Foetal alcohol syndrome

[Thora]

You're not comparing like with like though. If men could have babies then would you think it OK for the man to knowingly cause damage the child inside him?

But men don't have babies, so how is that relevant?

It's not about whether it is "ok" to damage foetuses or not. That's a matter of opinion, isn't it? How much to drink, whether to eat brie, taking medication that may have side effects, riding a bike. The issue is who gets to decide what risks to take. How are you in a better position to decide what I should do with my own body (pregnant or not) than I am?

 

[Thora]

Why does being unborn and existing part of someone else rob a foetus of its personhood?

OK, think of a foetus as being a person if you want. It's just not a person with rights like born people are. It has no right to life, for example.

 

[8115]

But men don't have babies, so how is that relevant?

It's not about whether it is "ok" to damage foetuses or not. That's a matter of opinion, isn't it? How much to drink, whether to eat brie, taking medication that may have side effects, riding a bike. The issue is who gets to decide what risks to take. How are you in a better position to decide what I should do with my own body (pregnant or not) than I am?

I'd definitely have you as my social worker if I ever had to have one if I had a child.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

But men don't have babies, so how is that relevant?

And this is precisely my point. Saying that women have just as much right as others to do whatever they want when pregnant, when men are incapable of having babies, seems a bit like having your cake and eating it.

It's not about whether it is "ok" to damage foetuses or not. That's a matter of opinion, isn't it? How much to drink, whether to eat brie, taking medication that may have side effects, riding a bike. The issue is who gets to decide what risks to take. How are you in a better position to decide what I should do with my own body (pregnant or not) than I am?

We aren't talking about eating brie, we're talking about a person who causes debilitating, life-long damage to a child by drinking massive amounts of alcohol.

 

[killer b]

We aren't talking about eating brie, we're talking about a person who causes debilitating, life-long damage to a child by drinking massive amounts of alcohol.

perhaps you could outline how this should be dealt with?

 

[Thora]

I don't think people have a right to drink drive. This is seeking to control the acts of people including women. I think it's ok to say that people don't have the right to do something (to control them, in your words) when they are hurting someone else. Rights are messy. They very often impinge on each other.

I don't think drink driving is in any way comparable. It's not something you do to your own body.

If you go down the route of "a foetus's right not to be exposed to any risks" is greater than/equal to a women's right to do what she wants with her body, what exactly are you going to forbid for pregnant women (and any women who could be pregnant? Just in case? I mean surely those foetuses have rights too...)

Drinking?
Smoking?
Eating anything risky - brie, pate, rare meat
Having cats
Medication
Using cleaning products, moisturisers, shampoo (there are no known safe limits for these of course, and pregnant women have been advised to avoid...)

Anything else you want to add?

 

[spanglechick]

And this is precisely my point. Saying that women have just as much right as others to do whatever they want when pregnant, when men are incapable of having babies, seems a bit like having your cake and eating it.



We aren't talking about eating brie, we're talking about a person who causes debilitating, life-long damage to a child by drinking massive amounts of alcohol.

risks causing. it's not as simple as saying drink x amount = have child with FAS

 

[Thora]

We aren't talking about eating brie, we're talking about a person who causes debilitating, life-long damage to a child by drinking massive amounts of alcohol.

Why aren't we talking about brie? What if you cause debilitating, life-long damage to a child by eating massive amounts of brie?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

perhaps you could outline how this should be dealt with?

As it's occurring the mother should be given all possible assistance to lesson her levels of drinking. If she refuses and the baby is born with FAS then the child should be taken into care and the mother given further treatment for her drinking until fit. If all attempts were made by the mother to reduce her drinking, but for health reasons she was unable to do so in time (stopping drinking all at once can actually be very dangerous), then no prosecution should take place.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Why aren't we talking about brie? What if you cause debilitating, life-long damage to a child by eating massive amounts of brie?

I wasn't aware that brie-eating causes birth defects and disability.

 

[8115]

Why aren't we talking about brie? What if you cause debilitating, life-long damage to a child by eating massive amounts of brie?

Why do you think we're not talking about brie?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

risks causing. it's not as simple as saying drink x amount = have child with FAS

I never said it was that simple. If a child doesn't develop FAS then there is no chance of the mother being prosecuted for causing FAS.

