Foetal alcohol syndrome

[Sasaferrato]

Neither does a woman who is raped carry any blame.

No, of course not. In that circumstance, then the needs of the mother are paramount. I can understand why a woman who has been raped (a vile crime), would not wish to carry the child to term, nor should they be forced to.

As I said, I would rather that abortion didn't happen. That is a personal view. I do not support, financially, or in any any other way, any organisation that campaigns to make abortion illegal under any circumstance. It is up to the woman to make her own choice.

 

[Sasaferrato]

As you have said already "nothing is ever absolutely straight forward in life, is it "

Indeed. My view is clear, but what is also clear is that I have no wish to enforce my view on anyone else.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Do you think it's okay for a man to smoke around his pregnant partner Sass? The dangers of passive smoking have also been known for a long time.

Correct. I don't smoke around pregnant women, other than those who are standing smoking with me. Nor do Mrs Sas or me smoke in the house in the morning, when our grandson comes for his breakfast which is each school morning.

 

[spanglechick]

Correct. I don't smoke around pregnant women, other than those who are standing smoking with me. Nor do Mrs Sas or me smoke in the house in the morning, when our grandson comes for his breakfast which is each school morning.

did you smoke in the house when his mother was a child?

my parents did - even though we complained and even though it is evidently a bad idea for children to breathe in smoky air. but by the time my sisters had children, they would only smoke outdoors.

 

[Sasaferrato]

There's little point arguing with you on this, as we have completely different views on the rights and status of women.

No, I don't think we do have completely different views. I do not oppose the absolute right of a woman to choose, and my view on the status of women is one of absolute equality.

Where we diverge a bit is on the desirability of so many abortions being performed each year. I do not like abortion for 'social' reasons, and never will. Abortion where the woman has been raped must and should be permitted. Abortion due to severe foetal abnormality exists is more problematic. Many of the anti-abortion supporters don't feel that abortion should not be permitted in this circumstance, on that, I disagree strongly with them.

We are a diverse group, human beings, each individual sees things differently. Doesn't have to be a 'right or wrong' scenario though.

 

[Sasaferrato]

did you smoke in the house when his mother was a child?

my parents did - even though we complained and even though it is evidently a bad idea for children to breathe in smoky air. but by the time my sisters had children, they would only smoke outdoors.

Yes, we did, indeed, Mrs Sas smoked during pregnancy. This was forty years ago though, where the effects of maternal smoking and passive smoking were not understood in the way they are now. Funnily enough, we were discussing this a wee while ago, and Mrs Sas said that she would have stopped had what is known now was known then. However, there doesn't seem to have been any harm done to Miss Sas, for which we are thankful.

 

[stereoisomer]

Or perhaps, people should respect the health and well-being of the child they are carrying?

I can fully understand the 'a foetus is not a person' argument. Killing a person is a much more uncomfortable prospect, than killing a foetus.

I don't think a foetus is a person until it's born. Clearly a ball of cells isn't a person (unless you are mental) and at some point it becomes a person. The easiest point to define is birth.

I actually don't think a baby fully becomes a person until it becomes self-aware (i.e. can recognize itself in a mirror) but I'm not going to suggest it's ok to kill babies when they have been born, that would be nuts. Although it used to happen a lot, before we had abortion.... For thousands of years, infanticide was the only form of birth control available.

 

[spanglechick]

Yes, we did, indeed, Mrs Sas smoked during pregnancy. This was forty years ago though, where the effects of maternal smoking and passive smoking were not understood in the way they are now. Funnily enough, we were discussing this a wee while ago, and Mrs Sas said that she would have stopped had what is known now was known then. However, there doesn't seem to have been any harm done to Miss Sas, for which we are thankful.

I'm not sure that's quite true. My mother smoked with her first child (now 47) but gave up with her second (now 44) due to the medical advice that it was definitely damaging to the unborn child. However, for her last child (me, 40) she had started smoking again and did not give up. My understanding is that although the medical evidence was clear that mothers should not smoke, that society in general and families in particlar were less "child-centred" than we are now, and that parents (and grandparents etc) were prepared to do things they knew to be risky/harmful, because their priorities were slightly different.

We can see this too in terms of children being crammed willy-nilly into the back seat of cars, even when seatbelts came to exist - where now I don't know a single parent of a primary age child who doesn't insist on their being restrained.

It's also true in our attitudes to mothers drinking alcohol. until fairly recently (less that 10 years ago) the advice in france was 'no more than half a bottle of wine a day', while at the same time moderation was encouraged here and total abstinence in the states. Now the formal advice in all three countries is total abstinence - not because medical evidence has changed... but societal attitudes have.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Where do you stand on abortions after failed contraception?

Ambivalent. However, one must assume that if contraception was being used, then there was no intent to start a pregnancy.

 

[spanglechick]

I don't think a foetus is a person until it's born. Clearly a ball of cells isn't a person (unless you are mental) and at some point it becomes a person. The easiest point to define is birth.

I actually don't think a baby fully becomes a person until it becomes self-aware (i.e. can recognize itself in a mirror) but I'm not going to suggest it's ok to kill babies when they have been born, that would be nuts. Although it used to happen a lot, before we had abortion.... For thousands of years, infanticide was the only form of birth control available.

there have always been mechanical and medical abortions. as far as we can tell, they have happened as long as we have had human societies. It's only in the last 50 years or so that they have been safe... but women have always desperately sought ways to control their reproductive life.

 

[_angel_]

I'm not sure that's quite true. My mother smoked with her first child (now 47) but gave up with her second (now 44) due to the medical advice that it was definitely damaging to the unborn child. However, for her last child (me, 40) she had started smoking again and did not give up. My understanding is that although the medical evidence was clear that mothers should not smoke, that society in general and families in particlar were less "child-centred" than we are now, and that parents (and grandparents etc) were prepared to do things they knew to be risky/harmful, because their priorities were slightly different.

We can see this too in terms of children being crammed willy-nilly into the back seat of cars, even when seatbelts came to exist - where now I don't know a single parent of a primary age child who doesn't insist on their being restrained.

It's also true in our attitudes to mothers drinking alcohol. until fairly recently (less that 10 years ago) the advice in france was 'no more than half a bottle of wine a day', while at the same time moderation was encouraged here and total abstinence in the states. Now the formal advice in all three countries is total abstinence - not because medical evidence has changed... but societal attitudes have.

I think there's a lot more expectations on parents, a few generations ago (only one or two even) it was okay to let small kids out for a whole day without being completely aware where they were or what they were doing. If anything happened to them it was an accident, now it would be a neglect case.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I'm not sure that's quite true. My mother smoked with her first child (now 47) but gave up with her second (now 44) due to the medical advice that it was definitely damaging to the unborn child. However, for her last child (me, 40) she had started smoking again and did not give up. My understanding is that although the medical evidence was clear that mothers should not smoke, that society in general and families in particlar were less "child-centred" than we are now, and that parents (and grandparents etc) were prepared to do things they knew to be risky/harmful, because their priorities were slightly different.

We can see this too in terms of children being crammed willy-nilly into the back seat of cars, even when seatbelts came to exist - where now I don't know a single parent of a primary age child who doesn't insist on their being restrained.

It's also true in our attitudes to mothers drinking alcohol. until fairly recently (less that 10 years ago) the advice in france was 'no more than half a bottle of wine a day', while at the same time moderation was encouraged here and total abstinence in the states. Now the formal advice in all three countries is total abstinence - not because medical evidence has changed... but societal attitudes have.

I'm not trying to make out that what you say is dubious, however, Mrs Sas's last GP appointment before Miss Sas was born, was conducted with the doctor smoking in his consulting room. (Poor bugger died of lung cancer as it happened.)

 

[toggle]

No, I don't think we do have completely different views. I do not oppose the absolute right of a woman to choose, and my view on the status of women is one of absolute equality.

Where we diverge a bit is on the desirability of so many abortions being performed each year. I do not like abortion for 'social' reasons, and never will. Abortion where the woman has been raped must and should be permitted. Abortion due to severe foetal abnormality exists is more problematic. Many of the anti-abortion supporters don't feel that abortion should not be permitted in this circumstance, on that, I disagree strongly with them.

We are a diverse group, human beings, each individual sees things differently. Doesn't have to be a 'right or wrong' scenario though.

Sass, no one likes abortions, no one is planning them for the lolz. most pro choice campaigners also want to see the number reduced, but not through limiting access, but through looking at why women have abortions and seeking to find ways to reduce the number of women who get pregnant when they don't want to be, without resorting to slut shaming them.

 

[8115]

It's sad that this has been inevitably derailed into discussing abortion when it wasn't about that at all. It seems like hobby horses always come out whenever you mention pregnancy. I think it's counter productive.

 

[spanglechick]

I'm not trying to make out that what you say is dubious, however, Mrs Sas's last GP appointment before Miss Sas was born, was conducted with the doctor smoking in his consulting room. (Poor bugger died of lung cancer as it happened.)

but, as any fan of the TV show 'mad men' knows, the evidence about smoking being harmful was around since the early sixties and common knowledge not long after.

 

[stereoisomer]

there have always been mechanical and medical abortions. as far as we can tell, they have happened as long as we have had human societies. It's only in the last 50 years or so that they have been safe... but women have always desperately sought ways to control their reproductive life.

