In the UK, lawyers for various local councils are representing some 80 children who have been mentally or physically damaged because of their mothers' consumption of alcohol during pregnancy after being warned about the health effects on the foetus. If they win their case, the unborn child will have unprecedented rights to be recognized as a person.
Is it right for women to face criminal prosecution for administering a poison or other noxious substance, which is a crime under the Offences Against the Person Act, as a result of their drinking alcohol during pregnancy?
My problem with this is that counsels already have almost unlimited power when it comes to the rights of children, it has been shown of late that they have used these powers with disregard for the intrest of all involved except themselves.
Will they also be given the power to prosecute drug addicts, smokers or anyone who engages in sports that may harm the foetus?
I ask myself where will it all lead, we hear that certain government organisations have sought approval for the sterilisation of women with mental issues, would we be supprised if they do the same with someone who has a alcohol or drug problem?
It seems to me that the State is damned if it extends its powers, and damned if it doesn't.
Excellent point, Diana. If the law states that the existence of a “person” existed after the 28 week mark, or before, then government will step in and prosecute the same way it prosecutes for harm committed to a walking, breathing sentient human being as a “person.” So one can’t complain about government becoming involved since the law automatically invokes that involvement. Once again, I’m saying I’m pro or con, I’m just stating that “it is what it is.”
The entire concept goes to far. I don't like where this is leading and the implications for women reproductive rights.
"women's reproductive rights" have exactly nothing to do with murder or abuse of children.
Having said that, I'm extremely uncomfortable with the notion that a faceless bureaucrat somewhere knows what is best for you and your child, and can enforce it at gunpoint. And I certainly don't like where that is leading.
So let's get this straight. A woman must carry a child to term no matter what but if on the way she chooses to drink herself and her unborn child to death, that's fine!
A twisted path, isn't it? Personally, I'm quite satisfied with Roe vs Wade on abortion, but shoving debilitating chemicals into a child's body is not abortion. It is something else entirely, but what? Parental abuse? Personal right?
Debilitating poisons like alcohol?
But you are against anybody trying to prevent this!
What in the world are you talking about? Only an idiot or sadist would advocate being able to force a child to imbibe alcohol (to the point of harm; I recognize that some medications have ethanol in them).
But what if the pregnant mother is in fact an idiot or sadist, because she was harmed as a foetus by her own mother? Would she still be culpable?
Innocent by reason of insanity is a viable defense in the US.
Even if I'm not happy with the concept that an abusive childhood gives someone the right to act as they wish, it has been used successfully. A mother that is actually insane as a result of fetal alcohol syndrome is perhaps another matter - I am not doctor enough to truly say.
"but shoving debilitating chemicals into a child's body is not abortion. It is something else entirely, but what? Parental abuse? Personal right?"
And yet earlier on you expressed disquiet at the thought of women being preventing from drinking alcohol to an excess.
I'm sorry, but I see a dichotomy here, a paradox if you will, and do not know how to solve it.
A woman may drink herself to oblivion if she wishes, but if she intentionally takes a child with her that becomes murder. At some point a fetus becomes a child, and will be forced to join the Mother in imbibing. At some point, then, the mother loses the right to drink indiscriminately.
Is this different than losing the right to drive when drunk? Is it different than losing the right to a wood fire when pollution settles in? We all lose rights when those rights impact other people - this is not different in that respect. It IS differently emotionally, of course, and doubly so when "reproductive rights" are declared to include the right to murder.
But you said
"Having said that, I'm extremely uncomfortable with the notion that a faceless bureaucrat somewhere knows what is best for you and your child, "
It seemed to me that you were, on the one hand, arguing against abortion, but on the other in favour of letting mothers drink themselves and their unborn child, senseless!
No, John, you are trying to put words in my mouth. To me this isn't some kind of game to play but a very serious question when individual freedoms are being curtailed. We will always give up some freedom to live together, and it is always serious.
I do not, never have and can't imagine ever arguing against a first trimester abortion. Causing damage to a fetus that you have every intention of turning into a person is another matter and there is no connection between the two. Stop trying to equate them, and please stop trying to insinuate that I equate them - I do not.
I follow your point, I do not know how many weeks old the unborn child must be where it is defined by Roe Vs Wade as viable and may not be indiscriminately aborted by the mother. The difference is that a fetus is inextricable connected to the life and activity of the mother in a way that all the other examples you give are not.
