Tobacco, alcohol, and pro-lifers

[Darth Wong]

How many pro-lifers feel that a woman who drinks alcohol or smokes during pregnancy should be charged with aggravated assault causing grievous bodily harm?

I'm curious how many of them truly live up to their rhetoric of believing that a fetus should be treated from the day of conception exactly as if it were any person.

[Petrosjko]

That takes a depth of thought that they generally don't put into the issue.

I'd be interested in hearing the answer to that one myself. I honestly have no idea.

[Darth Servo]

I think asshole women like that are almost as bad as ones who get late term abortions (for reasons other than say, safety of the mother).

[Terr Fangbite]

I think charges should be put upon a woman who not only screws with her life but the life of her future child.

[Firefox]

What are the statistics regarding birth and developmental defects related to smoking?

[Queeb Salaron]

Anyone remember the thread about that woman in Alabama (IIRC) who sued a vibrator manufacturer for giving her child birth defects, and the picture accompanying the article was of the pregnant mother smoking a cigarette? People like that should be shot. Twice. Right in the forehead.

As for the legal ramifications of drinking/smoking during pregnancy, I bet if pro-lifers thought they could get away with it, they'd infiltrate DA offices nationwide and start hauling in bad mothers by the bucketful. I, for one, wouldn't be opposed to such action.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

What do you think about drinking, smoking? I am pro abortion generally, but couldn't a woman, if she wanted, be safe from any consequences by aborting? I know a lot of women wouldn't do that, but how would you stop the few who would (even if were justified) if the foetus doesn't have moral personhood or autonomy at that stage?

Couldn't they drink, and if it could do damage, get an abortion? What would be the ethics of that?

[Broomstick]

The "punish the drinking, smoking mother" schemes all suffer from one problem - a woman doesn't always know when she's pregnant. In fact, although statistically rare, every year there are women who don't realize they're pregnant until they go into labor. In fact, we just had a thread about one such incident a couple weeks ago right here on SD.net.

More typically, the greatest damage is done during the first trimester - which is when a woman is also most likely to be pregnant without realizing it. Remember - NO birth control is 100% reliable. Nor does any woman have 100% regular/reliable cycles.

So... either a certain number of women unintentionally smoke/drink/whatever during pregnancy, or you forbid all women of childbearing years from engaging in any of the these activities, or you forcibly require frequent pregnancy testing of all women of child-bearing years.

Now, if a woman knows she's pregnant... that's different.

[Pick]

An interesting topic to bring up, but of course, the answer from a pro-lifer would probably be, "Hey, that's not the same!" because at that point it had become personally inconvenient.

It still works for the fetus' right not to be aborted in their eyes, of course. You know, pick and choose. It's pretty popular.

Goddamn pro-lifers.

Also, what kind of self-righteous asshole calls themself 'pro-life'? Call yourself something else for your oh-so-precious God's sake! I dunno. 'pro-fucking with other peoples lives.'

[Queeb Salaron]

[quote="Boyish-Tigerlilly"]Couldn't they drink, and if it could do damage, get an abortion? What would be the ethics of that? [quote]
Tricky, that's what they'd be.

Theoretically, if a mother is knowingly causing the fetus harm, it is conceivable that an abortion would actually be a humane way of ending an otherwise tortured existence. Of course, pro-lifers wouldn't see it that way, and they make a compelling case: Children born with FAS, for example, stand a good chance of leading normal lives. But there is always the chance that the child will be born with such greivous injuries that its life, however breif it might be, would be an exercize in pain and darkness. In this respect, an abortion might be nothing more than the euthanization of a suffering unborn child, or a child who is about to be born into a world of said pain and darkness.

Of course, I'm of the opinion that if you're so careless as to willingly deform a child for your own amusement, you're an unfit mother anyway. And while abortion hardly seems acceptible in this case (to me, anyway) there are few other alternatives.

[Petrosjko]

Also, what kind of self-righteous asshole calls themself 'pro-life'? Call yourself something else for your oh-so-precious God's sake! I dunno. 'pro-fucking with other peoples lives.'

I knew somebody who used to go on at length about that.

"Calling themselves pro-life! What does that make me, pro-death?"

"If you'd actually pay attention to what they're saying, yes indeed it does."

[Wicked Pilot]

As a matter or principle I say either have kids properly or don't have kids at all. Even though most wouldn't consider me pro-life I would support such laws if they were practical.

[Darth Servo]

As a matter or principle I say either have kids properly or don't have kids at all. Even though most wouldn't consider me pro-life I would support such laws if they were practical.

In the case of the above scenario, why would such laws be impractical? If the infant shows any signs of FAS or other dru related problem, throw the book at the mother.[/b][/list]

[Queeb Salaron]

I knew somebody who used to go on at length about that.

