Victims In Utero

[Procrustes Stretched]

Addicts need to focus on themselves when recovering and I've met addicts who gave up their kids for the better of all concern. That is truly heroic. And touching.

Indeed as is the sacrifice of any parent willing to give up a child for adoption in hopes of a better life.

I saw a documentary on crystal meth that featured a rehab that allowed parents to bring their kids with them to treatment. The idea being that seeing their kids would motivate them to get with the program. I thought that was a HORRIBLE idea. Like these kids haven't dealt with enough you openly place their parent's sobriety on their shoulders. Not to mention being locked in with a group of detoxing meth heads

I agree on the program being harmful. Fuckin' adults need to stop being victims.

 

[Samson]

#2. "the Harm" is a matter of proof.

How do you prove any "harm was inflicted?"

If you could do this, then I would agree that it wouldn't matter who inflicted it.

You have to set a standard - otherwise the mother could be held accountable for any damage to a child while in her womb. Such as if a woman were attacked and beaten causing miscarriage or birth defect - it COULD have been a "natural" miscarriage or birth defect.

If a woman is murdered and the child lost with her - the death of the child COULD be because the mother failed to live. In other words the only murder victim is the mother.

Again I ask: HOW DO YOU PROVE ANY "HARM WAS INFLICTED?"

I'll tell you what, here's a standard for you: If the mother Stabs the fetus, and there are witnesses, and only her fingerprints are on the weapon, then yes, the mother should be held accountable, m'k?

 

[Samson]

But rather than wait until your reply, which will no doubt take the exception to the rule and extrapolate it to cover every case, I.E., If One Junkie Mom produces ONE defective child, then ALL Junkie Moms produce ALL defective children, lets assume this outrageous logic has merit.

How would prosecuting the Junkie Moms (what about the Fathers???) prevent the birth of "abused" children? Laws against illegal drug use already exist.

They should still be held accountable not just for the use but for child abuse IMHO.

Not sure how you think a father can expose the child to toxins in utero? If you are speaking of defective sperm then that IS a natural birth defect IMHO as there is no way of telling if it would have been perfect w/out use. Now the CARE of the child requires a proactive movement to abstain from use during pregnancy.

My point is that Men make Junkie Moms Pregnant, but have absolutely no "accountability" for the welfare of the result, while the mother must take on ALL accountability? This seems more than a tad unfair. If we are going to consider "fetus abuse" shouldn't we also hold the father accountable?

 

[Samson]

Oh and I meant to add- sorry if this is a repeat thread. DevNell referenced earlier posts on this topic. I'm a noob and would be happy to carry this to necro-post if anyone would prefer we revert to the original discussion

Fuck Worrying About DevNell the Attention Whore.

He's happy to rehash every stupidity in new threads: Rehashing something relevant might annoy him.

 

[eots]

Nope my claim was that we don't value babies enough. That is common knowledge. In fact our own prez was against the born alive amendment wasn't he?

Here's an idea. Offer the crack hos and meth heads 10K to be sterilized. Hell they'd prob do it for 100 bucks. It would save thousands of babies and millions of dollars.

Oh and this is a message board. Inflammatory comments and generalizations are what we do. The high brow forum never took off. Wonder why?

a eugenics program against those in poverty...that's your final solution

Try again. Voluntary sterilization is not eugenics. And not all women in poverty are crack ho's and meth heads. Or are they?

Link please.

offering cash to people in vulnerable situations of poverty or addiction to be sterilized is a eugenics program..and it is a stupid suggestion ..from a stupid person

 

[JD_2B]

I was curious as to what the Pro Choice members have to say about unborn victims of violence.

In 2004 the United States passed a law declaring that unborn children can be considered the victims of violence. Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you think an unborn child can be a victim? Does it matter if the harm is inflicted by the mother or by another individual? What about drug abuse or drinking during pregnancy - should that be prosecuted as abuse or endangerment?

I think that the man and woman who were expecting a child were harmed, but not that the UNborn was harmed.

The harm is done when "Expectant" parents lose a pregnancy by a force that was not done as a willful medical decision by the woman who was pregnant.

This does get the criminal law aspect a little hazy, because the emotions involved with this type of loss are tremendous. Still, I do not think that legal rights should be granted to a fetus, in any event. The legal rights should belong to the woman who lost her pregnancy at the will of someone committing a crime.
Just as certain damages can get paid to every person with legal status, as the result of even criminal activity, this too should fall under the civil court system.


Allow me to clarify, because I have no doubt that this is some kind of witch hunt, almost certainly a personal one, to boot, lol..

I agree that anyone who hits, kicks, or commits any other violent crime against woman who is pregnant should absolutely face felony charges. A lot of pregnant women are abused physically, and Oh I wish I had the rate of how often this abuse BEGINS once the woman found out she was pregnant, but it would not make a difference to the point that I want to make here..
The criminal actions should be brought solely because a woman being in a "delicate" state, might not fight for herself with as much force as a non pregnant woman, so she is especially vulnerable to abuse, and losing her pregnancy. If she does not want to press charges or testify on the fetus' behalf, though, then there will be very little case for prosecutors to go on. This is about the WOMAN's choices, and no legislation will change the fact that the only real victims in cases like these, are the women.

I say try these "miscarriage/ stillbirth as a result of a violent crime" cases in regards to the loss of pregnancy, in civil court- but also, if a woman wants to press charges for the attack on HER, then she should push for the person being tried for aggravated battery on a pregnant woman.

We already had this system in place, and it worked just fine. Trying to add this kind of shit to it, really just takes away from a woman's autonomy, by not giving HER the right to decide whether losing the pregnancy was worth someone spending years in prison for or not.

