Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (140) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 442436  
Subject: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 12:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Received this petition in email. I agree that there was no child in that car, and the charge is bogus (it didn't even meet the Tennessee standard of viability, 24 weeks). At the same time, she is pregnant AND she's drinking. I don't know if there's a law against that, but I find it difficult to have any sympathy for her. Her actions were irresponsible in the extreme, IMO.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/484/424/851/dont-charge-pregn...

I don't think I'll sign this one, but I thought it an interesting topic. Even though it is not a child, drinking can cause fetal alcohol syndrome once the embryo/fetus does become viable. I could see an argument for compulsory abortion in this case. Except I loathe the idea of government having that much power over someone.
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cabinsmama Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416634 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 7:00 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I was surprised at how many people wanted to focus on her blowing 0.04 and how much under the legal limit that was. She wasn't simply stopped at a DUI checkpoint, she had wrecked her car. Sounds impaired to me, from the reports.

I generally am against criminalizing women's behavior when they're pregnant. It feels like that would keep at least some women who need prenatal care away from doctors and clinics, and that's not good, either.

There's still judges on the bench who probably had mothers who had a cocktail or two and/or smoked while they were pregnant. I'd be surprised if they came down hard on women whose sole offence is drinking while pregnant.

If the drinking is one factor among several (like causing a wreck, assault, possession, etc.) that's a different story, and I can see a judge going there, but...the system is overloaded with child endangerment & abuse of actual, born-already kids. Who's going to handle a flood of pregnant women doing unhealthy things?

Not that I think it's a good idea at all, but even if this became a thing, I'm not feeling like the people who want it have thought it through.

cm

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416635 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 8:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
At the same time, she is pregnant AND she's drinking.

This is unconscionable and should not be tolerated. Fair or not, pregnant women have a solemn responsibility, their behavior has a profound effect on the entire future life of the unborn child.

If you want to drink and party, don't get pregnant or get an abortion. A few instances of stupidity while pregnant may force another human being to live their entire life with mental and physical disabilities. Alcohol and drug abuse during pregnancy is an entirely preventable cause of severe lifelong problems for the future child. It is one of the worst crimes that I can imagine.

Back to your "If you were dictator of the world" thread, If I were dictator of the world, any pregnant woman that endangered her child with substance abuse would be jailed and closely supervised until the child was delivered.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416636 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 9:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I think there has to be a standard whether an unborn fetus can be considered or not - if a fetus isn't going to be considered if the woman carrying the fetus does something that "endangers" it, than other people shouldn't be held to the death of a fetus if they do something that endangers it - such as how Scott Peterson was charged with 2 murders when he killed his pregnant wife Lacey.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416637 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 9:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
This is unconscionable and should not be tolerated. Fair or not, pregnant women have a solemn responsibility, their behavior has a profound effect on the entire future life of the unborn child.

A 0.4 alcohol level is very likely after 1 drink for a woman. From what I've heard from women who've had babies, most doctors tell them 1 glass of wine or beer after the first trimester isn't going to harm the baby.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DufusGoneSplat Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416640 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 10:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Back to your "If you were dictator of the world" thread, If I were dictator of the world, any pregnant woman that endangered her child with substance abuse would be jailed and closely supervised until the child was delivered.

I have to strongly disagree. First, a pregnant woman's fetus is not a child. And while I would hope that any woman planning on giving birth should have a responsibility in assuring the best possible development of the fetus throughout her pregnancy, jailing and supervising a would-be mother is extreme, to say the least.

I appears you use of "substance abuse" includes non-excessive drinking - would it include using cigarettes also? How about eating the "wrong" foods or using prescription medications? Maybe the definition could be expanded to include forcing a move from a dangerous neighborhood or not allowing potentially dangerous activities like bike riding or snow-boarding? Life shouldn't stop at pregnancy.

People crash cars, even when completely sober. Assuming the referenced article is reasonably accurate, I don't see that the woman did anything morally, legally or ethically wrong.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416642 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 10:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I think there has to be a standard whether an unborn fetus can be considered or not - if a fetus isn't going to be considered if the woman carrying the fetus does something that "endangers" it, than other people shouldn't be held to the death of a fetus if they do something that endangers it

Nope. The decision ultimately has to rest with the person in possession/control of the fetus. Woman, husband (or legal guardian), state - inthat order.

If the woman is sane, then it's her decision. Nobody else.
A fetus is a potential child, but only the carrier of the fetus can ultimately say whether it lives or dies. Until the fetus scores a touchdown, it's female's choice. If she becomes insane or comatose, then it's her husbands call. If he's dead or insane, then it's the legal guardian or state who calls the shots. To change that reduces women to the status of mere breeding stock.

If she had chosen to abort her fetus, she, not the doctor made the choice to terminate the fetus. However, it was a criminal, not Mrs. Peterson who made the choice for her against her will.

In the Petersen case the state correctly assumed Mrs Peterson intended to carry the fetus to completion. Since her intent was to produce a child, the state was obligated to consider her intention with regard to that fetus in the same manner: 1 live woman and one live wanted fetus terminated = 2 murders.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416643 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 10:44 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I have to strongly disagree. First, a pregnant woman's fetus is not a child.

I speak of the cases where a women intends to bring the pregnancy to full term. There is always the alternative of aborting the pregnancy, which I support as an alternative.

Here is the issue, and why it is so critical; Can you imagine living your entire life with an intellectual deficit? Can you imagine a lifetime of heartache, longing to be normal and like everyone else, the object of pity, ridicule, and sometimes scorn? Can you imagine a lifetime of observing others whose capabilities and privileges far surpass your own?

And all this because mama wanted to catch a buzz?

The consequences for the child are profound and life-long. Substance abuse during pregnancy in my opinion is the most vile and selfish of actions. The right of the child to at least have a shot at normal development far exceed the temporary right of the mother to get stoned. And if the responsibility of maintaining a healthy pregnancy is too much to bear, she should get an abortion. The stakes are simply too high.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DufusGoneSplat Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416645 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 10:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The consequences for the child are profound and life-long. Substance abuse during pregnancy in my opinion is the most vile and selfish of actions.

We agree.




The right of the child to at least have a shot at normal development far exceed the temporary right of the mother to get stoned.

And this is where we disagree. I do NOT believe a blastocyte/embryo/fetus has rights, and certainly does NOT have rights that supersede the mother-to-be's (an existing person's) rights. If I did believe in those rights, I wouldn't be pro-choice.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416646 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 11:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Sounds impaired to me, from the reports.

I agree. But I do think that if you're under the legal limit, then you're under the legal limit. So that charge is bogus.

Who's going to handle a flood of pregnant women doing unhealthy things?

Yeah. And I agree again about criminalizing behavior of pregnant women (when that same behavior would be legal if she weren't pregnant). Very dangerous slope to tread near. So I don't agree with the endangerment charge either.

But that level of irresponsibility is very annoying and frustrating, especially if society is going to have to deal with the poor wretch she produces (brain damaged, or otherwise impaired). So I'll just let her lawyer deal with it. I would be surprised if those charges stick.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416647 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 11:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If I were dictator of the world, any pregnant woman that endangered her child with substance abuse would be jailed and closely supervised until the child was delivered.

What if she wants an abortion anyway? In that case your argument collapses (because there isn't going to be a damaged human living a life of misery). The damaged miserable human is what led to my comment about the mandatory abortion for her (except I wouldn't want government to have that kind of power).

But if she is planning to keep it then at the bare minimum I can see ordering parenting classes (pre- and post-natal care of a fetus/child) for her.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416648 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 11:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Yeah. And I agree again about criminalizing behavior of pregnant women (when that same behavior would be legal if she weren't pregnant). Very dangerous slope to tread near. So I don't agree with the endangerment charge either.

The rules we have created can be frustrating, but the alternatives are worse.

Guns are a real problem. Not having them would be worse.

Substance abuse is a problem. Prohibition is an even bigger problem.

Unions have become a problem. Not having unions was even worse.

Life is messy. The alternative is worse.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416650 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 11:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
What if she wants an abortion anyway? In that case your argument collapses ..

I am not concerned about an aborted fetus. I am concerned about the lifelong consequences that will be born by both the child and society if the pregnancy is brought to term and there has been substance abuse.

Human rights do sometimes conflict. When this occurs, the just thing to do is to uphold the right of the party who was more at stake. A pregnancy lasts nine months, contrast this with a lifetime of dysfunction.

I know this seems to be be contrary to a pro-choice viewpoint, and I certainly count myself as pro-choice. I stress again the profound lifelong consequences that will be suffered by stupidity during pregnancy.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416654 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 11:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I don't disagree with you. I also have commented on the lifelong consequences.

One possibility might be to give the woman a choice. She can either have an abortion or she can submit to close monitoring until the birth.

Though, frankly, if she's that irresponsible, do we want her raising a kid? (Or, more likely, failing to raise it?)

It's a sticky situation, which is why I posted it. Figured it would generate some interesting discussion.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cabinsmama Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416656 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 11:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I agree. But I do think that if you're under the legal limit, then you're under the legal limit. So that charge is bogus.

We know what her breathalyzer said, but alcohol isn't the only "influence" she could be under, and he couldn't have done a field test for other substances. If someone's driving (or behavior when they've gotten out of the car) convinces the cop that they were under the influence of something that impaired them, I'd think he'd be right to charge the driver.

I'm betting the child endangerment charges won't stand, but there's several other charges that might.

cm

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416657 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 11:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
One possibility might be to give the woman a choice. She can either have an abortion or she can submit to close monitoring until the birth.

This is the core issue. If the woman intends to bring the pregnancy to full term, then she is obligated to exercise due care and act in a responsible manner. The choice is still hers, if she does not want to behave responsibly she can refrain form becoming pregnat or seek an abortion. Equally, if the intend is to bring a new child into the world, society has an duty to protect the future viability of the child.

If the woman does not intend to bring the pregnancy to term, then there is no issue.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DufusGoneSplat Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416659 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 11:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
1poorguy - One possibility might be to give the woman a choice. She can either have an abortion or she can submit to close monitoring until the birth.

Beridian - This is the core issue. If the woman intends to bring the pregnancy to full term, then she is obligated to exercise due care and act in a responsible manner.