"Calling themselves pro-life! What does that make me, pro-death?"

"If you'd actually pay attention to what they're saying, yes indeed it does."

Yeah. I am totally pro-death. I think death is a very necessary part of existence. Specifically the end of it. I mean, without death, can you even imagine the number of people who would be running around? It's sickening to think about.

Seriously, you have to think that if there was a way for people to become immortal, pro-lifers would have a field day backing it. "Wait... no one has to die EVER? Jesus-My-Lord-And-Savior-Whose-Divine-Cock-Tastes-Of-Cadbury-Chocolate, praise be! My prayers are realized!"

Of course, then we'd all be perfectly justified in shooting those fuckers in the head.

I think I just gave the whole of HAB a collective hardon...

[Petrosjko]

Yeah. I am totally pro-death. I think death is a very necessary part of existence. Specifically the end of it. I mean, without death, can you even imagine the number of people who would be running around? It's sickening to think about.

Seriously, you have to think that if there was a way for people to become immortal, pro-lifers would have a field day backing it. "Wait... no one has to die EVER? Jesus-My-Lord-And-Savior-Whose-Divine-Cock-Tastes-Of-Cadbury-Chocolate, praise be! My prayers are realized!"

Of course, then we'd all be perfectly justified in shooting those fuckers in the head.

I think I just gave the whole of HAB a collective hardon...

Actually, that's the second good question of the thread. Now honestly, I don't think that the rank and file of what constitutes the core fundy groups would be against some form of immortality treatment, because they want to live as much as anybody and aren't the diehard fanatics they're often made out to be.

On the other hand, the true fanatics and loudmouths, the ones who truly believe that life on Earth is just a sort of purgatory to endure before getting the eternal reward... how they would respond would be most interesting indeed. How solid is that faith again, pal?

Probable result would be a lot of long-lived religious figures scooping the funding off of their flocks to pay for treatment, a la Mother Theresa.

[Darth Wong]

Now, if a woman knows she's pregnant... that's different.

When Rebecca and I went to pre-natal class (in a small town, which is much of the problem), half the class left at breaktime to go smoke outside. Fucking idiots ... and when a pediatrician told them that they should stop, they yelled at him because he was trying to force his "big city ideas down our throats."

[Wicked Pilot]

In the case of the above scenario, why would such laws be impractical? If the infant shows any signs of FAS or other drug related problem, throw the book at the mother.

Did you not read Broomstick's dissertation of how some women get pregant without knowing it? Not being an expert on pregancy by any extent I tend to listen to those who know what they're talking about. Perhaps you should ask them.

[Darth Wong]

It is worth noting, however, that the vast majority of pregnant women do in fact know that they're pregnant, and that if someone were to make it a criminal offense, their attempt to claim ignorance of their pregnant status could always be used as a defense in court. Mind you, it wouldn't be that hard to contest either, since a doctor's visit and pregnancy test (which most women do get once they miss a period by more than a couple of weeks) would confirm that she obviously knew.

[Alyeska]

I think that smoking while pregnant should be outlawed. Drinking while pregnant should be severaly restricted if not outright banned. Smoking causes permanent affects that build after each time someone smokes. IIRC, drinking in very low doses does not cause harm nor build up over time with a pregnant woman. However, good parents says you should avoid both outright for safetyies sake.

[Broomstick]

It is worth noting, however, that the vast majority of pregnant women do in fact know that they're pregnant, and that if someone were to make it a criminal offense, their attempt to claim ignorance of their pregnant status could always be used as a defense in court. Mind you, it wouldn't be that hard to contest either, since a doctor's visit and pregnancy test (which most women do get once they miss a period by more than a couple of weeks) would confirm that she obviously knew.

I did say that if a woman knew she was pregnant and drank or smoked that could be punished, and as Wong points out, medical records could be used in court.

But, again, if prior to that doctor's visit/pregnancy test she drinks/smokes/whatever ... well, it's ealy in the pregnancy the damage and the most severe damage typically occurs. A woman who is four weeks pregnant who goes out and has 2-3 beers is putting her baby (which she probably is only beginning to suspect exists) at far greater risk than a woman nine months pregnant who drinks the same - because at nine months the baby has a functional liver to help detoxify the booze.

The problem is still knowing when conception takes place. Thanks to much simplified testing, some women know within days, but certainly not all women. There is no easily discerned signal saying "Woman Pregnant" in our species. So, again, unless you forbid women of child bearing years from drinking entirely you will continue to have a certain overlap of alcohol and pregnancy. Fortunately, one or two drinks usually doesn't harm the child.

So in this case, I'd say there would have to be proof of harm, not proof of having a drink or two prior to knowing she's pregnant.