 

[JD_2B]

Do you think an unborn child can be a victim? Does it matter if the harm is inflicted by the mother or by another individual? What about drug abuse or drinking during pregnancy - should that be prosecuted as abuse or endangerment?

Answers:

1- No, obviously not.

2- Nope.. Not at all- Except when the woman is harmed, by criminal activity, then it should be aggravated battery, because there is an expectation of caution towards HER expectations of bearing a child, and a certain helplessness that pregnant women have against attackers.

3- Drug abuse.. Uh didn't Michael Jackson and Elvis both unknowingly die from contraindications or being prescribed doses that were too high in their drug use? Assuming that the woman is not using any illegal drugs (which is practically an oxymoron, by the way) then how can this even be proven?
She may have just moved into a house where meth used to be cooked. She may not have any clue what kinds of drugs she is being fed. Besides, the proof (I saw this mentioned earlier) is not enough that a fetus was miscarried or stillborn, or born with abnormalities/ dysfunction. That happens all the time, anyways, for natural reasons.

4- Should it be prosecuted, if she is in possession of illegal drugs? Sure- to the same extent anyone else is prosecuted, including men. USING drugs indicates that she was driving or already neglecting or abusing her own children, etc, and drug use was already reported or suspected. Women should not be subjected to random drug tests/ beathalyzer tests by the gov't just because they are pregnant. That is absurd.

 

[chanel]

I agree but fetal alcohol syndrome and heroin addiction can be established at the time of birth. Should the babies be taken away permanently? Should the mother face ANY consequences short of getting "treatment" which is often not effective?

 

[JD_2B]

I agree but fetal alcohol syndrome and heroin addiction can be established at the time of birth. Should the babies be taken away permanently? Should the mother face ANY consequences short of getting "treatment" which is often not effective?

No way- The third week of gestation is supposedly the time during the pregnancy when the embryo (not fetus) is most prone to being affected by drugs, alcohol, or the mother getting sick, according to the US surgeon general. Considering the fact that 50% of all women in the world will have an unplanned pregnancy in their lifetime, then it stands to reason that 1/4- 1/3 of all births were not being planned either. Many people try to claim that fetal alcohol syndrome and all this, is "entirely preventable", but really this is a pipe dream. A three week pregnant woman may not have even missed a period yet.

PS- Why should anyone get "treatment" just because the baby was born with one of these conditions, and not because the woman was a known alcoholic/ drug user? Also, saying that someone should get treatment or have the children removed, because there ended up being a problem for the born children, also implies that children who witness abuse, or get injured by an abusive parent, should also be removed, even though the mother left and went to a safe house to protect her children, after. Should the abuser get treatment, in all cases, too? Or should the woman's kids get taken away, because of something happening that (like the pregnancy or fetal alcohol syndrome) could not be prevented because she could not forsee it happening?

I am not against people getting treatment, or kids getting taken from the parents for abuse or neglect problems that were forseeable, etc.. I just ask that people be consistent in their assertions of this type.

 

[Samson]

I agree but fetal alcohol syndrome and heroin addiction can be established at the time of birth. Should the babies be taken away permanently? Should the mother face ANY consequences short of getting "treatment" which is often not effective?

Shouldn't ANY child be taken away permanently if they've been abused?

 

[Father Time]

I agree but fetal alcohol syndrome and heroin addiction can be established at the time of birth. Should the babies be taken away permanently? Should the mother face ANY consequences short of getting "treatment" which is often not effective?

Shouldn't ANY child be taken away permanently if they've been abused?

No.

One size fits all punishments are never a good idea.

Also it's possible for people to become not abusive.

 

[JD_2B]

I agree but fetal alcohol syndrome and heroin addiction can be established at the time of birth. Should the babies be taken away permanently? Should the mother face ANY consequences short of getting "treatment" which is often not effective?

Shouldn't ANY child be taken away permanently if they've been abused?

No.

One size fits all punishments are never a good idea.

Also it's possible for people to become not abusive.

Yep I agree with that.. People can become sober. Plus, drinking in and of itself is not neglectful or abusive towards children.

Generally, also, the neglectful parents having to do classes, etc, is a better option than taking the kids away from the parents indefinitely.. I have read too many news stories about parents of 14 year olds and what not, being charged with neglect just because the kid (teenager, aka almost an adult) was "left at the theme park" to have fun without the parent being right at the kid's side, or the parent dropping their "young adult" off somewhere for the day.

This is so stupid, I think. Kids mature as they grow up.. There should be social milestones for age groups as what should be expected of a minor, maturity wise.

A four year old might not be able to be trusted to answer the door or phone, or be left alone for longer than 15 minutes, but four year olds can often times make a sandwich themselves, or even a hot dog, in the microwave. My son took the initiative to make his own hot dogs, because he ate so many of them when he was little, he wanted to be able to do it himself. I showed him which button to push on the microwave (30 seconds) and he did it, and he was not quite four and a half. I supervised him doing this for a good month or so, but once he got into a good habit of how to remove it safely, and to wait for the dog to cool down, before eating it, I no longer had to be all that concerned about it. The only rule after that was that he let me know when he is having a hot dog, because of the choking hazard associated with hot dogs and little kids.

I find that explaining things to my kid helps him to not resist my authority in the matter. I know some people say "bcause I said so", but that doesn't teach a kid anything but to be submissive. To me, that is the worst kind of neglect out there- failure to educate your own offspring. Better to tll them why you decided something, and give them the power of making informed decisions later, rather than just rebelling and not understanding your whole logic behind those decisions of "no", earlier in their lives.

 

[chanel]

I've worked with "disaffected youth" my entire adult life. I have never heard of a child being taken away for being left at a theme park. The kids I know in foster care have suffered unconscienable acts of sex abuse, physical abuse, and total neglect. Maybe NJ is easier on the parents. I don't know. But in almost 100% of the cases, drugs or alcohol were a factor. Addicts cannot properly raise children. No ifs ands or buts about it.

Unfortunately there are never enough foster homes. I foresee a day in the near future that we go back to orphanages. Too many kids being thrown away. It disgusts me.

 

[Fayebelle]

I say try these "miscarriage/ stillbirth as a result of a violent crime" cases in regards to the loss of pregnancy, in civil court- but also, if a woman wants to press charges for the attack on HER, then she should push for the person being tried for aggravated battery on a pregnant woman.

What do you suppose should be the damages awarded for such a case in civil court? Do you really think there is a monetary value that would make such a criminal be punished as well as a jail term? I just doubt many of the people willing to abuse or kill a pregnant woman are millionaires......

3- Drug abuse.. Uh didn't Michael Jackson and Elvis both unknowingly die from contraindications or being prescribed doses that were too high in their drug use? Assuming that the woman is not using any illegal drugs (which is practically an oxymoron, by the way) then how can this even be proven?
She may have just moved into a house where meth used to be cooked. She may not have any clue what kinds of drugs she is being fed. Besides, the proof (I saw this mentioned earlier) is not enough that a fetus was miscarried or stillborn, or born with abnormalities/ dysfunction. That happens all the time, anyways, for natural reasons.

4- Should it be prosecuted, if she is in possession of illegal drugs? Sure- to the same extent anyone else is prosecuted, including men. USING drugs indicates that she was driving or already neglecting or abusing her own children, etc, and drug use was already reported or suspected. Women should not be subjected to random drug tests/ beathalyzer tests by the gov't just because they are pregnant. That is absurd.

3 - isn't Jackson's doctor being held accountable? Anna Nicole Smith's? Prescription drug abuse is the same as illegal drug abuse and the doctors are considered responsible if they act as "dealers" especially if it results in harm and especially death of a person they are responsible for.

4- Considering the drain on society associated with defects from drug/alcohol abuse in utero I don't think it's such a stretch for doctors to add a drug screening to any one of the numerous general blood tests performed during pregnancy. If nothing else THAT could be an early indication of a need for treatment for the mother.

No way- The third week of gestation is supposedly the time during the pregnancy when the embryo (not fetus) is most prone to being affected by drugs, alcohol, or the mother getting sick, according to the US surgeon general. Considering the fact that 50% of all women in the world will have an unplanned pregnancy in their lifetime, then it stands to reason that 1/4- 1/3 of all births were not being planned either. Many people try to claim that fetal alcohol syndrome and all this, is "entirely preventable", but really this is a pipe dream. A three week pregnant woman may not have even missed a period yet.

The separation here is intent. You can not knowingly harm a person you do not know exists. Once the pregnancy is determined though- you can't play the "I didn't know" card with any amount of legitimacy.

PS- Why should anyone get "treatment" just because the baby was born with one of these conditions, and not because the woman was a known alcoholic/ drug user?

Do you know of responsible drug users? Anybody that can't abstain from alcohol to the point it shows in a newborn's blood system needs to realize there IS a problem.

Also, saying that someone should get treatment or have the children removed, because there ended up being a problem for the born children, also implies that children who witness abuse, or get injured by an abusive parent, should also be removed, even though the mother left and went to a safe house to protect her children, after. Should the abuser get treatment, in all cases, too? Or should the woman's kids get taken away, because of something happening that (like the pregnancy or fetal alcohol syndrome) could not be prevented because she could not forsee it happening?

I honestly don't understand what you are saying here. Are you referring to a parent that would somehow be completely unaware that beating their child or allowing them to witness abuse could be damaging to the child?

I am not against people getting treatment, or kids getting taken from the parents for abuse or neglect problems that were forseeable, etc.. I just ask that people be consistent in their assertions of this type.

The problem as I see it is there is no consistency in place. I am curious as to the average ordinary citizen's opinion. What do those NOT involved in these situations feel is in the best interest of the child?

Shouldn't ANY child be taken away permanently if they've been abused?

Should they? Absolutely. Problem - no consensus on what is considered abuse. Some here feel using drugs during pregnancy is abuse. Some feel it isn't. Some think spanking is. Some think it isn't.

No.

One size fits all punishments are never a good idea.

Also it's possible for people to become not abusive.

Mostly b/c there are no once size fits all definitions of what is abuse -see above.

It may be possible for them to become not abusive but the child should not have to wait for that day to come. Give them a chance at a stable life while the ADULT goes to straighten themselves out. If the adult gets it together- they can try to start fresh w/a new family- maybe pay back karmic debt by taking in an abused child.

I just don't support shuffling a kid back and forth waiting for the person that is supposed to be grown up to get it together.

Yep I agree with that.. People can become sober. Plus, drinking in and of itself is not neglectful or abusive towards children.

Drinking is not. Abusing alcohol around children is. It is not safe to have a child exposed to drunk adults.

A four year old might not be able to be trusted to answer the door or phone, or be left alone for longer than 15 minutes, but four year olds can often times make a sandwich themselves, or even a hot dog, in the microwave. My son took the initiative to make his own hot dogs, because he ate so many of them when he was little, he wanted to be able to do it himself. I showed him which button to push on the microwave (30 seconds) and he did it, and he was not quite four and a half. I supervised him doing this for a good month or so, but once he got into a good habit of how to remove it safely, and to wait for the dog to cool down, before eating it, I no longer had to be all that concerned about it. The only rule after that was that he let me know when he is having a hot dog, because of the choking hazard associated with hot dogs and little kids.

