Criminalising Pregnant Mothers who Drink

[newbie]

Yes, 100% women should behave exactly as they please whether they are pregnant or not. They should also be able to become pregnant or end a pregnancy entirely as they wish.

I'm sorry I really can't be sure whether that's sarcasm or not. I'll take it as not, but if it is, then my apologies.

So does it follow that the harm caused to the child really is collateral to the womans right to behave as she pleases? The child does not matter at all?

 

[Awesome Wells]

Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the details of this case then before you make any more fatuous statements

What details have I ignored, how are they relevant and why don't you disagree that alchohol can be harmful to unborn children?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm sorry I really can't be sure whether that's sarcasm or not. I'll take it as not, but if it is, then my apologies.

So does it follow that the harm caused to the child really is collateral to the womans right to behave as she pleases? The child does not matter at all?

You've set up a false dichotomy:
Either certain behaviour should be criminalised or the child does not matter at all.

Are you not able to think more subtly than this?

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

I don't disagree with that. However there is a person whose entire life is affected by this particular selfishness which places it into a context where sympathy for the addict is

I would feel as I said above, that we are discussing a specific issue and I'm not getting into whatiffery

Except it's not whatiffery. You keep stating that women should be culpable for "causing harm" to the child. They are your words. Causing harm. All of the things that Thora said also cause harm in the same way that excessive drinking can (and remember, not all alcoholic mothers produce babies with FAS). So logically you should be for policing and prosecuting mothers who cause harm by cheese eating or whose medication may affect the child.

If you are against that then you are being inconsistent and your option is to dismiss alcohol as well as cheese eating, or include all of them.

If this case is about "causing harm" you must accept that that it is applicable in various situations.

 

[Thora]

I'm sorry I really can't be sure whether that's sarcasm or not. I'll take it as not, but if it is, then my apologies.

So does it follow that the harm caused to the child really is collateral to the womans right to behave as she pleases? The child does not matter at all?

A foetus is usually very precious to the woman carrying it, but it doesn't have any rights that are more important than the rights of the woman (an actual living person) to do what they want with their body, just as any non-pregnant person would.

I don't believe for a second that criminalising women would reduce the damage done to foetuses anyway.

 

[Blagsta]

i made no comment on drinking bottles of vodka daily what on earth are you talking about?

Drinking alchohol is frivolous. It can also be harmful, addictive and dangerous, particularly if you are carrying a baby. Do you disagree?

Isn't addiction the issue here?

 

[Blagsta]

ok fair enough. Are there any other circumstances where an adult causes harm to a child where this ambivalence comes into play? Harm of any sort but perhaps especially whole-life physical and developmental harm.

I did start to write a sensible response but then decided to just tell you to fuck off.

 

[Blagsta]

why not? at what point is the adult in this not acting with sufficient agency for the actions that cause harm to be described as deliberate?

Addiction

 

[Awesome Wells]

Isn't addiction the issue here?

I don't know; is this discussion solely linked to pregnant alchohol addicts?

If so that doesn't change the fact that alchohol is detrimental to the health of the child you're carrying. Such people should be helped, but whether some form of intervention is successful does not change the fact that they need to stop drinking for the health of their baby.
Surely that is the bottom line?

 

[Blagsta]

I don't know; is this discussion solely linked to pregnant alchohol addicts?

If so that doesn't change the fact that alchohol is detrimental to the health of the child you're carrying. Such people should be helped, but whether some form of intervention is successful does not change the fact that they need to stop drinking for the health of their baby.
Surely that is the bottom line?

You can come and do my job if you like, seeing as its so easy

 

[Thora]

I don't know; is this discussion solely linked to pregnant alchohol addicts?

If so that doesn't change the fact that alchohol is detrimental to the health of the child you're carrying. Such people should be helped, but whether some form of intervention is successful does not change the fact that they need to stop drinking for the health of their baby.
Surely that is the bottom line?

Has anyone suggested that pregnant alcoholics should't be helped?

 

[ViolentPanda]

.
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.

She may. Then again, she may never develop enough of an understanding of her condition to be able to get angry about it.

Also, frankly if her intellect becomes developed enough for her to be angered by her situation, she'd probably be emotionally and intellectually-equipped to be able to empathise over her mother's (or should I say "the perpetrator's..."? ) addiction issues, so saying "will be angry" is pretty much a stab-in-the-dark guess on your part.

 

[Awesome Wells]

Has anyone suggested that pregnant alcoholics should't be helped?

You tell me.

It has, however, been suggested that pregnant women be allowed to do as they please.

 

[Pickman's model]

It has, however, been suggested that pregnant women be allowed to do as they please.

and you think they shouldn't be allowed to do as they please?

 

[Awesome Wells]

You can come and do my job if you like, seeing as its so easy

I've no idea what your job is, whether it's easy or not, nor what bearing it has on what I said. Please explain.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

It has, however, been suggested that pregnant women be allowed to do as they please.

Imagine that!!

 

[Thora]

You tell me.

It has, however, been suggested that pregnant women be allowed to do as they please.

Do you think it's not possible for adults to have autonomy but also to be helped if they have problems?

 

[Pickman's model]

I've no idea what your job is, whether it's easy or not, nor what bearing it has on what I said. Please explain.

tbh i'm not sure what jobs you're capable of. perhaps you should outline your previous work experience so we can gauge your fitness for jobs like Blagsta's.

 

[weepiper]

NICE guidelines are to avoid any alcohol for the first three months to reduce the risk of miscarriage but that after that 1 or 2 units a week has not been proven to be harmful. Foetal Alcohol Syndrome is caused by heavy regular drinking, not a 'frivolous' glass of wine.

 

[toggle]

I don't disagree with that. However there is a person whose entire life is affected by this particular selfishness which places it into a context where sympathy for the addict is

I would feel as I said above, that we are discussing a specific issue and I'm not getting into whatiffery

but if it's a test case, as you have stated, then it will be setting a precedent that will be applied to other situations. it is not unreasonable to consider what other situations this might be applied to and how that will impact on pregnant (and potentially pregnant) women in general.

At the very least, criminalising drinking or any other potentially harmful action while pregnant will very likely have a similar effect to the crack baby scares in the US. women will not feel able to discuss any problems with their healthcare providers, will therefore not get advice and support on those problems.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

NICE guidelines are to avoid any alcohol for the first three months to reduce the risk of miscarriage but that after that 1 or 2 units a week has not been proven to be harmful. Foetal Alcohol Syndrome is caused by heavy regular drinking, not a 'frivolous' glass of wine.

Yeah, my understanding is that the evidence for light drinking is pretty much nonexistent. I believe that in France, the official recommendation is no more than one glass of wine a day.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

NICE guidelines are to avoid any alcohol for the first three months to reduce the risk of miscarriage but that after that 1 or 2 units a week has not been proven to be harmful. Foetal Alcohol Syndrome is caused by heavy regular drinking, not a 'frivolous' glass of wine.

Well, quite. And heavy regular drinking is generally considered to be an addiction. These people need help, not prosecution.

 

[mentalchik]

Really?

The snippet I heard, not all admittedly, was some bloke arguing that anyone who says pregnant people shouldn't smoke or drink is the worst kind of liberal killjoy, nanny state, etc.

Yes there was, there were also people talking about pregnancy in almost a religious way....................

 

[Awesome Wells]

Imagine that!!

But you can't do as you please while pregnant because there are consequences for the child you are carrying. That's life. It might be nice if they could drink to their hearts content, and were they solely responsible for themselves, I would feel different. But they are not and arguing pie in the sky notions do not change the fact.

Now I don't really agree or feel at all comfortable with criminalising people. But what do you do with someone that drinks significant amounts or smokes 20/day while carrying a child and argues that it's their free choice - they aren't addicted (necessarily), they are doing what they choose. What then?

 

[mentalchik]

i made no comment on drinking bottles of vodka daily what on earth are you talking about?

Drinking alchohol is frivolous. It can also be harmful, addictive and dangerous, particularly if you are carrying a baby. Do you disagree?

I think the prominent word here is "can"..........can be harmful......serious heavy daily drinking is harmful in itself to the person doing it let alone if they happen to be pregnant..........

 

[mentalchik]

But you can't do as you please while pregnant because there are consequences for the child you are carrying. That's life. It might be nice if they could drink to their hearts content, and were they solely responsible for themselves, I would feel different. But they are not and arguing pie in the sky notions do not change the fact.

Now I don't really agree or feel at all comfortable with criminalising people. But what do you do with someone that drinks significant amounts or smokes 20/day while carrying a child and argues that it's their free choice - they aren't addicted (necessarily), they are doing what they choose. What then?

would you have pregnant women under house arrest then for the whole term of their pregnancy ?.........driving a car holds a significant risk, walking about in car pollution, eating certain foods, handling pets etc etc etc.........

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

But what do you do with someone that drinks significant amounts or smokes 20/day while carrying a child and argues that it's their free choice - they aren't addicted (necessarily),

I would say that someone who smokes 20 fags a day and says they aren't addicted are in denial. And need money spent on them in helping them, not taking them to court to take money off them.

 

[Thora]

But you can't do as you please while pregnant because there are consequences for the child you are carrying. That's life. It might be nice if they could drink to their hearts content, and were they solely responsible for themselves, I would feel different. But they are not and arguing pie in the sky notions do not change the fact.

Now I don't really agree or feel at all comfortable with criminalising people. But what do you do with someone that drinks significant amounts or smokes 20/day while carrying a child and argues that it's their free choice - they aren't addicted (necessarily), they are doing what they choose. What then?

Then it's STILL THEIR CHOICE. Still their body, absolutely their choice what they do with it.

I did exactly as I pleased when I was pregnant. That included considering any risk to myself or my foetus but it was still my choice to make.

 

[Awesome Wells]

NICE guidelines are to avoid any alcohol for the first three months to reduce the risk of miscarriage but that after that 1 or 2 units a week has not been proven to be harmful. Foetal Alcohol Syndrome is caused by heavy regular drinking, not a 'frivolous' glass of wine.

I didn't make any reference to amount, so that's on you.

drinking and smoking are frivolous activities. They are not done for any concrete reason other than because they give pleasure. That doesn't make them wrong, but it means they have consequences for your or your baby's health. Playing with your baby's health is also frivolous. People need to be responsible if they are drinking and smoking while pregnant. Simple as that. If that means you don't drink while pregnant, well sad day for you.

Also not proven to be harmful doesn't necessarily mean proven to be safe. In other words, it's impossible to prescribe safe amounts in general because peopel are different and react differently - particularly i would imagine while pregantn - so the most responsible thing to do in order to minimise harm is advocate abstinence.

I don't take pleasure in prescribing behaviours, but that's life.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

it's explicitly a test case, so as well as the rights of those two parties there are another 80 or so specific cases reliant on the outcome and some 250 per year children born with FAS. So if the justice system is not the place, where is?

I presume you agree that society as a whole does not want preventable harm to be caused to children? If this case recognises that the child victim has rights that cannot be dismissed then there is clarity about the legal duty on the woman herself to not cause harm, also, as I mentioned above, there will be explicit duties placed on all professionals involved in the care of future expectant women in this position as well as at least some implicit responsibility that will be much clearer to friends and relatives.

If that does not happen, what mechanism will serve to protect future children from this harm? Or is society expected to accept that some, specific individuals can behave as they please and any damage caused is merely collateral?

Health and social services, plus education, housing and income maintenance; in other words the welfare state not the criminal justice system. It is not needed; more than that it's use is causing further damage (through the criminalisation of the mother) to an already damaged situation.

You are also not addressing the fact that this test case is being fought on the basis of the rights of the foetus not the child; why not?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice