Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Criminalising Pregnant Mothers who Drink

andysays said:
This is a ridiculous and unwelcome development for all the reasons that have already been mentioned.

But there's one bit quoted in @FabricLiveBaby!s original post which I don't understand



What does this mean, and how is it relevant?

It appears to mean that the mother was drinking, and the foetus was damaged, because of a criminal act carried out by a third party on the mother, and that the third party is therefore the one who is ultimately responsible.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick :confused:
Click to expand...
andysays said:
sorry, that was a joke - i'm not an alcoholic, and you haven't ever attacked me.

in fact, I'll go back and edit that, because it is entirely unhelpful. Sorry.
Click to expand...

I got that it was a joke, I just had no idea what you meant. :D

You said above about a third party being ultimately responsible for damage to the foetus. I don't know where you got the third party thing. I was trying to clear that up.
 
sparklefish said:
I got that it was a joke, I just had no idea what you meant. :D

You said above about a third party being ultimately responsible for damage to the foetus. I don't know where you got the third party thing. I was trying to clear that up.
Click to expand...

Good, I'm glad you got it was a joke, but I still think it was a stupid thing for me to say.

If we are correct about what "attributable" means or should mean, then it suggests that the person (the third party, ie not the mother or the foetus) who committed the actual crime of violence is ultimately responsible, but there is no reference to this crime or other criminal, so I think the most likely explanation is that an ambiguous or incorrect word was used and it should have said the mother's drinking was "directly equivalent to a crime of violence", which makes more linguistic sense, but it still a bizarre legal conclusion to reach, IMO.
 
If you need any clue about the esteem that pregnant women are held in by the government, you only need to see that pathetic, patronising picture of a pregnant woman with a line through it on the back of a wine bottle.

I should probably point out that the packaging on unwashed lettuce, unpasteurised dairy produce, shellfish and the other stuff that can properly cause damage and about which people may not understand the risks, contains no such message.

i know I've mentioned it before. It's a bugbear.
 
Given that there is the distinct possibility that alcohol damages the quality of sperm and that could create birth defects (caviats below). I take it that courts will be punishing men who drink and have reproductive sexual relations too.... Whilst no condones behavior that threatens the life chances of others, pregnancy and childbirth are supererogatory acts and should be recognized and supported as such - rather than viewed as obligations requiring sanction for inadequate fulfillment of those duties.

Birth Defects
As of yet, there is still no concrete evidence that a father's alcohol consumption prior to conception can be linked to birth defects in newborn babies. However, one study has suggested a possible link between paternal alcohol consumption prior to conception and a very rare heart defect in newborns. A good deal more research is required in this area before any reliable conclusions can be made. http://www.fertilityfactor.com/alcohol-sperm.html
 
FabricLiveBaby! said:
What of the women that get blotto before they know they are pregnant, as many women do?
Click to expand...

but they should be considering themselves pre-pregnant and behave as though they had already conceived according to some.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html

this caused a lot of concerns that women could have difficulty obtaining apropriate treatment for their own health, because doctors had to take into account the effect treatment would have on a potential foetus. (which should only be done if it is the patient's express wish)
 
Last edited:
Basically a step in the pro-life direction. Laws reillegalizing abortion were narrowly avoided in Spain, were they not?
 
FabricLiveBaby! said:
What do you think the chances are of the courts finding in favour of the plaintiff? Do you think this is going to lead to criminalisation of some pregnant women?
Click to expand...

If it does lead to the criminalisation of pregnant women who drink you can bet your bottom dollar that the next thing on the list will be making it a criminal offence to sell alcohol to a pregnant woman.
Imagine that for half a minute, being required to prove evidence of your non-pregnant status when you're in Tesco or at the pub. :facepalm:
And imagine being the poor sods who have to ask. :facepalm:
 
Dunno, some people are up for asking anyway, Mrs Withnail was asked "Are you sure? Aren't you pregnant?" on several occasions when buying booze in pubs for other people. Given that we partied pretty hard before we found out she was pregnant, worrying about that half a glass of wine she had on her birthday seems a bit fucking churlish to say the least.

