Foetal alcohol syndrome

[ItWillNeverWork]

So you would like women who contract listeria or toxoplasmosis in pregnancy to be prosecuted for a crime against a person?

What about diabetic women who become pregnant?

I'm taking your word for it that brie-eating poses a serious and known threat to the health of an unborn child. If these examples are so absurd as to make answering 'yes' to your question equally absurd, then they cannot be compared to the topic actually at hand - a child born with FAS.

 

[felixthecat]

Or what about women who are obese? Yeah, let's prosecute fat women who have stillbirths, babies with birth defects or babies that develop diabetes.

What an excellent idea

 

[spanglechick]

I'm taking your word for it that brie-eating poses a serious and known threat to the health of an unborn child. If these examples are so absurd as to make answering 'yes' to your question equally absurd, then they cannot be compared to the topic actually at hand - a child born with FAS.

they're not absurd - none of these are absurd if you stand for the prosecution of women with FAS babies. All these hypothetical women are knowingly taking risks in pregnancy.

 

[8115]

Or what about women who are obese? Yeah, let's prosecute fat women who have stillbirths, babies with birth defects or babies that develop diabetes.

What an excellent idea

Life's rich tapestry.

they're not absurd - none of these are absurd if you stand for the prosecution of women with FAS babies. All these hypothetical women are knowingly taking risks in pregnancy.

It's a bit of a leap from saying women don't have a right to take any risk they like in pregnancy to saying they should be prosecuted.

 

[Thora]

So we have drinkers, cheese eaters, cat owners, fat women, old women, diabetic women, women who don't take their vitamins...

 

[Shirl]

So we have drinkers, cheese eaters, cat owners, fat women, old women, diabetic women, women who don't take their vitamins...

Women aren't fit to have babies..

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

they're not absurd - none of these are absurd if you stand for the prosecution of women with FAS babies. All these hypothetical women are knowingly taking risks in pregnancy.

The point has been made twice by me and once by 8115 already. There are degrees of risk. But we seem to be going round in circles here, and partly because I think we are starting off from different fundamental positions regarding the status of an unborn child. This isn't anything that is going to be resolved, so I will bow out here.

 

[8115]

Women aren't fit to have babies..

That's such a straw man.

 

[felixthecat]

Women aren't fit to have babies..

Clearly not.

 

[aqua]

Jesus. I just don't think I have it in me. Sorry.

Me too. I read thora's posts and I agree with her standpoint and I just don't think I have it in me to argue. As far as I'm concerned this is my body and quite frankly people can get to fuck that think the second I became pregnant I can be dictated to and controlled. It's still MY body. I will assess the risks and make judgements accordingly. Some people take more risks than I think are OK, and others think I take more risks than they think are OK. Ultimately it's risk isn't it. Even if eating soft cheese is a tiny tiny risk, a 1:10,000 risk (for example) some poor fucker will always be that 1. So for that all women who are expecting should have their ability to assess risk taken away?

Because what? we mere females can't possibly be allowed to have our own thoughts or be able to assess risk? Because other people know better than I do about my body? People can advise, people can research, but ultimately this is my body. Back to the OP, what about the support in place for pregnant mums who do have issues with whatever substances? Because when the consultant I saw is rated highly because she see's her mums-to-be who have mental health issues BEFORE they become a problem, and her service is seen as unique, then really we're fucked aren't we?

But this thread is just full of blokes saying they know better than the people who have been pregnant. So I am not posting again.

 

[Thora]

Life's rich tapestry.


It's a bit of a leap from saying women don't have a right to take any risk they like in pregnancy to saying they should be prosecuted.

Which risks would you allow women to take and which wouldn't you?

 

[spanglechick]

There are degrees of risk taking. Every minute of every day, you take millions of risks. Some you're aware of, most you're not. And your brain calculates risk at a million times a second.

Some risks, like leaving my house and crossing the road I think is an acceptable risk. Some risks, like climbing on top of the railway bridge and walking across it drunk at night, I don't think is an acceptable risk. All things are different levels of risk, humans are actually quite bad at judging relative risk. For instance horse riding is notoriously more dangerous than taking ecstacy.

I think the social acceptability of the risk does sadly come into it. Saying "my little brother has problems because my mum fell off a horse when she was pregnant", makes people think something different to "my little brother has problems because my mum took ecstacy when she was pregnant". And, like it or not, people (and not just their parents) have to carry that around with them their whole lives.

We're skirting around the social acceptability issue but I think it does come into it obviously.

i think that is the absolute *crux* of the current discussion. it's easy for some people to condemn the woman who drinks in pregnancy because drinking is for pleasure, and it's unladylike and at odds with the cultural ideal of motherhood. Horse-riding / eating bagged salads is wholesome and ladylike and not especially sinful/pleasurable. So it's harder to condemn. But if you prosecute one you logically pave the way to prosecute the others. And legal precedent being what it is, those other risks will also become illegal if they result in harm.

 

[8115]

Which risks would you allow women to take and which wouldn't you?

What risks do I think it's ok for women to take?

I guess something like, risks that do not have a moderate to high likelihood of harm being caused, with the likelihood of harm being caused being higher the less avoidable the risk is, if that makes sense.

 

[Shirl]

I started reading this thread at the wrong end and have been working backwards. I've stopped now though. I just can't believe that even now in 2014 women are still not allowed to live as they choose, in some peoples eyes.
Jesus, some folk should ask themselves who the hell they think they are to make such judgements.

