice but this shit is just another one of the hypocrisies I hate about the whole thing.

And a human isn't part of her body. If there was an abortion procedure that hurt the fetus but didn't kill it, that would be no different. When the injury happens, it's happening to the woman's fetus, but long-term, it's an injury to the woman's child. An abortion is only an injury to the woman's fetus, because the child never happens.

This whole arguing "what ifs" about the child after birth is just the same shit the pro-lifers pull though. This whole shit about the child's future is irreverent because at the time of pregnancy, the only one affected is the mother because we don't provide the same human rights to a fetus. The fetus is part of the mother as far as we are concerned. Like Door said, we need to stop cherrypicking and decide whether the same human rights are given to fetuses or not. Anyhow, I got to go, so I won't be able to respond.

There's no cherrypicking, you're literally comparing apples to oranges. It's the difference between smashing a fertilized chicken egg and modifying the egg so the baby chicken is born a monstrosity. You're focusing on the now. Right now, the fetus is a part of the woman's body. Later, it won't be. So you can either do no damage to the fetus, or only damage the fetus. Drinking while pregnant doesn't only damage the fetus, an abortion does.

This really isn't hard.

Pro-lifers would argue you're not only harming the fetus but the potential life they could have had if they weren't aborted.

Which is nebulous as all fuck, whereas the consumption of alcohol is a direct harm. There is no "potentiality" there--if you drink while pregnant, you ARE harming your unborn child.

A fetus may not be considered human yet, but if you're going to actually carry it instead of aborting it, you should take good care of it, because you know, it will be born at some point. It should be treated differently because of the different outcomes. If you're aborting it, fair game. If you're going to carry it, then take care of it. Because otherwise you'll end up screwing up a child's life when it is born