I think that smoking while pregnant should be outlawed. Drinking while pregnant should be severaly restricted if not outright banned. Smoking causes permanent affects that build after each time someone smokes. IIRC, drinking in very low doses does not cause harm nor build up over time with a pregnant woman. However, good parents says you should avoid both outright for safetyies sake.

You have that a little backward. Alcohol is actually much more toxic and likely to cause harm to a fetus than cigarette smoking by the mother. Niether is good, of course.

Back when I worked at the clinic, we had a unit specifically for pregnant woman on drugs. It runs counter to what most people would think, but of the substances people commonly put into their bodies, alcohol is one of the most toxic for the fetus, much more damaging than tobacco, pot, or heroin. (Cocaine is as bad, if not worse, than alcohol. Don't know about meth - we didn't have any meth-babes at the time - but I can't imagine that's good for mother and child, either). Our caseload proved that again and again.

After three years of tracking these woman (we typically had 30-40 at a time on the unit) and their resulting babies, we also demonstrated that a therapeutic/medical approach during the pregnancy rather than a punitive one resulted in much healthier babies. In other words, as much as you'd like to "throw the book at" the mother, it's better for the baby if you get her intensive treatment and support during her pregnancy to help her get off and stay off the drugs. If you're going to let the pregnancy go to term, assistance takes priority over incarceration.

Then again, that was with hardcore addicts who had to admit they had a problem and whom society thinks it's OK to abridge the rights of. The average Jane Smoker or Jane Beerdrinker refuses to put herself in the same category. She's going to resist giving up her little vices and scream at you about "rights" or something (like what Wong experienced) and convince herself that she'll cut back, that it's only a little bit....

I'm sorry - if you smoke daily you're an addict. Just like the lady snorting white powder up her elegant nose, or the filthy booze-soaked bum in the alley or the heroin junkie down the road. The social and economic consequences of your addiction may be different, but you're no less addicted.

Likewise, a social drinker is going to be able to give up alcohol for her baby as soon as she knows (or suspects) she's pregnant. A true alcholic, however, will NOT be able to do this. Certainly not on her own. If that's the situation, the best long-term solution isn't immediate jailing, it's getting her into a facility that can deal with her addiction and provide prenatal care. While it's not impossible to do this in a jail environment, historically that hasn't worked out very well.

It says something about pregnancy and motherhood that it's a time when a significant number of addict CAN force themselves to give up their chosen poison... but typically they relapse right after they recover from the birth. And there's a still a large group who can't abstain at all, for any significant length of time no matter what the incentive.

[The Silence and I]

How many pro-lifers feel that a woman who drinks alcohol or smokes during pregnancy should be charged with aggravated assault causing grievous bodily harm?

I'm curious how many of them truly live up to their rhetoric of believing that a fetus should be treated from the day of conception exactly as if it were any person.

I would have no problem supporting that, or something similar. Any woman who knowingly does that to an unborn child (and it is very hard not to know smoking and drinking harm unborn children) runs a good chance of significantly harming another person without any chance of defense. Try them for the criminals they are I say.

In fairness I would not want to try a woman who does this during a pregnacy BEFORE she knows about it; it's her right to drink and smoke and she has no reason to stop before she knows she is with child.

[Darth Servo]

In the case of the above scenario, why would such laws be impractical? If the infant shows any signs of FAS or other drug related problem, throw the book at the mother.

Did you not read Broomstick's dissertation of how some women get pregant without knowing it? Not being an expert on pregancy by any extent I tend to listen to those who know what they're talking about. Perhaps you should ask them.

If you don't know a gun is loaded and you point it at someone, pull the trigger and end up killing them, you still go to jail.

[Broomstick]

So, what are you saying? Women shouldn't be permitted to drink alcohol or smoke until they are past menopause because they might be pregnant at any time?

[Darth Servo]

So, what are you saying? Women shouldn't be permitted to drink alcohol or smoke until they are past menopause because they might be pregnant at any time?

I already said what I think. That if the child has any signs of birth defects from tobacco, alcohol, etc, say, brain damage, she should be just as responsible as if she beat the child on the head with a club.

[Darth Wong]

So, what are you saying? Women shouldn't be permitted to drink alcohol or smoke until they are past menopause because they might be pregnant at any time?

Duty of care. Any woman who has sex without contraception must be aware of the possibility of pregnancy and therefore has a duty of care to avoid alcohol and tobacco in order to avoid causing serious bodily harm. That is the kind of standard we apply for everybody else; if pro-lifers honestly believe fetuses should be treated the same as any child, then the standard applies for criminal negligence, if not outright assault.

In short, yes, any sexually active woman who is not using contraception should be disallowed from ever consuming any alcohol or tobacco if you subscribe to pro-lifers' rhetoric.

Unreasonable, you say? Well that's kind of the point I was trying to make, isn't it?