On the legalities of this - saying that the child can be deemed to be the victim of a crime isn't quite the same as creating a new criminal offence, even in a common law system, but it's definitely down the road and opens up some horrendous potentials.
 
So will the fecund male be subject to such criminalisation?

At least most agree with the Revolutionary communist party...
 
https://www.aclu.org/reproductive-f...tal-responses-womens-conduct-during-pregnancy

A decade ago, we saw a rash of cases in which government officials zealously embraced a misguided mission to protect fetuses by attempting to control the conduct of pregnant women. Some women were forced to accept unwanted medical treatment; others were punished for their conduct during pregnancy. Inevitably, such actions backfire: women who fear the government's "pregnancy police" will avoid prenatal care altogether, and both they and their fetuses will suffer as a result.

The ACLU, drawing upon the expertise of both its Reproductive Freedom and Women's Rights Projects, defended many of the women who were subject to coercive or punitive state actions. We won case after case, and attempts to bully and punish pregnant women eventually diminished.

Recently, however, we have seen this dangerous trend revive. A look at selected cases will highlight the important issues at stake.
Click to expand...
 
and yet...

there is a six-year-old girl with “growth retardation”. She has been caused harm by something that was done to her. Her life will be worse than she should expect, worse than her peers to whom harm has not been done. She is 6, with a life expectancy of 82.

She has to have a say in this.
 
newbie said:
and yet...

there is a six-year-old girl with “growth retardation”. She has been caused harm by something that was done to her. Her life will be worse than she should expect, worse than her peers to whom harm has not been done. She is 6, with a life expectancy of 82.

She has to have a say in this.
Click to expand...
I don't quite understand. A say how? She's six years old. She doesn't even get a say over when she goes to bed.

It seems pretty simple - and absurdly, disgustingly squalid - to me. Various branches of the state are squabbling about whose budget will be used to pay for her care, and one of those branches is seeking to find someone to blame - criminalise - in order to get another one to pay.

You care to explain that fuck-up to her?
 
littlebabyjesus said:
I don't quite understand. A say how? She's six years old. She doesn't even get a say over when she goes to bed.

It seems pretty simple - and absurdly, disgustingly squalid - to me. Various branches of the state are squabbling about whose budget will be used to pay for her care, and one of those branches is seeking to find someone to blame - criminalise - in order to get another one to pay.

You care to explain that fuck-up to her?
Click to expand...
The child, or the people organising any extra care and support, might be in a substantially better position wrt that care if they got compensation. I don't know, but if that is the case it's more than just wrangling over who pays.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
I don't quite understand. A say how? She's six years old. She doesn't even get a say over when she goes to bed.
Click to expand...
.
she won't be 6 forever, one day she'll be 18 and then she'll be your age and will be angry that people at the time ignored the harm that was done to her to the point that they defended the perpetrator.
 
So how about we prosecute women who give birth to children with Down's syndrome? Or women who have a child knowing they might pass a genetic condition on to them? Maybe we should also look at doing women who are careless with cat litter or eat raw eggs? They're all 'perpetrators' too after all.
 
if perpetrator is not the right word for someone whose deliberate actions cause harm to someone much more vulnerable than themselves, what is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RubyBlue
Who to vote for?
Replies
14
Views
488
dessiato
dessiato
tim
Candidates who are vile c*nts.
Replies
1
Views
294
moochedit
moochedit
tim
Candidates who are vile c*nts.
Replies
19
Views
862
andysays
andysays
Dog_Voodoo
Tory Mark Menzies, who are these bad people?
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Wilf
Wilf
WhyLikeThis
Who the f*ck are Socialist Appeal?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
224
Views
11K
hitmouse
hitmouse
Back
Top Bottom