Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Endangering the unborn

12346»

Posts

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    bollocks. The point of the thread is reducing the risk posed by the mother's actions to the fetus. You don't get to ignore actions that aren't directly related to ingestion.

    tmsig.jpg
  • ElkiElki GOBS OF PUKE!!! YES!!!!!!!Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2008
    When proposing to make something illegal (aka a law), you should ask yourself a question. Is this a good, and doable idea, or is it so stupid not to be worth the seconds someone took to read about it on some internet forum, let alone the ink on the never-to-be bill? Because, let me tell you, reading about outlawing a degree of consumption of a legal substance of a specific subgroup that's not always easily identified and can break such a law with ease was really, really exciting for me.

    Kudos to brilliant mind that thought that one through.

  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Personally, I do think that alcohol, cigarettes, and other substances that are explicitly harmful to unborn children should be banned from sale to pregnant women (currently, they are not).
    How do you do this?

    I mean, a woman who looks like she's "obviously pregnant" could just be a big girl, and vice versa. And, generally, the one that's just a big girl is gonna be in tears if you tell her she looks pregnant and can't buy beer, and asking her to pee on a stick or bring around a doctors note that says "she's not pregnant, just part of the moo-moo club" is just gonna make things very hostile.

    If she does get pregnant, are you gonna have her wear a red letter P on her chest so everyone knows she's knocked up?

    Are you going to keep women from buying too much alcohol at one time in case they're stocking up for the nine month baby-season?

    The only way you can enforce this is if you know the woman involved and she's represented herself as preggers or if she ends up with a child with FAS... in which case the kid is already fucked up. While I understand what you're trying to accomplish, this whole thing would be an exercise accompanied by "Yackety Sax".
    The Cat wrote: »
    No, sorry, it doesn't work - you still haven't established causation between moderate alcohol consumption and FAS, or the purchase of alchohol and its consumption.
    Re: laws against the purchase -- There are a lot of laws over on this side of the pond that are like that, be they focused toward minors or whatever. Hell, I can't even get something with pseudoephedra (sudafed) over the counter because I maybe I could turn it into crystal meth, and minors can't even get it from behind the counter with a note from mommy. High schools banned liquid paper years ago, and kids can't buy spray paint.

    We protect against misuse of things by making proper use a pain in the ass. Kinda like with software anti-piracy methods.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2008
    How about this:

    Pregnant women should not be banned from drinking alcohol, but it's a shitty and immoral thing for them to do.

    Pregnant women should not be banned from smoking, but it's a shitty and immoral thing for them to do.

    Women with a high risk of having a deformed or otherwise fucked-up baby should not be barred from getting pregnant, but it's a shitty and immoral thing for them to do.

    Using this methodology, we both avoid the pitfalls of potentially stupid and harmful laws, and further drive a wedge between the notions of "things that are stupid/immoral/mean" and "things that should be illegal".

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »

    edit: interestingly, the quote you have verbatim and unlinked above is one I just read in an abcnews article noting that homicide was the leading cause of death in the period 1991-1999. Care to comment?

    Here is the money quote:
    A study published in the March 2005 edition of the American Journal of Public Health found that homicide was a leading cause of death among pregnant women in the United States between 1991 and 1999.

    The phrase is "a leading" not "the leading" which is their way of skewing it to make it seem exactly like some kind of husband murder rampage epidemic so it ties in to their murder story. "a leading" means prominent but not the most common.

    It happens to be the second most common but it's a DISTANT second place in cause of death behind "medical complications" which the article acknowledges in one sentence but doesn't go into detail about because again it doesn't drive their narrative of bloodthirsty husbands murdering innocent pregnant women and their babies.

    The only reason I'm quibbling over this is I think it's annoying that you're creating this perception that a pregnant woman is just as likely to get gunned down by her lover as she is to have some miscarriage that results in her death. That isn't true.

    Back to the main topic, I think it's disturbing that the back and forth in this thread is all about whether or not we can statistically prove that alcohol is dangerous to the unborn and to what degree when the argument should really be if it's any of our fucking business to tell other people what to do with their bodies.

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Elki wrote: »
    When proposing to make something illegal (aka a law), you should ask yourself a question. Is this a good, and doable idea, or is it so stupid not to be worth the seconds someone took to read about it on some internet forum, let alone the ink on the never-to-be bill? Because, let me tell you, reading about outlawing a degree of consumption of a legal substance of a specific subgroup that's not always easily identified and can break such a law with ease was really, really exciting for me.

    Kudos to brilliant mind that thought that one through.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »

    Women with a high risk of having a deformed or otherwise fucked-up baby should not be barred from getting pregnant, but it's a shitty and immoral thing for them to do.

    What's a high enough risk? What's fucked up enough?

    Is it shitty and immoral for a woman with Huntington's to get pregnant when there's a 50/50 chance her child will inherit her disease?

  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2008
    Oh but we can make them identifiable. Just make them wear little patches on their clothes to identify them as pregnant. Maybe find a way to mark the entrances to pregnant homes so that neighbors know to watch through the windows and make sure no one who looks like they might have a vagina is drinking "too much" inside and call the cops if necessary.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »

    Women with a high risk of having a deformed or otherwise fucked-up baby should not be barred from getting pregnant, but it's a shitty and immoral thing for them to do.

    What's a high enough risk? What's fucked up enough?

    Is it shitty and immoral for a woman with Huntington's to get pregnant when there's a 50/50 chance her child will inherit her disease?

    Not familiar enough with Huntingtons, but a quick Wiki hit shows that it typically onsets in the mid 40s or 50s and is treatable? I'd say it's a borderline case. I'd say if the chances of getting something nasty start hitting double digits, you're a pretty selfish fucker for not going the adoptive route, especially in situations where the costs of getting knocked up in the first place are in the tens of thousands. Yeah, you, the one spending $20k for IVF where there's a high chance of miscarriage and a high chance of birth defects because you decided to wait until you were in your 40s to have kids? Fuck you, try adoption.

    The high-chance-of-birth-defects thing is a huge gray area, though, I readily admit that. Smoking and drinking and doing drugs while pregnant? Yeah, not so much a gray area. If you can't hold off on the mind-altering substance for nine fucking months so as not to give your kid Down's, you suck.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2008
    Treatable not curable. You die of it, and you die early. I just brought it up cause I have a friend who's getting married who may or may not have Huntington's (she has not opted to get the test yet).

    Yeah it's a big gray area, so I can't really agree with your declaration above.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    Treatable not curable. You die of it, and you die early. I just brought it up cause I have a friend who's getting married who may or may not have Huntington's (she has not opted to get the test yet).

    You're friends with Number 13?

    Like I said, I'm not that familiar with Huntington's, so my opinion on it specifically should be taken with a grain of salt.

    In general, having kids versus adopting them is a purely selfish and vanity-driven act. It's not selfish in a negative sense, only in that its only benefit, in and of itself, is the knowledge that the child is fundamentally "yours". Throw in the costs of adoption, which can run in the tens of thousands, and I definitely don't fault the average person for creating their own children. Even if you remove the cost aspect, I can sympathize with the appeal. Your child is fundamentally a part of you on a genetic level. Still, that synergy is a very superficial thing, and an adopted child can be just as loved, and be just as instilled with your values. Regardless, it's a wash at best, even though adopting a child increases the net happiness of the world by more than having your own kid.

    But when you get to the point where this child you wish to bring into the world has a very high chance of being inexorably fucked-up in some manner, what you're saying is that a deformed, sickly, or doomed child is a small price to pay for your desire to share chromosomes with your dependents. Yeah, yeah, retarded kid, whatever, I must breed. It's at this point that selfishness ceases to be justifiable. Even the cost ceases to be a valid argument, past a point. Say it costs ten grand to adopt a kid. It costs a few grand per year minimum to raise one from birth (figuring in daycare costs, I estimate that our two children cost us $20k annually). Adopt a 2-3 year old and you break even, maybe even come out ahead.

    Basically, when you start gambling with your child's well-being out of deference to your vanity, I start to get grumpy. Would you frown upon someone who wagered a new car against giving their child a horrible and incurable disease at 10:1 odds? Yes? Opting to procreate when the offspring has a 10% chance at a similar condition isn't markedly different, in my book.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Using this methodology, we both avoid the pitfalls of potentially stupid and harmful laws, and further drive a wedge between the notions of "things that are stupid/immoral/mean" and "things that should be illegal".
    Why, sir... I thank you and my momma thanks you.
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Yeah, you, the one spending $20k for IVF where there's a high chance of miscarriage and a high chance of birth defects because you decided to wait until you were in your 40s to have kids? Fuck you, try adoption.
    I've never gotten this one, either.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2008
    Adoption is noble, but comes with many many more issues, trials, and general hurdles for the child and family than the average person might think when compared to having your own child.

  • DagrabbitDagrabbit Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    In general, having kids versus adopting them is a purely selfish and vanity-driven act. It's not selfish in a negative sense, only in that its only benefit, in and of itself, is the knowledge that the child is fundamentally "yours".

    This isn't true due to your use of the word "purely" and phrase "only benefit". For example, you may think you and your partner have genuinely good genes to pass on into the gene pool. It may make other people (grandparents) you are close to happy to have a genetic link ("keeping the line going").

    Benefits include that you typically knowing the genetic and medical history of the family better. Often the child takes personality traits from the parents that are recognizable, making parenting through empathy easier. Also, if adopting a child of a different background, there are still social stigmas that the family and child will have to deal with. Depending on your medical coverage and the adoption process, it's often cheaper and quicker to have your own baby. There's also the bonding that occurs in the womb and during the first moments after labor that cannot by replicated completely with adoption. Finally, breastfeeding between mother and baby is being shown to be more and more healthy for the baby, even as formula gets better.

    Perhaps the decision is primarily motivated by selfishness, but it's not always purely motivated by selfishness, and the benefits are manyfold and help justify the selfishness.

  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Dagrabbit wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    In general, having kids versus adopting them is a purely selfish and vanity-driven act. It's not selfish in a negative sense, only in that its only benefit, in and of itself, is the knowledge that the child is fundamentally "yours".
    This isn't true due to your use of the word "purely" and phrase "only benefit". For example, you may think you and your partner have genuinely good genes to pass on into the gene pool. It may make other people (grandparents) you are close to happy to have a genetic link ("keeping the line going").
    He's coming from the position of risky pregnancies for women who are likely to pass on a defect or who have to use IVF to conceive due to infertility or advanced age. Not all pregnancies in general.

    Basically, pressing the issue to have a baby when you know damn good and well that you're likely to have an unhealthy child doesn't really do anyone any good... not you, not your future kid, not your family, not the medical system, on a whole lot of levels. And, if you know that, what motivation do you have to prove that you can do what they said you couldn't/shouldn't do?

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • DagrabbitDagrabbit Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    GungHo wrote: »
    Dagrabbit wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    In general, having kids versus adopting them is a purely selfish and vanity-driven act. It's not selfish in a negative sense, only in that its only benefit, in and of itself, is the knowledge that the child is fundamentally "yours".
    This isn't true due to your use of the word "purely" and phrase "only benefit". For example, you may think you and your partner have genuinely good genes to pass on into the gene pool. It may make other people (grandparents) you are close to happy to have a genetic link ("keeping the line going").
    He's coming from the position of risky pregnancies for women who are likely to pass on a defect or who have to use IVF to conceive due to infertility or advanced age. Not all pregnancies in general.

    Basically, pressing the issue to have a baby when you know damn good and well that you're likely to have an unhealthy child doesn't really do anyone any good... not you, not your future kid, not your family, not the medical system, on a whole lot of levels. And, if you know that, what motivation do you have to prove that you can do what they said you couldn't/shouldn't do?

    I agree with the general thrust of his statement, just not some of the specifics. Being more complete about the motivations for having your own child vs. adopting make it clearer why some would be reluctant to go with adoption even when there is a high chance of having an unhealthy baby. I agree that, were I in that position, I'd adopt rather than have my own children, but I think it's a very hard decision to make with a lot of influencing factors. It's not a completely tomayto-tomahto situation.

  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Look, we obviously can't trust pregnant women to be interested in the health of their unborn children.

    Of course we should make it illegal for them to drink, smoke, or take medication. We really can't have them eating fish either because of the high levels of mercury. In fact, we should just mandate a specific diet for pregnant women to make sure they get enough folic acid in their diet. We really can't have them breathing all this awful city air either, so really we should just round up all the pregnant women and take them to a spa in the country. That way we can also watch them more closely to make sure they don't do other foolish things like exercise or use a microwave.

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    My solution is to ban people from having children.

    It's high time we became more like social insects. Have the robots make our children for us, and you get to raise them if you have a license. Boom, problem solved.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    If implementation is a problem, there's an easy fix.

    Do away with the war on drugs, release all criminals with drug-related non-violent convictions, and use the space to house women found to be pregnant. This way we can feed them the right food, make sure they get the right amount of exercise, and if they violate a rule just put them in the hole for 24 hours.

    This is the only way to ensure the best atmosphere for childbirth.
    Spoiler:

    But back to incest...

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2008
    Dagrabbit wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    In general, having kids versus adopting them is a purely selfish and vanity-driven act. It's not selfish in a negative sense, only in that its only benefit, in and of itself, is the knowledge that the child is fundamentally "yours".

    This isn't true due to your use of the word "purely" and phrase "only benefit". For example, you may think you and your partner have genuinely good genes to pass on into the gene pool. It may make other people (grandparents) you are close to happy to have a genetic link ("keeping the line going").

    Benefits include that you typically knowing the genetic and medical history of the family better. Often the child takes personality traits from the parents that are recognizable, making parenting through empathy easier. Also, if adopting a child of a different background, there are still social stigmas that the family and child will have to deal with. Depending on your medical coverage and the adoption process, it's often cheaper and quicker to have your own baby. There's also the bonding that occurs in the womb and during the first moments after labor that cannot by replicated completely with adoption. Finally, breastfeeding between mother and baby is being shown to be more and more healthy for the baby, even as formula gets better.

    Perhaps the decision is primarily motivated by selfishness, but it's not always purely motivated by selfishness, and the benefits are manyfold and help justify the selfishness.

    I'm skeptical of the importance of the bonding that occurs immediately post-birth. I didn't spit my daughter out my own hoo-ha, and yet I still have a very close relationship to her that is no less than that between her and my wife. In fact, my daughter and I principally bonded after she was several months old - prior to that, she'd be in Julie's arms more often than not, because she was better at consoling her. Long-term, I really don't believe it much matters. Adoption certainly wouldn't in any way prevent the parents and child from forming an intimate bond, and most parents who have both natural and adopted children would say that they view their children equally.

    Breastfeeding is fine, but so? By the time the mother gets her hands on an adopted child, the chance for breastfeeding is generally over. That kid has already been either gifted with, or deprived of, those benefits. I fail to see how that makes for a better relationship between the parents and child.

    I was specifically discounting cost benefits when I said that, which is why I covered them later.

    I'm also skeptical that the personality traits that stand out most prominently are genetic rather than learned. There may be a genetic component, but I'd say environment wins out here. If you raise any child from a young age, you're likely to see strongly shared personality elements.

    Social stigmas only apply to children of clearly different background, and even then they're becoming less common. Lots of children are coming from multi-racial backgrounds and doing just fine.

    Procreating so your family feels that you're "continuing the line" falls under selfish vanity, in my book.

