I'll tell you when I've read it. As a general approach, I'll support it if it asserts the rights of a living child but not if it relies entirely upon abstract rights for an unborn foetus. But until it's published and we can all think it through that's a bit previous.
I have no god.G-d hates thread cops.
she has been harmed.I sincerely hope she will grow up to have rights to bodily autonomy too, and her rights won't have been eroded by then.
Of course the child has rights though, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. She didn't have rights before she was a person though.
Do you not think women already know that stuff?
Health and welfare services obviously. It seems rather odd to believe that only the criminal justice system can help.Who or what protects the child if not the law?
I don't see any reason why she shouldn't put her case. Do you?I refer you back to the case in that documentary i posted about......following your logic that child would have a case to say her mother willfully did harm......would she have a case to sue then ?
If I have a medical condition, and the doctor warns me that if I have a baby now it has a much higher chance of congenital abnormalities, and I wilfully get pregnant anyway - if my baby is born with a disability, should the full force of the law be thrown at me?she has been harmed.
is she merely collateral damage because that harm occurred before you think she acquired some rights?
the full force of the law should be thrown at anyone who harms her after a particular point in time but someone who harms her before that point is ok?
she has been harmed.
is she merely collateral damage because that harm occurred before you think she acquired some rights?
the full force of the law should be thrown at anyone who harms her after a particular point in time but someone who harms her before that point is ok?
Women already get a huge amount of advice during pregnancy.I don't think all women do, no. There are young mothers out there who don't know how to cope or treat themselves.
We had extreme cases of it in the early 80s in Ireland - which led to tragedies.
I don't see any reason why she shouldn't put her case. Do you?
I also don't know whether she'd win, but that would be based on the facts as well as the ethics of the situation.
I don't doubt that the mother needs care but she cannot be supported in harming the child. In any other circumstances if an adult causes a child deliberate harm they are condemned with little sympathy, whether or not they also need care and support for their own addiction.Don't you bloody dare! Sympathy and care are not zero sum games. Both mother and daughter are damaged. Both mother and daughter need care and support.
Louis MacNeice
so her addiction absolves her from responsibility for her actions? You appear to be wandering close to saying she is not capable of making rational decisions, that her mental health is in question. Is that really your position? because if it is, does society at large not have a duty to make decisions int he interest of the child she will bear?
I keep coming back to the fact that the child has rights. The child has been harmed yet it appears that there is more sympathy towards the person who caused the harm than there is to the (entirely innocent and utterly defenceless) victim. Who or what protects the child if not the law?
It's bollocks isn't it. As if the moment someone gets pregnant everything they are and face magically falls away and they are solely reduced to the dividing cells in their womb...
Health & welfare services, including abortion, are available, although doubtless overstretched. Most women behave responsibly during pregnancy (as the woman in question did during her own first pregnancy) and take advantage of the services provided for them. This is a matter of individuals who behave willfully (or wantonly) in a way that harms someone who cannot defend themselves. One of the purposes of the law is to protect the weak against the strong.Health and welfare services obviously. It seems rather odd to believe that only the criminal justice system can help.
Where the fuck have you got this 'causes a child deliberate ham' crap from. For all you know she was desperate not to cause the child harm, but did so anyway, and she probably feels very guilty about it. Guilty enough to want that next drink, perhaps.I don't doubt that the mother needs care but she cannot be supported in harming the child. In any other circumstances if an adult causes a child deliberate harm they are condemned with little sympathy, whether or not they also need care and support for their own addiction.
she has been harmed.
is she merely collateral damage because that harm occurred before you think she acquired some rights?
the full force of the law should be thrown at anyone who harms her after a particular point in time but someone who harms her before that point is ok?
I don't doubt that the mother needs care but she cannot be supported in harming the child. In any other circumstances if an adult causes a child deliberate harm they are condemned with little sympathy, whether or not they also need care and support for their own addiction.
the slippery slope between the deliberate harm I've been talking about and the possible risk you want to discuss? No.
I
Where would it end up? Spell it out in such a way that the rights, duties and responsibilities of the born child are balanced against those of adults involved in causing harm to the child.And seriously can you not see where logically this would end up if such a thing was accepted in law ?
Where would it end up? Spell it out in such a way that the rights, duties and responsibilities of the born child are balanced against those of adults involved in causing harm to the child.
Health & welfare services, including abortion, are available, although doubtless overstretched. Most women behave responsibly during pregnancy (as the woman in question did during her own first pregnancy) and take advantage of the services provided for them. This is a matter of individuals who behave willfully (or wantonly) in a way that harms someone who cannot defend themselves. One of the purposes of the law is to protect the weak against the strong.
Where would it end up? Spell it out in such a way that the rights, duties and responsibilities of the born child are balanced against those of adults involved in causing harm to the child.
An alcohol addicted mother and her new born daughter are both weak.
The law should not be used to put them in competition with each other; pitting the damaged against each other to save the local authority a few pounds.
Louis MacNeice
'Wilful'
''Wanton'
This is a matter of individuals who behave willfully (or wantonly) in a way that harms someone who cannot defend themselves.
If I have a medical condition, and the doctor warns me that if I have a baby now it has a much higher chance of congenital abnormalities, and I wilfully get pregnant anyway - if my baby is born with a disability, should the full force of the law be thrown at me?Health & welfare services, including abortion, are available, although doubtless overstretched. Most women behave responsibly during pregnancy (as the woman in question did during her own first pregnancy) and take advantage of the services provided for them. This is a matter of individuals who behave willfully (or wantonly) in a way that harms someone who cannot defend themselves. One of the purposes of the law is to protect the weak against the strong.
You clearly don't believe in addiction. Are you Peter Hitchens?