It's not about morality, it's about children being poisoned and having life-long effects because of it. Your example has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. A woman can do what she wants with her body, but she cannot poison her children. It's not the act of drinking which should be criminalised, but the act of drinking which causes a child to be born with FAS.
She isn't poisoning her child any more than a woman who has an abortion is murdering hers. To criminalize drinking while pregnant while abortion is legal would be absolutely ludicrous.
I don't see the point in criminalizing an alcoholic for drinking to excess, but do see the point in forced abortion if passed by a judge/medical professional, if it means saving a child's life (not just alcohol).
A forced abortion wouldn't save the child's life. I think you might mean a forced caesarian or delivery or something. Needless to say I don't agree with forced abortion or forced pregnancy/birth in any situation.
If a woman who is heavily pregnant for example tries to kill herself but is unsuccessful and both her and the baby survive, she is threatening to take her own life again, I do feel it's fair to section her and force an abortion to save that child's life.
Which will vary from woman to woman. As there is no real known safe level of alcohol in pregnancy, doesn't it make more sense to criminalise drinking, if your goal is to protect the foetus?
So a woman who drinks more than another might escape punishment because her child was lucky not to be born with FAS but the one who drank less should be punished because her child was unlucky?
And how would you prove that any of these women knew they were pregnant while they were drinking?
For women with a drink or drugs problem being criminilised is unlikely to help them, all it will do is make them unlikely to go for any antenatal care.
The punishment should act both as a deterrent and as a way to rehabilitate the women involved. As I have said, I doubt that in most cases the sentence imposed would be imprisonment. These women would be made subject to a community order with an alcohol treatment requirement (if they are suitable).
I believe it's only if her actions cause actual harm that the punishment would come in because most women drink responsibly (or not at all) but if the drinking is so severe that it causes a child to be poisoned those women should be held responsible. In order for a child to be born with FAS a woman would have to have drunk severely. It's not an ideal comparison, but criminal damage for instance is an offence that requires actual damage to property.
She isn't poisoning her child any more than a woman who has an abortion is murdering hers. To criminalize drinking while pregnant while abortion is legal would be absolutely ludicrous.
A forced abortion wouldn't save the child's life. I think you might mean a forced caesarian or delivery or something. Needless to say I don't agree with forced abortion or forced pregnancy/birth in any situation.
Yes I meant saving the child.
Its not something I 'agree' with, but if were a case of the child die or survive, well to me it's the lesser of 2 evils.
I'm a bit torn on this one. I think the subject is a bit of a can of worms.
If a woman regularly binge drinks despite knowing she is pregnant, then yes I can see there is a case to be made that she is risking knowingly harming her baby.
However, I would speculate that in most cases of babies being born with FAS, the situation isn't as clear cut as that e.g. in chronic alcoholics who can't stop drinking.
Does an unborn baby have rights?
If so, who's rights are more important? The mother's in being able to do as she wishes with her own body? Or the baby's in not having potential damage knowingly inflicted upon it?
Tough one.
My first reaction was that it should be criminalised. If you drink to excess when pregnant we all know that the outcome is not good for the baby. Having thought about it more then I'd say prosecuting these mothers may be a pretty pointless exercise. The women we are talking about here are not those who have planned parenthood nor are they those who have fallen pregnant by chance but have enough structure and support in their lives to understand the importance of making the right choices for their unborn child. What I suspect we are talking about here is the minority of women who are leading chaotic lives already as a result of dependency on drink and drugs. They are probably living on the fringes of normal life already as a result of psychiatric problems, a troubled up bringing or being homeless. These are likely women who don't even know where they will be at the end of each day so to expect them to make informed decisions about a child who will be born several months down the line is beyond them. This is not about a choice they are making, for a number of reasons they are on a path beyond their control. Bringing in legislation won't change their behaviour, all it will do is potentially demonise responsible pregnant women who chose to have a glass of wine in a public place.
The punishment should act both as a deterrent and as a way to rehabilitate the women involved. As I have said, I doubt that in most cases the sentence imposed would be imprisonment. These women would be made subject to a community order with an alcohol treatment requirement (if they are suitable).
I believe it's only if her actions cause actual harm that the punishment would come in because most women drink responsibly (or not at all) but if the drinking is so severe that it causes a child to be poisoned those women should be held responsible. In order for a child to be born with FAS a woman would have to have drunk severely. It's not an ideal comparison, but criminal damage for instance is an offence that requires actual damage to property.
So if an alcoholic finds out at three months gone that she is pregnant and gives up alcohol but still has a baby with FAS, you would send her to rehab even though she isn't drinking anymore?
What does that accomplish?
(Other than the child being able to claim compo from the Criminal Injuries Board which is what this case is all about)
The punishment should act both as a deterrent and as a way to rehabilitate the women involved. As I have said, I doubt that in most cases the sentence imposed would be imprisonment. These women would be made subject to a community order with an alcohol treatment requirement (if they are suitable).
I believe it's only if her actions cause actual harm that the punishment would come in because most women drink responsibly (or not at all) but if the drinking is so severe that it causes a child to be poisoned those women should be held responsible. In order for a child to be born with FAS a woman would have to have drunk severely. It's not an ideal comparison, but criminal damage for instance is an offence that requires actual damage to property.
Not every woman who drinks heavily through pregnancy ends up having a baby born with FAS, so 2 women could do exactly the same things during pregnancy but only 1 would be punished based on the other "getting lucky".
I don't think it would be much of a deterrent if punishment was only applicable if the child is born with FAS, lots of women would be in denial and would think "that won't happen to me" or "the baby will be fine".
Not that it would be much of a deterrent if it was criminalising alcohol during pregnancy in general, as that would just deter women from attending antenatal care or asking for help.
On top of that you'd still have to prove that the woman knew she was pregnant, which might not be easy to do.
All in all, even if I thought that a law such as this should be in place (which I don't) it would still be unworkable.
No, it should be their decision to do what they like. If we ban this, what next? Banning knives in case someone is drunk and might fall on someone with it?
It's not about morality, it's about children being poisoned and having life-long effects because of it. Your example has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. A woman can do what she wants with her body, but she cannot poison her children. It's not the act of drinking which should be criminalised, but the act of drinking which causes a child to be born with FAS.
Clearly not.
As I said earlier in the thread, how would you address the issue of anti depressants? I don't have children and am a long term user of seroxat which is known to cause stillbirth. If I were to become pregnant tomorrow and my child was stillborn or severely disabled, surely as the intent was there to knowingly have the child, I too should be prosecuted?
Seroxat is very hard to come off and it is a drug that I have been prescribed for a specific illness. Alcohol is hugely addictive. What about a pregnant woman who is being beaten up by her partner and drinks to blot out the pain? What do we achieve by punishing her? Surely help is a far more positive thing.
And if women drink when pregnant and are retrospectively punished when their children have FSA, I assume we also prosecute the shopkeepers and publicans who knowingly served them booze.
Yes, why not? It has too many consequences for society - the financial cost of benefits like DLA that the child would need, the cost to the NHS, the cost to the education system, etc etc. Why shouldn't the buck stop somewhere? Would it stop alcoholics from having kids? I sort of doubt it. But maybe that would not be its function. Would it make someone accountable for their own actions in damaging not only that baby but those who are impacted by it being the way it is? Maybe.
I do wonder why when babies are born with FAS, or drugs in their system, that they aren't immediately got to a place of safety and adopted, given the demand for babies. How would it benefit anyone (apart from the parents of the child who might cop a load of state benefits) to keep the child with the people who damaged it before it was even born?
I think it wouldn't be hard to restrict any action to FAS and babies born to women who are drug addicts - not prescribed drugs taken for good reason. These babies have miserable lives and there is only one reason for that. Why not make the person who harmed them accountable?
Yes, why not? It has too many consequences for society - the financial cost of benefits like DLA that the child would need, the cost to the NHS, the cost to the education system, etc etc. Why shouldn't the buck stop somewhere? Would it stop alcoholics from having kids? I sort of doubt it. But maybe that would not be its function. Would it make someone accountable for their own actions in damaging not only that baby but those who are impacted by it being the way it is? Maybe.
How is it going to save money?
Whether the money comes from the Council, DWP or The Criminal Injuries Board it is all state money that we ultimately pay for.
So, no financial benefit.
I do wonder why when babies are born with FAS, or drugs in their system, that they aren't immediately got to a place of safety and adopted, given the demand for babies. How would it benefit anyone (apart from the parents of the child who might cop a load of state benefits) to keep the child with the people who damaged it before it was even born?
A great many of them are as the parents are still abusing alcohol and unable to meet the needs of a healthy baby let alone one with FAS.
Sadly, not a huge demand from adopters for babies with FAS. So they will go into foster care or residential care. Even those adopted will continue to require assistance from the state. But I agree, better than with an alcoholic, neglectful parent.
I think it wouldn't be hard to restrict any action to FAS and babies born to women who are drug addicts - not prescribed drugs taken for good reason. These babies have miserable lives and there is only one reason for that. Why not make the person who harmed them accountable?
Wouldn't it be better to treat them and encourage them to come forward and accept help rather than criminalise them?
As mentioned many times in the thread, addicts will lie about knowing they were pregnant. some indeed might not have known they were pregnant, or in denial.
So such an interpretation of the law will not be a financial benefit nor a deterrent.
And what of the scenario I mentioned earlier.
Mum A drinks excessively, scan reveals baby has FAS, mum aborts, mum isn't a criminal.
Mum B drinks excessively, scan reveals baby has FAS, mum gets clean, has baby and tries to care for baby, mum is criminal.
Not fair.
Those are the practical arguments. The moral one is, why should anyone including the state have control over another persons body?
I think they made the right decision myself, if you start assigning legal person status to foetuses it has massive implications for abortion laws and legal control of women's bodies during pregnancy.
I think they made the right decision myself, if you start assigning legal person status to foetuses it has massive implications for abortion laws and legal control of women's bodies during pregnancy.
I couldn't see how it could be made illegal in law as such, as its never black and white. Having said that, IMO, those females that continue to drink to excess, smoke or take drugs during pregnancy, should be looked down on in society. It's so unfair on the baby that is growing inside of them....they might get away with it but the risks are there and its selfish in the extreme. We should be doing more to make people more aware that this is unacceptable behaviour and give them as much help as is needed to get them stopped for the duration at least.
I think they made the right decision myself, if you start assigning legal person status to foetuses it has massive implications for abortion laws and legal control of women's bodies during pregnancy.
Comments
She isn't poisoning her child any more than a woman who has an abortion is murdering hers. To criminalize drinking while pregnant while abortion is legal would be absolutely ludicrous.
A forced abortion wouldn't save the child's life. I think you might mean a forced caesarian or delivery or something. Needless to say I don't agree with forced abortion or forced pregnancy/birth in any situation.
What on earth?
The punishment should act both as a deterrent and as a way to rehabilitate the women involved. As I have said, I doubt that in most cases the sentence imposed would be imprisonment. These women would be made subject to a community order with an alcohol treatment requirement (if they are suitable).
I believe it's only if her actions cause actual harm that the punishment would come in because most women drink responsibly (or not at all) but if the drinking is so severe that it causes a child to be poisoned those women should be held responsible. In order for a child to be born with FAS a woman would have to have drunk severely. It's not an ideal comparison, but criminal damage for instance is an offence that requires actual damage to property.
Yes I meant saving the child.
Its not something I 'agree' with, but if were a case of the child die or survive, well to me it's the lesser of 2 evils.
As pointed out, sorry a wrong choice of words. I want the baby to live not die!
My first reaction was that it should be criminalised. If you drink to excess when pregnant we all know that the outcome is not good for the baby. Having thought about it more then I'd say prosecuting these mothers may be a pretty pointless exercise. The women we are talking about here are not those who have planned parenthood nor are they those who have fallen pregnant by chance but have enough structure and support in their lives to understand the importance of making the right choices for their unborn child. What I suspect we are talking about here is the minority of women who are leading chaotic lives already as a result of dependency on drink and drugs. They are probably living on the fringes of normal life already as a result of psychiatric problems, a troubled up bringing or being homeless. These are likely women who don't even know where they will be at the end of each day so to expect them to make informed decisions about a child who will be born several months down the line is beyond them. This is not about a choice they are making, for a number of reasons they are on a path beyond their control. Bringing in legislation won't change their behaviour, all it will do is potentially demonise responsible pregnant women who chose to have a glass of wine in a public place.
So if an alcoholic finds out at three months gone that she is pregnant and gives up alcohol but still has a baby with FAS, you would send her to rehab even though she isn't drinking anymore?
What does that accomplish?
(Other than the child being able to claim compo from the Criminal Injuries Board which is what this case is all about)
Not every woman who drinks heavily through pregnancy ends up having a baby born with FAS, so 2 women could do exactly the same things during pregnancy but only 1 would be punished based on the other "getting lucky".
I don't think it would be much of a deterrent if punishment was only applicable if the child is born with FAS, lots of women would be in denial and would think "that won't happen to me" or "the baby will be fine".
Not that it would be much of a deterrent if it was criminalising alcohol during pregnancy in general, as that would just deter women from attending antenatal care or asking for help.
On top of that you'd still have to prove that the woman knew she was pregnant, which might not be easy to do.
All in all, even if I thought that a law such as this should be in place (which I don't) it would still be unworkable.
Clearly not.
As I said earlier in the thread, how would you address the issue of anti depressants? I don't have children and am a long term user of seroxat which is known to cause stillbirth. If I were to become pregnant tomorrow and my child was stillborn or severely disabled, surely as the intent was there to knowingly have the child, I too should be prosecuted?
Seroxat is very hard to come off and it is a drug that I have been prescribed for a specific illness. Alcohol is hugely addictive. What about a pregnant woman who is being beaten up by her partner and drinks to blot out the pain? What do we achieve by punishing her? Surely help is a far more positive thing.
And if women drink when pregnant and are retrospectively punished when their children have FSA, I assume we also prosecute the shopkeepers and publicans who knowingly served them booze.
Oh, and it's nothing to do with being a feminist.
I do wonder why when babies are born with FAS, or drugs in their system, that they aren't immediately got to a place of safety and adopted, given the demand for babies. How would it benefit anyone (apart from the parents of the child who might cop a load of state benefits) to keep the child with the people who damaged it before it was even born?
I think it wouldn't be hard to restrict any action to FAS and babies born to women who are drug addicts - not prescribed drugs taken for good reason. These babies have miserable lives and there is only one reason for that. Why not make the person who harmed them accountable?
How is it going to save money?
Whether the money comes from the Council, DWP or The Criminal Injuries Board it is all state money that we ultimately pay for.
So, no financial benefit.
A great many of them are as the parents are still abusing alcohol and unable to meet the needs of a healthy baby let alone one with FAS.
Sadly, not a huge demand from adopters for babies with FAS. So they will go into foster care or residential care. Even those adopted will continue to require assistance from the state. But I agree, better than with an alcoholic, neglectful parent.
Wouldn't it be better to treat them and encourage them to come forward and accept help rather than criminalise them?
As mentioned many times in the thread, addicts will lie about knowing they were pregnant. some indeed might not have known they were pregnant, or in denial.
So such an interpretation of the law will not be a financial benefit nor a deterrent.
And what of the scenario I mentioned earlier.
Mum A drinks excessively, scan reveals baby has FAS, mum aborts, mum isn't a criminal.
Mum B drinks excessively, scan reveals baby has FAS, mum gets clean, has baby and tries to care for baby, mum is criminal.
Not fair.
Those are the practical arguments. The moral one is, why should anyone including the state have control over another persons body?
Link
I think they made the right decision myself, if you start assigning legal person status to foetuses it has massive implications for abortion laws and legal control of women's bodies during pregnancy.
It is a horrible case though.
The right outcome. But yes, horrible case.
Thanks for the update
Pregnant women can do no wrong.
Oh don't be so bloody ridiculous. Nobody's saying it's not wrong. Plenty of things are morally wrong yet perfectly legal.
Thanks for the update. The right decision.
The 'unborn child' is part of the mother till the cord is cut. Punishing the supposed victim would be daft.