Let me paraphrase what I'm hearing. You both appear to agree that taking away a woman's rights to engage in certain legal activities is OK because it MIGHT have adverse affects on a fetus?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416660 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 12:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I see the argument, but I'm trying to decide if I agree or not. Right now I could argue both sides.

Yes, the behavior is legal. But Beridian has a point about the potential long-term effects on a wanted fetus. (If it's unwanted, everything becomes moot.) Would we tolerate it if the woman was giving alcohol to an infant? If she's planning to keep it, I don't see much difference.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MDGluon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416661 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 12:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Guns are a real problem. Not having them would be worse.

Why would not having guns be "worse" or a problem at all?

Just curious on your logic.

md

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DufusGoneSplat Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416663 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 12:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Yes, the behavior is legal. But Beridian has a point about the potential long-term effects on a wanted fetus.

I understand that, and I agreed with Beridian's statement The consequences for the child are profound and life-long. Substance abuse during pregnancy in my opinion is the most vile and selfish of actions.




Would we tolerate it if the woman was giving alcohol to an infant? If she's planning to keep it, I don't see much difference.

I apologize for my black-and-white thinking, but to me the difference is clear - an infant is a person and a fetus is not a person. Once a fetus is awarded the rights of a person, and that fetus's rights can supersede another person's rights, then the line from pro-choice to pro-life has been crossed. But that's just me.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416664 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 12:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
...an infant is a person and a fetus is not a person.

I agree. But if it's wanted, the fetus will become a person that we all will have to deal with. (Emphasis on "if it's wanted".)

I also am pro-choice (up until the actual birth), but again think Beridian outlined the situation well. It's the woman's choice, and it should be. If she chooses to carry to term then she is taking-on certain obligations. If not then this discussion would be academic.

But that's just me.

Like I said, I could argue both sides right now. Though I must confess that Beridian's argument has me leaning that way a bit.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416666 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 12:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I apologize for my black-and-white thinking, but to me the difference is clear - an infant is a person and a fetus is not a person. Once a fetus is awarded the rights of a person, and that fetus's rights can supersede another person's rights, then the line from pro-choice to pro-life has been crossed. But that's just me.

You raise a valid concern, but here is the difference, if the woman intends to give birth and bring the child into the world.

There can be no arguing with the science. It is well understood that substance abuse during pregnancy has severe consequences for the future life of the child. Like 1poorfool pointed out, how would we respond to a mother giving alcohol, herion, or meth to an infant? The affects on a fetus are actually more profound than the affect would be on an infant:

http://www.sogc.org/guidelines/documents/gui256CPG1104E.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001909/

Using or abusing alcohol during pregnancy can cause the same risks as using alcohol in general. However, it poses extra risks to the unborn baby. When a pregnant woman drinks alcohol, it easily passes across the placenta to the fetus. Because of this, drinking alcohol can harm the baby's development.

A pregnant woman who drinks any amount of alcohol is at risk for having a child with fetal alcohol syndrome. No "safe" level of alcohol use during pregnancy has been established. Larger amounts of alcohol appear to increase the problems. Binge drinking is more harmful than drinking small amounts of alcohol.

Timing of alcohol use during pregnancy is also important. Alcohol use appears to be the most harmful during the first 3 months of pregnancy; however, drinking alcohol any time during pregnancy can be harmful.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416670 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 12:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
I apologize for my black-and-white thinking, but to me the difference is clear - an infant is a person and a fetus is not a person. Once a fetus is awarded the rights of a person, and that fetus's rights can supersede another person's rights, then the line from pro-choice to pro-life has been crossed. But that's just me.

You don't need to afford rights to the fetus in order to justify a regulation banning drinking while pregnant. The state can determine that the societal cost of individuals being born with potential crippling afflictions is worth limiting the ability to drink while pregnant, particularly the direct cost of care. If one can prohibit drinking soda from too large a cup because of the potential health costs being picked up by the state, then surely this can also be barred. Heck, it is the primary justification for the prohibition on consensual incest - that the births that might result from consanguinous intercourse would pose a burden on the state.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DufusGoneSplat Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416672 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 12:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Like I said, I could argue both sides right now. Though I must confess that Beridian's argument has me leaning that way a bit.

And I understand that. But in formulating my position, I also try to consider potential, long-term impacts. It would seem to me that once a fetus is awarded the rights of a person, regardless of why those rights were awarded, the door has been opened for pro-life groups to close the door on pro-choice groups.

Why should there be laws disallowing POTENTIAL harm to a fetus when killing a fetus is not a problem?

And how does one legislate "responsibility" to POTENTIAL would-be mothers? Would it become illegal for an irresponsible would-be mother to change her mind about having an abortion? I can hear the outcries about government forced abortions now.

It just looks like a slippery slope best kept away from.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LOTROQueen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416675 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 1:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 24
I also am pro-choice (up until the actual birth), but again think Beridian outlined the situation well. It's the woman's choice, and it should be. If she chooses to carry to term then she is taking-on certain obligations. If not then this discussion would be academic.


You guys are scaring the hell out of me.

If you're so concerned about pregnant women with substance abuse problems, how about making sure treatment is available, accessible, and affordable for them instead of immediately assuming they should be locked up?

Your "rights of the baby" crap is no different than the anti-abortion people - it's just a matter of degree.

It's all about control - you want to control women because you know what's best.

Are you going to mandate prison for pregnant women that have an occasional cup of coffee? How about ones that eat too much fast food?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DufusGoneSplat Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416678 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 1:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You don't need to afford rights to the fetus in order to justify a regulation banning drinking while pregnant.

Albaby, I was hoping you would join this conversation. While I may not have done a great job at it, I was disagreeing with these types of statements.

I could see an argument for compulsory abortion in this case.
---
Back to your "If you were dictator of the world" thread, If I were dictator of the world, any pregnant woman that endangered her child with substance abuse would be jailed and closely supervised until the child was delivered.
---
The right of the child to at least have a shot at normal development far exceed the temporary right of the mother to get stoned.


And my disagreement was based on my opinion that these types of actions award a fetus rights.

With that said, I'm curious - How would a state enforce a regulation banning drinking while pregnant, especially if the would-be mother isn't caught red-handed?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416680 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 1:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Why should there be laws disallowing POTENTIAL harm to a fetus when killing a fetus is not a problem?

And how does one legislate "responsibility" to POTENTIAL would-be mothers? Would it become illegal for an irresponsible would-be mother to change her mind about having an abortion? I can hear the outcries about government forced abortions now.


At the risk or sounding Orwell-ian, and in keeping with the "dictator of the world" metaphor, I would propose the following as a reasonable approach to the problem:

All women, upon being diagnosed as being pregnant, would be required to receive counseling from a qualified licensed professional, and sign an acknowledgment that such counseling was received and understood. The counseling would include prenatal health and nutrition, the risks to the fetus of substance abuse, and various options for going forward with or terminating the pregnancy. The woman would then have a reasonable amount of time to decide if she wishes to go through with the pregnancy. Once her decision is made, she would be required to declare her decision in writing, and if she decides to proceed with the pregnancy, she would agree to not partake in behaviors that are widely recognized as being hazardous to the future development of the child. This declaration could then be used to justify intervention or to prosecute her if she intentionally violates the agreement.

I know this sounds intense. But you know what's more intense? The problems inflicted on humanity by the irresponsible procreation of dysfunctional children. It is the root of a great many evils.

Making babies is very serious business and should be respected as such.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416681 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 1:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I also am glad albaby joined in. What he said made sense (in terms of the interests of the state/society), IMO.

How would a state enforce a regulation banning drinking while pregnant, especially if the would-be mother isn't caught red-handed?

Obviously they can't. Any more than they can enforce speeding laws unless you're caught speeding.

If a pregnant woman downs half a bottle of Jack Daniels in the privacy of her own home, and doesn't then go out until sober again, no will ever know about it and nothing can be enforced.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: GardenStateFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416682 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 1:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 37
Back to your "If you were dictator of the world" thread, If I were dictator of the world, any pregnant woman that endangered her child with substance abuse would be jailed and closely supervised until the child was delivered.

Then, as far as I'm concerned, you may as well just lock all pregnant women up and be done.

Because that's where this goes.

The list of stuff that's not recommended during pregnancy goes on, and on and ON.

Don't color your hair. Don't eat sushi. Or too much tunafish. Put down the coffee. Shall we have baristas offer pregnancy tests before serving the lattes?

How about physical exercise? Allergy medicine? Any other kind of medicine? Etc., etc., etc.

I do not disagree with your premise that any woman who is planning to bring a child into the world should absolutely begin taking care of it from the point that they are aware it exists.

However, the moment you make the argument that equates the behavior of the mother to child endangerment, there is a major issue, since it is the absolute argument that would be used to remove a woman's choice about terminating a pregnancy as well.

I cannot think of an argument that you can make that would be able to separate one from the other.

GSF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DufusGoneSplat Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416683 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 1:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Your "rights of the baby" crap is no different than the anti-abortion people - it's just a matter of degree.

It's all about control - you want to control women because you know what's best.


Yeah - What happened to a pregnancy/abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416684 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 1:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I cannot think of an argument that you can make that would be able to separate one from the other.

Did you see albaby's post? He framed it as "The state can determine that the societal cost [is excessive].

http://boards.fool.com/i-apologize-for-my-black-and-white-th...

So it's not a matter of the "rights" (or lack thereof) of the fetus at all, and pro-choice remains intact.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416685 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 1:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You guys are scaring the hell out of me.

If you're so concerned about pregnant women with substance abuse problems, how about making sure treatment is available, accessible, and affordable for them instead of immediately assuming they should be locked up?


I certainly support universal health care, particularly to pregnant women and children. It is a much better investment than another aircraft carrier.


It's all about control - you want to control women because you know what's best.

I sincerely have no desire to control you or anyone else. I am fully in the pro-choice camp.

Might I suggest that you visit a psychiatric hospital and observe for yourself the injustice that has been inflicted on many of these kids. Also take a tour of your local penitentiary and explore the backgrounds and the birth circumstances of the typical inmate. It is one of the most wicked things that I can imagine, to sentence a child to a life of pain and dysfunction when it can be so easily prevented.

Again, sometimes rights do conflict, in situation like this the child has much more to lose. For women who find this untenable, seek an abortion or do not become pregnant.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416686 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 1:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Yeah - What happened to a pregnancy/abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor?

