Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Criminalising Pregnant Mothers who Drink

Thora said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. Prosecution as such is rather unlikely except in the most extreme cases. However, legal clarity may be desirable, but in my view not in cases "related to the mother's age, health or medical conditions" but in cases directly related to her willful behaviour.

Can you make a case that the child born to someone who behaves in a way known to cause developmental harm should have no rights whatsoever? If the child should not have rights what makes them different from any other person who has been deliberately harmed? If the child should have rights what are they and how should they be exercised?
 
toggle said:
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
Click to expand...

Well it's kinda the logical step isn't it if you accept criminalising a woman for smoking and drinking whilst pregnant
 
newbie said:
No. Prosecution as such is rather unlikely except in the most extreme cases. However, legal clarity may be desirable, but in my view not in cases "related to the mother's age, health or medical conditions" but in cases directly related to her willful behaviour.

Can you make a case that the child born to someone who behaves in a way known to cause developmental harm should have no rights whatsoever? If the child should not have rights what makes them different from any other person who has been deliberately harmed? If the child should have rights what are they and how should they be exercised?
Click to expand...
We're not talking about a child, we're talking about a foetus. They don't have rights because they aren't a person. I hope that helps.

How is wilfully becoming pregnant when you know your age/health/medical condition might damage a foetus different from wilfully drinking while pregnant?
 
Awesome Wells said:
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?
Click to expand...
Why do you think it is important to criminalise women, but not men?
 
mentalchik said:
Well it's kinda the logical step isn't it if you accept criminalising a woman for smoking and drinking whilst pregnant
Click to expand...

the bit that is scary and particularly relevant to this situation is the criminal cases being started against pregnant women as a direct result of them seeking addiction treatment and being reported to the authorities by the medical professionals they sought help from.
 
Thora said:
We're not talking about a child, we're talking about a foetus. They don't have rights because they aren't a person. I hope that helps.

How is wilfully becoming pregnant when you know your age/health/medical condition might damage a foetus different from wilfully drinking while pregnant?
Click to expand...
I'm talking about a child. She's 6. She has a life expectancy of 81. She has been harmed by an adult.

Why aren't you talking about her?
 
toggle said:
the bit that is scary and particularly relevant to this situation is the criminal cases being started against pregnant women as a direct result of them seeking addiction treatment and being reported to the authorities by the medical professionals they sought help from.
Click to expand...

:eek:
 
FabricLiveBaby! said:
Where's that bingo card?
Click to expand...
You mean the Bingo card that has almost every common phrase, regardless of whether it's offensive or prejudicial, that could be used in any situation. The one that you can use regardless of situation to beat your opponent over the head in an attempt to control the coversation.

Or the one that bans people from threads because men aren't allowed to have opinions on feminist issues and feminist related issues. They aren't even allowed to provide evidence - when asked to do so - to back up their points.

You people = the people that project their own prejudice onto what other people with whom they disagree, setting up straw men and misrepresenting what was actually said.

Go you!
 
Thora said:
How is wilfully becoming pregnant when you know your age/health/medical condition might damage a foetus different from wilfully drinking while pregnant?
Click to expand...

it may or may not be, depending upon circumstances, but the circumstances of this case are reasonably clear from the information presented at the Court of Appeal.
 
Thora said:
We're not talking about a child, we're talking about a foetus. They don't have rights because they aren't a person. I hope that helps.

How is wilfully becoming pregnant when you know your age/health/medical condition might damage a foetus different from wilfully drinking while pregnant?
Click to expand...
The issue of whether it's wise and healthy to drink/smoke while pregnant is relevant right up until birth.
 
newbie said:
I'm talking about a child. She's 6. She has a life expectancy of 81. She has been harmed by an adult.

Why aren't you talking about her?
Click to expand...

