Criminalising Pregnant Mothers who Drink

[Blagsta]

actually, that maybe is a bit different, because it works on the presumption that her moral code places harm to another lower than opposition to abortion. That's surely much greater evidence of deliberate harm.

What?

 

[innit]

Stress in pregnancy is believed to affect neural development. Should women feel obliged to terminate a pregnancy if something unexpectedly happens which causes them a huge amount of stress? What about women who plan a pregnancy despite having a very stressful job or suffering from an anxiety disorder - should they be prosecuted because they made a choice to get pregnant in circumstances where the foetus was likely to be exposed to their stress hormones?

 

[redsquirrel]

How does a chronic alcoholic effectively deliberate?

Rather than ignoring warnings it might be more accurate to say that she was unable to act on them.

This is a story about a mother who harmed herself and her unborn child; it is not a story about a criminal and a victim, but of two people needing care and support.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Spot on as usual LM

 

[newbie]

And the point of this case is that a council is trying to wiggle out of its responsibility to support a disabled child. That's all. They don't care about the morality or otherwise.

I don't actually think that's the case. This is a tip of the iceberg test case being run through the courts and through public opinion to determine where rights, responsibilities and duties begin and end in the light of current medical, scientific, legal and ethical understanding. It's being done by public bodies using public money rather than bearing directly on an individual. You may think the child, who is innocent victim in this, has no rights at all but I don't quite get why you're critical of the case being made?

 

[newbie]

Stress in pregnancy is believed to affect neural development. Should women feel obliged to terminate a pregnancy if something unexpectedly happens which causes them a huge amount of stress? What about women who plan a pregnancy despite having a very stressful job or suffering from an anxiety disorder - should they be prosecuted because they made a choice to get pregnant in circumstances where the foetus was likely to be exposed to their stress hormones?

my view is that I have no view on those questions. We're discussing a very specific issue and I'm not about to go wandering off into whatiffery.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I don't actually think that's the case. This is a tip of the iceberg test case being run through the courts and through public opinion to determine where rights, responsibilities and duties begin and end in the light of current medical, scientific, legal and ethical understanding. It's being done by public bodies using public money rather than bearing directly on an individual. You may think the child, who is innocent victim in this, has no rights at all but I don't quite get why you're critical of the case being made?

Why does the child's right to be cared for require the criminalisation of the mother?

Could it be because this is a material means of gaining access to funds in the form of criminal injuries compensation, rather than some more abstract pursuit of a balance between rights and duties?

Is the care system - including local authority funding - so broken that the child can only be effectively protected by attacking the mother?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[newbie]

What?

I think it's quite clear. Are you suggesting that a 'morality' based objection to abortion should grant a right to cause harm?

 

[trashpony]

I don't actually think that's the case. This is a tip of the iceberg test case being run through the courts and through public opinion to determine where rights, responsibilities and duties begin and end in the light of current medical, scientific, legal and ethical understanding. It's being done by public bodies using public money rather than bearing directly on an individual. You may think the child, who is innocent victim in this, has no rights at all but I don't quite get why you're critical of the case being made?

The child has rights. As a foetus, they had none otherwise you are setting a very dangerous precedent which will lead to the erosion of abortion rights. I don't quite get why you can't understand that.

 

[Blagsta]

I think it's quite clear. Are you suggesting that a 'morality' based objection to abortion should grant a right to cause harm?

What the fuck are you on about?

 

[killer b]

jesus. you fucking mr logic cock newbie.

 

[newbie]

Why does the child's right to be cared for require the criminalisation of the mother?

Could it be because this is a material means of gaining access to funds in the form of criminal injuries compensation, rather than some more abstract pursuit of a balance between rights and duties?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

over centuries the common law has evolved to 'criminalise' those who deliberately cause harm to another. Why is there special pleading in this case?

as for the funding issue, of course that may come into it, but only really to highlight the main questions.

 

[newbie]

The child has rights. As a foetus, they had none otherwise you are setting a very dangerous precedent which will lead to the erosion of abortion rights. I don't quite get why you can't understand that.

this has nothing to do with abstract rights of a foetus, there is a six year old child with a life expectancy of 82 years, and she has rights edit or ought to have, in my view. In the case of abortion there is no such person to have any rights.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

this has nothing to do with abstract rights of a foetus, there is a six year old child with a life expectancy of 82 years, and she has rights edit or ought to have, in my view. In the case of abortion there is no such person to have any rights.

That is not how this is being argued in court. The prosecution is explicitly arguing for the rights of the foetus; their case is that this is the person who has been harmed.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[newbie]

What the fuck are you on about?

I've tried, twice. You explain why "Maybe she is morally opposed to abortion." has any bearing on this.

 

[newbie]

That is not how this is being argued in court. The prosecution is explicitly arguing for the rights of the foetus; there case is that this is the person who has been harmed.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

but this isn't a court and that's not the position I'm putting forward, nor would I because I have no wish whatsoever to erode the right to choose.

the case is being put forward on behalf of a six year old child. She matters.

 

[Awesome Wells]

Perhaps pregnant women could exercise the freedom to freely not choose something frivolous that will harm their baby.

 

[likesfish]

Dangerous precident not a lot of sympathy for the mother addict suprise suprise is a selfish git.
Expect this time not only fucked up her life up and anyone she knew but managed to bring a child into the world damaged by her actions that the state know has to look after for another 70 years

 

[coley]

Why does the child's right to be cared for require the criminalisation of the mother?

Could it be because this is a material means of gaining access to funds in the form of criminal injuries compensation, rather than some more abstract pursuit of a balance between rights and duties?

Is the care system - including local authority funding - so broken that the child can only be effectively protected by attacking the mother?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head, those departments responsible for care are desperately trying to offload costs onto other departments.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

but this isn't a court and that's not the position I'm putting forward, nor would I because I have no wish whatsoever to erode the right to choose.

the case is being put forward on behalf of a six year old child. She matters.

You explicitly referred to it being argued through the courts on the basis of the child's rights (see post 94); I am pointing out that this isn't the basis on which the case is being made. So you seem to be supporting the prosecution of a case based on the rights of the foetus; a position you say you don't agree with. Isn't the obvious answer that the criminal justice system is not appropriate for meeting the needs of both daughter and mother, rather than trying to tie your self in knots to defend the indefensible?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[weepiper]

Dangerous precident not a lot of sympathy for the mother addict suprise suprise is a selfish git.
Expect this time not only fucked up her life up and anyone she knew but managed to bring a child into the world damaged by her actions that the state know has to look after for another 70 years

And what about whoever stuck his cock in her and spunked without using a condom? Is he to blame for bringing a child into the world damaged by his actions that the state has to look after for another 70 years too?

 

[killer b]

Are addicts selfish? I suppose they might be, but no more than anyone else. Addiction is, IME, a symptom of significant psychological issues elsewhere, not something that can always be just snapped out of, given enough motivation.

Talking about 'selfishness' or 'choice' at the same time as addiction makes me think that the person talking has very little understanding of addiction, or the challenges it poses the addict.

 

[Blagsta]

I've tried, twice. You explain why "Maybe she is morally opposed to abortion." has any bearing on this.

I'm pointing out that people have emotional conflicts, moral choices involve emotions, people have ambivalence about choices, they're not machines.

 

[Blagsta]

over centuries the common law has evolved to 'criminalise' those who deliberately cause harm to another. Why is there special pleading in this case?

as for the funding issue, of course that may come into it, but only really to highlight the main questions.

I'm still not clear on the "deliberatly cause harm" bit here.

 

[maomao]

Are addicts selfish? I suppose they might be, but no more than anyone else. Addiction is, IME, a symptom of significant psychological issues elsewhere, not something that can always be just snapped out of, given enough motivation.

Talking about 'selfishness' or 'choice' at the same time as addiction makes me think that the person talking has very little understanding of addiction, or the challenges it poses the addict.

I've always seen selfishness as a symptom of addiction rather than a cause.

 

[likesfish]

Its a shit situation kids fucked up by the actions of the mum.
Somebody came up with a great wheeze to get the kid some cash which risks a load of shit down down the line.

 

[killer b]

Just shut the fuck up, likesfish.

 

[mentalchik]

Perhaps pregnant women could exercise the freedom to freely not choose something frivolous that will harm their baby.

frivolous ?

 

[killer b]

Innit. I'd like to see how he'd react if someone told him his mental health problems were frivolous'

 

[weepiper]

Oh god Wells is here.

 

[mentalchik]

I had the misfortune to hear the Radio 5 live phone in on this subject.........although there were actually some good balanced viewpoints there was the usual sanctimonious judgemental claptrap and the portraying of pregnant women as if they should somehow be a sort of madonna figure............