Criminalising Pregnant Mothers who Drink

[ViolentPanda]

jesus christ spare me

He'd like to, but at the moment he's very busy making sure that Mary Magdalene doesn't get even a sip of the good stuff he made in Cana, what with her being up the stick with his first-born.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm talking about a child. She's 6. She has a life expectancy of 81. She has been harmed by an adult.

Why aren't you talking about her?

This "life expectancy" you keep gobbing on about, that's for the average healthy person. Do you have any data at all that suggests that this 6-yr old girl is an average physically and mentally healthy person?

 

[newbie]

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

no they don't, nor have I claimed they do, it's only an internet debate, but they're based on assertions reported from the Court of Appeal hearing, that she had curbed her drugtaking during her first pregnancy to avoid causing harm, and during the second one was repeatedly warned of the consequences of continuing to drink, yet drank daily to excess. I've yet to find any mention of whether abortion was considered during the pregnancy, so I haven't speculated about it in this case, but it's clearly available in general, and failure to take up the option while continuing to drink to excess is another indicator of deliberate harm.

The vast majority of pregnant women ensure they do not behave in ways that might cause harm. A few individuals choose to do so. How is it not deliberate?

 

[Blagsta]

Because its addiction you prannet

 

[newbie]

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.............

I'm open to persuasion. tbh I think you'll have real difficulty putting forward a case which takes account of rights, responsibilities and duties on both sides, because the clear victim in this is so utterly defenceless. So this slippery slope argument is purely one-sided, and I don't understand why the rights of the child are of such little concern.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

no they don't, nor have I claimed they do, it's only an internet debate, but they're based on assertions reported from the Court of Appeal hearing, that she had curbed her drugtaking during her first pregnancy to avoid causing harm, and during the second one was repeatedly warned of the consequences of continuing to drink, yet drank daily to excess. I've yet to find any mention of whether abortion was considered during the pregnancy, so I haven't speculated about it in this case, but it's clearly available in general, and failure to take up the option while continuing to drink to excess is another indicator of deliberate harm.

The vast majority of pregnant women ensure they do not behave in ways that might cause harm. A few individuals choose to do so. How is it not deliberate?

Deliberate doesn't depend on the proportion of people doing or not doing something. Deliberation means thinking through, with intent and consideration; is this how you see someone addicted to alcohol deciding on courses of action? It doesn't fit with my experience of the choices and actions of any alcoholics I have known.

Louis MacNeice

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm open to persuasion. .

I'm not sure you are. You have already accepted a particular framework within which to think about this: one involving a victim, a perpetrator and criminal responsibility.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I'm open to persuasion. tbh I think you'll have real difficulty putting forward a case which takes account of rights, responsibilities and duties on both sides, because the clear victim in this is so utterly defenceless. So this slippery slope argument is purely one-sided, and I don't understand why the rights of the child are of such little concern.

Will you stop this nasty dishonesty.

The rights of the child and the rights of the mother are of equal concern. Just to make this absolutely clear the rights are of equal concern because establishing some ultimate hierarchy of worth (where the child trumps the mother) between individuals threatens the rights of us all.

And no one has said any different; apart from you that is, in your attempt to defend the indefensible.

Louis MacNeice

 

[newbie]

This "life expectancy" you keep gobbing on about, that's for the average healthy person. Do you have any data at all that suggests that this 6-yr old girl is an average physically and mentally healthy person?

the form of words used in the reporting is that the child "has suffered developmental problems". If those are life-shortening all the more reason for her rights to be asserted.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

the form of words used in the reporting is that the child "has suffered developmental problems". If those are life-shortening all the more reason for her rights to be asserted.

She is a child who has a right to be looked after properly by adults. How is that fundamental right affected by the way any damage she has suffered was caused?

It's only if you don't accept the first statement as a fundamental right to be protected by the state if necessary that any of this becomes relevant. It's why litigation of this kind is so common in the US - it's an indication of the absence of meaningful rights at a general level that people feel forced into litigation to get medical bills paid, etc.

 

[newbie]

Because its addiction you prannet

I'm going to have to go out shortly.

Can you tell me any other activity where harm caused to another person can be dismissed "Because its addiction you prannet"? Harm to any person, but particularly to a defenceless child.

You're seeking the abdication of personal responsibility on the grounds of addiction. Ok, and I'm very aware you know far more about addiction than I do. But if the adult has no capacity to make responsible personal choices then perhaps, as I said above, there is a case for society at large to intervene in order to protect the most vulnerable victim. Your client who refuses to engage, what can and will you attempt to do with her if she is pregnant?

 

[toggle]

no they don't, nor have I claimed they do, it's only an internet debate, but they're based on assertions reported from the Court of Appeal hearing, that she had curbed her drugtaking during her first pregnancy to avoid causing harm, and during the second one was repeatedly warned of the consequences of continuing to drink, yet drank daily to excess. I've yet to find any mention of whether abortion was considered during the pregnancy, so I haven't speculated about it in this case, but it's clearly available in general, and failure to take up the option while continuing to drink to excess is another indicator of deliberate harm.

The vast majority of pregnant women ensure they do not behave in ways that might cause harm. A few individuals choose to do so. How is it not deliberate?

do you have any evidence from anywhere that the reason she was drinking was to harm the foetus?

 

[Blagsta]

I'm going to have to go out shortly.

Can you tell me any other activity where harm caused to another person can be dismissed "Because its addiction you prannet"? Harm to any person, but particularly to a defenceless child.

You're seeking the abdication of personal responsibility on the grounds of addiction. Ok, and I'm very aware you know far more about addiction than I do. But if the adult has no capacity to make responsible personal choices then perhaps, as I said above, there is a case for society at large to intervene in order to protect the most vulnerable victim. Your client who refuses to engage, what can and will you attempt to do with her if she is pregnant?

We would refer to social services as a child protection issue.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I'm going to have to go out shortly.

Can you tell me any other activity where harm caused to another person can be dismissed "Because its addiction you prannet"? Harm to any person, but particularly to a defenceless child.

You're seeking the abdication of personal responsibility on the grounds of addiction. Ok, and I'm very aware you know far more about addiction than I do. But if the adult has no capacity to make responsible personal choices then perhaps, as I said above, there is a case for society at large to intervene in order to protect the most vulnerable victim. Your client who refuses to engage, what can and will you attempt to do with her if she is pregnant?

When was the harm caused? When do believe an individual gains rights?

Louis MacNeice

 

[trashpony]

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?

newbie - are you going to answer this question? It's not the first time you've been asked and you've not answered

 

[newbie]

Will you stop this nasty dishonesty.

The rights of the child and the rights of the mother are of equal concern. Just to make this absolutely clear the rights are of equal concern because establishing some ultimate hierarchy of worth (where the child trumps the mother) between individuals threatens the rights of us all.

And no one has said any different; apart from you that is, in your attempt to defend the indefensible.

Louis MacNeice

until my first post on this thread no-one had said anything at all about the rights of the child, it was all about those of the mother. Since then almost everyone appears far more concerned that the mother might be criminalised for her behaviour than that there is someone who has been damaged by that behaviour.

There is no "hierarchy of worth" but there is cause and effect just as there is strong and the weak.

While the mother is clearly not strong compared to the rest of society, she is immensely stronger than the entirely defenceless child who is harmed.

 

[purenarcotic]

The child isn't the relevant issue here so I don't see why this is continually being brought up by newbie. There is a legal responsibility for the council to adequately support the child in question under S17 of The Children Act as the child has a disability and is automatically classed as a child in need. So the child's needs are already being met and will continue to be met; the child's rights are already being upheld.

The events that took place happened when the child was unborn; when it was a fetus with no rights whatsoever. Setting a precedent where a fetus will have rights is extremely dangerous and threatens abortion rights and abortion law.

Criminalising will increase the barriers already faced by those who suffer from abuse, addiction or mental health difficulties in accessing support.

 

[Blagsta]

And no, I'm not "seeking the abdication of personal responsibility". Quite the opposite. Recovery from addiction is all about personal responsibility. However if it was as simple as "taking responsibility" we wouldn't be in this situation would we?

People are complex. Most adults understand this. Which is why I commented on you debating like a teenager. You appear to want things neat and clearly defined. It ain't like that.

 

[purenarcotic]

until my first post on this thread no-one had said anything at all about the rights of the child, it was all about those of the mother. Since then almost everyone appears far more concerned that the mother might be criminalised for her behaviour than that there is someone who has been damaged by that behaviour.

There is no "hierarchy of worth" but there is cause and effect just as there is strong and the weak.

While the mother is clearly not strong compared to the rest of society, she is immensely stronger than the entirely defenceless child who is harmed.

The child's rights are already being upheld for fuck's sake. When the child was unborn the fetus had no rights. Do you believe a fetus has rights? If so, do you see how believing that has implications for abortion law?

 

[newbie]

We would refer to social services as a child protection issue.

bearing in mind I don't know who 'we' is, what can/will social services do?

 

[Awesome Wells]

Women should be held criminally responsible for harming foetuses. No, no - not all women. Not those nice ladies with faulty genes and medical conditions. Just those nasty alcoholics and drug addicts.

What a disgusting strawman.

 

[purenarcotic]

bearing in mind I don't know who 'we' is, what can/will social services do?

Social services will assess the situation and will offer appropriate practical and emotional support. If there are concerns that after birth, the baby will suffer, or will be at risk of suffering significant levels of harm, plans may be put in place to obtain an emergency protection order / care order and the baby will be placed into foster care.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

bearing in mind I don't know who 'we' is, what can/will social services do?

Whatever they can under their statutory obligations, whether or not the mother is criminalised. Going down the criminal justice route is dangerous and unnecessary.

Louis MacNeice

 

[toggle]

What a disgusting strawman.

did we get rid of class prejudice overnight then?

 

[newbie]

When was the harm caused?

according to the medical evidence the harm was caused by daily excessive drinking during pregnancy.
[/QUOTE]When do believe an individual gains rights?

Louis MacNeice[/QUOTE]
bit of a tall order to answer than in a rush, but as a starting proposition, if someone can cause you harm then you must have some sort of right not to be harmed. So the rights start as soon as harm can be caused to you. However as 'you' only exist as an autonomous person after birth, exercising those rights can only be done after birth, the foetus does not per se have rights but the person who grows from that foetus has a right to not be harmed while a foetus.

I hope that makes sense I'll read it back later and may want to revise it when I've got a bit more time.

I'm sorry I really must go out.

 

[mentalchik]

 

[purenarcotic]

Social services operate under civil, not criminal law. If a crime has taken place then the police / CPS need to investigate. A crime does not need to have taken place for social services to become involved.

Do you think that social services only become involved when a crime has taken place, newbie? Is that why you think criminalisation should happen in this case? This is simply not the case.

 

[DotCommunist]

did we get rid of class prejudice overnight then?

all law ends up as class law innit.

I'd also be interested to know the colour of the women from your USA links. I suspect I already know though

 

[Awesome Wells]

You debate like a teenager.

You're one to talk. I asked you twice to explain your position and you dodge the question.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

according to the medical evidence the harm was caused by daily excessive drinking during pregnancy.

When do believe an individual gains rights?

Louis MacNeice

[/QUOTE]
bit of a tall order to answer than in a rush, but as a starting proposition, if someone can cause you harm then you must have some sort of right not to be harmed. So the rights start as soon as harm can be caused to you. However as 'you' only exist as an autonomous person after birth, exercising those rights can only be done after birth, the foetus does not per se have rights but the person who grows from that foetus has a right to not be harmed while a foetus.

I hope that makes sense I'll read it back later and may want to revise it when I've got a bit more time.

I'm sorry I really must go out.[/QUOTE]

One or the other; you choose and face up to the implications. That includes the implications of rights that go back to conception?



Louis MacNeice