Yeah, there's that too.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DufusGoneSplat Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416687 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 1:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
All women, upon being diagnosed as being pregnant ...

Well, if I was woman and I suspected I was pregnant, I would choose not to be diagnosed. Problem solved.

Look, I doubt that any of us disagree about the possible affects of drugs, alcohol, smoking, etc, etc, etc. have on a pregnancy. It's just my opinion that you can't legislate solutions to every possible problem, just as it's my opinion that a fetus doesn't have, and shouldn't have, rights.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416688 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 1:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Well, if I was woman and I suspected I was pregnant, I would choose not to be diagnosed. Problem solved.

And here come the unintended consequences. Now we get lack of pre-natal care. That would be bad.

1poorguy (enjoying what has turned out to be a meaty thread)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416689 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 1:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The list of stuff that's not recommended during pregnancy goes on, and on and ON.

Don't color your hair. Don't eat sushi. Or too much tunafish. Put down the coffee. Shall we have baristas offer pregnancy tests before serving the lattes?


You are arguing a similar point as the pro-gun faction, the slippery slope argument, or the "give them an inch" argument, that because we cannot possibly agree on every contingency, we must have no interference what so ever. I find this a weak position, especially when considering what is at stake.

Certainly reasonable people backed with widely accepted science can agree that alcohol and recreation drugs should not be used while pregnant, that would be a great start and would address the lion's share of the problem.

How should we respond to a woman that gives her infant alcohol or heroin? Why should we have any response at all? Again, frame this thought with the acknowledgement that the pregnant woman intends to complete the pregnancy. Under this contingency (and only within this contingency), the rights of the fetus (soon to become a child) must be defended.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416690 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 1:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
With that said, I'm curious - How would a state enforce a regulation banning drinking while pregnant, especially if the would-be mother isn't caught red-handed?

With great difficulty. Probably the most common situation would the one that led off the thread - a motor-vehicle related alcohol test, and the woman is later established to be pregnant. But many prohibited activities (and even some minor crimes) are very difficult to enforce against people that aren't caught in the act. That doesn't stop us from prohibiting them.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416693 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 2:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Why would not having guns be "worse" or a problem at all?

Just curious on your logic.


First off, I was refering to individual, not collective, rights.
We have the right as individuals to defend ourselves. Some individuals are incapable of defending themselves capably without a firearm.

I do not want get into a protracted 2nd Amndmnt discussion on this female/fetus legal relationship thread.

How about we take it to one of the 2nd amendment threads like
'well regulated militia.'
http://boards.fool.com/a-well-regulated-militia-30495169.asp...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LOTROQueen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416694 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 2:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Certainly reasonable people backed with widely accepted science can agree that alcohol and recreation drugs should not be used while pregnant,


How much alcohol? Communion wine? Cooking with wine? What about alcohol in mouthwash?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416698 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 2:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
How much alcohol? Communion wine? Cooking with wine? What about alcohol in mouthwash?

That's why we have legislatures - they would be the ones who have to balance the prospective harms to society with the burdens on pregnant women. I suspect that the easiest definition would be to prohibit pregnant women from consuming anything that couldn't legally be provided to a minor; a more complicated definition would require assesing the scientific literature to determine what levels of alcohol give rise to what incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome (and other impacts).

At the end of the day, there will be plenty to argue about whenever you set a fixed limit like this. Again, look at the soda ban - why 16 ounces, instead of 14 or 18? At what point do you strike that balance between societal harm and personal preference?

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416699 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 2:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I suspect that the easiest definition would be to prohibit pregnant women from consuming anything that couldn't legally be provided to a minor; a more complicated definition would require assesing the scientific literature to determine what levels of alcohol give rise to what incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome (and other impacts).


And women could have surgery such that they would never get pregnant.
Perhaps that is where we are headed.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416701 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 2:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Back to your "If you were dictator of the world" thread, If I were dictator of the world, any pregnant woman that endangered her child with substance abuse would be jailed and closely supervised until the child was delivered.

Maybe it was the night before her abortion?

What about a woman who endangers her child by living too close to power lines? Not drinking filtered water? Missing a doctor's appointment? Speeding (in car, not on drugs), skydiving, working too much, being stressed, lifting weights, listening to heavy metal, wearing sandals in the winter, etc etc etc?

What about women who get pregnant knowing they have a strong likelihood of passing genetic problems on? Should they be punished if the child does become sick? What about men who contribute sperm with the same knowledge (the men not the sperm)?

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416702 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 2:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
And women could have surgery such that they would never get pregnant.
Perhaps that is where we are headed.


I don't see why.

Under the sort of regulation that's being discussed, you're allowed to get pregnant, or not get pregnant, as you want. You're allowed to drink, or not drink, as you want. You would simply not be allowed to drink while pregnant, because that poses an enormous risk of inflicting costs on society as a whole.

Prohibiting people from drinking while pregnant neither requires, nor logically leads to, sterilization.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416704 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 2:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You don't need to afford rights to the fetus in order to justify a regulation banning drinking while pregnant. The state can determine that the societal cost of individuals being born with potential crippling afflictions is worth limiting the ability to drink while pregnant, particularly the direct cost of care.

Holy cow that would be an enforcement nightmare.

Sweeping bars for pregnant women and locking them up?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416706 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 2:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Maybe it was the night before her abortion?

What about a woman who endangers her child by living too close to power lines? Not drinking filtered water? Missing a doctor's appointment? Speeding (in car, not on drugs), skydiving, working too much, being stressed, lifting weights, listening to heavy metal, wearing sandals in the winter, etc etc etc?


To borrow a quote from President Obama; "we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

We have laws against drunk driving, statistically they have reduced the problem, yet we still have drunk drivers and the occasional tragedy. Shall we then abandon the effort?

The most important thing that I want to communicate is the profound suffering inflicted on fetal alcohol and substance abuse babies, suffering that they and society must endure for a lifetime. We cannot prevent all of these tragedies. What sacrifice would you be willing to make if we could prevent even one-tenth of them? Should we not even try? If we could spare even one or such two children I personally think it would be worth the effort.

"We must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416707 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 2:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In the Petersen case the state correctly assumed Mrs Peterson intended to carry the fetus to completion. Since her intent was to produce a child, the state was obligated to consider her intention with regard to that fetus in the same manner: 1 live woman and one live wanted fetus terminated = 2 murders.

So what if she had crashed her car, was at-fault for the accident, and lost the pregnancy? Should she then be charged with vehicular manslaughter for the fetus? Or should she be able to change her mind at that point of whether or not she wanted to carry the pregnancy to term?

Whether the fetus is considered "life" enough to be charged with murder needs to be standardized and not simply the intent of the mother. You can't have it both ways - can't call it "life" if you want it but "not life" if you don't why applying laws.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416711 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 3:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You raise a valid concern, but here is the difference, if the woman intends to give birth and bring the child into the world.

How do you know whether she intends to give birth? Would you put a cutoff date on abortion rights, and consider any woman who carried a child past that date to have declared her intent?

Or would you just ask her?

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416713 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 3:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So what if she had crashed her car, was at-fault for the accident, and lost the pregnancy? Should she then be charged with vehicular manslaughter for the fetus?

Nope, because she's making a choice for herself and her fetus with every MPH she adds to the dial. She's creating and accepting a level of risk for the entire package...

Now, if she injures or kills a passenger, whether it's her kid or her mother, she's can be charged with a crime if it can be proven that she was violating safety laws. Reckles driving, throw the book at her. Black ice spin out, happens to the best of 'em.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416714 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 3:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
The woman would then have a reasonable amount of time to decide if she wishes to go through with the pregnancy

Like, say, 3 months? The same amount of time you just posted that the fetus is most at risk?


I know this sounds intense. But you know what's more intense? The problems inflicted on humanity by the irresponsible procreation of dysfunctional children. It is the root of a great many evils.

You think that now, but turning the females of the species into captive brood mares might not actually be a utopia.

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416715 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 3:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Prohibiting people from drinking while pregnant neither requires, nor logically leads to, sterilization.


If you had told me when I was 16 that if I ever, even accidentally, took a drink while an embryo or fetus was inside of me, even if I didn't know it...I would have gotten the whole plumbing yanked right then and there.

So, now you have to lock up all the girls, too, in case they decide not to breed for you.

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416716 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 3:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
The most important thing that I want to communicate is the profound suffering inflicted on fetal alcohol and substance abuse babies, suffering that they and society must endure for a lifetime. We cannot prevent all of these tragedies. What sacrifice would you be willing to make if we could prevent even one-tenth of them? Should we not even try? If we could spare even one or such two children I personally think it would be worth the effort.

Personally, I would sterilize every woman who delivers a baby with drug addiction, fetal alcohol syndrome, or any severe genetic abnormality that was detected during pregnancy.

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416717 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 3:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"We must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

That's extremely condescending. I'm happy to let the better be the enemy of the good, thank you.

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416718 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 3:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Nope, because she's making a choice for herself and her fetus with every MPH she adds to the dial. She's creating and accepting a level of risk for the entire package...

So, if she can't make a choice to put the fetus at risk, and making an appointment to have an abortion is certainly putting the fetus at risk, then...

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416719 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 3:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
If you had told me when I was 16 that if I ever, even accidentally, took a drink while an embryo or fetus was inside of me, even if I didn't know it...I would have gotten the whole plumbing yanked right then and there.

I doubt that it would be "accidentally" or "if you didn't know it." Virtually every law of this type requires mens rea - meaning that the person who commits the violation has to do so with knowledge of the circumstances. Certainly, a rational regulation would prohibit women from drinking with knowledge that they were pregnant.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416723 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 3:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Certainly, a rational regulation would prohibit women from drinking with knowledge that they were pregnant.

How do you prove someone knows they're pregnant?

I mean, if they haven't seen a doctor?

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416725 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 3:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
How do you prove someone knows they're pregnant?

I mean, if they haven't seen a doctor?


Most commonly, you'd ask her if she's pregnant. Many folks will volunteer information if they know that the police can easily find out if you're lying. Less commonly, you might have to resort to possibly doing a little bit of investigative work - like asking one or two people who know her if she had ever mentioned being pregnant. Heck, this day and age there's a good chance that she has updated her Facebook profile to indicate that she is pregnant.