There is a particular article I was thinking of, can't find it now. It was about what it was really like being a midwife in the 1940s, before the NHS. It contained the memorable sentence 'There was an epidemic of "overlaying"'. Overlaying was where the mother goes to sleep next to the baby and 'accidentally' smothers it. The midwives would basically collude in covering this up, because the woman couldn't afford to raise the child and I guess orphanages were horrible.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I think there's a lot more expectations on parents, a few generations ago (only one or two even) it was okay to let small kids out for a whole day without being completely aware where they were or what they were doing. If anything happened to them it was an accident, now it would be a neglect case.

That child, half a century ago, was me. Out early, fed by someone at some point in the day, and home at dusk. Often twelve hours or more away from the house. My father used to come and pick me up from the end of the pier when it started to get dark. However, I did grow up in the Outer Hebrides rather than in a big town.

 

[stereoisomer]

That's awful.

Well yeah. That's why abortion is better.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I think we all agree on that.

A 30 week foetus is a viable human being. Does being inside the womb, or outside, make a difference? Doesn't the law treat the killing of a foetus after a certain period as being a specific offence?

ETA:

Yes, it is. From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_destruction

 

[Thora]

It's sad that this has been inevitably derailed into discussing abortion when it wasn't about that at all. It seems like hobby horses always come out whenever you mention pregnancy. I think it's counter productive.

Do you honestly not see how declaring a foetus to be a person, and making it criminal for a woman to harm that person, has a massive impact on abortion?

 

[Thora]

A 30 week foetus is a viable human being. Does being inside the womb, or outside, make a difference? Doesn't the law treat the killing of a foetus after a certain period as being a specific offence?

ETA:

Yes, it is. From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_destruction

Inside my body/outside my body is the only difference that matters imo.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Well yeah. That's why abortion is better.

Let me see if I understand where you are coming from on this.

It is awful that a mother should kill her child, after birth, by smothering it? However, if, 14 weeks earlier, the mother had had an abortion, inevitably leading to the death of the child, it is not awful?

 

[Sasaferrato]

Inside my body/outside my body is the only difference that matters imo.

Not in law it would seem.

 

[stereoisomer]

Let me see if I understand where you are coming from on this.

It is awful that a mother should kill her child, after birth, by smothering it? However, if, 14 weeks earlier, the mother had had an abortion, inevitably leading to the death of the child, it is not awful?

It's awful that the mother had to do that. It would have been better if she'd been able to have an abortion.

 

[Thora]

Not in law it would seem.

The law is rather muddled on abortion to term unfortunately. It should be clear cut.

 

[stereoisomer]

It's awful that the mother had to do that. It would have been better if she'd been able to have an abortion.

There is an interesting theory that post natal depression isn't an illness, it's an evolutionary adaption- a period of detachment when the mother can decide if she really wants the baby...

eta. oops pressed reply not edit

 

[Thora]

Let me see if I understand where you are coming from on this.

It is awful that a mother should kill her child, after birth, by smothering it? However, if, 14 weeks earlier, the mother had had an abortion, inevitably leading to the death of the child, it is not awful?

As early as possible, as late as necessary. Of course it is much worse to have to smother a newborn than have an abortion. And of course it is much worse to have to have an abortion in the 2nd or 3rd trimester than in the 1st.

 

[stereoisomer]

I had an abortion once. Best decision I ever made. If I'd had the baby, I would have ended up dropping out of uni again. Instead I graduated with a First and went on to do a PhD. Selfish? Maybe. I could give a fuck

 

[toggle]

Let me see if I understand where you are coming from on this.

It is awful that a mother should kill her child, after birth, by smothering it? However, if, 14 weeks earlier, the mother had had an abortion, inevitably leading to the death of the child, it is not awful?

late abortion is often presented as 'irresponsibility' but the reality is that it's usually done over fairly serious abnormalities or medical probolems, or where she didn't have access to abortion services earlier (location and finance is most common in the US, but a controling/abusive relationship can also be a factor here), or perhaps didn't know they were pregnant. and yes, I think it is possible to get to over 5 months without knowing. I didn't know until halfway through, on my third pregnancy. had I not done it twice before, I'd not have realised for longer.

condeming late abortion usually means having a go at someone who is either absolutely desperate, or is loosing a pregnancy they actually wanted.

fucking think will you.

 

[purves grundy]

It's sad that this has been inevitably derailed into discussing abortion when it wasn't about that at all. It seems like hobby horses always come out whenever you mention pregnancy. I think it's counter productive.

Cheers - totally, that wasn't the point at all. I was interested in the debate (if any) around the criminalisation of female behaviour while ignoring broader, deeper and more critical social issues that have a bearing on foetal and infant health.