    I'll grant you knowing the genetic history of your child better when he's your own, and wanting to pass on your "good genes" makes sense in many cases, so I'll grant you those. Still, for most parents, it's a vanity thing almost exclusively.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »

    I'll grant you knowing the genetic history of your child better when he's your own, and wanting to pass on your "good genes" makes sense in many cases, so I'll grant you those. Still, for most parents, it's a vanity thing almost exclusively.

    It works both ways though. Which is why I plan on adopting this nice 7 year old kid from the Dominican Republic who happens to be able to throw a coconut 75 miles an hour. Left Handed.

  • DagrabbitDagrabbit Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I'm skeptical of the importance of the bonding that occurs immediately post-birth. I didn't spit my daughter out my own hoo-ha, and yet I still have a very close relationship to her that is no less than that between her and my wife. In fact, my daughter and I principally bonded after she was several months old - prior to that, she'd be in Julie's arms more often than not, because she was better at consoling her. Long-term, I really don't believe it much matters. Adoption certainly wouldn't in any way prevent the parents and child from forming an intimate bond, and most parents who have both natural and adopted children would say that they view their children equally.

    Breastfeeding is fine, but so? By the time the mother gets her hands on an adopted child, the chance for breastfeeding is generally over. That kid has already been either gifted with, or deprived of, those benefits. I fail to see how that makes for a better relationship between the parents and child.

    I can't speak to these personally, but the baby books I've been reading sure make it out to be a big deal. Seems like if you'd like to be the best parent possible, with the best, healthiest kid possible, current research thinks early bonding and breast feeding help a lot. I can see it as being important to the parents, even if you're skeptical. Which is the point, why they would make a decision.
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I'm also skeptical that the personality traits that stand out most prominently are genetic rather than learned. There may be a genetic component, but I'd say environment wins out here. If you raise any child from a young age, you're likely to see strongly shared personality elements.

    Social stigmas only apply to children of clearly different background, and even then they're becoming less common. Lots of children are coming from multi-racial backgrounds and doing just fine.

    The verdict is out (nature vs. nurture) and all that, so I think it's a valid concern for a parent to have, and whether multi-racial backgrounds is an issue really depends where you live. It's getting better, but is still very present in a lot of communities, and wil affect how your children grow up.
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Procreating so your family feels that you're "continuing the line" falls under selfish vanity, in my book.

    Yes, but on someone else's part other than the parents of the new child. I preferred my wife's maiden name to my own, but it was important to my Grandma that I kept mine, and my wife was ambivalent. This could be a similar thing.

    I think the decision of how to have children is a very complex one for some people, and distilling it down to selfishness and vanity in all cases doesn't feel justified. The points I bring up are certainly contentious as to their validity (I don't buy all of them myself), but if they factor into a couple's decision-making, it's enough to show that they're not just doing it so their kids will look like little versions of them.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Dagrabbit wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Procreating so your family feels that you're "continuing the line" falls under selfish vanity, in my book.

    Yes, but on someone else's part other than the parents of the new child. I preferred my wife's maiden name to my own, but it was important to my Grandma that I kept mine, and my wife was ambivalent. This could be a similar thing.

    I think the decision of how to have children is a very complex one for some people, and distilling it down to selfishness and vanity in all cases doesn't feel justified. The points I bring up are certainly contentious as to their validity (I don't buy all of them myself), but if they factor into a couple's decision-making, it's enough to show that they're not just doing it so their kids will look like little versions of them.

    Except, humans are genetically wired to protect their own lineage than something that's not genetic related. Some people are exceptions to this, like all things genetic, but all-in-all you'll see more people go the extra 40 miles and kill themselves for their own genetic offspring. People who do this for non-related offspring are few and far between. But those are usually the people who do adoptions more readily.

  • RedShellRedShell Registered User
    edited May 2008
    I have a totally different hobby-horse that I'm gonna ride into this thread, so apologies.

    But, ElJeffe, you're underselling the biological/adoption issues somewhat. Most of the adoption lit I've read seems to indicate that there are some profound and not-quite-understood things going on with a child's brain in the first few weeks after birth. FYI, adopted kids who are taken away from their mothers stop crying rather suddenly after a day or two (even though they are still being cared for, have human eyes to look into, blah blah blah) and it's not totally out of the question that there is some bonding that is simply not happening, or happening differently. We're weird animals.

    [URL="http://http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/106313.php"]There's this, too...[/URL] which certainly seems to contradict the idea that 'parents are parents, biology has nothing to do with it' ideal that people seem so sold on.

    I don't want to oversell the issues, either, because it's all very complicated. My line is really that adoption tends to get a whitewashing treatment because abortion is such a politicized issue. It's problematic in many ways, no matter how good a job you do as a parent -- though obviously there are a ton of 100% happy outcomes. But people who didn't grow up in a non-biological family typically underestimate how big an impact the process has, even before a child 'finds out'.

    Homing In Imperfectly?
    Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Adoption may have some minuses, however, I'm going to guess that the pluses of rescuing some kid from a godforsaken third world wasteland and/or the foster care system outweigh those minuses by a lot. A lot a lot.

  • RedShellRedShell Registered User
    edited May 2008
    MrMister wrote: »
    Adoption may have some minuses, however, I'm going to guess that the pluses of rescuing some kid from a godforsaken third world wasteland and/or the foster care system outweigh those minuses by a lot. A lot a lot.

    Sure, I'm just saying that the minuses become worse when people pretend that there are no minuses.

    Homing In Imperfectly?
    Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    bollocks. The point of the thread is reducing the risk posed by the mother's actions to the fetus. You don't get to ignore actions that aren't directly related to ingestion.

    Bollocks back to you. When solving a problem, you look at the easily fixable things first.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2008
    RedShell wrote: »
    I don't want to oversell the issues, either, because it's all very complicated. My line is really that adoption tends to get a whitewashing treatment because abortion is such a politicized issue. It's problematic in many ways, no matter how good a job you do as a parent -- though obviously there are a ton of 100% happy outcomes. But people who didn't grow up in a non-biological family typically underestimate how big an impact the process has, even before a child 'finds out'.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    How about this:

    Pregnant women should not be banned from drinking alcohol, but it's a shitty and immoral thing for them to do.

    Pregnant women should not be banned from smoking, but it's a shitty and immoral thing for them to do.

    Women with a high risk of having a deformed or otherwise fucked-up baby should not be barred from getting pregnant, but it's a shitty and immoral thing for them to do.

    Using this methodology, we both avoid the pitfalls of potentially stupid and harmful laws, and further drive a wedge between the notions of "things that are stupid/immoral/mean" and "things that should be illegal".
    <3

    tmsig.jpg
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    bollocks. The point of the thread is reducing the risk posed by the mother's actions to the fetus. You don't get to ignore actions that aren't directly related to ingestion.

    Bollocks back to you. When solving a problem, you look at the easily fixable things first.

    Had anyone demonstrated that the alcohol/tobacco thing is easily fixable, you might have some kind of point here.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    But seriously, if we're worrying about the 'safety of the future child' then we have to look at the riskier actions that are more likely to kill the pregnancy such as being in a moving vehicle, talking with strangers who could turn out to be nutjobs, and shopping at Costco. Seriously, those shelves are pretty high, who knows when an industrial sized jar of pickles might fall down and hit some pregnant lady in the belly.

    Padded cells and straight jackets for them all I say!

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • AegeriAegeri Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Wiki hit shows that it typically onsets in the mid 40s or 50s and is treatable?

    Huntingtons is an inevitably fatal neurological disorder that begins around 30, with visible symptoms beginning after the age of 40 and death being between 40-60 years of age (sometimes less). The disease can only be somewhat regulated, but it is ultimately a death sentence and is incurable.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Wiki hit shows that it typically onsets in the mid 40s or 50s and is treatable?