If not, then the prosecutor is out of luck. It's hard to prove intent or knowledge. If she knows she's pregnant and has kept it to herself, then there's little the state can do.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416726 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 4:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Like, say, 3 months? The same amount of time you just posted that the fetus is most at risk?

Yes, you are correct, and I thought about this, most damage occurs in the first trimester. There is no perfect answer. My feeling is that the harm caused by fetal alcohol is so horrendous that it would be worth some inconvenience to try to mitigate it. You are right in pointing out some of the flaws in such a plan.

I would still hope that if nothing else, we could call attention to this problem. I would hope that much like how the spotlight has been shone on drunk driving and change has been effected, word would get around about substance abuse and pregnancy, and that most women would choose to do the right thing and act in a responsible manor.

Sorry for raising everyone's hackles, it just sickens me to see the degree of suffering caused by such a trivial and preventable behavior.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Hawkwin Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416729 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 4:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
To borrow a quote from President Obama; "we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

OCD: The quote is actually paraphrased from Voltaire.

"The best(perfect) is the enemy of the good."

I find it interesting that Voltaire, a deist (and critic of the Catholic Church), is quoted in this thread.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416730 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 4:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Fair or not, pregnant women have a solemn responsibility, their behavior has a profound effect on the entire future life of the unborn child.

If I were dictator of the world, any pregnant woman that endangered her child with substance abuse would be jailed and closely supervised until the child was delivered.




Can she eat junk food night and day? Can she drink coffee non-stop?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416733 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 4:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Can she eat junk food night and day? Can she drink coffee non-stop?

Can junk food or caffeine do this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV3MEkVRms4
(this mother did go to jail)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6P1Pvi2udk

I once saw a video of a baby going through withdrawal (part of a documentary several years ago). It was trembling and screaming. For hours.

Not that I don't get your point about regulating behavior, but I don't think caffeine qualifies to be in this discussion.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416734 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 4:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Can she eat junk food night and day? Can she drink coffee non-stop?

BTW, this illustrates a very common problem in crafting legislation that partially addresses a problem. I alluded to the New York soda restriction a little upthread, where vendors are now prohibited from selling you soda in containers more than 16 ounces in size. Note that there are figuratively a gazillion things that also contribute to obesity that you can still freely obtain in New York city - burgers and donuts and pints of ice cream and Bloomin' Onions at such. But the City balanced the relative inconvenience versus the prospective benefit, and decided to start (and stop for now) with sodas.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416735 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 4:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
At what point do you strike that balance between societal harm and personal preference?



If you want to ban drugs/booze while pregnant, then I definitely want to ban teaching religion to your kids before they turn 18.


I think the latter causes more damage to society, by a factor of about a gazillion.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416737 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 5:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If you want to ban drugs/booze while pregnant, then I definitely want to ban teaching religion to your kids before they turn 18.


I think the latter causes more damage to society, by a factor of about a gazillion.


Whether that's true or not, the latter is protected by the First Amendment (at least since Wisconsin v. Yoder). The former is not.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cabinsmama Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416738 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 5:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Oh, heck, I'd give the mens the "utopia" badge if they'd pick one list of pregnancy commandments and stick with it. I've looked at pregnancy, childbirth and newborn guides from 1931 to present. Every guideline they laid down, the medical professionals believed in their hearts, I'm sure, that this was the best possible advice.

And then they'd switch things up in a decade or so. And I don't see that stopping anytime soon. I think the medical establishment is just in love with the idea of getting women to change their behavior, even if it's just for a few months.

When I was born, if you cared about your and your baby's health, you did what the doctor said, and you gave birth drugged to the gills.

When I had a baby, if you cared about your baby's health (and to some extent, your own) you gave birth with no medication. And there was social pressure, at least around here 28 years ago, and everybody was very sure it was based on medical fact. Apgar scores and early brain development and bonding, etc. were at stake.

Nowadays, I don't know anyone personally with a child 10 or under who didn't have pain meds and/or epidurals.


With alcohol, public health policy is there's no safe amount of alcohol at any point in the pregnancy. Got it.

If you're a "good child-bearer," you ignore your doctor saying a glass of wine every month or so is okay, because... studies!!!

But if he tells you to have a drink to stop Braxton-Hicks contractions or whatever, I guess you do that, though, because a good child-bearer should do what her doctor says...

One study I read said that the mostly likely mother-to-be to have an occasional drink (like a couple of glasses of wine during the pregnancy) was a white, middle-socioeconomic class, college educated woman in her late twenties.

I'm not getting the impression that this is the group birthing FAS babies. But it's probably the group that's going to be shamed the most if she does it in public.

cm

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cabinsmama Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416739 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 5:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Personally, I would sterilize every woman who delivers a baby with drug addiction, fetal alcohol syndrome, or any severe genetic abnormality that was detected during pregnancy.

6


You sure you're up for that kind of workload? That's not gonna be 8-5, you know :-P

cm

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416740 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 5:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If you want to ban drugs/booze while pregnant, then I definitely want to ban teaching religion to your kids before they turn 18.


I think the latter causes more damage to society, by a factor of about a gazillion.
---------
Whether that's true or not, the latter is protected by the First Amendment (at least since Wisconsin v. Yoder). The former is not.





I don't know that the First Amendment includes force-feeding it to your children.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416741 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 5:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Prohibiting people from drinking while pregnant neither requires, nor logically leads to, sterilization.

Albaby

--------------


Prohibiting WOMEN from drinking.
Do you see the difference?
Controlling women. Yet another control placed on women.
Perhaps women are sick to death of this.
Sick of the whole birth control issue.
Sick of pharmacists allowed to deny them prescriptions because the pharmacist has some frakkin' religious objection.
Sick of having to sneak into abortion clinics.
Sick of seeing abortion clinics closed.
Sick of being allowed to die in hospital in favor of saving the unborn.
If I were a young woman today, I would have surgery.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416742 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 5:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Most commonly, you'd ask her if she's pregnant. Many folks will volunteer information if they know that the police can easily find out if you're lying. Less commonly, you might have to resort to possibly doing a little bit of investigative work - like asking one or two people who know her if she had ever mentioned being pregnant. Heck, this day and age there's a good chance that she has updated her Facebook profile to indicate that she is pregnant.

If not, then the prosecutor is out of luck. It's hard to prove intent or knowledge. If she knows she's pregnant and has kept it to herself, then there's little the state can do.

Albaby

-------------------



So we enlist brown-shirts to spy on women now?

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416744 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 5:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Playing devil's advocate here:

Prohibiting WOMEN from drinking.
Do you see the difference?


If you are going to drive or operate heavy machinery you are prohibited from drinking (or using various medications/drugs). It doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to say if you are pregnant you are prohibited from drinking or using various drugs (without a doctor's approval).

If abortion is legal and available (which it mostly is, though I totally concede it's not good enough today), then a woman carrying a baby made a choice to have it. That choice has consequences that include (but are not limited to) sleepless nights (especially in the early days with feedings and such), significant financial outlays for at least 18 years, caring for the kid (neglect can get you tossed in jail too), and arguably not drinking or using drugs during the pregnancy.

Sick of the whole birth control issue.
Sick of pharmacists allowed to deny them prescriptions because the pharmacist has some frakkin' religious objection.
Sick of having to sneak into abortion clinics.
Sick of seeing abortion clinics closed.
Sick of being allowed to die in hospital in favor of saving the unborn.


No devil's advocate here. All deplorable, IMO.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416745 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 5:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I don't know that the First Amendment includes force-feeding it to your children.

You cannot prohibit parents from teaching their religious beliefs to their children - whether you label it "force-feeding" or not - under applicable Supreme Court precedent.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416746 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 5:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Prohibiting WOMEN from drinking.
Do you see the difference?
Controlling women. Yet another control placed on women.


Yes, I see the difference. But the difference stems from the fact that only women can get pregnant.

Drinking while pregnant can impose enormous costs on society - more than enough to justify prohibiting that activity without having to do so with reference to any rights that the fetus might have.

If I were a young woman today, I would have surgery.

I'm not sure how that decision would be affected by a rule prohibiting consumption of alcohol while pregenant. You don't need to have surgery - just don't drink while pregnant.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416748 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 5:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Sorry for raising everyone's hackles, it just sickens me to see the degree of suffering caused by such a trivial and preventable behavior.

It's never bad to have the discussion and walk through the pros, cons, ramifications, etc etc.

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416749 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 5:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I alluded to the New York soda restriction a little upthread, where vendors are now prohibited from selling you soda in containers more than 16 ounces in size. Note that there are figuratively a gazillion things that also contribute to obesity that you can still freely obtain in New York city - burgers and donuts and pints of ice cream and Bloomin' Onions at such. But the City balanced the relative inconvenience versus the prospective benefit, and decided to start (and stop for now) with sodas.

Not to mention that you can still get that 16 oz soda with free refills.

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416750 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 5:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
So we enlist brown-shirts to spy on women now?

Why would we enlist brown-shirts to spy on women?

There are very few crimes that we engage in active measures to suss out before they happen. In almost all cases, our law enforcement works reactively - when a suspected crime is reported to the police. We undertake surveillance to try to actively seek out certain types of crime (drug manufacture and distribution, gang activity, counterfeiting, terrorism, etc.); but it's highly unlikely that alcohol consumption by pregnant women would be one of those activities. It certainly need not be.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LOTROQueen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416752 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 5:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The most important thing that I want to communicate is the profound suffering inflicted on fetal alcohol and substance abuse babies, suffering that they and society must endure for a lifetime. We cannot prevent all of these tragedies. What sacrifice would you be willing to make if we could prevent even one-tenth of them? Should we not even try? If we could spare even one or such two children I personally think it would be worth the effort.


So you support higher taxes to help pay for treatment programs? Glad to hear it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416754 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 5:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You sure you're up for that kind of workload? That's not gonna be 8-5, you know :-P


I've got my wrist braces at the ready!

6

PS, actually you do know someone (from here) who has 3 young children, all delivered drug-free.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LOTROQueen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416755 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 5:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

I doubt that it would be "accidentally" or "if you didn't know it." Virtually every law of this type requires mens rea - meaning that the person who commits the violation has to do so with knowledge of the circumstances. Certainly, a rational regulation would prohibit women from drinking with knowledge that they were pregnant.


