Foetal alcohol syndrome

[bluescreen]

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

Phew, that's all right then. Why do I get the impression that there are some people here arguing passionately from their own ethical viewpoint about a practical situation of which they have no actual experience?

 

[Thora]

I think prosecution was exactly what cynicaleconomy was arguing for.

 

[8115]

Phew, that's all right then. Why do I get the impression that there are some people here arguing passionately from their own ethical viewpoint about a practical situation of which they have no actual experience?

Sorry, I'll leave this thread as I don't have any children. Everyone else can carry on, that's fine.

 

[equationgirl]

Phew, that's all right then. Why do I get the impression that there are some people here arguing passionately from their own ethical viewpoint about a practical situation of which they have no actual experience?

Because they were, and blatantly patronising those with direct experience of the situation into the bargain.

 

[equationgirl]

Sorry, I'll leave this thread as I don't have any children. Everyone else can carry on, that's fine.

I don't have children either.

 

[toggle]

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.

if they don't have the right to take the risks thy choose, if someone else gets to issue the instructions determining what is and isn't an acceptable risk, what do you do when someone ignores those instructions? it's not a huge leap to go from considering the mother's actions to be a criminal assault against the foetus to asking what else might constitute enough of a risk to be considered a criminal assault and what action would be taken against the mother who commits that assault?

 

[toggle]

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.

because the people issuing the advice to pregnant women don't trust women to be able to know the difference between one glass of wine and 14.

 

[Sue]

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.

Off topic but what does this mean..? My mind is boggling...

 

[killer b]

it's the reason why you shouldn't have long-furred cats.

 

[spanglechick]

I don't have children either.

nor me.

 

[Shirl]

Off topic but what does this mean..? My mind is boggling...

Get a cat, then you'll learn

 

[Frances Lengel]

Off topic but what does this mean..? My mind is boggling...

All shit encrusted fur like that but on a cat rather than a sheep.

 

[toggle]

View attachment 58690

All shit encrusted fur like that but on a cat rather than a sheep.

pretty much. but you haven't mentioned why it needs to be dealt with quite urgently.

if ti's left alone, particularly in hot weather they can get flystrike. the flies lay their eggs on the shit and when they hatch, the maggots don't just munch on the shit, they start eating into the animal.

 

[Frances Lengel]

pretty much. but you haven't mentioned why it needs to be dealt with quite urgently.

if ti's left alone, particularly in hot weather they can get flystrike. the flies lay their eggs on the shit and when they hatch, the maggots don't just munch on the shit, they start eating into the animal.

I didn't mention that coz I didn't know that, cheers for the explaination Minging and yet at once somehow hilarious that it is - TBH, I thought (and I hadn't given it that much thought, I must admit), it had to be cut off for aesthetic reasons more than anything else.

 

[toggle]

I didn't mention that coz I didn't know that, cheers for the explaination Minging and yet at once somehow hilarious that it is - TBH, I thought (and I hadn't given it that much thought, I must admit), it had to be cut off for aesthetic reasons more than anything else.

one of those thigns you have to make crap jokes about, cause the reality of sitting there with an anaesthatised animal that probably won't make it, helping someone who is poking about in their insides looking for maggots isn't conducive to keeping your lunch down.

 

[Greebo]

because the people issuing the advice to pregnant women don't trust women to be able to know the difference between one glass of wine and 14.

Some of the so-called experts don't seem to trust pregnant woment to know the difference between soft cheeses, raw cheeses, and things like edam. A sister in law recently had it dinned into her at the 6 month check that all cheese must be avoided. She's not stupid, but the expert heard a foreign accent and oversimplified things, terrifying her out of eating a safe source of calcium (Edam).

 

[Sue]

Get a cat, then you'll learn

After reading Frances Lengel and toggle's posts, think I'll give that a miss...

 

[toggle]

After reading Frances Lengel and toggle's posts, think I'll give that a miss...

get one of these.

 

[Sue]

get one of these.

Think I'll go for the dying alone and not being eaten by cats (hairless or not) option.

 

[toggle]

he does look a bit like he's contemplating a tasty morsel....

 

[ViolentPanda]

Because of the consequences for the child. It's not only her body at that point.It's the body of another person too.

I see that you've not bothered to read the prior posts about when "personhood" occurs.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why is a foetus not a person, in your opinion?

Because it's a foetus. It has no experience of the world outside the womb. It has developed none of the personality traits* required for it to become an individual person.

*Unless you're one of those biological determinist whackjobs who believes that personality traits are heritable through genetics.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Would you say that a woman had a right to use Thalidomide (say) (hypothetically), if she had a full intention to complete the pregnancy?

eta, I mean a right, as in, people have a right to a private life, they don't have a right to punch other people in the face.

Fatuous comparison.
We're well aware (I'm old enough that I grew up knowing 2 thalidomide-affected children) that thalidomide's teratogenic effects were across the board - it affected everyone who took it during the effective period.
Alcohol, whether taken consistently, or irregularly, has only been shown to have a teratogenic effect on some foetuses, and even now, we still haven't been able to isolate which genetic predispositions might have been handed down by either parent, that made one foetus more sensitive to alcohol than another.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

What's great about this post is that it's absolutely representative of a poor understanding of risk.
Not that I blame anyone for not understanding - we're faced with politicians and media talking heads every day who have a similar wonky view.
Here's the skinny - "risk" of the above "crossing the road"/taking ecstacy type is meaningless unless it's assessed alongside every other action and interaction of the individual taking the risk, or at least assessed alongside a model of other behaviours deemed "risky".
Saying "women drinking while pregnant is risky" is meaningless unless you analyse their other behaviours, the frequency and volume of their alcohol consumption, their liver function and a host of other factors. Stopping drinking during pregnancy, especially for alcoholics, carries more risk of death for parent and foetus than does continuing to drink, in some cases.

As for social acceptability, social acceptability isn't static. It changes as social mores change, and as we become better-informed.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Eating soft cheeses that don't undergo the salting and ageing of hard cheeses, as well as eating any products made with raw (unpasteurised) milk is a risk factor, as is eating anything containing part-cooked eggs or meat that isn't cooked. This has been known about for decades.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

It's not a leap according to the article in the OP.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Like so much that's sick in this world, this isn't only about punishing the sinner, it's also about money - in these cases: Who meets the cost of additional care and/or who can be made to pay if a child is a poor achiever?

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Yep. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, there's always an endgame to such legislation, and it's seldom rationalist or egalitarian.

 

[8ball]

Coz it's a silhouette there's nothing to say even what's in the glass. And it's meaning quite ambiguous anyway - The first thing you notice isn't the glass in her hand, the first thing you (or I anyway) notice is a picture of a pregnant woman crossed out. It's a needlessly unpleasant image.

View attachment 58659

It's certainly ambiguous and unpleasant. It's spread over most of the kinds of alcohol I buy and I never noticed it being announed, as tends to happen with a new warning symbol that they actually expect people to pay attention to.

I wonder if it's an EU thing and our Government poo-pooed publicising it...