Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Criminalising Pregnant Mothers who Drink

Sasaferrato said:
If it is decided that legislation be introduced to give the foetus a legal status (and I think that this is inevitable), then parliament has got to think very carefully.

.
Click to expand...
Why? Genuinely puzzled as to why you think this is inevitable. The ruling today was very clear - in law as it stands, the foetus does not have a legal status. It is not a legally defined person. That's clarified the law that we have, I think. Why do you think it inevitable that parliament would change it?

I do agree that it would take parliament to change it now - this ruling was very clear, and I can't see a Supreme Court overruling it. (When did we get a Supreme Court, btw? I think I missed that meeting.) However, why would parliament change it? This strikes me as the kind of thing parliaments generally try to run away from.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Why? Genuinely puzzled as to why you think this is inevitable. The ruling today was very clear - in law as it stands, the foetus does not have a legal status. It is not a legally defined person. That's clarified the law that we have, I think. Why do you think it inevitable that parliament would change it?

I do agree that it would take parliament to change it now - this ruling was very clear, and I can't see a Supreme Court overruling it. (When did we get a Supreme Court, btw? I think I missed that meeting.) However, why would parliament change it? This strikes me as the kind of thing parliaments generally try to run away from.
Click to expand...

The matter has been raised very publicly by this case. There are a lot of people who will see this as a 'gap' in the law, and press for the matter to be raised and legislation introduced. What the case has done, is effectively decree that the foetus has little in the way of legal right to life, and by extension, the right not to be damaged by the actions of of its mother.

There are a lot of people who are of the view that a foetus is a person from the moment of conception, and they will be incensed by this judgement. Those who either favour the status quo, or are disinterested will not be making a noise about this. The other camp will be, loudly. I cannot see this just quietening down and being forgotten. Nothing will happen in this parliament, not with six months to go, but I would expect something in the next one.
 
Sasaferrato said:
The matter has been raised very publicly by this case. There are a lot of people who will see this as a 'gap' in the law, and press for the matter to be raised and legislation introduced. What the case has done, is effectively decree that the foetus has little in the way of legal right to life, and by extension, the right not to be damaged by the actions of of its mother.

There are a lot of people who are of the view that a foetus is a person from the moment of conception, and they will be incensed by this judgement. Those who either favour the status quo, or are disinterested will not be making a noise about this. The other camp will be, loudly. I cannot see this just quietening down and being forgotten. Nothing will happen in this parliament, not with six months to go, but I would expect something in the next one.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Those who are incensed will be, more or less, the minority of religiously motivated people who currently campaign against abortion. Not sure they can gather enough support to really pressure parliament. Nobody in power, not Labour or Tory, will want to stir this nest if they don't have to. Only a very small number of fringe, religiously motivated MPs have ever actively campaigned against abortion, for instance, such as the Liberal David Alton.
 
SpookyFrank said:
With severe alcoholism withdrawal can easily kill you. And not in a nice way either, you completely lose your mind first.
Click to expand...

I do have direct experience in the treatment of alcoholics. However, this experience is related to people who were under military discipline at the time. The army actually did this well, with an excellent success rate. The treatment was in-patient, and lasted for three months. I suspect that if there was money to do this in civilian life, success would be equally good. All ranks were treated together, so not uncommon to have a colonel in the same group as a private soldier.
 
Sasaferrato said:
I do have direct experience in the treatment of alcoholics. However, this experience is related to people who were under military discipline at the time. The army actually did this well, with an excellent success rate. The treatment was in-patient, and lasted for three months. I suspect that if there was money to do this in civilian life, success would be equally good. All ranks were treated together, so not uncommon to have a colonel in the same group as a private soldier.
Click to expand...
What is your secret, Sasaferrato? You have a fortune to make out here on civvy street.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Maybe. Those who are incensed will be, more or less, the minority of religiously motivated people who currently campaign against abortion. Not sure they can gather enough support to really pressure parliament. Nobody in power, not Labour or Tory, will want to stir this nest if they don't have to. Only a very small number of fringe, religiously motivated MPs have ever actively campaigned against abortion, for instance, such as the Liberal David Alton.
Click to expand...