I highly doubt anyone interested in legally controlling pregnant women and ready to lock them up "for their own good" is interested and/or capable of crafting rational regulations.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LOTROQueen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416756 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 5:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If abortion is legal and available (which it mostly is, though I totally concede it's not good enough today), then a woman carrying a baby made a choice to have it. That choice has consequences that include (but are not limited to) sleepless nights (especially in the early days with feedings and such), significant financial outlays for at least 18 years, caring for the kid (neglect can get you tossed in jail too), and arguably not drinking or using drugs during the pregnancy.

Not true. A woman can choose to carry a baby but choose to give it up for adoption.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416757 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 6:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I'm not sure how that decision would be affected by a rule prohibiting consumption of alcohol while pregenant. You don't need to have surgery - just don't drink while pregnant.

Albaby

------------


That decision would be affected by laws written specifically to control women. It would be a protest against such laws. This country is fast going down the tubes. I see that in so many of your replies to posts where the poster feels outraged at what is happening. And you, as you should, calmly describe our unjust laws as though it's the most natural thing in the world to deny rights - promote religion - control people unjustly.

Enough.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1DEG Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416758 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 6:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 27
I feel about this the same way I feel about many social issues. There is a difference between what I wish people would do, and what I am willing to legislate that people must do. There is a difference between acts I think people should not commit, and acts I think we should criminalize.

In the case of FAS and the problems caused by in utero drug exposure, I sure wish we could eliminate it. And yes, I am quite familiar with the ramifications from both seeing the results in person and reading a lot of the scientific literature, so please do not come back at me with a plea to educate myself. However I do not think criminalizing pregnant women ingesting alcohol is the cure. I think the cure is education, access to free and reliable birth control, access to good prenatal care, and access to (deally free) abortions. Giving women more information and more control over their reproduction will do more to have the desired effect than criminalizing their behavior.

Just on a practical level, do you really think a woman who is using illegal and addictive drugs, for example, is going to be deterred that there is one more layer of law being broken? Really? If you do, I suggest you educate yourself on the nature of addiction. With respect to FAS, yes alcohol is legal, so a pregnant woman using alcohol is not already breaking the law. But a pregnant woman using enough alcohol to cause FAS likely has an addiction and is not a casual user. Yes, current public policy states that there is no safe level of alcohol use, but that is because conducting a randomized double blind study to find the safe level is completely unethical and no one would ever dream of doing it. But we do know from looking at other cultures where it is common to drink small amounts of alcohol throughout pregnancy without resulting in increases in the incidences of FAS, that a safe level exists. We just don't know what it is, so our public policy has a better safe than sorry approach.

Ultimately, I think that criminalizing this behavior would have myriad unintended negative consequences such as reducing the likelyhood of women seeking prenatal care and opening the door to furter erode access to abortion, and would be unlikely to result in even one fewer case of FAS or in utero drug exposure. While I do agree that perfect is the enemy of good, this isn't even good. It isn't even neutral. It's awful with no redeeming qualities.

DEG

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416759 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 6:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
However I do not think criminalizing pregnant women ingesting alcohol is the cure. I think the cure is education, access to free and reliable birth control, access to good prenatal care, and access to (deally free) abortions. Giving women more information and more control over their reproduction will do more to have the desired effect than criminalizing their behavior.

I can't (and won't) argue with any of that.

However, we could (at least in principle) prohibit it such that an infraction is not "criminal" but instead triggers putting the woman into treatment (if she needs it), gets more information, and possibly even monitoring (even men, when dealing with substance abuse, have a "buddy" that helps them, monitors them, etc).

Just throwing the idea into the mix here.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416761 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 6:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
And you, as you should, calmly describe our unjust laws as though it's the most natural thing in the world to deny rights - promote religion - control people unjustly.

I do not think it is natural at all to deny rights - I find it abhorrent. I also find repellent the current practice of the GOP to try to de facto obstruct the ability of some people to exercise their rights (voting, abortion, etc.) by using regulations that are perhaps legally defensible, but are intended to accomplish what could not be done directly. However, while we often talk about our rights in shorthand phrases, there's an awful lot of analysis and precedent that give those rights precise meaning in the eyes of the law - and I find that stuff very interesting.

There is no right to drink while pregnant. Restrictions on the ability to drink while pregnant do not limit women's access to birth control, abortion, or other reproductive matters. Women retain the choice whether to continue with pregnancy or not. However, if they choose to remain pregnant, they would not be allowed to drink alcohol while pregnant.

I'm not sure how I feel about the wisdom of such a law, personally. In a world where we ban sodas above a certain size ostensibly because we are concerned about the health care costs of people who drink them, there is certainly a rational basis for barring alcohol consumption by pregnant women. I'm not sure how effective that alcohol ban would be - but then again, I'm not sure how effective the soda ban is going to be in acheiving its aims, either. I do know that one way that we stigmatize an activity is to make it illegal (which is one of the aims of the soda ban). Drinking alcohol while pregnant has a lot of social stigma already, but it is possible that the additional increment of formal prohibition would be even more powerful.

Albaby

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416762 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 6:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I highly doubt anyone interested in legally controlling pregnant women and ready to lock them up "for their own good" is interested and/or capable of crafting rational regulations.

Perhaps - after all, any law, pursuing the most benign purposes, can be drafted very badly. However, strict liability laws are very uncommon in our legal tradition. It's always pretty unlikely that a regulation would be drafted in that direction, particularly when it can hit so many people that even conservative politicians don't want to hit. This is not a regulation that really lends itself to targetting the usual suspects of conservative ire - women who want to have abortions or are engaging in sexual activity that violates their moral code. Any law prohibiting alcohol consumption by pregnant women would have to apply to all pregnant women, creating a pretty powerful incentive for politicians to hew to normal principles of liability.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cabinsmama Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416763 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 7:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
However, we could (at least in principle) prohibit it such that an infraction is not "criminal" but instead triggers putting the woman into treatment (if she needs it), gets more information, and possibly even monitoring (even men, when dealing with substance abuse, have a "buddy" that helps them, monitors them, etc).

So if a woman has a glass of wine with her doctor's verbal okay, and she's caught committing this infraction, it's fine if this triggers a list of things that will be done to her, whether she agrees or not.

What does "putting her into treatment" look like? What does monitoring look like?

It'd be nice if we could get affordable, accessible treatment for addiction and abuse for the women who *want* to recover or are at real risk of FAS due to a pattern of regular drinking. Maybe we could do that first before targeting the pregnant woman having a glass of wine in public. Or anywhere that a nosy neighbor could see.*

Of course, it's easier to go after her, than the problem drinker.

*I guess anyone who is pregnant should also be careful about making their neighbors mad.

cm,

re-reading "The Handmaid's Tale"

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1DEG Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416764 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 7:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 22
Drinking alcohol while pregnant has a lot of social stigma already, but it is possible that the additional increment of formal prohibition would be even more powerful.

I don't think more stigma is the answer. There is already a great deal of stigma, and rates of drinking among pregnant women are very low. I believe around 7% for drinking at all, which includes small amounts that most medical professionals will tell you is ok, and less than 1.5% for binge drinking, which is what is the level of consumption likely needed to cause FAS. If you really want to look at how to stop this 1.5%, then you need to look at what characteristics are common among people in that group. Thankfully, there is actually research on the matter.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001355

A significant proportion of mothers [who had children with FAS](9-29%) had another child with suspected alcohol effects. Compared to all US mothers, they were also significantly more likely to be on public assistance, to be on Medicaid at their child's birth, to have received treatment for alcohol abuse, to have confirmed alcoholism, to have used marijuana or cocaine during pregnancy, to have their baby screen positive for alcohol or drugs at birth, to have had an induced abortion, to have had a history of mental illness, to have been involved in binge drinking during pregnancy, and to have drunk heavily (7 days/week) during pregnancy. (Bolding mine)

The problem of in-utero drug exposure and FAS is really a problem of maternal addiction. So the solution has to be related to maternal addiction. We know that criminalizing drugs and alcohol does not work to reduce addiction. Even directing people towards treatment has minimal success. The most optimistic estimates of success for the most successful addiction treatment programs is 10% success. Most are about 3 or 4%. That is, in a word, pathetic. We really do not know how to treat addiction effectively yet. There are some possible breakthroughs on the horizon, but until they come to fruition, we have to deal with the reality we have now.

So if FAS is related to maternal addiction, and we are terrible at treating addiction, the only logical source of intervention seems to me to be in helping women have more control over their reproduction. About 50% of pregnancies in this country are unintended. This tells me that we are far, far away from having both the education and access to birth control that is needed. It is shameful to me how many otherwise educated people don't really understand how reproduction works on more than a rudimentary level. A rudimentary level is fine if you are trying to get pregnant, but leaves room for a lot of error if you are trying not to. Specifically for dealing with women with addictions, conversations should focus on birth control methods like the IUD or permanent birth control rather than anything that needs to be taken or utilized regularly by the user. I would be in favor of encouraging addiction medicine professionals to have this conversation. I would be in favor of providing rehab facilities funding to have a visiting gynecologist who can counsel women and provide whatever birth control method the woman wants. The key is not more shame, but less. The key, in my opinion, is to normalize this conversation and allow women to take control of their bodies without shaming them. And because domestic abuse often complicates issues of birth control, I am in favor of empowering women to use methods of birth control their partner does not necessarily need to know about. Criminal law has no place here.

DEG

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416765 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 7:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So if a woman has a glass of wine with her doctor's verbal okay, and she's caught committing this infraction, it's fine if this triggers a list of things that will be done to her, whether she agrees or not.

I would expect the first thing that is triggered is consulting the doctor. If he did give the 'OK', then he's on the hook (not her).

What does treatment look like? Dunno. I've never been in rehab (assuming her case is that severe), nor AA, nor any other similar program. It's whatever she needs to avoid the prohibited behavior. (And, yes, I realize that presently there is no funding for any such thing...our mental health system sucks, and it seems unless you're rich it's difficult to get treatment for substance abuse too.)

This has been an interesting thread. At least for me. It's pitting my personal freedom inclination against my personal responsibility inclination. :-)

I'm now toying with the notion that instead of worrying about it too much before-hand**, we wait for the result. If the child is born with FAS, then the woman is prosecuted under whatever child abuse laws are on the books. If the baby comes out fine, no harm no foul. (And if she miscarries or aborts, it's all moot.)