    Huntingtons is an inevitably fatal neurological disorder that begins around 30, with visible symptoms beginning after the age of 40 and death being between 40-60 years of age (sometimes less). The disease can only be somewhat regulated, but it is ultimately a death sentence and is incurable.

    I knew of this thanks to an episode of House.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • AegeriAegeri Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    There is some progress being made to treat huntingtons it is worth stating, but most treatments are still 10-20 years away at best. I actually know someone with Huntingtons disease, who first had to get over the whole shock/depression of basically being told he has a death sentence and now sort of just deals with it. The worst part is when the disease starts to strip cognitive and motor function from a person, as the mutant protein begins destroying neuronal cells in both the peripheral and central nervous system. After a point, there is no recovery and while the disease takes some time to manifest, it usually kills within 20 years of that.

    I would still, if I was a carrier for the gene, have children though. This is because while I may have a chance of inflicting a death sentence on my own kids, there is sufficient research to warrant at least entertaining a thought in 30-40 years they won't have to die from it. Then again, I'm not sure if I could live with the guilt I would feel.

  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Nova_C wrote: »
    One of the reasons incest is illegal is because of the likelihood of genetic deformities in the offspring of such a coupling.
    To be honest (and no offence intended), I was a little surprised to find out that that is in fact one of the reasons for its illegality, today at least:
    17. Incest may or may not be consensual. Proof of consent makes no difference to the result (R. v. S. (M.). In Queens County, Nova Scotia, for example, a mother was charged with incest with her two adult sons, one of whom in turn was charged with sex with his two adult half-sisters, all of it consensual. Nevertheless, convictions were upheld: R. v. F. (R.P.). The court rejected the argument that consensual “‘recreational’ sexual activity with blood relations should be legalized and constitutionally protected” (p. 441) because the prohibition against incest has nothing to do with consent but is directed to preserving

    "the integrity of the family by avoiding the confusion in roles that would result from incestuous sex . . . there is a “heavy physiological penalty imposed by inbreeding”, that is, the sharply increased risk of genetic defects in the children born of incestuous relationships. [pp. 443-44]"

    18. The prohibition against incest is also associated with “protection of vulnerable family members” (p. 445). Writing for the court, Roscoe J.A. concluded that incest, whether consensual or non-consensual, is

    "unacceptable, incomprehensible and repugnant to the vast majority of people, and has been for centuries in many cultures and countries. [p. 445]"

    19. To similar effect, Meredith J. at the trial level in R. v. S. (M.), [1994] B.C.J. No. 1028 (QL) (S.C.), agreed at para. 13 with the 1984 report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in England on Sexual Offences that

    "[w]hatever may have been the origin of the incest taboo, as to which there are many different theories, two main reasons are given today for the intervention of the law in this area. They are, first, the genetic risk and, second, the social and psychological consequences. [para. 8.8 of the report]"


    Nova_C wrote: »
    Looking around I can't find any law making drinking alcohol while pregnant illegal in Canada and there wouldn't be any special law concerning doing drugs while pregnant. Did I miss it? How about in the US?

    So is that necessary? Should doing things that result in deformities in a fetus be illegal? If not, why is incest illegal (In the context of adult, consensual relationships)?

    Most of us here are very specific about the rights a woman has about her body, but I wonder if this falls under the same umbrella as abortion since this could result in decades of suffering by the unborn as it grows. Is this different?
    There aren't any, and they would likely be completely unconstitutional because of Dobson v. Dobson (really important Canadian case which says that a child can not sue their mother for any injuries they sustain while she was pregnant with them).
    26. It was recognized in both Montreal Tramways, supra, and Duval, supra, that the strongest argument for imposing a duty of care upon third parties towards unborn children is that tort law is designed to provide compensation for harm caused by negligence and, to a lesser extent, to deter tortfeasors. It was submitted that to deny recognition to the type of action at issue in this appeal could leave an infant plaintiff without the protection and compensation provided by tort law, solely because the defendant is his or her mother. Accordingly, it was argued that the compensatory principle should be the basis for the imposition of a similar duty of care upon expectant women.

    27. Yet, this argument fails to take into account the fundamental difference between a mother‑to‑be and a third-party defendant. The unique relationship between a pregnant woman and her foetus is so very different from the relationship with third parties. Everything the pregnant woman does or fails to do may have a potentially detrimental impact on her foetus. Everything the pregnant woman eats or drinks, and every physical action she takes, may affect the foetus. Indeed, the foetus is entirely dependent upon its mother‑to‑be. Although the imposition of tort liability on a third party for prenatal negligence advances the interests of both mother and child, it does not significantly impair the right of third parties to control their own lives. In contrast to the third-party defendant, a pregnant woman’s every waking and sleeping moment, in essence, her entire existence, is connected to the foetus she may potentially harm. If a mother were to be held liable for prenatal negligence, this could render the most mundane decision taken in the course of her daily life as a pregnant woman subject to the scrutiny of the courts.

    28. Is she to be liable in tort for failing to regulate her diet to provide the best nutrients for the foetus? Is she to be required to abstain from smoking and all alcoholic beverages? Should she be found liable for failing to abstain from strenuous exercise or unprotected sexual activity to protect her foetus? Must she undertake frequent safety checks of her premises in order to avoid falling and causing injury to the foetus? There is no rational and principled limit to the types of claims which may be brought if such a tortious duty of care were imposed upon pregnant women.
    They also go on to point out that the level of care a mother could offer would be completely dependent on their socio-economic means, and, of course, this entire burden would be placed on women only and really harm equality.

    EDIT to add that the case also directly responds to your question:
    30. In Winnipeg, supra, the majority rejected an argument which sought to extend tort principles in order to justify the forced confinement and treatment of a pregnant woman with a glue‑sniffing addiction, as a means of protecting her foetus. McLachlin J. observed that difficult legal and social issues arise in examining the policy considerations under the second branch of the Kamloops test. First, the recognition of a duty of care owed by a pregnant woman to her foetus has a very real potential to intrude upon that woman’s fundamental rights. Any intervention may create a conflict between a pregnant woman as an autonomous decision‑maker and the foetus she carries. Second, the judicial definition of an appropriate standard of care is fraught with insoluble problems due to the difficulty of distinguishing tortious and non‑tortious behaviour in the daily life of an expectant woman. Third, certain so‑called lifestyle “choices” such as alcoholism and drug addiction may be beyond the control of the pregnant woman, and hence the deterrent value of the imposition of a duty of care may be non‑existent. Lastly, the imposition of a duty of care upon a pregnant woman towards her foetus could increase, to an unwarranted degree, the level of external scrutiny focussed upon her. In Winnipeg, supra, it was held that the lifestyle choices of a pregnant woman should not be regulated because to do so would result in an unacceptably high degree of intrusion into her privacy and autonomy rights. If that is so, then it follows that negligent acts resulting from unreasonable lapses of attention, which may so often occur in the course of a pregnant woman’s daily life, should not form the basis for the imposition of tort liability on mothers.
    (TLDR - court ruled that you could not force treatment on a pregnant woman with a drug addiction because it interferes with her freedom, the addiction is not necessarily a lifestyle "choice" that you could simply make illegal and have it go away, and finally, a floodgates argument - if today drinking, smoking (or in this case, glue sniffing), what tomorrow?)

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Banning women from purchasing alcohol in a liquor store is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard and it will never happen. It's hardly worth discussing.

    Let's talk about something else: is it copasetic to serve an pregnant lady at a bar? There is intent to drink inherent in bar purchases but not in liquor store purchases.

    Also, of course carrying a child carries certain obligations to others. For one thing, if you're going to saunter down a crowded street, please do it off to the side, especially if you are particularly large. We pedestrians thank you. Then again, this applies to excessively fat, slow people as well.

    steam_sig.png
12346»
Sign In or Register to comment.