I think in this case, that there will be more than just the extremists expressing a view. The subject engenders unease in more than the ant-abortionists.

Whereas I certainly won't be writing to my MP on the matter at the moment, I probably will be if the matter gathers enough momentum for parliament to be unable to ignore it. I would be asking him to give consideration to the needs of the foetus, on the basis that whereas the foetus is not yet a human being, it is not 'nothing' either. I find the view that the mother should have absolute control over the foetus, and be able to indulge in any behaviour whatsoever, quite chilling, it is a denial of basic humanity. Quite what can be done is a quandary, but I am very uneasy with the status quo.

I think that toggle is conflating two issues here, the first being abortion, the second being the 'right' of a woman to decide what happens to her body. In truth, I find the attitude expressed to be callous in the extreme. Whereas I do not like abortion, I do support the right of a woman to choose. I cannot however support the view that this right continues absolutely after conception, and the woman chooses to continue with the pregnancy. The foetus is not the woman, even although the foetus cannot survive without the nutrition given by the mother. It is unconscionable that the foetus should be regarded as a 'non-person' until the moment of birth.

My other concern is toggle's view that the only view that can possibly be correct is hers. Other people's views are also valid, other than in the eyes of the dedicated extremist.

A thorny issue indeed, and I think that you are absolutely right that parliament will not consider it unless public pressure forces it to do so.
 
kittyP said:
There is no secret. There are just not the resources or the money (or even the will) to do it on civvy street most of the time.
Click to expand...

Bang on. If every alcoholic was hospitalised under close scrutiny for three months, the success rates would be the same. It was also ongoing for a year after discharge from hospital. Liver function tests were done at every monthly outpatient visit, and an eye was also kept on them within their units. Intensive treatment.

With the closure of the military hospitals, I don't know what the regime is now. I'll ask my mate, who still works as a nurse for the army next time we speak.
 
Sasaferrato said:
Whereas I certainly won't be writing to my MP on the matter at the moment, I probably will be if the matter gathers enough momentum for parliament to be unable to ignore it. I would be asking him to give consideration to the needs of the foetus, on the basis that whereas the foetus is not yet a human being, it is not 'nothing' either. I find the view that the mother should have absolute control over the foetus, and be able to indulge in any behaviour whatsoever, quite chilling, it is a denial of basic humanity. Quite what can be done is a quandary, but I am very uneasy with the status quo.
.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that you have a solution in search of a problem.

How many pregnant women deliberately harm their foetus, and of those tiny number that do, how many of those foetuses would be helped by laws giving them rights, rather than, or in addition to, support mechanisms for the women who, in most cases, are probably themselves in deep trouble?

Also, there are harsh consequences of this kind of rights approach. Legislating against and criminalising social problems is part of a wider culture in which litigation takes the place of investment in care and support services. It goes hand-in-hand with cuts. The bits of the US with these laws are the bits with the worst problems, highest poverty rates, and lowest levels of social provision. That's not an accident.
 
If you really must think in terms of rights, how about this?

Once it is born, a baby becomes a person whose rights are protected by the wider society. It does not 'belong' to the mother, father, or anyone else. But until that point, it is not. The sole authority in control of the foetus is its mother. While it is inside her body, the foetus 'belongs to' her, not to any wider society. Legally, it remains a part of her. She has autonomy in deciding its best wishes, although intervention when she is making terrible decisions is of course provided. But that intervention is made to help the pregnant woman, because she is judged for whatever reason to be incapable of making correct decisions for herself. Such provision already exists in various mental health acts for the sectioning of a person for their own good, but as with mental health provisions, the bar should be set pretty high - the assumption of autonomy for the woman should be strong.

Safeguards and protection for a foetus can be provided in various ways that do not require giving it legal personhood and overthrowing the autonomy of a pregnant woman in a way that is not done at any time to anybody else. Perhaps paradoxically, I think the various negative effects of giving a foetus rights would lead to more harm to foetuses, not less.
 
Sasaferrato said:
It is unconscionable that the foetus should be regarded as a 'non-person' until the moment of birth.
Click to expand...

Seriously, and as an aid to further debate - WHY is it unconscionable, though? I share your unease about whether there's enough done to protect the prospects of children who will be born to hard drinkers/drug abusers / chaotic for whatever reason people, especially if it will affect those children's health. But surely one cannot have it both ways. Reclassifying foetuses as people (in law) can only bring about a whole host of undesirable things - from women being arrested / punished / jailed for addictive behaviour, or 'endangering' foetuses by eating cheese or pate, to, say, ob-gyns being sued for murder or manslaughter in cases of stillbirths or medical mispractice. And of course - is it logically consistent to support women's right to abortion, i.e. destroying a foetus - which I believe you do, and I certainly do - while thinking there should be legal action against women who do things while pregnant which *might, maybe, possibly* damage a foetus?


Sasaferrato said:
My other concern is toggle's view that the only view that can possibly be correct is hers. Other people's views are also valid, other than in the eyes of the dedicated extremist.
Click to expand...

this is a bit snide isn't it? not up to the standard of the rest of your reasoned discussion here, imho.
 
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus said:
If you really must think in terms of rights, how about this?

Once it is born, a baby becomes a person whose rights are protected by the wider society. It does not 'belong' to the mother, father, or anyone else. But until that point, it is not. The sole authority in control of the foetus is its mother. While it is inside her body, the foetus 'belongs to' her, not to any wider society. Legally, it remains a part of her. She has autonomy in deciding its best wishes, although intervention when she is making terrible decisions is of course provided. But that intervention is made to help the pregnant woman, because she is judged for whatever reason to be incapable of making correct decisions for herself. Such provision already exists in various mental health acts for the sectioning of a person for their own good, but as with mental health provisions, the bar should be set pretty high - the assumption of autonomy for the woman should be strong.

Safeguards and protection for a foetus can be provided in various ways that do not require giving it legal personhood and overthrowing the autonomy of a pregnant woman in a way that is not done at any time to anybody else. Perhaps paradoxically, I think the various negative effects of giving a foetus rights would lead to more harm to foetuses, not less.
Click to expand...

You may well be right. I find the whole thing very troubling.
littlebabyjesus said:
Seems to me that you have a solution in search of a problem.

How many pregnant women deliberately harm their foetus, and of those tiny number that do, how many of those foetuses would be helped by laws giving them rights, rather than, or in addition to, support mechanisms for the women who, in most cases, are probably themselves in deep trouble?

Also, there are harsh consequences of this kind of rights approach. Legislating against and criminalising social problems is part of a wider culture in which litigation takes the place of investment in care and support services. It goes hand-in-hand with cuts. The bits of the US with these laws are the bits with the worst problems, highest poverty rates, and lowest levels of social provision. That's not an accident.
Click to expand...

I can't argue with that.
 
frogwoman said:
Thing is if you ban abortion you are in effect daying that a woman should have no control over the pregnancy which will 1 enforce patriarchy and 2 have the opposite of the desired effect, leading us back to the days of coat hangers
Click to expand...

