Criminalising Pregnant Mothers who Drink

[mentalchik]

 

[Louis MacNeice]

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.

The council's solicitor has stated that he is seeking to prove that the mother poisoned the foetus; you can read that now.

Louis MacNeice

 

[killer b]

G-d hates thread cops.

I have no god.

 

[newbie]

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.

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?

 

[krtek a houby]

Do you not think women already know that stuff?

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.

 

[maomao]

Who or what protects the child if not the law?

Health and welfare services obviously. It seems rather odd to believe that only the criminal justice system can help.

To use an analogy from a closely related issue. Personally, I hate abortion, I really wish it wouldn't happen but I'd still describe myself as pro-choice. Not just because I think the alternatives (back street abortion, children born into families that can't cope with them) are worse but because I think the way to have the least possible abortions is education, free access to contraception and a more even distribution of wealth through society. All 3 of those would have been more use in this case than prosecuting the mother as a criminal after the fact.

 

[newbie]

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 ?

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.

 

[Thora]

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?

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?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

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?

The full force of the law should be thrown at an alcohol addicted mother because that will benefit her daughter how exactly?

And just so we're clear on this at what point do you think rights are acquired by an individual?


Louis MacNeice

 

[Thora]

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.

Women already get a huge amount of advice during pregnancy.

 

[mentalchik]

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.

And seriously can you not see where logically this would end up if such a thing was accepted in law ?

 

[newbie]

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

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.

 

[Blagsta]

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?

Her ability to make choices would be affected by addiction and mental health issues, yes.

You're very black and white about this. Reality is much more complex.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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...

...incubators for the chattels of the menz.

 

[newbie]

Health and welfare services obviously. It seems rather odd to believe that only the criminal justice system can help.

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.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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.

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.

There are two issues here, imo.

First, the idea that this is in some way criminal behaviour, deliberate criminal action with a criminal mens rea. Not shown here.

Second, there is the broader point of a woman's right bodily autonomy, which will clearly be breached if this action is successful. I'm not keen on absolutes when it comes to rights - life's more complex than that - but a person's bodily autonomy has to have a very very strong presumption in favour of it, imo. And in any case, criminalising behaviour that may cause damage to a foetus is utterly the wrong way to go about tackling this - how many babies born with damage caused by addiction had that damage inflicted on them on purpose? I would suggest virtually none.

 

[Blagsta]

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?

You debate like a teenager.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

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 is not being supported in harming her child; that is a really pretty odious spin to put on what is being talked about.

She needed/needs support with coping with her addiction (and its causes).

Also just slipping in the word deliberate again without engaging with the issues around addiction does you no credit. And finally don't project your lack of sympathy onto the rest of us.


Louis MacNeice

 

[toggle]

the slippery slope between the deliberate harm I've been talking about and the possible risk you want to discuss? No.

I

you haven't been talking about a proven case of deliberate harm. your assertions do not amount to proof.

 

[newbie]

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.

 

[toggle]

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.

read some of the links i've put on this thread.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

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.

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

 

[mentalchik]

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.

Oh please don't be so deliberately disingenuous........you know very well what i'm getting at.............the slippery slope of women being treated like incubators out of fear of prosecution for taking "wanton risks" whilst pregnant.............

 

[toggle]

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

a woman whose problems with alcohol began when she was a child. if we deem it the responsibility of local authorities to protect children from harm and provide them with support and care, perhaps they should begin by looking at the ways in which they failed to support the mother during her childhood.

 

[weepiper]

'Wilful'
''Wanton'

 

[toggle]

'Wilful'
''Wanton'

next up - strumpet

 

[maomao]

This is a matter of individuals who behave willfully (or wantonly) in a way that harms someone who cannot defend themselves.

You clearly don't believe in addiction. Are you Peter Hitchens?

 

[Blagsta]

I currently have someone on my caseload who is a dependent drinker and is possibly pregnant. She is not currently engaging with us. How do you think criminalising her will help?

 

[Thora]

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.

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?

 

[8ball]

You clearly don't believe in addiction. Are you Peter Hitchens?

That's who I was thinking of...