Foetal alcohol syndrome

[Thora]

Late term abortion has a specific meaning in the medical world. How do I post a picture with a blocker? I do not want to post without it, as there would be howls of outrage, nor do I want to describe the process for the same reason.

Of course you don't need to post a picture

 

[felixthecat]

Late term abortion has a specific meaning in the medical world. How do I post a picture with a blocker? I do not want to post without it, as there would be howls of outrage, nor do I want to describe the process for the same reason.

You don't need to do either. There is a good chance another poster has had the misfortune to have a late term miscarriage or abortion and posting either a description or a picture, even with spoilers, is just plain insensitive.

We all know what happens.

 

[aqua]

Late term abortion has a specific meaning in the medical world. How do I post a picture with a blocker? I do not want to post without it, as there would be howls of outrage, nor do I want to describe the process for the same reason.

Yes, one after 24 weeks. Which is done following medical diagnosis which is either incompatible with life or life endangering/shortening. It cannot be done just because.

The termination cut off is 24 weeks to enable decisions to be made following the anomaly scan at 20 weeks which picks up a number of life threatening conditions. But where a termination is for medical reasons there actually isn't a cut off. But the baby is terminated prior to delivery.

Also as the others have said. Posting a pic would show you to be a total arsehole tbh. And I have no reason to think you do actually have a fucking clue what you're on about.

 

[Sasaferrato]

No, I'm asking for a perspective on the relationship between alcohol and infants / children / growth that is a bit more honest about where the real problems are. We seem to focus on the personal responsiblity of the mother above all else, losing sight of the more harmful and more prevalent relationships between alcohol and kids.

FAS is real, but, like many things varies greatly in the magnitude of effect. I would certainly be hesitant in regarding symptoms such as:

Children who display certain psychological aspects of the syndrome – including learning difficulties and an inability to connect emotionally with their peers – but do not have the physical manifestations, are said to suffer from foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

You don't need to do either. There is a good chance another poster has had the misfortune to have a late term miscarriage or abortion and posting either a description or a picture, even with spoilers, is just plain insensitive.

We all know what happens.

Quite. Feelings should not be hurt.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Yes, one after 24 weeks. Which is done following medical diagnosis which is either incompatible with life or life endangering/shortening. It cannot be done just because.

The termination cut off is 24 weeks to enable decisions to be made following the anomaly scan at 20 weeks which picks up a number of life threatening conditions. But where a termination is for medical reasons there actually isn't a cut off. But the baby is terminated prior to delivery.

Also as the others have said. Posting a pic would show you to be a total arsehole tbh. And I have no reason to think you do actually have a fucking clue what you're on about.

No, of course not.

 

[equationgirl]

Late term abortion has a specific meaning in the medical world. How do I post a picture with a blocker? I do not want to post without it, as there would be howls of outrage, nor do I want to describe the process for the same reason.

Absolutely no need to post a picture or describe the procedure, and to do so when one poster has already detailed some of their personal experience in this area would be incredibly insensitive at best, if not potentially traumatic. Please have some empathy and refrain from posting either.

 

[felixthecat]

Quite. Feelings should not be hurt.

Don't behave like an ingenuous idiot. You know it's more than feelings being hurt.

Stop being a cock.

 

[Ole]

It might not be anti-feminist to thinking heavy drinking is irresponsible - but this case goes further and wants to hold women responsible for an offence against a person if a foetus is damaged.

If you carry a foetus to term, and the damage inflicted on it during pregnancy manifests as damage against a person after it is born, then it is materially no different than an offence against a person. The charge is made on behalf of a six-year old person, for damage against a person. I don't see the problem.

 

[Thora]

If you carry a foetus to term, and the damage inflicted on it during pregnancy manifests as damage against a person after it is born, then it is materially no different than an offence against a person. The charge is made on behalf of a six-year old person, for damage against a person. I don't see the problem.

Are you including any damage to a foetus in that, or just alcohol damage? What if someone drinks heavily before realising they are pregnant?

 

[Ole]

Are you including any damage to a foetus in that, or just alcohol damage? What if someone drinks heavily before realising they are pregnant?

I don't think there's anything special about alcohol damage that shouldn't apply to other harmful drugs.

If they didn't know they were pregnant, then they haven't done anything wrong obviously.

 

[Thora]

I don't think there's anything special about alcohol damage that shouldn't apply to other harmful drugs.

If they didn't know they were pregnant, then they haven't done anything wrong obviously.

So if you're an alcoholic/drug user, you just have to avoid going to any ante-natal appointments and claim you had no idea you were pregnant? Can't see a problem there.

Harmful drugs - what about medication the mother needs that carries risks for the baby? Any opinions on risky foods? Risky activities?

 

[spanglechick]

I don't think there's anything special about alcohol damage that shouldn't apply to other harmful drugs.

If they didn't know they were pregnant, then they haven't done anything wrong obviously.

how about injury to the foetus due to a fall when cycling, or climbing a ladder or some other mildly risky activity? Something which triggered premature delivery which itself went on to cause developmental problems?

If women can be held criminally responsible for the later health problems of their children, can you not imagine how that will lead to an unreasonable control over pregnant women's lives?

 

[Ole]

So if you're an alcoholic/drug user, you just have to avoid going to any ante-natal appointments and claim you had no idea you were pregnant? Can't see a problem there.

Harmful drugs - what about medication the mother needs that carries risks for the baby? Any opinions on risky foods? Risky activities?

I didn't say you haven't done anything legally wrong, but ethically it's obviously a different matter drinking in the knowledge of pregnancy on one hand and drinking out of ignorance on the other.

Medically necessary drugs and alcohol can be distinguished, I would think, but that's a question for a doctor, not me. What foods are of comparable risk to alcohol in terms of damaging the health of a future person? What activities? Full-contact kickboxing or what?

 

[Ole]

how about injury to the foetus due to a fall when cycling, or climbing a ladder or some other mildly risky activity? Something which triggered premature delivery which itself went on to cause developmental problems?

If women can be held criminally responsible for the later health problems of their children, can you not imagine how that will lead to an unreasonable control over pregnant women's lives?

How is drinking heavily comparable to having an accident?

 

[Thora]

I didn't say you haven't done anything legally wrong, but ethically it's obviously a different matter in drinking in the knowledge of pregnancy on one hand and drinking out of ignorance on the other.

Medically necessary drugs and alcohol can be distinguished, I would think, but that's a question for a doctor, not me. What foods are of comparable risk to alcohol in terms of damaging the health of a future person? What activities? Full-contact kickboxing or what?

So you think women should be legally responsible for "damage to a person" for their behaviour in pregnancy, but only if it's a certain level of risk? And only if they understand the risk? Your thinking seems a bit muddled on this.

 

[spanglechick]

How is drinking heavily comparable to having an accident?

actictities which are more at risk to the foetus than not doing them.

the overwhelming majority of women who drink in pregnancy have non-FAS babies. The overwhelming majority of people who climb ladders in pregnancy don't fall off and trigger premature delivery... neither activity is necessary and both can be avoided.

 

[Ole]

So you think women should be legally responsible for "damage to a person" for their behaviour in pregnancy, but only if it's a certain level of risk? And only if they understand the risk? Your thinking seems a bit muddled on this.

Well obviously. I don't see what's muddled about it. A certain level of risk - like getting in a boxing ring or drinking heavily.

The law is only about heavy use of alcohol anyway.

 

[8115]

No, I'm asking for a perspective on the relationship between alcohol and infants / children / growth that is a bit more honest about where the real problems are. We seem to focus on the personal responsiblity of the mother above all else, losing sight of the more harmful and more prevalent relationships between alcohol and kids.

But it's the same with smoking and asthma. We know that alcohol can cause brain damage in adults, but because it's invisible somehow you feel it's not real and more likely to be explained by social factors So instead of saying to people "you can very straightforwardly protect your child by minimising your drinking while pregnant" you want to say to them, change your difficult circumstances. I know which one I would probably find easier.

 

[Thora]

How about I wilfully eat some brie and pate while pregnant, and my baby get meningitis and is permanently disabled?

 

[Thora]

Well obviously. I don't see what's muddled about it. A certain level of risk - like getting in a boxing ring or drinking heavily.

The law is only about heavy use of alcohol anyway.

What law?

 

[Ole]

What law?

The hypothetical law that is the topic of this thread. What other law would I be talking about?

actictities which are more at risk to the foetus than not doing them.

the overwhelming majority of women who drink in pregnancy have non-FAS babies. The overwhelming majority of people who climb ladders in pregnancy don't fall off and trigger premature delivery... neither activity is necessary and both can be avoided.

Thought it was only heavy drinking that causes damage? No-one is talking about the bolded, that's a caricature.

 

[Thora]

Thought it was only heavy drinking that causes damage? No-one is talking about the bolded, that's a caricature.

Lots of things can cause damage. How about someone who gets listeria from eating pate and the baby is damaged?

There isn't a hypothetical law about heavy alcohol use, it's about whether a woman's actions during pregnancy constitutes an offence against a person under the current law.

 

[Ole]

Lots of things can cause damage. How about someone who gets listeria from eating pate and the baby is damaged?

There isn't a hypothetical law about heavy alcohol use, it's about whether a woman's actions during pregnancy constitutes an offence against a person under the current law.

My mistake. I suppose my point is that I can see why it ought to be an offence in the case of heavy drinking because I thought it was likely, according to accepted medical science, to cause serious damage to a person (if I'm wrong about this, I'll change my mind). I don't think an analogy can be made with eating pate or climbing a ladder or riding a bike.

 

[Frances Lengel]

Interesting contrast between this thread and the Peaches Geldof one - Some of the main heads on the PG thread who were all about sanctimonious clucking about banging up in sole charge of a baby being bad parenting (which it undoubtedly is, but no one's a good parent 100% of the time, everyone fucks up - PG was unlucky in that the nature of her affliction meant she paid for her fuck up with her life) seem to be on this thread all "Yeah but drinking during pregnancy doesn't cause FAS in most cases." Well most people who have a dig when looking after a kid don't end up dying either.

I know there's a difference & I in no way support this daft idea for a law.

But still though, if having a dig whilst in charge of a kid sets tongues wagging, I don't really see why climbing a ladder/having a drink/eating some pate etc when pregnant shouldn't elicit the same response. FWIW I don't think either should garner any response, people need to leave other people to get on with it IMO.

 

[Thora]

My mistake. I suppose my point is that I can see why it ought to be an offence in the case of heavy drinking because I thought it was likely, according to accepted science, to cause serious damage to a person (if I'm wrong about this, I'll change my mind). I don't think an analogy can be made with eating pate or climbing a ladder or riding a bike.

Heavy drinking might cause FAS in some cases, in others it doesn't. It's taking a risk, just like taking certain medication, eating certain foods or carrying out certain activities are.

You think drinking heavily while knowingly pregnant should be an offence - can you not see that the result of that will be that women with drinking problems will avoid any contact with healthcare providers while pregnant? Do you think that would improve the outcome for those women and their babies?

 

[Thora]

Interesting contrast between this thread and the Peaches Geldof one - Some of the main heads on the PG thread who were all about sanctimonious clucking about banging up in sole charge of a baby being bad parenting (which it undoubtedly is, but no one's a good parent 100% of the time, everyone fucks up - PG was unlucky in that the nature of her affliction meant she paid for her fuck up with her life) seem to be on this thread all "Yeah but drinking during pregnancy doesn't cause FAS in most cases." Well most people who have a dig when looking after a kid don't end up dying either.

I know there's a difference & I in no way support this daft idea for a law.

But still though, if having a dig whilst in charge of a kid sets tongues wagging, I don't really see why climbing a ladder/having a drink/eating some pate etc when pregnant shouldn't elicit the same response. FWIW I don't think either should garner any response, people need to leave other people to get on with it IMO.

The difference for me is a baby is a person, and a foetus isn't. The "rights" of a foetus should not trump a woman's autonomy over her body.

 

[Frances Lengel]

The difference for me is a baby is a person, and a foetus isn't. The "rights" of a foetus should not trump a woman's autonomy over her body.

Undoubtedly. I wouldn't for a minute argue about that.

 

[Ole]

Heavy drinking might cause FAS in some cases, in others it doesn't. It's taking a risk, just like taking certain medication, eating certain foods or carrying out certain activities are.

You think drinking heavily while knowingly pregnant should be an offence - can you not see that the result of that will be that women with drinking problems will avoid any contact with healthcare providers while pregnant? Do you think that would improve the outcome for those women and their babies?

The premise of my argument hinges on the different level of risk between drinking heavily and riding a bike, or eating certain foods, for instance. Unless they're all of comparable risk, your analogy is obviously a caricature.

You make a very good point about the impracticality of this law with regards to protecting the health of future persons and pregnant mothers though.

 

[purves grundy]

But it's the same with smoking and asthma. We know that alcohol can cause brain damage in adults, but because it's invisible somehow you feel it's not real and more likely to be explained by social factors So instead of saying to people "you can very straightforwardly protect your child by minimising your drinking while pregnant" you want to say to them, change your difficult circumstances. I know which one I would probably find easier.

I'm not talking about having conversations with individuals, although with that comment you highlight the problem I have with this. I'm talking about the the rationale which lies behind criminalising individual behaviour - and which seems to be part of a broader phenomena that has women policing their behaviour throughout pregnancy with ever increasing detail ("there's no known safe limit for alcohol if you're pregnant")- at the expense of identifying and addressing broader social conditions which we know are likely to be far more damaging for infants.

 

[Frances Lengel]

The difference for me is a baby is a person, and a foetus isn't. The "rights" of a foetus should not trump a woman's autonomy over her body.

It's the sanctimonious double standards that I'm not into though. I'm live and let, me. And that includes not sanctimoniously judging some daft kid who's met her end on the end of a pin. If Peaches was preg and had a dig, would that be cool according to the wallopers on this thread?