No, I do not want a return to the days of back street butchery. Absolutely not. Which is why although I do have a view on abortion, I would not seek to impose it on anyone else.
 
trabuquera said:
Seriously, and as an aid to further debate - WHY is it unconscionable, though? I share your unease about whether there's enough done to protect the prospects of children who will be born to hard drinkers/drug abusers / chaotic for whatever reason people, especially if it will affect those children's health. But surely one cannot have it both ways. Reclassifying foetuses as people (in law) can only bring about a whole host of undesirable things - from women being arrested / punished / jailed for addictive behaviour, or 'endangering' foetuses by eating cheese or pate, to, say, ob-gyns being sued for murder or manslaughter in cases of stillbirths or medical mispractice. And of course - is it logically consistent to support women's right to abortion, i.e. destroying a foetus - which I believe you do, and I certainly do - while thinking there should be legal action against women who do things while pregnant which *might, maybe, possibly* damage a foetus?




this is a bit snide isn't it? not up to the standard of the rest of your reasoned discussion here, imho.
Click to expand...

No, not in my view. I find toggle's outlook extraordinary didactic and extreme, and have openly said so. Snide would be reference to 'certain posters' etc.

Toggle is of course absolutely entitled to her view, just as I'm entitled not to like it.

Edited to add:

Because you used a double quote, I'm not sure how to reply immediately below, but to address your first part:

An abortion is the destruction of the foetus, which is the end of the matter. Whether you agree or not, it is legal and final.

Behaviour which leads to the birth of a badly damaged child is a different matter. Mrs Sas and me were actually discussing this last night, and the very pragmatic Mrs Sas commented, 'In those circumstances, why continue with the pregnancy? Surely anyone who drinks heavily or takes drugs etc has little regard for the foetus, so why not have an abortion?' Good question.

I'm absolutely conflicted on this, I can see both sides, and can see why toggle feels that criminalisation of the woman could be the 'crack in the door' towards making abortion illegal again, which would not be good. I don't think that turning a mother who drinks too much into a criminal has any point whatsoever either.

Oh well, not my decision to make, and littlebabyjesus may well be right, in that it is such a hot potato, parliament will never legislate, with emphasis on the 'may'. There are a lot of very driven individuals out there, who would criminalise fellow women in a heartbeat, if they thought it would re-open the abortion debate, with a view to abolition.

I don't think the current situation is equitable, but I'm damned if I can see a reasonable solution, that protects both mother and foetus.

One can take some comfort from the fact that the number of such cases is low.
 
Last edited:
Sasaferrato said:
I think that toggle is conflating two issues here, the first being abortion, the second being the 'right' of a woman to decide what happens to her body. In truth, I find the attitude expressed to be callous in the extreme. Whereas I do not like abortion, I do support the right of a woman to choose. I cannot however support the view that this right continues absolutely after conception, and the woman chooses to continue with the pregnancy. The foetus is not the woman, even although the foetus cannot survive without the nutrition given by the mother. It is unconscionable that the foetus should be regarded as a 'non-person' until the moment of birth.

My other concern is toggle's view that the only view that can possibly be correct is hers. Other people's views are also valid, other than in the eyes of the dedicated extremist.
Click to expand...

I think you need to have a pretty careful look at some of the less moderate posts you've made before you start accusing anyone else of holding set views mate. fucking seriously. as well as your repeated assumptions that people who disagree with you are simply ignorant. I have not forgotten the time you told a woman who had expereinced being offered a late term abortion by a consultant that she didn't know what a late term abortion was. remember that sass?

secondly, the right to an abortion is part of a woman's right to control her own body. if you're trying to separate that out into 2 distinct debates, then I don't think you've been taking much in when this issue has been discussed before.

the point I'm making is not that the woman should do anything she wants, but that the consequences of legally denying that are far, far more damaging. 'allowing' women to do things while pregnant that you and I both consider morally unconscionable is by a very long way a better option than giving the state the right to control her body, her actions and make medical decisions for a woman who is conscious and in her right mind. the links i've put up give ample demonstration of how much worse it is. discussing restrictions on women shows a callous disregard for the damage that will do to both the woman and the foetus (then child).
 
I find discussions on this a bit depressing. Abortion is only really an option due to modern medical practices and largely becomes a demand afaiks due to negative social circumstances placed on women: be it sexual violence, social expectations, financial insecurity. Given that context it simply has to be legal. I completely agree to a woman's right to choice but those arguing against it would do themselves no disservice by attacking the stuff that leads women to the decision of termination rather than trying to shame them out of the predicaments they find themselves in.
 
Citizen66 said:
I find discussions on this a bit depressing. Abortion is only really an option due to modern medical practices and largely becomes a demand afaiks due to negative social circumstances placed on women: be it sexual violence, social expectations, financial insecurity. Given that context it simply has to be legal. I completely agree to a woman's right to choice but those arguing against it would do themselves no disservice by attacking the stuff that leads women to the decision of termination rather than trying to shame them out of the predicaments they find themselves in.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. Some women just don't want to be pregnant. No need to be so judgmental about it. And as for modern medical practices, aren't you just grateful for scans, antibiotics, anaesthetics?
 
Citizen66 said:
I find discussions on this a bit depressing. Abortion is only really an option due to modern medical practices and largely becomes a demand afaiks due to negative social circumstances placed on women:
Click to expand...

no it's not. not for all women, wnyway.

I know of several herbs/extracts that can be used to end a pregnancy. through general reading, not through ever having specifically looked them up. my understanding of what i've read seems to indicate that this kind of knowlege has been available, just hidden to grater or lesser degrees depending on the social climate of the era.

women not wanting to be pregnant isn't a product of modern society, all women having access to information is.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Yep, absolutely this. Women having abortions are not always to be seen as victims of something or someone.
Click to expand...

Way to twist my words. Anyway, I'm guessing this this subject is too tricky to discuss unless you're bang on the money with the hymn sheet and I can't be arsed, frankly.
 
Citizen66 said:
Way to twist my words. Anyway, I'm guessing this this subject is too tricky to discuss unless you're bang on the money with the hymn sheet and I can't be arsed, frankly.
Click to expand...
You said that abortion largely becomes a demand due to x, y, and z. An unwanted pregnancy is always a mistake, clearly, but I would take issue with your 'largely becomes a demand' statement. That does not apply to the vast majority of women I know who have had abortions. They got pregnant at the wrong time or with the wrong person, or both.
 
bluescreen said:
No it isn't. Some women just don't want to be pregnant. No need to be so judgmental about it. And as for modern medical practices, aren't you just grateful for scans, antibiotics, anaesthetics?
Click to expand...

I wasn't being judgmental you fucking cock. I was trying to be nuanced on a subject where both sides try to deny that space.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
You said that abortion largely becomes a demand due to x, y, and z. An unwanted pregnancy is always a mistake, clearly, but I would take issue with your 'largely becomes a demand' statement. That does not apply to the vast majority of women I know who have had abortions. They got pregnant at the wrong time or with the wrong person, or both.
Click to expand...

How can either of those things not be linked in any way with the context of the society they live in? Does the pregnancy happen in a vacuum?
 
Citizen66 said:
Way to twist my words. Anyway, I'm guessing this this subject is too tricky to discuss unless you're bang on the money with the hymn sheet and I can't be arsed, frankly.
Click to expand...

just that you're trying to look for cause -> effect and it is a lot more complex. although economic issues and the lack of consideration for women nwith kids in society does have an effect, it dosen't have to be the cause or even a factor in the decision.
 
Citizen66 said:
Way to twist my words. Anyway, I'm guessing this this subject is too tricky to discuss unless you're bang on the money with the hymn sheet and I can't be arsed, frankly.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess people were taking you to task for saying 1. That
Abortion is only really an option due to modern medical practices
Click to expand...
which demonstrably isn't true
and 2.
and largely becomes a demand afaiks due to negative social circumstances placed on women: be it sexual violence, social expectations, financial insecurity.
Click to expand...
which is highly debatable. You know, sometimes women want a choice full stop.
So if you can't be arsed arguing maybe you need to butt out of this discussion entirely and maybe you can reflect on why you wanted to engage in it in the first place.
 
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