 

[Thora]

Me too. I read thora's posts and I agree with her standpoint and I just don't think I have it in me to argue. As far as I'm concerned this is my body and quite frankly people can get to fuck that think the second I became pregnant I can be dictated to and controlled. It's still MY body. I will assess the risks and make judgements accordingly. Some people take more risks than I think are OK, and others think I take more risks than they think are OK. Ultimately it's risk isn't it. Even if eating soft cheese is a tiny tiny risk, a 1:10,000 risk (for example) some poor fucker will always be that 1. So for that all women who are expecting should have their ability to assess risk taken away?

Because what? we mere females can't possibly be allowed to have our own thoughts or be able to assess risk? Because other people know better than I do about my body? People can advise, people can research, but ultimately this is my body. Back to the OP, what about the support in place for pregnant mums who do have issues with whatever substances? Because when the consultant I saw is rated highly because she see's her mums-to-be who have mental health issues BEFORE they become a problem, and her service is seen as unique, then really we're fucked aren't we?

But this thread is just full of blokes saying they know better than the people who have been pregnant. So I am not posting again.

You're right, and maybe we should look at it in a different way.

The vast majority of women who want to give birth to a baby, want the best for it and will assess risk carefully in order to ensure the best outcome for their baby in the context of their own lives. They care about their foetus more than you do.

Those women who are making decisions that could result in a poor outcome for their baby are generally not doing it just because it's legal. The pregnant woman who is drinking a bottle of vodka a day is not thinking "well it's legal, so I will". Threatening to prosecute her is not going to make her not be an alcoholic, it's going to make her avoid all contact with health services.

So what exactly is prosecuting women whose babies have FAS going to achieve? Other than to punish them for their wickedness? Will it mean fewer babies are born with FAS, or that the outcomes for the babies of alcohol dependent women are better? Somehow I doubt it.

 

[8115]

I started reading this thread at the wrong end and have been working backwards. I've stopped now though. I just can't believe that even now in 2014 women are still not allowed to live as they choose, in some peoples eyes.
Jesus, some folk should ask themselves who the hell they think they are to make such judgements.

Jesus, well I think that all the people who have kids are about to come over all "pregnancy is a wonderful magical thing for a woman" which personally makes me feel the same as I think you're feeling.

It's a difficult topic for a lot of reasons.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

You're right, and maybe we should look at it in a different way.

The vast majority of women who want to give birth to a baby, want the best for it and will assess risk carefully in order to ensure the best outcome for their baby in the context of their own lives. They care about their foetus more than you do.

Those women who are making decisions that could result in a poor outcome for their baby are generally not doing it just because it's legal. The pregnant woman who is drinking a bottle of vodka a day is not thinking "well it's legal, so I will". Threatening to prosecute her is not going to make her not be an alcoholic, it's going to make her avoid all contact with health services.

So what exactly is prosecuting women whose babies have FAS going to achieve? Other than to punish them for their wickedness? Will it mean fewer babies are born with FAS, or that the outcomes for the babies of alcohol dependent women are better? Somehow I doubt it.

I know I said I was bowing out, but you make a very good point here. Much better than the 'what about brie' nonsense you were coming out with earlier.

 

[bluescreen]

Oh don't worry, some states have it sorted. In El Salvador a woman can go to jail for miscarrying, because it's prima facie her fault, whatever she did. And Mississippi and other US states aren't far behind.

It's astonishing the way people want to control women as if they weren't intelligent human beings capable of making intelligent decisions about their own bodies and the incipient human growing inside them. Oh, and don't forget,

 

[Thora]

Wow, I feel so validated.

 

[spanglechick]

And Mississippi and other US states aren't far behind.

8115 - please read this link... this is where certain lobbying groups want us to end up. and the first step is always something like this.

 

[killer b]

Wow, I feel so validated.

well done little lady. *pats head*

 

[8115]

8115 - please read this link... this is where certain lobbying groups want us to end up. and the first step is always something like this.

I think the justice system in the UK is very different to the US luckily. We don't have supermax jails for a start. But thanks for the link, food for though I guess.

eta, oh we do have supermax apparently.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

well done little lady. *pats head*

Yes, that's right. I agreed with Thora on that point out of sexism.

 

[killer b]

yeah, it couldn't happen here.

 

[8115]

yeah, it couldn't happen here.

I think that's the exact case we're discussing. We're a very long way off prosecutions.

 

[DotCommunist]

rubuplicofgilead75 all of a sudden.

 

[bluescreen]

And maybe prosecution isn't something to consider at all? Maybe if a woman has an alcohol problem, that's the thing that she needs help with? And if she's pregnant as well, maybe she needs help with that? Not prosecution. Even if you accept - and I don't - that the foetus has rights that take precedence over the woman's, how is prosecution going to help? Just be pragmatic a moment, rather than righteous and vindictive, and consider how many women are going to say "Oh, I won't have that drink/eat that brie/empty the kitty litter because I might get prosecuted if something happens to the baby"? Zero.

 

[killer b]

doesn't look that far off to me. Certainly not so far off you can blithely say 'oh, our legal system isn't like that'

 

[8115]

I'm not sure that anyone on this thread has said they agree with prosecution. It's just a thread built of strawmen.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

As a cat owner I was quite worried about toxoplasmosis when I was pregnant. It was for that reason I didn't change the kitty litter or eat our home grown strawberries. But when cat poo had to be cut off the cat's bum (a two man job), I did a cost/benefit analysis and deemed the risk to be acceptable, or at least that the pressing need to do so outweighed the probability of the small risk it posed. Thank god that I wasn't unlucky. And further to that, living in a society that could be moving towards prosecuting me for such a thing.

There are studies, btw, which suggest that there is no evidence that twice the weekly recommended upper alcohol limit (Up to 2 units, up to 2 times a week) leads to any defects whatsoever. And as has been said, many women can drink more than that and still have absolutely fine children.