I think that it becomes a legal nightmare to prove and pursue a mother who is said to have introduced toxic elements that she herself ingests. Let's face it, until the child is born as a separate and distinct person, we are chasing after the wind.
Roe vs Wade - 28 weeks, I believe. A little long IMO, but something I can live with.
Yes, connected with a bond that is breakable only by death, early on. Later by birth. But does that make it alright to murder the child? That Mom created a bond there beyond any after birth? A newborn is 100% dependent on support, just as a fetus is, after all. Truly, I have a real problem with that thought.
Casing after the wind - sometimes. But when the child is born with fetal alcohol syndrome, or addicted to cocaine or meth, that's a pretty strong wind.
Yes, a newborn is also totally dependent on other, but at least it can be given to another in adoption, as its life is independent of the mother. I just think that prosecuting women on these points are hard to prove. Women smoke, drink, take recreational and prescription drugs, etc. How much is too much? Who decides that and who can justifiably prosecute and on what determination? Can anyone prove criminal intent on the part of the mother?
Criminal intent; I can't imagine trying to prove that a woman was trying to harm the child. Impossible. But I doubt that it is necessary, either; drunk drivers are charged with manslaughter and such all the time and can't prove intent there, either. Just intent to drink and drive.
And yes, many, many problems. Without a child that is obviously addicted or damaged, I can't imagine how it would be done, except maybe to make it illegal to drink when pregnant, and that opens another can of worms - does she know shed's pregnant (prove it!) and does a drink hurt a fetus?
A very tough call all the way through, or so it seems to me. I do think the mother owes that child a reasonable chance of health (given that it is not to be aborted), but how much, and at what cost to the mother, is not simple.
Kind of like determining the moment of "personhood" then - I'm not smart enough to make the call and must depend on someone else to come with something I could agree with.
Thank you Wilderness for referring to Roe vs Wade, which I've just looked up - being English, I had not come across this case, which, for those of you who who do not know, decided that abortion is legal in the USA before and until the foetus is a viable entity, at about 28 weeks. But we now come to the odd part - if you intend that the foetus should die through abortion, that's OK,and not a criminal offence, but if you wilfully take a noxious substance which you know might harm the foetus, even though you don't intend to harm it, then you might be committing a criminal offence.
However, taking the same noxious substance with the intention of causing an abortion would presumably not be an offence, if done before 28 weeks.
And don't forget that at one time, before medical practice developed, if women wanted to have an abortion, they would drink a bottle of gin.
All that's why I say it is a twisted path we walk there, regardless of which side of the fence we come down on.
*sigh* It's a gray world, no matter how much we would like to see black and white. And throw in the question of what it means if the decision has been made to NOT have an abortion but chemicals are fed to the unborn at even 1 week and it is even more gray.
Interesting question, Diana. This is the conundrum in that one can’t have it both ways. I’m not saying that I support or do not support “The Person Act” …I am merely positing the legal problems with this premise.
For example: If a fertilized egg/fetus is a “person” with the same rights as a born, sentient human being, then by definition of the law, women who miscarry should be investigated as to whether or not their actions contributed to the death of this person -- either intentionally or through negligence. This speaks directly to the UK issue and the possible “negligence” of the woman during the entire course of her pregnancy – from conception forward – that resulted in mental and/or physical harm.
Then, there is the question of granting women who were raped an exception and allow them to have abortions. As horrific as this experience is to these poor women, the fertilized egg/fetus is still a “person.” Accordingly, is the abortion not legally sanctioned murder?
Birth defects, childhood cancer, and miscarriages have all been linked to the health of a father's sperm, which is directly affected by cigarette smoking and consumption of large amounts of alcohol. Why are you not suggesting prosecuting men whose smoking and drinking cause miscarriages, cancer and birth defects?
FAS is caused 1:1 by and only by very high alcohol intake--a.k.a.alcoholism. I think pregnant woman have a duty of care at least as high as a person might have over a car borrowed from a friend.
Maybe because "linked to" generally implies correlation, not causation.
Of maybe because the OP refers to one specific "crime", which cannot include males.
Or maybe it just isn't "beat up on men" day today.
Well correlation is not necessarily causation but is this case it almost certainly is, genetic damage can be shown in the sperm of men who have used certain substances regularly.
It seems fair to me that the responsibility should go both ways, the issue is that men often don't know they are impregnating someone given that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned.
