Criminalising Pregnant Mothers who Drink

[weltweit]

OK, so you do want to criminalise women carrying Tay Sachs genes or who take lithium for example, women with poorly controlled diabetes, women who choose not to screen for/terminate pregnancies with Down's Syndrome, women whose birth choices contradict medical advice, and the cheese-eaters - but you don't want to discuss it because it will make you look foolish?

I think women who take Lithium are advised to stop taking it during pregnancy.

 

[Thora]

I think women who take Lithium are advised to stop taking it during pregnancy.

You don't say.

 

[Poot]

I think women who take Lithium are advised to stop taking it during pregnancy.

And people who drink are advised not to during pregnancy. I think that was sort of Thora 's point.

 

[newbie]

Rights are tricky things. The rights of one person often come into conflict with the rights of another. Universal, certainly. Absolute, no. Life is more complicated than that.

Thinking about this in terms of rights is a dead-end though, imo. It's a legalese way of avoiding the real issue - which is the wellbeing of everyone involved, including the mother.

But you're still stuck in this false dichotomy of 'either this must be criminalised or we wash our hands of any responsibility'. I do wish you'd take on board what people have been saying to you about that.

but the debate is not about "the wellbeing of everyone involved, including the mother" because the concern is almost exclusively with the wellbeing of the mother, the wellbeing of the child being covered in just a few words, 'she'll be cared for'. The mother is actively causing harm so the wellbeing of the child ought to be the overriding concern.

 

[Blagsta]

but the debate is not about "the wellbeing of everyone involved, including the mother" because the concern is almost exclusively with the wellbeing of the mother, the wellbeing of the child being covered in just a few words, 'she'll be cared for'. The mother is actively causing harm so the wellbeing of the child ought to be the overriding concern.

Are you only capable of thinking in binary opposites?

 

[maomao]

but the debate is not about "the wellbeing of everyone involved, including the mother" because the concern is almost exclusively with the wellbeing of the mother, the wellbeing of the child being covered in just a few words, 'she'll be cared for'. The mother is actively causing harm so the wellbeing of the child ought to be the overriding concern.

Again newbie . What advantage do you think this child will gain if the prosecution is successful?

 

[newbie]

OK, so you do want to criminalise women carrying Tay Sachs genes or who take lithium for example, women with poorly controlled diabetes, women who choose not to screen for/terminate pregnancies with Down's Syndrome, women whose birth choices contradict medical advice, and the cheese-eaters - but you don't want to discuss it because it will make you look foolish?

no, in each of those cases there may or may not be a corollary of my point, but each of them is a whole discussion in itself, requiring different understanding of the medical and legal issues involved. That's what I'm not prepared to attempt. Whether or not I look foolish on urban75 is not a major consideration of mine

 

[newbie]

Again newbie . What advantage do you think this child will gain if the prosecution is successful?

if I may quote myself, "Surely our primary concern should be preventing it happening in future. This case is about whether or not there is a specific legal framework for that."

 

[red & green]

sanction does not promote prevention - eg the death penalty and anyway the mother in this case - if it's successful won't be paying the CICA will

 

[maomao]

if I may quote myself, "Surely our primary concern should be preventing it happening in future. This case is about whether or not there is a specific legal framework for that."

And you think making it a criminal offence is more likely to achieve that than properly funding the health departments that already deal with this sort of problem? That's worked very well with other drug issues hasn't it. If anything it'll discourage alcoholics and addicts from seeking help when they're pregnant as I believe the evidence from the US shows.