Not unlike drunk driving. The prohibition is in place. If you do it, get home safely, and don't get pulled-over, you're golden. If you kill a family of four on their way home from a school play, you're toast. If you kill yourself, it doesn't much matter (i.e. is moot).

It'd be nice if we could get affordable, accessible treatment for addiction and abuse for the women who *want* to recover or are at real risk of FAS due to a pattern of regular drinking.

Totally agree. We need to revamp our systems here so that mental health care is available (and not stigmatized), that treatment programs for various problems are available, that prenatal care is available, etc. It seems clear to me that crafting a single law is not going to accomplish much without all the other "infrastructure" (for lack of a better word) is in place too.

1poorguy

**Not that we skip the education, availability of contraception and abortion, and similar things we've brought up in this thread. Those are vital.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416766 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 7:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
There is already a great deal of stigma, and rates of drinking among pregnant women are very low. I believe around 7% for drinking at all, which includes small amounts that most medical professionals will tell you is ok, and less than 1.5% for binge drinking, which is what is the level of consumption likely needed to cause FAS.

Wiki puts the numbers much higher - there's references, but who knows if that's accurate:

Surveys found that in the United States, 10–15% of pregnant women report having recently drunk alcohol, and up to 30% drink alcohol at some point during pregnancy.

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

And of course, FAS is only part of the societal health issues caused by alcohol exposure in utero, with about 1% of all children being affected by some type of disorder.

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

The problem of in-utero drug exposure and FAS is really a problem of maternal addiction. So the solution has to be related to maternal addiction.

Indeed. And certainly as you suggest in your post, there is another way to minimize the number of women drinking while pregnant: rather than trying to get pregnant women to stop drinking, try to get drinking women (ie. those addicted to alcohol) to stop getting pregnant. I'm not certain how successful that approach would be, either, for many of the reasons you outline in your post as criticisms of the other approach. It's hard to get people with addiction problems to stop using, but it may also be difficult to get people in the population you describe to take affirmative steps to avoid getting pregnant.

However, assuming that we're going to do anything, prohibition can also be an opportunity for the government to get involved. You don't have to force jail time for a violation - it doesn't even need to be criminal. But you can force someone to attend counseling, and at least get some of that education you describe - and that education can even take the form of reproductive education, given the high rate of "recidivism" among women who have children with alcohol exposure.

It still might not be a wise policy, in the end. But these are the things that need to be balanced.

Albaby

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416771 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 9:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I highly doubt anyone interested in legally controlling pregnant women and ready to lock them up "for their own good" is interested and/or capable of crafting rational regulations.

Let the record reflect that I was speaking hypothetically. Also I would not lock them up for their own good, I would lock them up for the protection of the child that they intend to deliver.

Also let the record reflect I strongly support free access to birth control and reproductive services along with universal health care. I also support the right for a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

There was a also a well thought out post regarding addicts. I think the government should go as far as to pay addicts a monthly stipend to NOT get pregnant. It would be worth the price to avoid the consequences.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416773 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 10:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In the Petersen case the state correctly assumed Mrs Peterson intended to carry the fetus to completion. Since her intent was to produce a child, the state was obligated to consider her intention with regard to that fetus in the same manner: 1 live woman and one live wanted fetus terminated = 2 murders.



depending what you mean by 'obligaated'


quite sure there's a specific law in Calif. to cover the case ...

legislature was not obligated to make that law...
did so because of an early case where a guy kicked the crap out of his pregant GF and she miscarried.

court said he could only be charged with assault on the woman.
legislature thought they should make the penalty more severe

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416775 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 10:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
albaby:There is no right to drink while pregnant.


What is liberty?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PolymerMom Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416776 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/22/2013 11:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Beridian,

Being male, you do not understand what being pregnant feels like.

A woman's metabolism changes profoundly. Even before I took a pregnancy test, I found certain foods and drink disgustingly unappetizing. I had a taste for spinach salads, milk and other good-for-the-baby foods.

To assume a woman will drink excessively, endangering the fetus, assumes all women are alcoholics.

PM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416781 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 12:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
albaby1: "However, assuming that we're going to do anything, prohibition can also be an opportunity for the government to get involved. You don't have to force jail time for a violation - it doesn't even need to be criminal. But you can force someone to attend counseling, and at least get some of that education you describe - and that education can even take the form of reproductive education, given the high rate of "recidivism" among women who have children with alcohol exposure."

By observation, the only likely reproductive education to be legislatively authorized would be "Just Say NO" because anything else only encourages "them" to have sex.

Regards, JAFO

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416786 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 7:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What is liberty?

If I had an answer to that which could fit in a message post, I'd be a legal superstar. But assuming you mean "liberty" as the term is used in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, I'm fairly confident that there's no definition of liberty that includes a right to drink alcohol under any circumstances (which is one reason why dry counties exist), let alone while pregnant.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sissylue Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416787 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 9:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 41
I know this sounds intense. But you know what's more intense? The problems inflicted on humanity by the irresponsible procreation of dysfunctional children. It is the root of a great many evils.

Intense and pointless.

Trust me - I have first hand knowledge of these situations. The women who routinely use alcohol and drugs to such an extent that they produce severely damaged babies are not amenable to counseling. Planning on being or staying pregnant? Ludicrous. The fact that they get pregnant and produce children (or spontaneous miscarriages or abortions) isn't even a blip on their radar compared to their concern of where the next fifth of everclear or crack hit is coming from. They don't get prenatal care, hell half the time they don't even notice they're pregnant. You would be creating a bunch of rules and hoops for women to jump through that would penalize 99.9% of women who don't need it and completely miss the tiny fraction that do need it.

I'm an aunt of 2 children born addicted, the mother of 2 children born addicted and the aunt of one child with horrific medical issues because of crack/alcohol abuse by the mother during pregnancy. I am familiar (inasmuch as the investigators could determine) with the history of the biological mothers of each of these children and counseling would have done nada even if you could have tracked them down to counsel them. These are not women who are big on prenatal care. What are you going to do? Set up random pregnancy/drug testing at the Family Dollar stores for every female buying a pack of gum?

The only thing I can think of that would even make a dent in the problem would be that you tie the tubes of any woman who produced an addicted child. She can have the procedure reversed free of charge if she ever gets clean and stays clean for a year.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416788 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 9:29 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
You cannot prohibit parents from teaching their religious beliefs to their children - whether you label it "force-feeding" or not - under applicable Supreme Court precedent.




I find this tragic.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416789 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 9:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Drinking while pregnant can impose enormous costs on society - more than enough to justify prohibiting that activity without having to do so with reference to any rights that the fetus might have.

I'm not sure how that decision would be affected by a rule prohibiting consumption of alcohol while pregenant. You don't need to have surgery - just don't drink while pregnant.




According to the right, any woman who has sex is automatically giving legal permission to the unborn (who doesn't even exist yet, but we'll skip that piece of un-logic for now) to occupy her womb. This applies even in cases where her birth control fails; she's supposed to be ready to face the consequences of childbirth in that contingency. Therefore, no woman should be permitted to have sex unless she's prepared to give birth and raise a child. That is the right's position.

Extending this "logic" to the booze topic, no woman who is sexually active should be allowed to drink alcohol due to the risk that her birth control has failed and she might be unknowingly pregnant.

Is that where we want to go? I can tell you that it's where the right wants to go.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416796 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 10:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Extending this "logic" to the booze topic, no woman who is sexually active should be allowed to drink alcohol due to the risk that her birth control has failed and she might be unknowingly pregnant.

That's why we shouldn't, and almost certainly wouldn't, extend that 'logic' to that point. As I noted upthread, there are very few 'strict liability' crimes or civil penalties in our legal system. It's very unlikely that a regulation banning drinking while pregnant would impose liability on women before they knew they were pregnant.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416797 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 10:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 17
If you're so concerned about pregnant women with substance abuse problems, how about making sure treatment is available, accessible, and affordable for them instead of immediately assuming they should be locked up?

Your "rights of the baby" crap is no different than the anti-abortion people - it's just a matter of degree.

It's all about control - you want to control women because you know what's best.

Are you going to mandate prison for pregnant women that have an occasional cup of coffee? How about ones that eat too much fast food?


My daughter is currently working on getter her degree in Occupational Therapy. She interns regularly at a hospital in Philly when she's home, and in Winston-Salem when she's at school.

She works primarily with "crack" babies (generically used for cocaine, heroin, oxycontin). Those would be the infants born to great agony, stress, pain, and not just underdeveloped due to the use of drugs throughout pregnancy, but developed in the wrong way.

I don't think it's productive to equate a very real issue with drinking coffee. It's grotesque hyperbole that only intends to avoid a very real problem, addicts who continually use hard drugs, either illegal or illegally used, during pregnancy.

If you'd like to see the difference, please feel free to visit a hospital near you that treats these new borns. There will be none there because mom drank a pot of coffee a day, or took a few sleeping pills or nyquils while pregnant.

I haven't developed a solution. Treatment is always preferable, but in many cases we're taking about people living in an environment that makes effective treatment quite difficult.

At the end of the day, it's hard not to want to do something for these kids. They have horrible issues to face from the moment of birth, and are effected in a negative way throughout their lives. That might mean treatment lasts the course of the pregnancy, at a facility, and not outpatient.

I don't think allowing neonatal addiction should be a choice available to any of us.

Just my two cents.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416799 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 11:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Is that where we want to go? I can tell you that it's where the right wants to go.


The "right" is wrong.
As usual.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sonofed Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416800 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 11:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 15
I wouldn't openly advocate for expectant mothers to go tie one on, but I think it's important to keep things in perspective. Excessive drinking by an expectant mother is dangerous to the fetus. The evidence regarding light drinking is far less conclusive.

If the argument you're making is based on "safety of the unborn child" then I think we need to consider the scientific evidence regarding maternal alcohol consumption.