 

[spanglechick]

I never said it was that simple. If a child doesn't develop FAS then there is no chance of the mother being prosecuted for causing FAS.

but then you're talking about prosecuting someone for taking a risk. Like eating brie.

 

[equationgirl]

I wasn't aware that brie-eating causes birth defects and disability.

Soft cheese, pate and bagged salads (amongst other foods) can contain listeria bacteria which can cause miscarriage, birth defects and in 22% of cases, death of the unborn child.
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Listeriosis/Pages/Introduction.aspx

 

[8115]

So, someone has a right to drink heavily when they're pregnant but the moment they give birth, they don't have a right to drink heavily if they're caring for that child?

 

[killer b]

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

 

[Thora]

I wasn't aware that brie-eating causes birth defects and disability.

Getting listeria in pregnancy can cause meningitis in the baby, which I'm sure you're aware can be disabling or even fatal.

Toxoplasmosis (from rare meat or cat poo among other things) can cause brain damage, organ damage, blindness or deafness.

Women with diabetes have 3.8 times more risk of having a baby with birth defects.

Any prosecutions for this reckless behaviour?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

but then you're talking about prosecuting someone for taking a risk. Like eating brie.

The question is about the level of risk, not just risk in general. No one is talking about the risks involved in flying a kite or walking too fast in the snow. It takes pretty extreme circumstances for FAS to result in a child. Why do you keep talking about brie?

 

[Thora]

So, someone has a right to drink heavily when they're pregnant but the moment they give birth, they don't have a right to drink heavily if they're caring for that child?

Do you understand the difference between being unborn, and being born? A foetus and a child?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Getting listeria in pregnancy can cause meningitis in the baby, which I'm sure you're aware can be disabling or even fatal.

Toxoplasmosis (from rare meat or cat poo among other things) can cause brain damage, organ damage, blindness or deafness.

Women with diabetes have 3.8 times more risk of having a baby with birth defects.

Any prosecutions for this reckless behaviour?

Has it ever happened other than out of lack of awareness of the risks of brie?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Do you understand the difference between being unborn, and being born? A foetus and a child?

Do you understand that not everyone shares your definition of personhood?

 

[Thora]

Has it ever happened other than out of lack of awareness of the risks of brie?

I understand the risk. I ate brie.

 

[spanglechick]

The question is about the level of risk, not just risk in general. No one is talking about the risks involved in flying a kite or walking too fast in the snow. It takes pretty extreme circumstances for FAS to result in a child. Why do you keep talking about brie?

because it's criminalising risk-taking, and life is full of bloody risks. so a child is born with birth defects due to premature delivery as a result of falling while walking too fast in the snow. do you prosecute that mother? if not, why is one set of risk taking legal and the other illegal?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I understand the risk. I ate brie.

Then the same logic applies here than to a situation in which FAS results.

 

[spanglechick]

Do you understand that not everyone shares your definition of personhood?

we're using the legal definition, here.

 

[Thora]

Then the same logic applies here than to a situation in which FAS results.

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?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

because it's criminalising risk-taking, and life is full of bloody risks. so a child is born with birth defects due to premature delivery as a result of falling while walking too fast in the snow. do you prosecute that mother? if not, why is one set of risk taking legal and the other illegal?

Once again, it's the level of risk that is the key factor. Everyday 'risks' are not in the same category. Would you say that businesses who risk the safety of their employees should not be prosecuted if a worker gets seriously injured, all because 'life is full of risks'?

 

[Thora]

How about women who don't take folic acid in pregnancy?

 

[Thora]

Once again, it's the level of risk that is the key factor. Everyday 'risks' are not in the same category. Would you say that businesses who risk the safety of their employees should not be prosecuted if a worker gets seriously injured, all because 'life is full of risks'?

The difference once again is that the worker isn't a foetus inside the womb of the business owner.

 

[8115]

because it's criminalising risk-taking, and life is full of bloody risks. so a child is born with birth defects due to premature delivery as a result of falling while walking too fast in the snow. do you prosecute that mother? if not, why is one set of risk taking legal and the other illegal?

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.