Ok i once saw a documentary about a family that carried a gene for a very painful, debilitating condition with high risk of deformity and other associated infection risks and also carried high risk for a shortened lifespan.........they made the decision to have another child fully knowing the high risk of having another baby with this condition...which they did and the child did have the condition.......should that woman be prosecuted ?
 
Awesome Wells said:
the one that bans people from threads because men aren't allowed to have opinions on feminist issues and feminist related issues. They aren't even allowed to provide evidence - when asked to do so - to back up their points.
Click to expand...
At least half the posters on that thread were male. You weren't stopped from posting on it for having an opinion, you were stopped from posting because you were turning it into another hysterical shitfest like most threads you touch.
 
newbie said:
No. Prosecution as such is rather unlikely except in the most extreme cases. However, legal clarity may be desirable, but in my view not in cases "related to the mother's age, health or medical conditions" but in cases directly related to her willful behaviour.

Can you make a case that the child born to someone who behaves in a way known to cause developmental harm should have no rights whatsoever? If the child should not have rights what makes them different from any other person who has been deliberately harmed? If the child should have rights what are they and how should they be exercised?
Click to expand...

"Wilful behaviour"?
 
newbie said:
No. Prosecution as such is rather unlikely except in the most extreme cases. However, legal clarity may be desirable, but in my view not in cases "related to the mother's age, health or medical conditions" but in cases directly related to her willful behaviour.

Can you make a case that the child born to someone who behaves in a way known to cause developmental harm should have no rights whatsoever? If the child should not have rights what makes them different from any other person who has been deliberately harmed? If the child should have rights what are they and how should they be exercised?
Click to expand...

Maybe suing the government for reducing funding to addiction services might be a more fruitful line to take.
 
8ball said:
:eek:
Click to expand...

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/27/ten...l_to_jail_women_for_their_pregnancy_outcomes/

Kathy Hartke, M.D., Wisconsin Section Legislative Chair of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, opposes a similar law in her home state, and told Salon last year that these policies have directly hurt her patients: “Women know that if they are using and seek treatment, there is a chance that they may be forcibly put in jail.”

“I had a patient a few years ago who presented in need of care, but by the time I arrived at the emergency room, the police had already been called,” she explained at the time. “She was taken to jail without an attorney to represent her, though her fetus was designated a legal guardian. She was then put into a locked mental health ward at another hospital, where she was denied prenatal care for over a month.”
Click to expand...

http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/blog/2014/07/guadalupe_county_jail_denies_m.php

that's refering to a case where a pregnant woman was jailed for using drugs, while trying to get addiction treatment. she was denied treatment while in prison, despite the fact that denial of treatment was more likely to cause harm to the foetus than her addiction
 
Last edited:
newbie said:
it may or may not be, depending upon circumstances, but the circumstances of this case are reasonably clear from the information presented at the Court of Appeal.
Click to expand...
This particular case isn't where it stops though, is it?

If one woman is successfully held criminally responsible for damaging a foetus, then that paves the way for many other alcoholics, drug addicts, women with bad genes, on long term medication, diabetics, those who make birth choices against a doctor's advice, wilful cheese eaters, careless cat litter emptiers to also be "held accountable".
 
mentalchik said:
Ok i once saw a documentary about a family that carried a gene for a very painful, debilitating condition with high risk of deformity and other associated infection risks and also carried high risk for a shortened lifespan.........they made the decision to have another child fully knowing the high risk of having another baby with this condition...which they did and the child did have the condition.......should that woman be prosecuted ?
Click to expand...
would it do any good? well probably not because there are very few people in that position, so far as I know now in 2014. But that may change in the future as research continues.

The problem with debates about medical ethics is that they're necessarily temporary, because the science is forever changing. Thus a few years ago there was much less science to attribute direct responsibility for a childs developmental issues. Now it can be pinpointed to alcohol. Other conditions will be better understood in future.

Do you want to make the case that the child cannot have any rights whatsoever, that all rights are those of the adult who does her harm?
 
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