There was a study done on European woman who drank during pregnancy that found no statistical difference between the babies of mothers who drank zero alcohol during pregnancy and those who drank up to 8 drinks per week (throughout the week, not in one sitting). The study tracked the women during pregnancy and then went back and interviewed the children at age 5 to test for cognitive problems. They didn't find any. Heavier alcohol consumption during pregnancy did seem to lead to negative impacts, as did infrequent binge drinking, but the number of women in the study who chose to drink heavily was so small that the results weren't considered statistically significant.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/33374

I'm not citing this study to say that pregnant women should go ahead and booze it up. Obviously the best way to guarantee zero chance of impact to the fetus is not to drink. However, if we're going to discuss locking pregnant women away for endangering their fetus, then we need to have pretty solid scientific evidence for the level at which actual harm occurs. Scientific evidence seems to suggest that level is somewhere greater than zero drinks and somewhere less than 9 per week, but the upper end isn't all that well defined. That makes it more challenging to come up with a fair and reasonable law that is also enforceable.

Steve

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ziege19 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416802 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 11:39 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What is liberty?

The freedom to get an abortion if you decide you really want to drink that badly?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416803 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 12:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The only thing I can think of that would even make a dent in the problem would be that you tie the tubes of any woman who produced an addicted child. She can have the procedure reversed free of charge if she ever gets clean and stays clean for a year.

That makes a lot of sense. But somehow I have the feeling the ACLU would file suit if such a law were enacted, no? Could we have such a law and expect it to "stick"?

Even with such, I think all the "care" infrastructure is still a good idea (counseling as needed, contraception, prenatal, postnatal, and of course abolishing "abstinence-only" education).

It must be very frustrating to think of your one niece/nephew, and know that there is nothing we can do to stop such things from happening. (Your tube-tying suggestion will only prevent "repeats", which is still better than nothing.)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416809 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 12:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Extending this "logic" to the booze topic, no woman who is sexually active should be allowed to drink alcohol due to the risk that her birth control has failed and she might be unknowingly pregnant.
-------
That's why we shouldn't, and almost certainly wouldn't, extend that 'logic' to that point. As I noted upthread, there are very few 'strict liability' crimes or civil penalties in our legal system. It's very unlikely that a regulation banning drinking while pregnant would impose liability on women before they knew they were pregnant.




There are plenty of folks on the right who want to make it illegal for a woman to have sex if she's not prepared to give birth. That's a bigger deal than simply making it illegal for sexually active women to drink. As you stated, there is no right to drink alcohol.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416812 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 12:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
At the end of the day, it's hard not to want to do something for these kids.



A good start would be to make late term abortion cheap and easy to obtain under such circumstances.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416813 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 12:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I think the government should go as far as to pay addicts a monthly stipend to NOT get pregnant. It would be worth the price to avoid the consequences.

What about paying them to be sterilized?

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416815 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 12:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I don't think allowing neonatal addiction should be a choice available to any of us.

So, if you happen to see a pregnant drunk lady, feel free to shoot her?

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ziege19 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416816 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 12:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
If you'd like to see the difference, please feel free to visit a hospital near you that treats these new borns. There will be none there because mom drank a pot of coffee a day, or took a few sleeping pills or nyquils while pregnant.

She works primarily with "crack" babies (generically used for cocaine, heroin, oxycontin). Those would be the infants born to great agony, stress, pain, and not just underdeveloped due to the use of drugs throughout pregnancy, but developed in the wrong way.

I don't think it's productive to equate a very real issue with drinking coffee. It's grotesque hyperbole that only intends to avoid a very real problem, addicts who continually use hard drugs, either illegal or illegally used, during pregnancy.


Really? My understanding was that "crack babies" were mostly a fiction; a media-creation meant to fuel moral outrage rather than to describe any actual segment of the population. Kind of like welfare queens and such.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/health/27coca.html?pagewan...

Cocaine is undoubtedly bad for the fetus. But experts say its effects are less severe than those of alcohol and are comparable to those of tobacco — two legal substances that are used much more often by pregnant women, despite health warnings.

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

No specific disorders or conditions have been found to result for people whose mothers used cocaine while pregnant. Studies focusing on children of six years and younger have not shown any direct, long-term effects of PCE on language, growth, or development as measured by test scores. PCE also appears to have little effect on infant growth. However, PCE is associated with premature birth, birth defects, attention deficit disorder, and other conditions. The effects of cocaine on a fetus are thought to be similar to those of tobacco and less severe than those of alcohol. No scientific evidence has shown a difference in harm to a fetus of crack and powder cocaine.

So if booze and cigarettes are what do the most damage, and the most vulnerable time for a fetus is before the woman is even showing (and might not even know herself yet that she's pregnant) it doesn't really sound to me like there's much we can do about it, so maybe the best choice is to treat women like honest-to-goodness grownups by giving them a full range of reproductive choices and leaving them the hell alone.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416817 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 12:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
So if booze and cigarettes are what do the most damage, and the most vulnerable time for a fetus is before the woman is even showing (and might not even know herself yet that she's pregnant) it doesn't really sound to me like there's much we can do about it, so maybe the best choice is to treat women like honest-to-goodness grownups by giving them a full range of reproductive choices and leaving them the hell alone.

*gasp* Everyone knows the dumb biches can't be trusted.

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jwiest Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416818 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 12:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
All women, upon being diagnosed as being pregnant, would be required to receive counseling from a qualified licensed professional, and sign an acknowledgment that such counseling was received and understood.

What bung. What an insult to 99% of women. I'm sick of our society locking down because of the stupid actions of a few, while the lock downs only penalize the ones who try to do things right, and the stupid few still manage to make a mess.

This kind of carp just doesn't work.

In the past I've appreciated many of your posts. Why do I suddenly get the feeling like I'm talking to someone on RECF?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416819 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 12:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
There are plenty of folks on the right who want to make it illegal for a woman to have sex if she's not prepared to give birth. That's a bigger deal than simply making it illegal for sexually active women to drink. As you stated, there is no right to drink alcohol.

Trying to make it illegal for a woman to have sex if she's not prepared to give birth would certainly violate the constitution, which protects both the right to contraception and the right to an abortion; I also doubt it would pass muster under Lawrence v. Texas.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cabinsmama Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416823 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 12:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sterilization would be tossed back as the woman didn't have capacity to consent, by virtue of being an addict (and probably at least one other mental health issue--most addicts have 1-2 other issues going on). Lawsuit city.

$50 per Depo shot or whatever might work.

cm

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sissylue Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416826 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 1:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Really? My understanding was that "crack babies" were mostly a fiction; a media-creation meant to fuel moral outrage rather than to describe any actual segment of the population.

I have 5 data points in my family that say crack babies are not a fiction, assuming crack means crystal meth. I don't generally associate the slang term "crack" with cocaine or heroin.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cabinsmama Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416827 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 1:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
*gasp* Everyone knows the dumb biches can't be trusted.

I was on a site about alcohol studies. One guy who said he was a researcher and ran a study made the following points.

Some women reported that they had one glass of wine a few times while pregnant.

But if you kept the conversation going, she would "let it slip" that is was more like once a week, and if you developed a rapport with her, then the truth would come out that it was more like daily. His outlook was either no, none, ever...or alcohol abuse.

Maybe it should have been that talking to this guy made women want to drink...

This was his justification for criminal action against any alcohol consumption, even if it was the proverbial glass of champagne on her anniversary...you know how them btichs lie.

And I'd question his stance on women who report no alcohol, since he established pretty clearly that you can't trust anything a woman says.

cm

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416841 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 1:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
In the past I've appreciated many of your posts. Why do I suddenly get the feeling like I'm talking to someone on RECF?

This thread has changed my opinion of several people I thought I knew better..I guess the moral of the story (of the thread) is that most men still would prefer to control women completely.

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LOTROQueen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416842 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 1:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
This thread has changed my opinion of several people I thought I knew better..I guess the moral of the story (of the thread) is that most men still would prefer to control women completely.


Think of their unborn children!

**barf**

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416843 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 1:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sterilization would be tossed back as the woman didn't have capacity to consent, by virtue of being an addict (and probably at least one other mental health issue--most addicts have 1-2 other issues going on). Lawsuit city.

$50 per Depo shot or whatever might work.


How do you get them to show up for their shots tho?

If you pay them, and they accept the money, does consent still factor in?

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416846 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 1:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
And I'd question his stance on women who report no alcohol, since he established pretty clearly that you can't trust anything a woman says.

If you're ever feeling good and want to bring yourself down, check out this collection of misogynists from around the webz:
http://manboobz.com/

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416847 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 1:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
This thread has changed my opinion of several people I thought I knew better..I guess the moral of the story (of the thread) is that most men still would prefer to control women completely.

6

------


Amen, sister!

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ziege19 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416848 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 2:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I have 5 data points in my family that say crack babies are not a fiction, assuming crack means crystal meth. I don't generally associate the slang term "crack" with cocaine or heroin.

Crack is a form of cocaine, not meth. However, meth's effects on fetal development is also not well understood and probably is also less than tobacco or alcohol.

Part of the reason it's not well understood is that so much of the research on the topic doesn't make it through peer-review because it's found to be biased due to the extreme stigmatization of pregnant women with addiction. So we probably ought to cut down on that.

I'm also willing to bet that there are very few women in this category who can say "I live a healthy lifestyle, except for smoking crystal meth regularly." Most likely there are a host of factors affecting fetal development. I'm willing to bet that it's worse for the fetus if she lives with the father who smokes a pack a day than if she herself does a line of coke and a shot of whiskey once a week.

As such, a control-and-protect regime designed to defend fetuses from their mothers must also, if it is to be successful, intrude into the lives of the fathers and also everyone else living in the household.

Or, we could accept what we already know; that addiction (even the super-awful kind that affects babies) is an extant public health issue that is best addressed by making treatment programs safe, inviting and available to everyone. Not through ridiculous fear-based schemes of prohibition, punishment, control and moral panic.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cabinsmama Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416850 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 2:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Getting them to show...I dunno, but I've used things like phone cards or gift cards to get people to show up to fill out paperwork, etc. People like free stuff.

If you pay them, and they accept the money, does consent still factor in?

Ethically, maybe, but when there's been no irreversible harm, other than not being able to get pregnant for X weeks, I think (IMHO) it would be harder to take it into court.

Now, if there was some allergic reaction or something to the shot that really messed her up, I can see it being called into question whether she was able to give informed consent.