 

[toggle]

I
If, as I think was being suggested above, addiction makes the expectant mother incapable of acting responsibly then the victim has a right to expect the state to act on her behalf,


.

firstly, there is no victim at the time that the woman's actions were deemed to be causing harm. there was no victim because a foetus is not deemed a person. you cannot give personhood rights to a foetus without taking away rights from the woman carrying that foetus. your declaration of belief that this is wrong does not change reality

secondly, i've already shown ample evidence on where things end up if you start trying to control the actions of women, supposdly to protect a foetus. this includes clear examples of where controling legislation has been applied to the woman to the detriment of the fortus. history has already proven that controling women to protect a foetus makes things worse. we don't need to abuse more women to repeat a failed experiment.

the time for action, the time to prevent the damage done to a foetus being carried by a pregnant teenage alcoholic was before there was a pregnant teenage alcoholic. there was ample time for various services to intervene when they were dealing with an alcoholic teenager, that would be someone legally a child, who should have been entitled to support and protection. waiting until she was pregnant for the second time and expecting a chat on a couple of occasions to fix the problems highlights the fact that it was their systematic failures that led directly to this situation

 

[Louis MacNeice]

but the debate is not about "the wellbeing of everyone involved, including the mother" because the concern is almost exclusively with the wellbeing of the mother, the wellbeing of the child being covered in just a few words, 'she'll be cared for'. The mother is actively causing harm so the wellbeing of the child ought to be the overriding concern.

Firstly, the concern isn't almost exclusively with the well being of the mother; there is ample evidence in this thread that posters are concerned for the well being of the child. The focus of the discussion is the mother because the test case threatens her and others with criminalisation as a means of shifting the cost of the child's care (which is a statutory obligation); it is not about the principle of her being cared for (which is already a legal duty) but about which government account it is to be paid out of. Criminalising mothers to shift where a cost appears is wrong; it is an anti-social and an inhuman answer to the very human and social questions of how we take care of each other.

Secondly, the mother isn't actively causing harm to the child. The mother damaged the foetus as a result of her own obviously damaging chronic alcohol addiction. For the umpteenth time, if the child is to be cared for (which is what we all want and what the law provides for) it is not necessary to either criminalise the mother or de-prioritise her care. In short there is no need for an overriding concern; what there is a need for is effective care and support for both parties, daughter and mother.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[8ball]

Criminalising mothers to shift where a cost appears is wrong; it is an anti-social and an inhuman answer to the very human and social questions of how we take care of each other.

Quoted because a 'like' doesn't seem like enough.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Newbie:

I hope no-one will accuse me of being anti-abortion or of misogyny. The former is certainly not the case and the latter has no part of my conscious thinking. That anti-abortionists may use the rights of the sort I've been discussing is obvious, but no-one ever said that the balancing of rights is simple. They can be argued against. The principle that rights may start at conception but cannot be realised or exercised until after live birth seems to me to be both reasonable and clear. A foetus has no rights in and of itself, nor any responsibilities or duties, it cannot sue or be sued, it cannot be prosecuted or hold property, it cannot agree or disagree with anything. But a person (ie someone who has been born) with every right, responsibility and duty that implies has the right to protection from conception onwards. And that right overrides the right of someone else to do them harm, even their mother.
​

I'm sorry newbie but objectively you are being anti-abortionist and misogynist.

I know from what you've written that you don't want to be but the fact that your argument only works and can only work by attributing rights to the foetus from conception onwards, places you firmly in the anti-abortion camp and is an attack on women.

It is an anti-abortion stand point because what greater harm could you do to a foetus (one accorded the rights of a person which is what you are arguing for) than terminating a pregnancy?

It is an attack on women for the obvious reason that it is a position which allows the law to police women's bodies, their behaviours, their choices (however constrained or freely made), to police and sanction their lives in ways that are not and cannot be applicable to men.

I think your understandable and admirable concern for a damaged six year old girl has lead you to a really dangerous place, and that you should have a long hard look at where you have arrived.


Cheers and take care - Louis Macneice

p.s. I'm off to watch Brighton beat Blackburn in a minute, but I will look back in later today.

 

[newbie]

firstly, there is no victim at the time that the woman's actions were deemed to be causing harm. there was no victim because a foetus is not deemed a person. you cannot give personhood rights to a foetus without taking away rights from the woman carrying that foetus. your declaration of belief that this is wrong does not change reality

well, I did my best to explain my point of view, you're obviously not in agreement and nor, by the looks of things is anyone else. In the light of Lewis's latest post I'm clearly not going to get anywhere except into arguments I don't want. So I'll leave it there.

 

[8ball]

I know from what you've written that you don't want to be but the fact that your argument only works and can only work by attributing rights to the foetus from conception onwards, places you firmly in the anti-abortion camp and is an attack on women.

I think that's getting a bit extreme. You can start from wanting to balance the rights of people who have not yet been born yet against people who are around now and still arrive at a stance that is not anti-choice with regard to abortion (which is slightly different to being anti-abortion).

 

[Sasaferrato]

firstly, there is no victim at the time that the woman's actions were deemed to be causing harm. there was no victim because a foetus is not deemed a person. you cannot give personhood rights to a foetus without taking away rights from the woman carrying that foetus. your declaration of belief that this is wrong does not change reality

secondly, i've already shown ample evidence on where things end up if you start trying to control the actions of women, supposdly to protect a foetus. this includes clear examples of where controling legislation has been applied to the woman to the detriment of the fortus. history has already proven that controling women to protect a foetus makes things worse. we don't need to abuse more women to repeat a failed experiment.

the time for action, the time to prevent the damage done to a foetus being carried by a pregnant teenage alcoholic was before there was a pregnant teenage alcoholic. there was ample time for various services to intervene when they were dealing with an alcoholic teenager, that would be someone legally a child, who should have been entitled to support and protection. waiting until she was pregnant for the second time and expecting a chat on a couple of occasions to fix the problems highlights the fact that it was their systematic failures that led directly to this situation

This really is the crux of the matter. I believe there is a mechanism whereby via an online petition, matters can be be debated in parliament. This would seem to be a very worthy matter for such a petition, in order that the living being being known as a foetus is extended the protection given to other living beings. At present, a dog has more legal protection than a foetus.

Having re-read this thread, I must say that views expressed, which pretty much equate the discarding of an empty crisp packet with the discarding of a human life, shocks and saddens me. It is a rejection of basic morality and humanity.

 

[8ball]

Having re-read this thread, I must say that views expressed, which pretty much equate the discarding of an empty crisp packet with the discarding of a human life, shocks and saddens me. It is a rejection of basic morality and humanity.

This seems more extreme than the posts I have been reading - which ones? Or are you being a bit hyperbolic for rhetorical reasons?

 

[andysays]

I glanced last night and erm, well y'all were having so much fun... this morning I woke thinking, nope, it's all been said, and I don't have the time to spend all day responding to loads of posters and loads of points. And anyway I'm obviously losing

Then I read toggles substantial post above and now I'm going to try to clarify why I think she's on the wrong side of history on this one...

I started off reading that hoping you had reconsidered overnight and might now have something worth reading, even if it was something I didn't agree with.

Then I got to the bit I've highlighted and I thought

Nah, he's still just being a cunt

 

[andysays]

Only some cheeses (soft and blue-veined cheeses). Pizza is fine thank fuck.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I think that's getting a bit extreme. You can start from wanting to balance the rights of people who have not yet been born yet against people who are around now and still arrive at a stance that is not anti-choice with regard to abortion (which is slightly different to being anti-abortion).

I know it comes across pretty heavy handed but I do think what 's being argued is really dangerous.

If you attach the rights of a person to a foetus from the moment of conception, what response can you give to someone arguing against all abortion from the viewpoint that termination is equivalent to murder? I'm sure that isn't what newbie wants. I was saying that is unfortunately objectively where you end up; i.e. unable to criticise their position.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[andysays]

Rights must be universal, mustn't they? However this is a specific issue about a specific medical condition and I don't personally want to discuss other matters.

Which specific medical condition - the one the child is now suffering from, or the one the mother is likely to have been suffering from during her pregnancy?

Or is only one of those important here?

 

[8ball]

I know it comes across pretty heavy handed but I do think what 's being argued is really dangerous.

If you attach the rights of a person to a foetus from the moment of conception, what response can you give to someone arguing against all abortion from the viewpoint that termination is equivalent to murder? I'm sure that isn't what newbie wants. I was saying that is unfortunately objectively where you end up; i.e. unable to criticise their position.

I agree that it can lead to dangerous places - I don't agree that it is misogynistic or even inherently anti-abortion, though. These are difficult moral questions and I think it's unfortunate that we're stuck viewing approaches through the lens of recourse to physical force, which is what criminalisation is in essence.

 

[andysays]

no, in each of those cases there may or may not be a corollary of my point, but each of them is a whole discussion in itself, requiring different understanding of the medical and legal issues involved. That's what I'm not prepared to attempt. Whether or not I look foolish on urban75 is not a major consideration of mine

Are you suggesting you actually have a sufficient understanding of all the medical and legal issues involved in this case, because you really haven't demonstrated that so far?

 

[Pickman's model]

Whether or not I look foolish on urban75 is not a major consideration of mine

very fortunate.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This really is the crux of the matter. I believe there is a mechanism whereby via an online petition, matters can be be debated in parliament. This would seem to be a very worthy matter for such a petition, in order that the living being being known as a foetus is extended the protection given to other living beings. At present, a dog has more legal protection than a foetus..

Doesn't solve what you want it to solve, though, because the woman carrying the foetus is also a person. Where does the balance between what may be conflicting rights between the two come? You still need to decide that. EG: you may have to kill the foetus to save the mother's life. There is no equivalent moral dilemma elsewhere, except perhaps with conjoined twins.

Even if you extended the concept of rights to a foetus, a strong bias towards the rights of the person who is already a fully conscious and autonomous individual is surely right here if there is a conflict. And if there is no conflict, then the rights of the foetus will be identical to the rights of the woman on whom its development depends.

From what I can tell, rights of the foetus arguments are generally made by people who wish to prioritise its welfare over that of the woman wherever there may be conflict between the two. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that the woman should retain autonomy over her body when she is pregnant to safeguard against that.

You mention dogs. Well if you're looking at this from a developed conscious awareness perspective, a dog is more aware than a foetus. Add to that the fact that the foetus is not yet capable of independent survival, while the dog is, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a dog should have more legal protection than a foetus. Seems to me that you need to add in religious arguments about a unique human soul to get around that, in which case you are now in territory where anti-abortionists roam.

 

[8ball]

You mention dogs. Well if you're looking at this from a developed conscious awareness perspective, a dog is more aware than a foetus. Add to that the fact that the foetus is not yet capable of independent survival, while the dog is, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a dog should have more legal protection than a foetus.

Should also be pointed out that if we're talking about legality and rights, dogs are not legally recognised as 'persons' either. Nor are their legal protections framed in the language of 'rights'.

I don't buy the idea that we should place too much emphasis on the capability for independent survival, though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'd rather keep it simple too. Once a baby is born, it is a person with rights. Until then, the woman carrying the foetus is the person with rights.

 

[8ball]

I'd rather keep it simple too. Once a baby is born, it is a person with rights. Until then, the woman carrying the foetus is the person with rights.

All things considered, it seems the right place to draw the line. It needs to be remembered that there is a level of arbitrariness and convenience to this, though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

All things considered, it seems the right place to draw the line. It needs to be remembered that there is a level of arbitrariness and convenience to this, though.

Yes, there is. In other societies - the Vikings, for instance - a form of 'post-natal abortion' has been carried out where it is judged that the new baby cannot be cared for. We wouldn't accept that in our society, and quite rightly, but at the same time I can understand why it has been done in other societies. Moral absolutes rarely work.