I find that explaining things to my kid helps him to not resist my authority in the matter. I know some people say "bcause I said so", but that doesn't teach a kid anything but to be submissive. To me, that is the worst kind of neglect out there- failure to educate your own offspring. Better to tll them why you decided something, and give them the power of making informed decisions later, rather than just rebelling and not understanding your whole logic behind those decisions of "no", earlier in their lives.

Do you think you would have the patience and understanding to take this time with your child if you were drunk or high?

 

[JD_2B]

I've worked with "disaffected youth" my entire adult life. I have never heard of a child being taken away for being left at a theme park. The kids I know in foster care have suffered unconscienable acts of sex abuse, physical abuse, and total neglect. Maybe NJ is easier on the parents. I don't know. But in almost 100% of the cases, drugs or alcohol were a factor. Addicts cannot properly raise children. No ifs ands or buts about it.

Unfortunately there are never enough foster homes. I foresee a day in the near future that we go back to orphanages. Too many kids being thrown away. It disgusts me.

NJ probably is easier on the parents, but this happened in Denver, CO. In Colorado, there are a LOT of social services workers, and apparently they do not have enough work.
I had social services come to my house, because my 4 year old was playing in the front yard alone (I was watching from a window, sitting in a chair, FACING the window, next to the front door, just not outside, because I was eating chicken wings and had sauce all over my shirt.) This was in a small town, a VERY small town, and some older gentleman STOPPED his car, and got out on the other side of the road. Now, the "main drag" in this town, on our end, probably got a whole 50 cars a DAY coming down it, and my son was not IN the fucking street, until this idiot (a stranger) pulled up on the other side of the street, and got out, and I was rushing outside, seeing this happening, and he was talking to my son, who was running into the street to greet this man. He did not get that far- I snatched him back (gently of course) and told the man that he shouldn't be talking to kids he doesn't know, and to get the hell out of here, etc.
Well, five fucking minutes later, I had social services pulling up, claiming that they had a report of my child playing in the street. The neighbors even saw the whole thing, and said the same thing I just said. Well, they just left and regardless, I STILL got a LETTER from social services, threatening me about "supervising" my kid.

BUT HERE'S WHY AND THIS IS THE WORST PART!!!

It was fucking ridiculous. I told everyone I knew, and apparently Social Services (Child welfare, whatever you want to call it) would come to anyone's home, even if they have a fenced yard, if there were kids under the age of seven or eight, maybe even 10, back there by themselves. What a freaking joke. Thats Colorado for ya. Those people don't have anything to do, is all, so they harass parents and act like a bunch of sociopaths. I even made friends with one lady, who was disabled, and had a disabled daughter, and I later found out that the lady had some kind of run in with one of the gals who came to my house, but like 20 years prior, and she told me that she actually pushed her off of her front steps, onto the ground, and was ready to start swinging. WOW. Crazy town, I guess, considering the less than warm welcome me and my son got. (three weeks after moving there!!) I had sold an inherited house, and paid in full for the new house with a check, so apparently there were a bunch of rumors going around that I was some kind of a drug dealer, which was the only way a 25 year old could afford something like that, to those fuckwads. Un fucking real. Took me six months to dissipate that fucking rumor, and I had to show a few people the copy of my old deed, death records, etc, to restore my reputation, which was ruined originally by no fault of my own. That is the primary reason why I try hard to not make snap judgments about people, now, or a judgment based solely on things I have heard. What a headache that turned out to be.

Glad I don't live there anymore!! LOL!!! Good BYE!! =) I'm telling ya- some places are just LIKE that.

 

[Anguille]

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

Do you think an unborn child can be a victim?

No. A fetus is a part of a pregnant woman. Only the pregnant woman is victimized if her fetus is harmed against her will. She is also harmed if she is denied the right to abort it.

Do you think women who have abortions should be charged with murder?

 

[JD_2B]

I say try these "miscarriage/ stillbirth as a result of a violent crime" cases in regards to the loss of pregnancy, in civil court- but also, if a woman wants to press charges for the attack on HER, then she should push for the person being tried for aggravated battery on a pregnant woman.

What do you suppose should be the damages awarded for such a case in civil court? Do you really think there is a monetary value that would make such a criminal be punished as well as a jail term? I just doubt many of the people willing to abuse or kill a pregnant woman are millionaires......

So? Who said that she would be awarded millions anyways?? That could be considered frivolous, anyways, because the proof has to be that the fetus died at his hands, and not by natural causes, anyways. And why millions? Why not a few grand?? I am sure plenty of women would be more than happy with a few thousand dollars, for compensation. Million dollar fetuses. Get fucking real.

3- Drug abuse.. Uh didn't Michael Jackson and Elvis both unknowingly die from contraindications or being prescribed doses that were too high in their drug use? Assuming that the woman is not using any illegal drugs (which is practically an oxymoron, by the way) then how can this even be proven?
She may have just moved into a house where meth used to be cooked. She may not have any clue what kinds of drugs she is being fed. Besides, the proof (I saw this mentioned earlier) is not enough that a fetus was miscarried or stillborn, or born with abnormalities/ dysfunction. That happens all the time, anyways, for natural reasons.

4- Should it be prosecuted, if she is in possession of illegal drugs? Sure- to the same extent anyone else is prosecuted, including men. USING drugs indicates that she was driving or already neglecting or abusing her own children, etc, and drug use was already reported or suspected. Women should not be subjected to random drug tests/ beathalyzer tests by the gov't just because they are pregnant. That is absurd.

3 - isn't Jackson's doctor being held accountable? Anna Nicole Smith's? Prescription drug abuse is the same as illegal drug abuse and the doctors are considered responsible if they act as "dealers" especially if it results in harm and especially death of a person they are responsible for. [/quote]

Exactly my point. MJ and Elvis were not pregnant, though, and one would have to prove that the time of death of the fetus was at the same time as the time of death of the mother, for the same cause, and not caused by a forseeable contraindication that the doctor would have known about. Also, Doctors are generally criminally immune and often times civilly immune, in cases of health care administered in "good faith", so even the doctor for MJ might not be on the hook for anything HE ACTUALLY did WRONG.

4- Considering the drain on society associated with defects from drug/alcohol abuse in utero I don't think it's such a stretch for doctors to add a drug screening to any one of the numerous general blood tests performed during pregnancy. If nothing else THAT could be an early indication of a need for treatment for the mother.

Drug tests by doctors are personal and private health related information. Not admissable. Doctor Patient Privilege and privacy rights. Besides, most women who are on all kinds of drugs are not going to pay for a fucking drug test, or even go see the doctor and get the necessary prenatal care, because they don't have jobs, and are generally uninsured, and lack the resources required to apply for the benefits they need.
With fetal alcohol syndrome, what the hell- If someone doesn't expect to be pregnant and does not even KNOW they are pregnant then how can any tests help at all??? Thats a bullcrap response.

The separation here is intent. You can not knowingly harm a person you do not know exists. Once the pregnancy is determined though- you can't play the "I didn't know" card with any amount of legitimacy.

According to the violence against unborn persons act, knowledge of the pregnancy is not a necessary tool to convict. Look it up, she linked it. That is why I am basing my arguments on the lack of knowledge. It is not fair to women.

Do you know of responsible drug users? Anybody that can't abstain from alcohol to the point it shows in a newborn's blood system needs to realize there IS a problem.

We aren't discussing newborns here, we are discussing fetuses who are stillborn. Please understand the difference.
And yes I know a few dozen drug users, a few who are social workers, a few who head up big companies, lawyers, cops, some big time musicians, and many many more who are employed, and work for an hourly wage. They smoke pot. Marijuana is not hazardous to anyone!!

PS- Walt Disney World is NOT a drug free workplace. They do not drug test there. Where do you think all that magic comes from, in the Magic Kingdom? LMAO!!!

Also, saying that someone should get treatment or have the children removed, because there ended up being a problem for the born children, also implies that children who witness abuse, or get injured by an abusive parent, should also be removed, even though the mother left and went to a safe house to protect her children, after. Should the abuser get treatment, in all cases, too? Or should the woman's kids get taken away, because of something happening that (like the pregnancy or fetal alcohol syndrome) could not be prevented because she could not forsee it happening?

I honestly don't understand what you are saying here. Are you referring to a parent that would somehow be completely unaware that beating their child or allowing them to witness abuse could be damaging to the child?

Again- you are jumping from one concept to another, from born children to an embryo who the mother does not even know is inside of her, who gets injured by alcohol or drug use, and is taken away from her even though she got sober and clean when she found out she was pregnant. Make the connection please. A person has to be pregnant for a couple weeks before they find out, usually. You can't criminalize someone for having a beer, even if they KNEW they were pregnant. It is not a big fucking deal, dude.
I don't even think that fetal alcohol syndrome is even REAL. It is FAR too rare to be real. It is probably some bullshit NAME made up to describe some other ailment that doctors do not understand, based on the sole fact that the women had a drink early on, or late into the pregnancy. It is just an anti abortionist, bullshit means of trying to find one more way to criminalize women, by hateful fucking misogynists. Basically, the site below will confirm to you that FAS is really just a NEW birth defect, like down's syndrome. The procedure for diagnosis leaves a LOT of question marks, because the doctors can STOP and JUST diagnose FAS, rather than going on and doing more tests to see if there is an actual underlying condition that is more treatable, and won't destroy the mother emotionally.

FAS - State of Alaska DHSS Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Website

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]A diagnosis of alcohol-related effects may also be made with or without confirmed maternal alcohol exposure.[/FONT]

Not to mention the fact that our bodies actually CREATE alcohol through the food and drinks we consume.

Drinking May Alter Thyroid Function
Janary 18, 2002
JTO News Summary

A new study found that drinking alcohol may alter thyroid function in pregnant women and their unborn children, Reuters reported Jan. 16.

The study by researchers at Texas A&M University was conducted on mother sheep and their unborn lambs. The researchers simulated human binge-drinking behavior in sheep that were in their third trimester of pregnancy. The sheep were given either doses of alcohol or saline solution for three days, followed by four days with no alcohol or saline. The researchers then measured levels of thyroid hormone in the animals' blood.

The researchers discovered that alcohol consumption reduced the levels of thyroid hormone in both the sheep and the fetus.

"The administration of alcohol to sheep during the equivalent of the third trimester of pregnancy resulted in altered thyroid function in both the mother and fetus," said lead researcher Dr. Timothy A. Cudd.

Since thyroid hormone is necessary for proper brain development in humans, the study may provide a link between thyroid function and alcohol-related birth defects.

The study is published in the January issue of the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 2002;26:53-58

So, apparently, it must also be that thyroid DYSFUNCTION can also cause brain damage.. which is obviously the ultimate CAUSE of FAS. Again, no INTENT.

PS- I am not trying to claim that FAS is non existent altogether, but it is being treated much the same damn way ADHD kids are diagnosed and then treated with waivers and shit for their standardized tests and all that.. Another bullshit condition, used as an excuse for Doctors to not do their jobs right, and for schools to waive kids with poor focus (maybe from a vitamin deficiency even) so that they can keep their jobs and the school can get their bonuses. Check all that standardized test pay scheduling out on your own time, but here is a list of conditions that mimic ADHD, which will be completely overlooked all because some doctor is too moronic or lazy to do their job right.
50 Conditions that mimic ADHD « Take note…..my cleansing journey

I am not against people getting treatment, or kids getting taken from the parents for abuse or neglect problems that were forseeable, etc.. I just ask that people be consistent in their assertions of this type.

The problem as I see it is there is no consistency in place. I am curious as to the average ordinary citizen's opinion. What do those NOT involved in these situations feel is in the best interest of the child?

Having the child removed, at least temporarily, as I just said. When I say consistency, I mean consistency across the board, if this fetus shit was to fly. There logically cant be different standard set with fetuses than with children, if any legitimate legal protections would be afforded to a fetus..

Should they? Absolutely. Problem - no consensus on what is considered abuse. Some here feel using drugs during pregnancy is abuse. Some feel it isn't. Some think spanking is. Some think it isn't.

Well, that logic goes hand in hand with "I agree with ABC laws but not XYZ other laws, or the MNO aspect of XYZ law, because making this criminal is okay but that criminal statute doesn't suit me."
And that is where autonomy comes into play, with pregnant women, and I close the book. =)

It may be possible for them to become not abusive but the child should not have to wait for that day to come. Give them a chance at a stable life while the ADULT goes to straighten themselves out. If the adult gets it together- they can try to start fresh w/a new family- maybe pay back karmic debt by taking in an abused child.

Why would a woman and man who got their shit together, and followed all the rules have to be forced to stay away from their own kid indefinitely?? How does that help the kid? That is absurd!!!

I just don't support shuffling a kid back and forth waiting for the person that is supposed to be grown up to get it together.

They don't shuffle kids back and forth with parents. They take the kids once, and if the parents dont try to make it work for the kids, then the kids are put into a series of foster homes, where they will likely get beaten, sexually abused, and neglected even worse than they did at home.
I guess you don't know many people who spent their entire childhood in foster care, but I have known a few, and they had a ROUGH time of it.

The fact is- people who have BEEN THROUGH abuse are simply EASIER TO Abuse. And the people who do the abusing get away with it more and more, the older the child gets, and the more ACCUSTOMED to it they become. They begin to EXPECT to be abused. Yes- they DO. It SUCKS but that is how it works. That is why battered women will break up with one guy, wait the expected period of time to get into another relationship, and then end up at square one. They don't know how to expect to be treated, are extremely apologetic, and people take advantage of this, so they end up neglected and abused. Everyone has an abuser in them, I believe. It is just a matter of finding someone willing to put up with it. That is the trouble with foster homes. Too many kids getting abused, undetected, because rather than recovering, they are in the same situation, in concept, that they were in before.

Yep I agree with that.. People can become sober. Plus, drinking in and of itself is not neglectful or abusive towards children.

Drinking is not. Abusing alcohol around children is. It is not safe to have a child exposed to drunk adults.

How so?

PS- most people who ABUSE alcohol rarely get drunk.

A four year old might not be able to be trusted to answer the door or phone, or be left alone for longer than 15 minutes, but four year olds can often times make a sandwich themselves, or even a hot dog, in the microwave. My son took the initiative to make his own hot dogs, because he ate so many of them when he was little, he wanted to be able to do it himself. I showed him which button to push on the microwave (30 seconds) and he did it, and he was not quite four and a half. I supervised him doing this for a good month or so, but once he got into a good habit of how to remove it safely, and to wait for the dog to cool down, before eating it, I no longer had to be all that concerned about it. The only rule after that was that he let me know when he is having a hot dog, because of the choking hazard associated with hot dogs and little kids.

I find that explaining things to my kid helps him to not resist my authority in the matter. I know some people say "bcause I said so", but that doesn't teach a kid anything but to be submissive. To me, that is the worst kind of neglect out there- failure to educate your own offspring. Better to tll them why you decided something, and give them the power of making informed decisions later, rather than just rebelling and not understanding your whole logic behind those decisions of "no", earlier in their lives.

Do you think you would have the patience and understanding to take this time with your child if you were drunk or high?

Yeah I used to smoke pot every day, after my son was born. Did it for at least a year. My son always had a clean diaper, a fresh bottle, medical care, love and attention, etc. I got high a few times after that, not recently, but never had any problems then either. I have also been drunk around my kid, too. (two beers and I am drunk!) Even took him to a few bars. What is the big deal? My dad smoked pot when I was younger, not in front of me, and he was a board certified trial lawyer. He was also a functional alcoholic. Always had a beer in his hand. Canned Budweiser.
I have no idea how often he got drunk..
Actually- My sister said that she had to drive him home from the bar one night, when she was 11. It was a small town, though, and we both already had lots of driving experience on our little private road, so it was not THAT big of a deal. That was about 25 years ago.. But that kind of thing, that is screwed up. She said she had to do it one time, but that was all. He could have asked someone to drive us home, or waited and slept in the truck with us overnight, but I am afraid that would have been more scary than my sister driving, lol. I don't even remember it, myself. I often wonder if that was a figment of her imagination.. But anyways, driving drunk is the worst thing to do, and having a skilled younger, not yet of age, is GENERALLY the next worst thing to do, IMHO.. But in our situation, it wasn't technically a bad decision, even though it was technically illegal. My sister had been writing the governor, her congressmen, etc, to try to get them to lower the legal driving age to 12, because she knew the whole driver's handbook cover to cover, and could parallel park and everything!! LOL!!! So.. It just depends on the situation, I think. =)

 

[geauxtohell]

I was curious as to what the Pro Choice members have to say about unborn victims of violence.

In 2004 the United States passed a law declaring that unborn children can be considered the victims of violence. Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you think an unborn child can be a victim? Does it matter if the harm is inflicted by the mother or by another individual? What about drug abuse or drinking during pregnancy - should that be prosecuted as abuse or endangerment?

I support the laws as they are written. If a mother chooses to terminate her pregnancy up to the legal limit (how ever many weeks that is), she has that autonomy as a patient.

(I would also extend a patient's right to autonomy to include assisted suicide in line with the Oregon model.)

If someone else chooses to harm her fetus, then they are guilty of crimes against two people.

If a mother chooses to harm her fetus by consuming alcohol (even one drink can harm a fetus) or do drugs, then she deserves what she gets if caught, which is a visit by child welfare, which was the practice when I was on the labor and delivery ward.

You may see that as being massively hypocritical, but I don't really care.

I see the GOP's stance on this as massively hypocritical. They were in complete control for six years and did nothing to try and stop abortion. They never will either. It's not in their political best interest to get rid of abortion, so they will not.

 

[geauxtohell]

Drug tests by doctors are personal and private health related information. Not admissable. Doctor Patient Privilege and privacy rights. Besides, most women who are on all kinds of drugs are not going to pay for a fucking drug test, or even go see the doctor and get the necessary prenatal care, because they don't have jobs, and are generally uninsured, and lack the resources required to apply for the benefits they need.

You are absolutely incorrect in this regard. When the welfare of another person is involved, Doctor/Patient confidentiality goes out the window.

If someone comes into your office and verbalizes a specific threat, you are obligated to report it. Likewise, if a woman comes up to the Labor/Delivary ward and comes up hot on a UA test, you are obligated to report it. It is admissible, and the law is very much involved.

No woman who is using drugs would request a UA, the physicians do it if they are concerned about the child.

At any rate, there is no blanket confidentiality in medical records. They can all be obtained through court order.

You are also wrong about this:

I don't even think that fetal alcohol syndrome is even REAL. It is FAR too rare to be real. It is probably some bullshit NAME made up to describe some other ailment that doctors do not understand, based on the sole fact that the women had a drink early on, or late into the pregnancy. It is just an anti abortionist, bullshit means of trying to find one more way to criminalize women, by hateful fucking misogynists. Basically, the site below will confirm to you that FAS is really just a NEW birth defect, like down's syndrome. The procedure for diagnosis leaves a LOT of question marks, because the doctors can STOP and JUST diagnose FAS, rather than going on and doing more tests to see if there is an actual underlying condition that is more treatable, and won't destroy the mother emotionally.

The phenotypic changes to a child with FAS are constant and steady. Alcohol is neurotoxic and crosses the placenta, as to the metabolites, acetaldehyde and acetyl alcohol. It's not a new "birth defect", it's just that it is now being recognized. (BTW, where on earth did you ever come up with the idea that "Downs" is a "new" thing?)

A new study found that drinking alcohol may alter thyroid function in pregnant women and their unborn children.....The researchers discovered that alcohol consumption reduced the levels of thyroid hormone in both the sheep and the fetus.

So, apparently, it must also be that thyroid DYSFUNCTION can also cause brain damage.. which is obviously the ultimate CAUSE of FAS. Again, no INTENT.

Yes. You are absolutely correct. Thyroid dysfunction causes brain damage to a fetus. The (politically incorrect) term is cretinism. A child's brain requires thyroxine (thyroid hormone) for development well into it's first year. It derives thyroxine from the mother. Which is why physicians monitor maternal Thyroid Stimulating Hormones/Thyroid Function so closely. You might not have realized this, but when you were in the hospital during your pregnancy, and they did labs, that is one of the labs they did. If you were hypothyroidic, they would have treated you and your child by giving you exogenous thyroid hormone.

You've mis-interpreted the conclusions of the article. You correctly stated that we don't know the mechanism of damage behind FAS. The study seems to suggest that pathology is that drinking alcohol makes the mother hypothyroidic.

 

[JD_2B]

Drug tests by doctors are personal and private health related information. Not admissable. Doctor Patient Privilege and privacy rights. Besides, most women who are on all kinds of drugs are not going to pay for a fucking drug test, or even go see the doctor and get the necessary prenatal care, because they don't have jobs, and are generally uninsured, and lack the resources required to apply for the benefits they need.

You are absolutely incorrect in this regard. When the welfare of another person is involved, Doctor/Patient confidentiality goes out the window.

Except with pregnant women's personal health rights in regards to their pregnancies. This would be barred from evidence, by Supreme Court ruling. Roe V. Wade.

If someone comes into your office and verbalizes a specific threat, you are obligated to report it. Likewise, if a woman comes up to the Labor/Delivary ward and comes up hot on a UA test, you are obligated to report it. It is admissible, and the law is very much involved.

Only because it is drugs.. And only if the drugs are not prescribed to her. It is not illegal to have alcohol in one's system, at any stage of pregnancy, so this does not mandate suspicion of abuse or neglect.
If you claim this to be true across the board for UA tests and blood tests, then what about blood tests with aspirin in them, also?? For god's sake, its not fucking ABUSE or NEGLECT to take aspirin. Just because the woman is pregnant does not make her a fucking petri dish for everyone to try to find some ridiculous reason to prosecute her for fucking neglect, over whatever she puts into her system, LEGALLY. Stop trying to ADD something to my argument that does not exist. The reporting of ANYONE is mandatory if they have illegal drugs in their system. That is because illegal drugs are ILLEGAL.

No woman who is using drugs would request a UA, the physicians do it if they are concerned about the child.

Its not a fucking child. And no doctor will get that opportunity, if she is an irresponsible druggie, the way you depict her to be.

At any rate, there is no blanket confidentiality in medical records. They can all be obtained through court order.

Agreed, but lets just say that the woman eats a bagel every morning that happens to have poppy seeds on it. She will test positive for opiates. If she eats a lot of strawberries, or smokes Clove cigarettes, she will test positive for THC. This stuff is naturally occurring and is NOT conclusive that someone is a druggie or is being neglectful or abusive, in the first place. Besides, a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law. That means that the prosecution must also prove that whatever problems happened to a stillborn fetus/ just born infant who died, did not occur from natural circumstances. Drug use and fetal alcohol syndrome are facades to facilitate legal actions against women based purely on circumstantial evidence. That is fucking bullshit.

You are also wrong about this:

I don't even think that fetal alcohol syndrome is even REAL. It is FAR too rare to be real. It is probably some bullshit NAME made up to describe some other ailment that doctors do not understand, based on the sole fact that the women had a drink early on, or late into the pregnancy. It is just an anti abortionist, bullshit means of trying to find one more way to criminalize women, by hateful fucking misogynists. Basically, the site below will confirm to you that FAS is really just a NEW birth defect, like down's syndrome. The procedure for diagnosis leaves a LOT of question marks, because the doctors can STOP and JUST diagnose FAS, rather than going on and doing more tests to see if there is an actual underlying condition that is more treatable, and won't destroy the mother emotionally.

The phenotypic changes to a child with FAS are constant and steady. Alcohol is neurotoxic and crosses the placenta, as to the metabolites, acetaldehyde and acetyl alcohol. It's not a new "birth defect", it's just that it is now being recognized. (BTW, where on earth did you ever come up with the idea that "Downs" is a "new" thing?)

It isn't NEW. I never said it was, anyways. I was saying it is LIKE down's syndrome, in many ways. It is only recently that the cause of the SYMPTOMS of Down's were figured out. That took almost a hundred years. How many kids were wrongly diagnosed during that 100 years anyways..

And yes the sites I gave you show that Fetal Alcohol syndrome is related to a thyroid dysfunction. How else do you think women who did not drink alcohol ended up having babies with FAS? Christ!! FAS can happen from someone drinking non alcoholic drinks and eating regular food. Explain to me how you would prosecute women who are mothers to babies born with this condition, then. C'mon, you can do it.

A new study found that drinking alcohol may alter thyroid function in pregnant women and their unborn children.....The researchers discovered that alcohol consumption reduced the levels of thyroid hormone in both the sheep and the fetus.

So, apparently, it must also be that thyroid DYSFUNCTION can also cause brain damage.. which is obviously the ultimate CAUSE of FAS. Again, no INTENT.

Yes. You are absolutely correct. Thyroid dysfunction causes brain damage to a fetus. The (politically incorrect) term is cretinism. A child's brain requires thyroxine (thyroid hormone) for development well into it's first year. It derives thyroxine from the mother. Which is why physicians monitor maternal Thyroid Stimulating Hormones/Thyroid Function so closely. You might not have realized this, but when you were in the hospital during your pregnancy, and they did labs, that is one of the labs they did. If you were hypothyroidic, they would have treated you and your child by giving you exogenous thyroid hormone.

You've mis-interpreted the conclusions of the article. You correctly stated that we don't know the mechanism of damage behind FAS. The study seems to suggest that pathology is that drinking alcohol makes the mother hypothyroidic.

And YOU failed to see the big picture here, that hypothyroidism is not LIMITED to women who drink.

Hypothyroidism And Pregnancy

Hypothyroidism can develop during or after pregnancy. It also can affect a woman's ability to become pregnant.

A woman has a 25% higher risk for developing hypothyroidism after pregnancy if she has diabetes or another autoimmune disorder. A miscarriage may be an indication that antithyroid antibodies were present before pregnancy. These antibodies do not cause the miscarriage, but seem to be a marker for other immune system problems that can lead to pregnancy loss.
How Hypothyroidism Can Affect Pregnancy

Hypothyroidism can affect pregnancy in several ways:

• It can cause infertility in women because it can prevent the production of eggs.
• A pregnant woman with hypothyroidism is at higher risk for miscarriage.
• Women with untreated hypothyroidism near the time of delivery are in danger of developing high blood pressure and premature delivery.
• Babies born to women with untreated hypothyroidism may not achieve their full intellectual potential.

Untreated hypothyroidism can cause serious problems for an unborn child, so many experts recommend that all pregnant women be tested for thyroid function during the pregnancy.

As soon as fetus rights begin to trump women's rights to privacy and freedom, using this bullshit excuse of a condition, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, as a means to incarcerate them, I will be on y'all's asses for not forcing all pregnant women to get their thyroid tested as early as is reasonably possible, as well.

This is GOING to happen. Fetuses do not ALL have FAS, even if they have the same symptoms. Not all kids diagnosed with ADHD have that, either, even if they were diagnosed and show the symptoms.

Stop being an asshat, and take a look around you.