I think if it were me, I'd design the consent form to ask if they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of signing, if the target group were addicts. Like they do at plea bargain hearings.

cm

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416851 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 2:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If you're ever feeling good and want to bring yourself down, check out this collection of misogynists from around the webz:
http://manboobz.com/




The internet is a wondrous thing, but I'm sort of glad it wasn't as elaborate back when I was in my teens and 20s. I've seen numerous articles recently about how whenever a guy gets dumped or fails to score a date or loses the girl he thought was rightfully his, many of them run to online forums where they talk about how it's just not fair. It's this giant mutual pity party. Well, misery sure loves company, but the internets make it too easy to seek out company when you're miserable, when you might be better off making some changes.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416852 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 2:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So, if you happen to see a pregnant drunk lady, feel free to shoot her?

6


C'mon 6. Hyperbole doesn't add to this in any meaningful way.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416856 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 2:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Really? My understanding was that "crack babies" were mostly a fiction; a media-creation meant to fuel moral outrage rather than to describe any actual segment of the population. Kind of like welfare queens and such.

Crack babies is a catch all phrase for children born with NAS (Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome). These children are the end result of a mother who abuses a host of drugs chronically throughout her pregnancy. They include amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, and opiates/narcotics. The results of this vary. Some mothers use more frequently, some tolerate and process the drug better, and some actually make it to full term.

Thomas Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia has a group of doctors and nurses who work full time with new borns who are born addicted. They are most certainly not fictional. This is where my daughter works when she is home. She is far too expensive to be fictional.

For more info:

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

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0004566/

Print the post Back To Top
Author: GardenStateFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416862 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 2:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
All women, upon being diagnosed as being pregnant,

There's your first issue... most women pee on a stick. Some don't even do that. There's a whole show called "I didn't know I was pregnant".

You don't need a prescription to get pregnant, and you don't ever have to see a doctor to have a baby.

And most of the women you're primarily concerned about are probably pretty firmly in the "I don't have health insurance" category.

The woman would then have a reasonable amount of time to decide if she wishes to go through with the pregnancy. Once her decision is made, she would be required to declare her decision in writing, and if she decides to proceed with the pregnancy, she would agree to not partake in behaviors that are widely recognized as being hazardous to the future development of the child. This declaration could then be used to justify intervention or to prosecute her if she intentionally violates the agreement.

And the woman who finds out later in pregnancy that it's not viable, her circumstances have radically changed, etc., etc.?

Her "intent" letter is then used to prevent her from having an abortion. And you cannot possibly tell me that this would not happen. You simply can't.

"You said you wanted to have this baby and now you want to terminate it because (x, y, z?)"

Or is termination not going to be one of those hazardous conditions? Again, you cannot possibly tell me it would not be used for that.

Making babies is very serious business and should be respected as such.

I do not disagree. But this is not the answer to that. Your education and intervention should start way, way, way before the woman is pregnant in the first place. Probably before puberty.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sonofed Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416863 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 3:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
A few instances of stupidity while pregnant may force another human being to live their entire life with mental and physical disabilities.

Out of curiosity, is it just alcohol or do you object to any behavior that could force a human being to live their life with physical or mental disabilities?

What if a woman has multiple sclerosis?
What about cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, a congenital heart condition, coeliac, Stickler syndrome, or hemophilia?

Would you prevent a woman from giving birth to a baby knowing that they could possibly inflict their genetic disorder on their progeny and cause that baby no end of physical or mental anguish?

What if the woman is just plain dumb - of subnormal intelligence and hooking up with a guy who is also just plain stupid. Chances are, that kid is going to have a pretty bad life. Should we stop them from procreating?

I'm just curious where you draw the line.

If the problem is just with alcohol, then we aren't really talking about getting upset with people who put fetuses at risk of physical or mental disabilities, especially considering that scientific evidence suggests that light drinking is not problematic for the fetus.

If the problem is larger than just a concern over alcohol consumption, and encompasses any activity that might result in an offspring with physical or mental disabilities, then it feels like we are getting close to talking about eugenics.

Steve

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416865 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 3:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I have 5 data points in my family that say crack babies are not a fiction, assuming crack means crystal meth. I don't generally associate the slang term "crack" with cocaine or heroin.

Crack is a form of cocaine, not meth. However, meth's effects on fetal development is also not well understood and probably is also less than tobacco or alcohol.


I think 'crack baby' does encompass pretty much any baby born addicted to a substance.

But I'd be willing to put money down that meth is far and away more damaging to fetal development than crack could ever hope to be. Nobody ever made a 'Faces of Crack' website, you know.

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416866 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 3:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I think if it were me, I'd design the consent form to ask if they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of signing, if the target group were addicts. Like they do at plea bargain hearings.

I would do that, and then I'd secretly sterilize the jeebus out of all of em.

:)

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416867 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 3:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
C'mon 6. Hyperbole doesn't add to this in any meaningful way.

Either say what you mean, or don't be surprised when someone follows your statements to their logical conclusion.

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416870 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 3:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Either say what you mean, or don't be surprised when someone follows your statements to their logical conclusion.

6


Trying to address neonatal addiction does no logically lead to the shooting of a drunk pregnant woman.

Unless you're stoopid.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ziege19 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416871 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 3:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Trying to address neonatal addiction does no logically lead to the shooting of a drunk pregnant woman.

It's just that if you're going to subject women to your own authority and control over their choices, you're really not far off. Live free or die...it's for chicks too.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1DEG Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416878 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 4:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Sterilization would be tossed back as the woman didn't have capacity to consent, by virtue of being an addict (and probably at least one other mental health issue--most addicts have 1-2 other issues going on). Lawsuit city.

$50 per Depo shot or whatever might work.


I'd rather something like paraguard, which is good for 10 years and has a lower failure rate and lower side effect profile.

Many of the women who give birth to addicted babies do have Medicaid. So one avenue of intervention I see is regulating what forms of birth control Medicaid must cover, and then encouraging women to avail themselves of the more permanent ones.

If you only ever have experience with the babies that result from addiction, it's easy to demonize the mothers and see them as one dimensional monsters. This just isn't the case with the ones I've interacted with personally. They are people who have an illness. They do not feel they have choices, or resources, or control over any aspect of their lives. They usually have some form of persistent mental illness. They think as badly, or worse, of themselves as everyone else does, and the weight of the guilt and shame that hits them during moments of sobriety makes it much, much harder to sustain those moments of sobriety. I believe many of these women would gladly utilize long term birth control if they were given information about it and it were provided to them. I believe we can reduce the incidences of babies born addicted without strong arming, shaming, or reducing the rights of a group of people who are as vulnerable and sad as the group we are trying to protect. I have seen some of these women struggle to pull their lives together and to regain parenting rights or re-enter their kids' lives. I have seen some succeed, but I have seen most fail. Sincerity of desire is not a factor. That's just not how addiction works. And until we have any sort of reasonably successful treatment for addiction to offer, I just don't think focusing intervention efforts there makes sense.

DEG

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountUpp Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416883 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 4:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sissy: I'm an aunt of 2 children born addicted, the mother of 2 children born addicted and the aunt of one child with horrific medical issues because of crack/alcohol abuse by the mother during pregnancy.

My brother adopted identical twin boys, both born addicted. One grew up healthy and normal, is married, with a job and children. The other has been an expensive problem from the get-go. Spent some time in prison. I don't keep up with him, so I don't know what has become of him.

The birth mother? Who knows?

Count Upp

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cabinsmama Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416892 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 5:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Couldn't agree more. I spent 30+ years with this pop and it's complicated.

If you've ever seen a mentally ill pregnant woman try to balance what her psychiatrist wants her to do and what her OB-Gyn wants her to do...it's heartbreaking, and that's without addiction as a primary diagnosis.

I've not heard about paraguard. Out of the field and out of the demographic :-)

If we listened to addicts about what they see as barriers to using effective birth control, I wonder if we would find things we could do differently?

cm

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416903 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/23/2013 5:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Trying to address neonatal addiction does no logically lead to the shooting of a drunk pregnant woman.


You said that it shouldn't be a choice for anyone. How do you propose taking that choice away from someone?

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 416990 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/24/2013 3:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
There is a difference between what I wish people would do, and what I am willing to legislate that people must do. There is a difference between acts I think people should not commit, and acts I think we should criminalize.

I had never considered this topic before, so this thread gave me a lot to think about. Even though it became heated at times, there were many excellent points brought out (on both sides). Clearly many folks HAD considered this topic before. And I think everyone had the best of intentions.

I do agree with your above comment. I feel that way about a lot of things (like drinking in general, recreational drugs, "saving" spots in line, jacking your truck up so high that your bumper is at my face level -wait, I'm in favor of criminalizing that one!-, etc). If nothing else, this thread made me aware of the issue, and the complexities of the issue, and has certainly set in my mind things I think would be bad (i.e. would get me writing to my elected officials).

In fact, despite the good intentions of many proposals, I have to reject them all. I was sort of leaning that way when I read sissylue's post, and that sort of pushed me over that cliff. The only one I am still rolling around in my mind is the thought that if a child is born with NAS, then the mother is subject to arrest (where, if she's an addict or alcoholic, she can hopefully receive treatment and maybe get a shot at a decent life again). But that assumes that we can very accurately determine that the child actually has NAS and not some other issue not related to substance abuse. I do not know if that is the case. If it's not the case, then even that idea is DOA.

1poorguy (really likes how we can flesh-out a topic here...most other boards don't seem able to do that)

P.S. And treatment and mental health are topics that would make for another really meaty thread, I'm sure. When can we confine someone, by what justification (if they haven't yet harmed someone), who decides (both confinement and release), etc. But I won't go down that road here.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountUpp Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 417009 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/24/2013 8:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
1poorguy (really likes how we can flesh-out a topic here...most other boards don't seem able to do that)

Sometimes known as beating a horse to death.

Count Upp

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MacNugget Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 417020 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/24/2013 10:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Sometimes known as beating a horse to death.

Here in Atheist Fools once the horse is dead we like to skin it and learn to play drums.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 417025 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/25/2013 12:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Sometimes known as beating a horse to death.

I don't like that.

PSU
horse owner

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 417027 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/25/2013 1:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sometimes known as beating a horse to death.

I don't like that.

PSU
horse owner


--------------


Me neither.

AM
animal lover

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 417033 of 442436
Subject: Re: child endangerment Date: 1/25/2013 9:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I don't like that.

PSU
horse owner


--------------


Me neither.

AM
animal lover
----_--_-_____

<looks up from his plate of steak and eggs in Les Diablerets... Huh?

sano

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (140) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement