Criminalising Pregnant Mothers who Drink

[Awesome Wells]

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.

There may be circumstances in which a more severe intervention would be required. How that would work I don't know.

 

[newbie]

As has been stated many times on this thread already, this is a public health issue. Generally, criminalising addiction is an ongoing public health disaster. Specifically, criminalising excessive drinking for pregnant women is likely to make them less, not more, likely to seek help; more, not less, likely to try to hide their problems. If it happens, it will be a public health disaster.

now that is a point worth making. there are currently about 250 a year children born having had this harm done to them yet (I presume) professionals are already doing their best to prevent this happening. So there is already something of a disaster. The advantage of legal clarity is that it places advice on a much firmer footing, the disadvantage is, as you say, that those most determined to behave as they please without regard for the child will evade scrutiny. Is there clear evidence as to the most effective harm reduction strategy in this specific circumstance (ie not addiction in general, which in any case is not considered much of a mitigating factor in criminal cases of harm against a person).

 

[Awesome Wells]

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.

And that's exactly why i worded my first post as I did.

 

[newbie]

Do you understand what 'test case' actually means? Because you keep using it without any apparent understanding of what will happen if this is a successful prosecution.

I believe so. This isn't a prosecution.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

There may be circumstances in which a more severe intervention would be required. How that would work I don't know.

Lock them into a "pregnancy clinic". Keep them under house arrest. Then take their babies away because they would clearly be unfit mothers.

Amiright?

 

[iamwithnail]

And how did she respond?
If she didn't poke them in the eye* she's a far, far better woman than me.

*With a rusty nail or a razor blade or a knitting needle.

As was often the case with pregnancy related stresses, a little cry in that particular instance.

 

[Thora]

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.

Would you also argue that men of child bearing age shouldn't drink, smoke, take drugs or do anything that could impact the quality of sperm and therefore foetal development?

 

[Awesome Wells]

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..........

So on balance the smart thing to do would be not to drink/smoke/etc

 

[killer b]

those most determined to behave as they please without regard for the child

you're disgusting.

 

[DotCommunist]

I see two blokes have turned up to sit on the righteous cloud and tell women how to behave when pregnant, brilliant.

 

[Awesome Wells]

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.........

I would advocate educating people and helping them. But if they refuse help or don't change, for whatever reason, then it may be necessary to take further action. I don't know waht that would be i wouldn't enjoy the fact. harming the baby may lead to complications in birth that could also harm or even kill the mother during the process.

 

[mentalchik]

So on balance the smart thing to do would be not to drink/smoke/etc

So you seem to have decided that the risk of possible 'harm' to the pregnancy trumps the right of the woman to make decisions about her own body ?

 

[Awesome Wells]

I see two blokes have turned up to sit on the righteous cloud and tell women how to behave when pregnant, brilliant.

Yes, that's exactly what has happened.

Men are scum!

 

[DotCommunist]

jesus christ spare me

 

[Thora]

that those most determined to behave as they please without regard for the child will evade scrutiny.

Like those women who become wilfully become pregnant knowing that there is an increased risk of a child being born with disabilities or suffering birth defects? Criminalisation would probably curb their behaviour more than it would addicts. Prosecute anyone whose baby is born with problems directly related to the mother's age, health or medical conditions. It would probably save the NHS loads of money too.

 

[Awesome Wells]

So you seem to have decided that the risk of possible 'harm' to the pregnancy trumps the right of the woman to make decisions about her own body ?

If the right to drink beer and smoke harms the unborn child then yes, just as I would advocate the right to prevent, for instance, primary school teachers from puffing away on cigarettes in class, or patients in GP waiting rooms not to light up.

I would rather the choice be made by the mother herself and I would rather see people helped not criminalised. But if the only soluition is something more punitive, in lieu of a better solution i currently don't see, then that may be necessary.

Noone has an absolute right to do anything they pleas 100% of the time.

 

[Awesome Wells]

jesus christ spare me

stop being a dick then.

 

[newbie]

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.

the problem is that the welfare state is clearly failing in this circumstance. It should be improved. Of course, though we have to face the realities.

However, there is the issue of agency which is rather ignored when using common social factors to explain why some individuals choose to behave harmfully while most don't

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

because I can't and won't put the same arguments as the lawyers. I think I can put the case for the rights of the child without being constrained by what they say.

 

[Thora]

If the right to drink beer and smoke harms the unborn child then yes, just as I would advocate the right to prevent, for instance, primary school teachers from puffing away on cigarettes in class, or patients in GP waiting rooms not to light up.

I would rather the choice be made by the mother herself and I would rather see people helped not criminalised. But if the only soluition is something more punitive, in lieu of a better solution i currently don't see, then that may be necessary.

Noone has an absolute right to do anything they pleas 100% of the time.

And what about potential fathers?

 

[Awesome Wells]

And what about potential fathers?

What do you mean?

 

[Blagsta]

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.

Addiction - look it up

 

[Thora]

What do you mean?

Drinking, smoking, drugs, medications - all these things can affect sperm quality and therefore foetal development. Maybe all sexually active men should be legally required to abstain, just in case?

 

[Blagsta]

I would advocate educating people and helping them. But if they refuse help or don't change, for whatever reason, then it may be necessary to take further action. I don't know waht that would be i wouldn't enjoy the fact. harming the baby may lead to complications in birth that could also harm or even kill the mother during the process.

This already happens. Unfortunately, no one has got a magic wand.

 

[Awesome Wells]

Addiction - look it up

why would i want to do that? You haven't even answered my question in response to your job comment.

 

[toggle]

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.........

cases from the US, but do highlight where this seems to be going

https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/court-forces-bed-rest-pregnant-woman

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/s...e-challenges-fetal-protection-law-f8C11457748

http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.or...tive_summary_paltrow_flavin_jhppl_article.php


there's an unfortunately large amount more like this

 

[Awesome Wells]

Drinking, smoking, drugs, medications - all these things can affect sperm quality and therefore foetal development. Maybe all sexually active men should be legally required to abstain, just in case?

Maybe they should.

Drinking smoking and drugs are not things that are good for you are they! Whether or not people should have the freedom to poison themselves for pleasure is a separate matter.

However the question of the topic isn't about men and sperm. Are you now asking that it be changed to include men?

 

[Awesome Wells]

This already happens. Unfortunately, no one has got a magic wand.

Really? That's surprising to hear!

 

[Awesome Wells]

cases from the US, but do highlight where this seems to be going

https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/court-forces-bed-rest-pregnant-woman

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/s...e-challenges-fetal-protection-law-f8C11457748

http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.or...tive_summary_paltrow_flavin_jhppl_article.php


there's an unfortunately large amount more like this

A lot of stuff in america seems to come from a patriarchal white skinned religious sensibility. Not necessarily a good place to base anything from.

 

[Blagsta]

why would i want to do that? You haven't even answered my question in response to your job comment.

Because you appear to know nothing about it.

 

[Blagsta]

Really? That's surprising to hear!

Well you appear to think that addictive behaviours can be magically stopped.