But if people are trying to have a child it seems fair to expect men to cut those things in the same way women would during pregnancy for the period where they are trying to conceive, for most people that period is shorter than a full term pregnancy anyhow.
So people should be held accountable as long as the baby is wanted and thus not aborted? Is the value of life only a valid argument when somebody chooses it over an abortion?
By the way Paul Ryan used that same argument, the "correlation is not necessarily causation" argument, to help debunk the bogus, biased study you quoted in another forum here at HubPages. Do you remember the Hungerford study?
Yeah. You have the right to an abortion if you don't want to have a child, you don't have the right to make your child disabled, intellectually handicapped etc. before its born.
Yeah I remember the study, the one you dismissed because on one of it's researcher's/ authors donated to the democratic party, (As though that alters the validity of the demonstrated data) and yes correlation does not necessarily equal causation which is why when I used that study I noted that it means your views do not bear out in the evidence, of course it's a dumb argument when you look at a 65 year study, sure maybe phosphorous isn't flammable it just so happens that every match is being struck by invisible lightning and thus catching fire when struck, correlation isn't causation right?
I am very sorry that lowering taxes does not correlate with growth and that raising them actually increases it in American history. Over 65 years.
By "one of it's [sic] contributors," do you mean the guy for which the study was named? The study was withdrawn. It was resubmitted with its primary findings highly watered down. Credibility is a big concern with this study.
The study did not say that lowering taxes did not result in growth; the study said that lowering taxes on the top tax rates had no correlation to economic growth. Causation was never proved. Either you were manipulating meaning with words, or you didn't read the study thoroughly.
Yep, I do believe that the study you cited was biased. You claimed my two studies were biased but had no proof, and then you sanctimoniously stated that it was typical that I would ignore your study. I provided proof that your study's author was a big campaign contributor to the Left, and you made excuses. That is typical.
So it's okay to kill the baby but not to injure it? That makes no sense. According to that same logic, one could partially drown somebody, cause brain damage, and go to jail. The same person could successfully drown somebody and have no fault. You, so often, claim that all life has equal value, but I guess some people are more equal than others?
Yeah one of the contributors.
The study was ruled valid by the whole economic advisory board of the CRS it was withdrawn because of a congressional complaint from the GOP, the withdrawal of any study that gets a congressional appeal is protocol for the CRS.
Actually that is a lie, I showed two reasons why your studies were invalid, one because they have an obvious bias from the organisation that funded them (conservative think tanks) (rather than one of the employees being a democrat which is pretty likely on any research in a bi-partisan organisation.) (Also worth noting past research shows most economists vote democrat, go figure, so it's a pretty likely event.)
I also pointed out that they selected the study groups on no logical basis just choosing countries selectively to back their argument rather than the CRS study which simply looks at the USA.
Besides don't you remember you don't believe in research from other countries being used in the US so your study is invalid from the start
Fetus is not a legal person until 28 weeks, killing the fetus before then does not harm a legal person, damaging the fetus but not killing harms the person it becomes at 28 weeks. It's pretty simple legal doctrine, thought that was obvious.
Yep, I do not listen to fantasy-land studies.
They don't name studies after a mere contributor. Get real.
The study was resubmitted with a neutered conclusion. That's not standard protocol.
Again, the study did not say that tax reduction was unsuccessful. It said there was no correlation between reducing the top tax rates and economic growth. You claimed that this was true for all taxes. There is a big difference. You hyperbolized in order to support your view. Do you really want to talk about lies?
Why is a fetus only considered a person at twenty-eight weeks? Is it because of an erroneous, arbitrary set point? I guess at twenty-seven weeks and six days, one can do whatever they wish to the child. If it's one day older, it has legal rights. Some people are more equal than others.
Most economists vote democrat? Yeah, right. You love, love, love to stereotype for benefit, don't you? How many economists supported Obama? I can find hundreds that supported Romney, some Nobel winners. Here are articles. Call them biased, but you might want to check sources first. One is listed as opinion, so there's a starting point for you.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pet … mneys-plan
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government … or-America
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/30/news/ec … conomists/
1. a person who contributes, esp one who writes for a newspaper or one who makes a donation to a cause, etc.
Anyone who worked on the study is a contributor since it was not a one person job.
Yeah it was politically re sent out with a neutral view against the advice of the entire CRS economics panel (you know the people who actually know what they are talking about). Basically the GOP used their political weight to censor the study.
