When to intervene...

[Kosher Ham]

I love the show.

I would not have done anything about it. It is her child, her life, and her business.

[joeknows]

If there's one thing that this country has taught me it's that no good deed ever goes unpunished.

And one of the best ways to set yourself up to be taken advantage of, one of the best ways to find yourself sued into the poorhouse or worse is to help.

I used to be a very helpful person. But having been shown how in the US that is a weakness to be exploited, what I've decided is if she's stupid enough to be in a bar drinking while she's pregnant, she's definitely stupid enough to make my life hell for trying to help.

My rule: say it once if I say anything at all.. Hey lady, you shouldn't be in here in that condition. Hey Bartender, you shouldn't serve her. If they ignore it, screw 'em.

It has nothing to do with my stance on abortion.

~Bang

agreed.... its not my woman or my kid.... not my problem. i have enough problems without getting involved in someone elses stupidity.

[rictus58]

If someone is already drunk, isn't is the responsibility of the bartender to stop serving them? Aren't there liability issues there for the establishment?

[Kosher Ham]

They changed that law here a few years ago.

The establishment can use judgement and has the right to not serve them, but they are not held liable. Most will stop serving them because they do not want the person injured in their establishment.

[Skin'Em84]

We did a character development training at work once, and they had a show like this.

One of the situations involved somebody putting a roofie in a girls drink. It's amazing how few people said something; esp when the girl passed out.

[Seabee1973]

if i seen someone hit a kid i would definatly step in but if it was a spank or slap o n the wrist for punishmnet then no im not

My personal beliefs are women shouldnt smoke and drink at all during pregnancy but im not going to say anything unless she is Hammered.

[twa]

I would say something first to the bartender as well as her(after a couple drinks) even though it is likely useless.

Pro-life and believe strongly in personal responsibility

agree with seabee on hitting a child,but wonder how many that would act to stop the beating of a child will say abortion is simply personal choice?

[Zguy28]

Yes, I absolutely would try to intervene. It's child abuse and I would say something to that effect to both her and whoever she's with and the bartender. I would also tell her about fetal alcohol syndrome and potential legal/child protective services ramifications of this type of behavior. If she, or anyone she was with gave me crap, knowing myself, I would likely tell her she is a piece of **** and a horrible human being and I hoped her child would be taken away from her eventually for his/her own good. Then I would leave because there is no way I would be able to eat dinner and watch that.

And no, this isn't really consistent with my political views on abortion.

The abortion question was added because I was curious how many people would be consistent or be hypocrits. If you support abortion, then you should have no problem with what she is doing since its not a human being in her womb. If you are pro-life, you should have a BIG problem with what she is doing since you believe it is harming another human being. For the pro-life folks, what she is doing is no different than poisoning somebody's water supply.

[twa]

In the abortion right supporters defense,most do not support abortion at that late a term

It is not black/white

I think a better question would be would you serve a pregnant woman a drink in your home and if so how many?

I could go one drink.

[Kosher Ham]

Zguy28, I dont support abortion. I support women's rights.

I wonder if you would support an abortion in the drinking scenario if it was within the current legal time frame though.

[Pick6]

The OP asked if you are pro-life or pro-choice. I am pro-choice, because I think every woman should have that right and make the decision based on their views. Who am I to say anything? It doesn't mean I am okay with abortion, but I can't tell other people how to live their lives. To that point I think if someone is beating their child then it should be stopped, pro-life or pro-choice. I think some people get confused on the debated about abortion, their is a difference between someone's rights and someone's beliefs.

[Zguy28]

Zguy28, I dont support abortion. I support women's rights.

I see how you draw a distinction, even though I reject it. Regardless, the distinction is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

I wonder if you would support an abortion in the drinking scenario if it was within the current legal time frame though.

I don't support abortion at all. I think everyone on here who knows me knows that.

[aREDSKIN]

Yes, I absolutely would try to intervene. It's child abuse and I would say something to that effect to both her and whoever she's with and the bartender. I would also tell her about fetal alcohol syndrome and potential legal/child protective services ramifications of this type of behavior. If she, or anyone she was with gave me crap, knowing myself, I would likely tell her she is a piece of **** and a horrible human being and I hoped her child would be taken away from her eventually for his/her own good. Then I would leave because there is no way I would be able to eat dinner and watch that.

And no, this isn't really consistent with my political views on abortion.

Thanks for you honesty and if I can politely ask how do you reconcile the two??

[AsburySkinsFan]

If you are pro-life, you should have a BIG problem with what she is doing since you believe it is harming another human being. For the pro-life folks, what she is doing is no different than poisoning somebody's water supply.

You're right, and it does bother me, but am I going to confront a drunk about it....no.

BTW, the "harming of another human being" thing apparently only applies when the other person is unborn, because I feel the same way when I see civilians die in war and they are accounted as collateral damage, and yet that seems to be glossed over by many "pro-lifers".

[elkabong82]

I'd say something, but I wouldn't go as far as to try and physically stop her.

I've seen pregnant women smoking, for example, and said something each time.

[Zguy28]

You're right, and it does bother me, but am I going to confront a drunk about it....no.

BTW, the "harming of another human being" thing apparently only applies when the other person is unborn, because I feel the same way when I see civilians die in war and they are accounted as collateral damage, and yet that seems to be glossed over by many "pro-lifers".

Not by me. It means just as much whether they are an unborn baby or an innocent bystander. However, its not an entirely valid comparison unless you are in a direct position to intervene and prevent "collateral damage" to civilians in a war.

[Special K]

The abortion question was added because I was curious how many people would be consistent or be hypocrits. If you support abortion, then you should have no problem with what she is doing since its not a human being in her womb. If you are pro-life, you should have a BIG problem with what she is doing since you believe it is harming another human being. For the pro-life folks, what she is doing is no different than poisoning somebody's water supply.

It is a poorly worded question and logically clouded distinction you are making.

Not trying to be snide here...but you did call me a hypocrite ...but the longer I live, the more I realize that the people with such strong stances on abortion, people who like to tie in the abortion debate into everything, etc., haven't worked a whole lot in women's health... Just an observation.

Thanks for you honesty and if I can politely ask how do you reconcile the two??

No problem, if nothing else, I will always give my honest opinion on an issue I feel like I know a little bit about.

I have a political stance on abortion and a personal stance on abortion. My political stance is that the government, for the most part, should stay the hell out of decisions made between a patient and their health care provider, particularly in the early stages of pregnancy. I think a government ban on abortion would be very dangerous to women's health and set health care progress back decades.

[twa]

You're right, and it does bother me, but am I going to confront a drunk about it....no.

BTW, the "harming of another human being" thing apparently only applies when the other person is unborn, because I feel the same way when I see civilians die in war and they are accounted as collateral damage, and yet that seems to be glossed over by many "pro-lifers".

A critical distinction there is the targeting...there is no doubt about who the target is in abortion.

Targeting civilians is a war crime,whereas targeting a fetus is a Right?...not logical,nor humane.

I agree to Keast's reasoning,BUT feel the govt nor physicians should be involved in murder.(anymore than we countenance the targeted killing of civilians by our military)

In cases of rape or clear risk to the mother there are of course room for compromise

[aREDSKIN]

It is a poorly worded question and logically clouded distinction you are making.

Not trying to be snide here...but you did call me a hypocrite ...but the longer I live, the more I realize that the people with such strong stances on abortion, people who like to tie in the abortion debate into everything, etc., haven't worked a whole lot in women's health... Just an observation.

No problem, if nothing else, I will always give my honest opinion on an issue I feel like I know a little bit about.

I have a political stance on abortion and a personal stance on abortion. My political stance is that the government, for the most part, should stay the hell out of decisions made between a patient and their health care provider, particularly in the early stages of pregnancy. I think a government ban on abortion would be very dangerous to women's health and set health care progress back decades.

Thanks for the response. But I'm still a bit perplexed on your statement that you don't want gov't interference in womens health issues but yet your response as to how you'd react to the women if you saw her drinking is a total 180 from that. She'd be within her right to do whatever with that fetus since it's her body and the gov't say it's ok. Am I missing something?? I'm not in any way trying to fault or bash you I'm just trying to understand that point of view.

[Special K]

I agree to Keast's reasoning,BUT feel the govt nor physicians should be involved in murder.(anymore than we countenance the targeted killing of civilians by our military)

In cases of rape or clear risk to the mother there are of course room for compromise

That's a much fairer argument in my opinion. And I agree with you to some extent on a personal level.

Having worked with some women who actually have had abortions and worked with them during the time they were making that decision, I can absolutely say it's not as black and white of an issue the religious right make it out to be. One thing that really annoys me is when an extremely complex issue is marginalized into a yes/no/black/white issue and entire political movements are founded on relative ignorance of the complexity of the issue.

There are many women out there who don't undergo an abortion procedure simply because they want to use it as their birth control of choice. While I have my own personal feelings about abortion, I am very afraid of the repercussions on women's health if the government were to step in and implement an outright ban on abortion procedures. I understand the third trimester ban and agree with it, but it's truly too much of a gray area prior to the viability of the baby for me to take a hardline stance and support the government taking one as well.

---------- Post added December-17th-2010 at 02:07 PM ----------

Thanks for the response. But I'm still a bit perplexed on your statement that you don't want gov't interference in womens health issues but yet your response as to how you'd react to the women if you saw her drinking is a total 180 from that. She'd be within her right to do whatever with that fetus since it's her body and the gov't say it's ok. Am I missing something?? I'm not in any way trying to fault or bash you I'm just trying to understand that point of view.

You're not missing something, I am just not elaborating clearly enough.

I believe I said I don't want government interfering in the beginning stages of pregnancy. In that stage, there is significant gray area to the point that I don't think someone should take a hardline stance one way or another, particularly the government. However, once the baby becomes viable (which would be in the case of a third trimester woman drinking heavily), I do feel the baby should be protected (which is why I supported the ban on third trimester abortions).

[twa]

I disagree with your viable point,I am somewhat open to the first 14 days or so(and am OK with the morning after pill ect,mainly in that it is solely a individuals action)

After that the baby is clearly a distinct human individual and deserves society's consideration of it's rights imo

[Vilandil Tasardur]

I support telling the woman to shove it. I am also pro choice. There is NO conflict of hypocrisy and let me explain why that is the case (for me personally.)

As Keest has said, I support a woman's right to abortion within the early stages, but agree with the third trimester ban. Thus, this woman drinking does not give herself the same "rights" as a woman in the early stages of pregnancy.

But it is more than that. I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I believe in a woman's right to make her own decision, but would still never support an abortion as an option for me and my girlfriend personally. If my girlfriend got pregnant, I would counsel her against having an abortion. However, I do not believe abortion should be illegal; I support y girlfriends right to do what she would want. Does that make sense? I wouldn't want someone I know having an abortion, but I wouldn't want to take the right away from them if they chose it.

For that reason, I would personally be against this woman drinking. I may believe she has a right to do what she wants, but I would still be personally against her choice. Therefore, on a personal level, I would be happy if someone said something to her.

I personally would never accept welfare, but I support people's right to do so. It's that subtle difference that makes this not hypocritical in my mind. I hope that made sense.

[AsburySkinsFan]

However, its not an entirely valid comparison unless you are in a direct position to intervene and prevent "collateral damage" to civilians in a war.

And yet we are in just such a position, the sad part is though that protesting our politicians and the wars is likely to do about as much good as confronting some drunk at a bar.

---------- Post added December-17th-2010 at 09:02 PM ----------

A critical distinction there is the targeting...there is no doubt about who the target is in abortion.

Targeting civilians is a war crime,whereas targeting a fetus is a Right?...not logical,nor humane.

Yet the original question was not about abortion but about a woman drinking at a bar, as such is the unborn baby the target of the drinking? No, it's a bystander.

[Chachie]

Yet the original question was not about abortion but about a woman drinking at a bar, as such is the unborn baby the target of the drinking? No, it's a bystander.

How so?

[AsburySkinsFan]

How so?

How is the baby a bystander? Well, unless you're going to make the argument that the pregnant woman is drinking with the intent of bringing harm to her unborn baby than it's not a target, but instead it's the collateral damage of her desire to get drunk.