Friday, February 02, 2007

The Beak and the Farmer on personal responsability

The fact that something is legal does not mean it is advisable. I want to place each and everyone of you in the role of a small town judge. You see the same people come in and out of your courtroom weekly, monthly year after year. A woman who has been in your court several times for drunk and disorderly is drunk again, but this time she is pregnant.

This type of episode is not far fetched and does happen. You can give the woman her regular fine. You can send her to jail for a few days as a repeat offender. You can throw the book at her for endangering the welfare of a child.

The correct answer is probably the last one. Yet if any judge did do that they would be killed in the local media and maybe thrown off the bench. Drinking while pregnant is a very dangerous and stupid thing to do, but legal. The law is not in a position of enforcing common sense or sanity.

I used to joke about saftey harnesses and never wear one. I was banned from the the most dangerous work for other reasons. Top management's rationale was you are a senior manager and you are not paid to perform that duty, send a worker. One of the reasons I could go up unharnessed is I never lost my fear. The manager who replaced me when I was promoted had no such fear and did this dangerous work smoking and joking with people on the ground. I always reminded him you are not me and take this more seriously. I was saddened to learn shortly after I left the man fell, refused medical attention and died in his sleep. His family is suing the company, but his own negligence was a factor. I am somewhat guilty of being a poor role model.

The reality is I never let one of my workers go up unharnessed. If I gave the orders
their fate was my responsabilty. I did get into a discussion of this with an OSHA worker. He insisted on sending me to a nearby hospital to see workers that fell. My being banned from this type of duty made the point moot, but it was driven home.

We all have this image that we are better than the next guy, but in reality we are all human. Seat belts and safety devices are there for a reason and should be used.
We are not supermen and sometimes all of us need others to adjust their thinking.

Beamish in 08


The Merry Widow said...

Common sense has been lost on this country, so many have no clue. My next door neighbors are an example, sue someone else for their lack of sense and supervision. I'm just afraid that 1 of their sons will be kisnapped by a pedophile or run over by a speeding car, driven by one of the speeding fools from down the street! It is a residential area with a posted speed of 20 mph, but they go 70+ down the road! What that would do to a 60 lb. child doesn't bear thinking of!
Good morning, G*D bless and Maranatha!


Elmer's Brother said...

do they not punish women who have crack babies?

beakerkin said...

This is rarely done. Judges who do this face criticism fromm the far left and media

The Merry Widow said...

Institutionalized foolishness, that way people "have" to depend upon the government elites to do their thinking for them!


Janice said...

I actually (yes its true) completly agree with you on this point.

beakerkin said...

I have sunk low on the food chain.
Where is the Duck supporting the right of pregnant women to endanger the lives of their kids?

Mr. Ducky said...

I don't support anything of the kind, of course.

It's questionable how much success a state would have trying to get her into treatment, but I'm willing to let a judge have some discretion on the matter.

I wonder why merry widow doesn't ask the local gendarmes to hang out in the cruiser on her street if it's that bad.

beakerkin said...


Lets see if I can understand your logic. You do support social deviancy in most cases. Have we found the one form of social deivincy even you won't support.

Mr. Ducky said...

Beak, you have apparently mistaken me for a Libertarian.

That would be similar to mistaking you for a grammarian.

beakerkin said...

Yes your Stalinistic tendencies would counter that mistake. There is alot more to being a Liberterian than drug legalization.

Ducky lets go through this again. Communists preach revolutionary defeatism in the USA. Therefore you should be in favor of all forms of Social deviancy from having children out of wedlock to drug use.

Please remind the faithful at your self criticism session.

Brooke said...

I've got neighbors like the ones TMW mentions.

Their kids run unsupervised, leave trash all around the their neighbors yards, and the parents could care less.

They even let their two-year old run down the middle of the street, clad only in a diaper last summer.

Yet, do we ever do anything to these kinds of people. Nope.

Always On Watch Two said...

You can give the woman her regular fine. You can send her to jail for a few days as a repeat offender. You can throw the book at her for endangering the welfare of a child.

Has anyone here ever read The Broken Cord? The author of that book adopted a Navajo baby who had fetal alcohol syndrome. Very sad story.

I recall one particular instance from the book. The adopted child had grown to adulthood, and he and his father were eating a meal together. When the father told his son, "Put some salt on your egg," the young man grabbed the salt shaker and set it on top of the egg. Just how is such an individual going to manage in society?

On some Navajo reservations, drinking women are locked up for the term of their pregnancy in order to cope with the epidemic of children with fetal alcohol syndrom. Sure, once the women are released, they head back to the bottle. But some children have been saved!

My cousin has adopted five babies with fetal alcohol effect--a lesser affliction. She has managed to rear all but one successfully. The one "failure" is on the streets.

The neurological damage inflicted upon the baby by an alcoholic mother is terrible. I've encountered a few of these damaged children in my teaching career.

Shaun said...

Drinking while pregnant is definitely a case where ones rights MUST be tempered by one's responsibilities. I would rather not legislate against arrant stupidity if possible but in general there seems to be no choice.

Elmer's Brother said...

duhkky don't worry I won't mistake you for a worship at the altar of global warming hysteria you soy eatin salad shootin watermelon

Elmer's Brother said...

duhkkky the only cruising I thought was going on was when you went to the Promise Keepers website looking of Ted Haggard

beakerkin said...

Shaun welcome to the blog.

This seems to be a case where even
people who are on the left seem to agree.I hope if and when the next time a judge jails a pregnant woman for being drunk that many of you will stand with the side of common sense.

American Crusader said...

Using cocaine is illegal and women who are pregnant and use cocaine can be prosecuted. If the baby is born with drugs or alcohol in its system, the mother can be prosecuted for child endangerment. There is also a growing notion referred to as "fetal rights": the notion that unborn babies deserve the same legal protections as children.
At least 17 states have enacted civil laws making it possible for authorities to take away the children of pregnant women who test positive for drugs.

beakerkin said...

I do not know if we have reached the stage as a society if we are ready to take away kids. This may be the prudent thing to do, but it has some dreadful overtones.

Elmer's Brother said...

why beak....

Scott Peterson was tried for TWO murders not one.

beakerkin said...

This is 100% true, but severing a maternal bond is a taboo. The maternal bond is considered sacrosanct by some even when the mother is flawed.

Removing children from parents was something Commies, Nazis and Jihadis frequently did. This may be the wisest choice with mothers and fathers who are out of control.
It is a policy I agree with despite its overtones. However, I do not think America as a country
is ready for this.

Newborns can be placed quickly. What do we do with all the pre teens? Teens can fend for themselves somewhat and are less vulnerable.

Elmer's Brother said...

I meant if you can charge a man with murder of his unborn child why can you not charge a woman for child endangerment

beakerkin said...


I agree that charging women under these circumstances is the right thing to do. I am uncertain if we as a nation have the onions to do this. Maybe smaller towns can get away with common sense. I think the ACLU would jump on this in a major city.

The Merry Widow said...

When I was working at the children's shelter, we had one boy come in with fetal-alcohol-syndrome. His mother is a local prostitute who told a judge that as soon as she was released from prison she would go right back to using alcohol and drugs! She didn't care, and I have friends who raised a boy they adopted from a drug addicted mother. He will be dependent all his life, even though they have done miracles with him.
As a mother I am very disturbed, both of my pregnancies, I gave up anything that "might" cause a problem because my baby was more important than my wants!
As for these women, I'm almost at the point of saying tie their tubes...but that is frustration speaking!


sonia said...

This is a good example of how a totalitarian mindset can sneak its way into human consciousness. It’s a slippery slope. And it doesn’t work the way most people think. It’s not that once a pregnant alcoholic woman can be punished, it is only a little step towards punishing all alcoholics, and later all jaywalkers. The problem lies elsewhere. Once you arrest one pregnant alcoholic woman, you have to arrest them all. You have to find them. You have to punish those who shelter those fugitives. You have to encourage people to send anonymous letters revealing where those pregnant alcoholic women are hiding. You have to denounce politicians who vote against increasing the funding for government agencies devoted to finding and punishing those women. You have to convince people to support you in this crusade. You need to make commercials, anti-pregnant-alcoholic-women videos, etc. etc.

Fortunately, on drugs, the government doesn’t actually enforce 99% of its own laws. Why ? Because in order to actually enforce it effectively, United States would have to become another North Korea. Fortunately, nobody wants to go that way. But as result, we get the worst of both worlds: illegal drugs (with all its negative consequences) and huge drug consumption (because this interdiction isn’t really effectively enforced).

beakerkin said...


The Farmer agrees with you for the same reasons.


The notion that we can catch all of the criminals is folly. Is this a crime we should take more seriously? In my opinion absolutely
as the consequences are too real. I would also suspend the license of a bar tender if he knowingly served alcohol to a pregnant woman.

However, America as a country is not ready for this yet.

Elmer's Brother said...

yeah sure sonia that's what we meant (rolls eyes) should Scott Peterson have been tried for two murders or not?

Elmer's Brother said...

we're not talking some kind of pregnant police nazi state I'm talking about equal application of the law....if Scott Peterson can be tried for murder as have others for the death of an unborn why can't a mother be held to the same standard?

beakerkin said...


I agree with you that it is 100% the appropriate thing to do. Yet I am not certain if America is ready to do this. The mother child bond is sacred to most.

The far left hold abortion to be sacred as the ultimate example of that sacred right. If this were to be upheld the far left would view this as encroachment on their most sacred rite.

jams o donnell said...

You are right Beakerkin, the idea that we can catch every criminal is folly.

Education on drinking during pregnancy is essential but it will fall on some deaf ears. What then? It isn't something to do lightly but sacntions against bars or prosecutions are necessary.

The Merry Widow said...

But the really funny thing is, the number of abortion clinics have gone down since Roe v Wade. Want to know why?
2 reasons;
doctors and nurses no longer are going into that particular field and secondly, fewer young women are getting abortions! The younger generation is repulsed by it! Want to know why? One is definite the other is surmise; abstinance teaching works! secondly, I believe that many of the young people today know that a parent was involved with an abortion AND THEY FIGURED IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THEM ABORTED! They aren't stupid, they know that the fact that they are here at all could be a fluke, and they could have been the one murdered!


beakerkin said...


I do not understand some of the far left on this one. Drinking while pregnant is very dangerous.
Yes it is currently legal, but imprudent or loopy.

The long term consequences in this case outweigh the liberty. Yet these are issues small town cops and judges deal with every day.

beakerkin said...


You are 100% right , as a prochoice person I am peved at many of those who agree with me. Abortion is not a sacred sancrosanct right and is not the be all end all of Western Civilization. It is a repugnant choice that is made and I will never place my values on others.

The Merry Widow said...

Beaker- I can honestly see it as useful for the life of the mother, rape or a child. But that is less than 1% of all abortions. It's a (excuse my fwench)crappe form of birth control! And pedophiles and rapists should be strung up in the public square! And mothers who don't care enough about their child...flogging is good.


Purple Avenger said...

I always belt in and do all the sissy safety stuff. I've also walked off a couple of jobs because of unsafe conditions and dangerous tools/ladders.

I just tell'em - I'm not the guy for this job, pack my gear and head for the exit.

Anonymous said...

What she (tmw) said! Either we've got a society in which we have a safety-net and NO personal responsibility and society pays the consequences (and where we need laws to enforce responsible behavior) OR we choose to live w/o a safety-net and the CONSEQUENCES of irresponsibility are borne by the irresponsible themselves (Let the mother have to raise a child w/fetal alchohol syndrome w/o help)... and NO "human" laws are needed to enforce responsible conduct.

Always On Watch Two said...

In this time of reliable birth control, why are there so many abortions of convenience?

beakerkin said...


I agree with you.


Great to see you but most will work without safety equipment. I was a dreadful role model.


Those who would raise the fetal alcohol kids would be more apt to abuse them further. I do not like the idea of removing children from mothers but sometimes it is waranted.

kuhnkat said...

The LEFTARDS tied our hands with the Roe V Wade decision. For a quick recap, it said NOTHING about abortion directly. It created a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY that was not in evidence in the actual Constitution, Amendments or anywhere else. Through this created Right to Privacy, the society can not take action based information it has no RIGHT to have. (of course, the RIGHTS of the BABY were NEVER addressed)

If there is no overriding societal interest in preventing the outright MURDER of babies for convenience, how can we interfere just because the woman is ONLY causing permanent DAMAGE to her child?? What right do we have to even acknowledge that the woman is even pregnant and may very weill deliver a living child that will be a problem to itself and the rest of the society???

If the woman was forcing alcohol on a DELIVERED child the law would be clear. The reasonable decision to extend the rights of a HUMAN BEING to the CHILD in the WOMB is long overdue!!!!

kuhnkat said...


I agree with your fact and surmise. I will offer a third.

With Sonograms, Ultrasound and other SCIENTIFIC evidence of how little difference there is between an undelivered baby and a delivered one, it is becoming painfully obvious to EVERYONE that we are murdering HEALTHY HUMANS with the millions of abortions!!!

Many abortionists have also LEFT the field having been overcome by their personal experience of MURDERING HUMANS, not foetuses, not GROWTHS, not ACCIDENTS, HUMANS!!!

Here are the statistics:

Here is an interesting article on the Right to Privacy and Roe V Wade:

There was actually an activist precedent on the privacy issue that partially supported what was done in Roe V Wade.