The discussion was a legal one about fetus's vs persons rights if you want to make it a subjective debate about your views on when a fetus becomes a person I am not interested, your views have been found invalid in the Supreme court.
Yup the majority of Economists vote Democrat.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 … 006-7509-6
Plenty more studies if you want them.
1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions: Liberals who think they can fabricate evidence are delusional.
2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness: He was so delusional and paranoid that he couldn't look at the facts.
People don't name studies for a single person who was merely a contributor. You should know that. Studies are named after the person who leads the study. Your study was lead by a person who donated thousands of dollars to the Obama campaign. Additionally, you apparently don't even understand what the study said, because you keep stretching the "findings."
I don't care whether or not you want to discuss the definition of what a fetus is or isn't. It's an arbitrary definition, and your disinterest in discussing the topic doesn't negate that reality.
Yup, the majority of economists supported Romney over Obama.
I can provide studies too, but you only believe the studies that confirm your own beliefs.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ … epublican/
So you still don't know what a contributor is despite me helpfully posting a definition, guess that is too complicated for you.
Nope the definition is medical not arbitrary you obviously know very little on this issue, it's the term when a fetus can medically live independently.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
(It is based on a reason and a system so you were wrong)
Apparently you also don't know what an economist is, your study shows people taking an economics class, not people who have completed degrees in economics, that means it trends towards people taking intro courses and thus having no understanding of complex economics, meaning they are poorly informed, so... yeah they vote Republican, obviously.
Maybe get back to me when you understand the language you are using.
In order to become an economist, one must take economy classes. If people who take economy classes become conservative according the studies, then it should be obvious that economists tend to be conservative. Must I really walk you through these things? By the way, when was the last time you really found economists to be accurate? They're about as accurate as palm readers. If you want to claim that economists vote liberal, I'll let you have that, because it would help clarify why they are wrong so often.
I seriously doubt that many people would agree that studies are named after inconsequential people who merely contribute and not people who lead those studies. You're clinging to this argument, and you look desperate, like you want to win an argument that isn't going your way.
D I D Y O U R E A D T H E S T U D Y? Again, the study did not say that lowering taxes on everybody resulted in less growth. It said there was no correlation with lowering taxes for the top tax bracket and economic growth. That's quite different than what you are claiming.
I have to go to work, so I can earn a taxable income and pay more than my fair share even though I am far, far from the top tax bracket.
People pick up elective 101 classes in economics all the time (I know because I studied economics) they get the very simple basics and end up on what we like to call "Mt Stupid" where they on that basis decide they know enough about economics to make a complete judgement... they do not.
As I said economists vote democrat, people who take an economics class (which makes up about one 40th of an economics degree) apparently vote differently, not really relevant.
Yes, yes those gut knowledge conservatives are always right over those educated liberals, that must be why their average GDP growth and employment growth is so much worse. That is also why you get surgery from people who didn't study medicine right? Because people without expertise in a field should definitely be making the decisions.
I never described him as inconsequential, I said he was a contributor, this is indisputable definitionally correct.
Actually no the study "claimed" (actually demonstrated) both what you claim and that increasing taxes on the top bracket correlated with growth.
AH XKCD, quite the leftist, read some of his stuff and you may find he was referring to you.
Yep, all liberals are highly educated, and all conservatives use gut feelings. Stereotype much? This fictional logic is beyond debate. Your obsession with claiming that liberals are smarter, wealthier, and better educated is absurd and narcissistic. Are they better in bed, happier, better looking, taller, and longer lived too? Are socialists even better than mere liberals? Go quote a few more liberal studies, so you can reaffirm what you want to believe; in your eyes, God Himself couldn't dispute your beloved, partisan studies, so why should I try? Reality calls me away from this "debate."
Nope the ridiculous stereotyping was when you started ranting about how wrong economists are all the time, an yes it encapsulates a conservative attitude of refusing to listen to actual experts in the field, we have seen it with evolution, homosexuality, global warming, economics etc.
Leftists/liberals definitely are better in bed but otherwise no
(OH and educated yes and also longer lived (Because obesity is so ridiculously high among conservatives), but actually generally not happier)
EDIT: Hilariously there is a study saying liberals are better in bed
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/11/harva … -sex-life/
"The study shows that most conservative men become sexually inactive around age 68 where as most liberal men have had robust and active sex lives well into their 80′s."
You sanctimoniously claim that you look only at substantive, scholarly studies. This study (really a short paper) was not conducted by one of the economists for which you so avidly mention, and it has received little attention outside of Washington, for a reason. The study may encompass sixty-five years, but it really is only a cursory glance at the economy and only takes a few external factors into account. The findings were weak and not well recognized by economists.
Hungerford was not a contributor. He was the author of the study. This article, among many, confirms that reality.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/33 … ck-brennan
If you take the time to read this article, you'll find it quite insightful, detailing points both of us have made and clarifying the issue.
Hungerford was the author, not a contributor. If you want to stick to your guns and continue to call him a contributor, prove it. Name anybody, other than Hungerford, who was involved in the study. Good luck.
Actually the study was supported by the full CRS board of economists and that is regarded as the second best independent economics board in the US.
Since no CRS study is published without review and contribution from the CRS economics board (or whatever specialty the area happens to be) that would be the entire CRS economics board plus especially the public finance specialists.
So Sam Garret would be an example.
Your post is a delusional response, at best.
Let's stop playing games. Here's the actual study, directly from the source:
Notice that only Hungerford's name is on the study.
In case you are wondering, the correct response would be to concede a small loss and move on to a more important discussion. You lost this one. It is a proven fact, but you continue to dig for excuses and spin.
Yeah because only one name on a paper means only one person wrote it, definitely.
Economists of the caliber have all sorts of gophers doing research and data analysis just for starters without even mentioning the CRS board, but you are correct it doesn't matter which is weird since you keep harping on it.
Hungerford went from being a "contributor" to being the person who has "gophers" working for him, yet he's merely a "contributor." Keep spinning. He was the author, and anybody who can read should be able to see that this is true.
Your inability to admit you are wrong is astounding. I provided the source document, and you still can't accept it. Please provide proof that Sam Garret was a "gopher" or that he was involved in any way with the Hungerford study. You are merely making up facts!
Let's see a source, not conjecture.
I am with Josak on the point you are trying to make on the 28 weeks verses the 27 weeks , 6 days. It is a compromise set by the Supreme Court on a contentious issue through Roe vs Wade and that is good enough for me. If conservatives had their way would they would grant all these personhood rights to an unborn at the time of conception. If you say 'why does a fetus lose its personhood rights under 28 weeks, I say , why should a fetus be considered a person at the point of conception? There are two sides of this coin.
By saying there are two sides to this coin, you're not really with Josak. I can accept that there are two sides. We allow a court to arbitrarily set numbers, and we know that the court as been wrong at times.
Courts don't make arbitrary decisions, they review evidence and act on that. You could argue that they have been fed false information but you would be arguing conspiracy as most countries that allow abortion have very similar cut off dates.
As personhood is a defined quality rather than a discovered one, it is indeed arbitrary to a large degree. A compromise between two opposing viewpoints.
If by person-hood you mean the ability to live out side the womb, with or without support, that is a medically discovered fact, not a quality.
I do not. Person-hood refers to a philosophical attribute - what makes a person rather than a lump of living flesh or an animal. Animals and other flesh may be killed as it is owned by a person, another person may not.
A compromise sure, but it's not arbitrary the limit is set at that point because that is when a fetus becomes capable of independent life.
But, EA, many of us believe that the court was correct, and that has to be rub. The compromise is necessary as the conservative's position is unacceptable by the left and the reverse is true of the progressive's position on this matter as seen by conservatives. Who gets to decide that the court is wrong? We are not going to accept the right's numbers nor will they accept ours, so a compromise is all that is possible.
LOL I'm sorry, Credence, but that's funny. Have we gone from "conservative/liberal" to "conservative/progressive" now? Guess it sounds better, even though both parties will always say they want change to make things better.
I'm sorry - carry on with the debate. I just had to giggle, not being very PC anywhere, and always finding it funny when loaded words are preferable to factual ones.
The fact that you realize this is a court-mandated compromise means that we agree. I appreciate the fact that you are willing to listen to the Right's numbers; that's not always something that the Left does, nor the Right for that matter. It's not really a rub, because I know that court ideology changes with new appointments. While I disagree with the courts, I fully believe in the system.
Do those men have a "different" lifestyle that the norm?
Do they typically have a different diet, perhaps with insufficient calories?
Do they typically reside around chemically laden areas?
Do they typically remain warm and comfortable in cold climes?
Do you need more possible reasons to understand that it is not a sure thing, that those chemicals are known to cause specific defects?
I would agree it needs to go both ways, but it also seems the typical woman in such circumstances is unlikely to "finger" the father, not knowing who it is.
Yes and maybe breathing is actually unnecessary and drowning people have all just had very conveniently timed heart attacks.
People trying would almost always know who the father is and paternity tests are easy.
Yes, tests are easy. All it takes is a male willing to give blood (or other DNA).
Doesn't mean the father will be found, though, does it?
But people trying what? To get pregnant? I doubt that an alcoholic Mom, or a crack head, would be trying very hard. Or be particularly interested in who the father is. That was my point - that such women aren't the best source of information.
Yup you really didn't read my comment...
Aside from that it's a scary level of prejudice and stereotyping in your comment.
"But if people are trying to have a child it seems fair to expect men to cut those things in the same way women would during pregnancy for the period where they are trying to conceive"
So it would only apply to people who are trying to have a child, in which case the father would be known in almost all cases, when he is not the police already have the right to test for DNA with a judges order if there is reasonable grounds even without consent.
And with that change of subject (the thread is about alcoholic women) I have no argument, at least if it can be verified that alcohol causes mutations in sperm.. Men should refrain just as women do. And yes, a couple trying to conceive almost certainly knows the father.
OK, Wilderness, I prefer progressive over liberal as it a timeworn word that may not represent where many on the left are. Addressing your earlier comment I really wonder if there is a difference in the dictionary between 'progressive' and 'liberal' beyond the semantic....
The state has no right to prosecute any pregnant women who drinks unless they can PROVE that she drank SOLELY for the purpose of damaging her unborn.
The woman could have a low IQ and not understand the ramifications. And, healthy children ARE born to drinking mothers, indicating that there IS a chance a mother could still have a healthy baby.
Intent is at issue - as it is in nearly all crimes.
If the woman is an alcoholic, who is to say she isn't TRYING to control her cravings?
If we punish pregnant women who drink - we must also punish anyone else who drinks - or is under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
And what if the woman eats tainted food? Will we put her in prison because she didn't know the cabbage soup she made last week went bad? Should she have known?
Women who get near cat poop can acquire a deadly disease that can wreak havoc on an unborn. Should all pregnant women be required to euthanize their cats?
I could see that last one creating an increase in abortions.
Same as manslaughter, intent is not necessary. Recklessness or negligence is the standard of proof.
Are you ready to start prosecuting everyone who eats butter and candy too?
Your ways lead to tyranny.
Reasonable negligence and or recklessness.
Your argument is a very obvious slippery slope fallacy.
It's like arguing manslaughter will lead to people being prosecuted for killing someone by distracting them when sneezing.
Am I to take it that you do not believe alcoholism is a disease?
Yes, pregnant women who imbibe alcohol during pregnancy should be LIABLE to prosecution. Pregnant women have been warned about the perils of drinking and taking other controlled substances during pregnancy and yet some PERSIST, much to the harm of the child. YOU BET they should be LIABLE to prosecution. Let me go futher, THEY SHOULD BE PROSECUTED to the FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW!
Yes, as you say they should be "Liable" to prosecution, which is quite different from being prosecuted in every case. There would have to be sufficient evidence of intentional harm.......but, wait a minute, taking this a little further, would this mean that no LEGAL abortions could take place, since there would be intention to harm the foetus? This is a real moral maze. wouldn't you say?
Does that include excessive foodstuffs, even if known bad (extreme fat, etc.)? Prescription meds? How about bungee jumping or other sports? It just seems very dangerous to give politicians that kind of power.
The problem wilderness would be that it wouldn't be the politicians or even doctors making the decisions, it would probably be a council worker with a sociology degree and a chip on their shoulder (ref Sharon Shoesmith) who will make decisions from a list card written by other council workers with a sociology degree. And of course we will never know what's going on because all prosecutions will be done in secret.
Um. On the surface, yes. But the politician, working behind the scenes, will always be the one in control. Sharon depends on those politicians, after all, to pay her for those decisions.
Not that it makes much difference; anyone following the repeated demise and resurrection of the common egg knows that; it has ranged from poison to manna (several times) in only a few decades.
Do you mean any alcohol, or just copious amounts? Is a sip of a champagne toast enough for prosecution
What about women that smoke? we all know the dangers of that.
What about women that take sedatives, Zannex(sp?), Valium, etc.? Does a doctor's prescription negate the dangers of barbiturates?
What about women that drive? Is it possible for them to not know the pregnant belly is going to be the first thing the steering wheel slams into?
Would you volunteer to run the committee that formulates all government enforced "activities while pregnant" regulations?
These are not silly examples or questions, they are very obvious pitfalls on the slippery slope of government control you are advocating.
FAS is caused by drinking enormous amounts over many months of the pregnancy. That is why it is pretty much only found with alcoholic mothers. Hence my point that prosecution should only be an option if the mother was given reasonable access to treatment for her addiction (or an early abortion).
Having dealt with kids with FAS, I think it is essentially a form of child abuse.
Contrary to my apparently contrarian position, I am not unsympathetic to children suffering from FAS. And I certainly don't hold a high opinion of pregnant mothers-to-be that drink excessively while pregnant.
My response was to GNWILLIAM's position that prosecution is THE ONLY proper choice for women that get drunk while pregnant.
This is not a black and white issue that can be arbitrated in the manner she promotes.
From what I understand - alcoholism is classified as a disease. If the person is not in control of their actions - can we punish them? If they ARE in control of their actions - alcoholism is not a disease.
Take your pick.
Why should they be liable for getting drunk while pregnant if they can go legally abort the same child?
If they were given the realistic choice of help to avoid causing the fetus alcohol poisoning (e.g. free inpatient care), yes, I think it should be prosecutable. The damage done to kids with FAS is lifelong, cruel and expensive to society.
...maybe the one with the warm gun should be held accountable, since he knew the woman had a drinking problem… or at least SHOULD have!!!
Instead, we blame the snake.
Instead we blame the woman.
Instead we blame the man.
Instead we blame the fetus.
Instead we blame God.
Instead we blame the devil.
Oh, who should we blame?
...and who should we hold accountable for our addictions, our frailties, our human propensities toward addictions and crazinesses on all levels?
How do we set boundaries? Maybe we should hold the producers of alcoholic beverages accountable… or the liquor stores?
Why not the owner of the too happy warm gun?
I'll tell you why;
One word: Testosterone!
We cut that hormone way too much slack, in general!
(Estrogen as well.)
Ladies, if you have a problem with alcohol, step away from the testosterone!
Men, if your woman has a problem with alcohol, step away from the estrogen!
Judges, if your client has a messed up kid because she drank alcohol while she was pregnant, don't worry… she will be suffering enough! Maybe you should force her to tell her story through a running blog about the trials and tribulations she is going through due to her negligence. Nature will be boxing this mothers ears enough, (... based on the saying, "If you don't listen to mother nature, she'll box your ears.")
Also, lets say the woman takes a couple sips of wine. if something goes wrong with the child, false accusations could fly like mad. I know a woman whose baby fell off a bed. She is being sued for neglect. The woman is already going through agony due to the serious injury her child suffered. No, CPS is advocating legal action against her. She can't even live with her ten month old until she is proven innocent. Which she is.
- maybe the question should be… If a woman is abusing her child before it is even born, (through any type of substance abuse,) perhaps she should be forced/required to abort it. And at whatever stage she starts to abuse it. I still like the idea of stepping away from the eggs of an alcoholic woman in the first place…
by LailaK5 years ago
The 2012 presidential election is approaching! Do you think that the new presidential candidates should support or ban abortion for women of all ages? Why?
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
Abortion is THE MOST CONTENTIOUS arena and subject of American politics. Abortion also generates the MOST VISCERAL reaction among people. However, what business and concern it is whether a woman elects to...
by preacherdon6 years ago
What's your take on why it is OK for a woman to abort a child because it is her body and she can do with it as she likes, but it is not ok to not wear a seat belt for the same reason? I think it is because insurance...
by Grace Marguerite Williams5 years ago
I have read threads regarding the stance of prolifers who assert proudly that a woman who becomes pregnant, should keep and raise her child. They loudly condemn abortion in all cases even rape. ...
by mikelong6 years ago
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 … k1%7C77674If businesses could play by the rules, perhaps they wouldn't need to be watched...
by puddingicecream6 years ago
All US male citizens are required to register for the military draft when they turn 18. Your thoughts?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.