Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?[W:150

[choiceone]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

My mother was on Medicaid in Michigan when she was pregnant with my brother. During a UA at one visit she tested positive for marijuana and meth. She was told to cease her drug use immediately and advised that if she continued, particularly with the meth or other "hard" drugs, she would be considered guilty of child abuse against the then-6-month-gestated fetus. When she failed the next UA they put her in the hospital and blocked her access to the drugs. All visitors were screened.

Had she wanted to keep the baby it was pretty much guaranteed at that point that she would have been dealing with CPS/FPS and likely would not have been allowed to take the baby home immediately after birth. Because she was giving the baby up for adoption the state gave her a choice: therapy/rehab or jail time. She offered them a third option: She'd be sterilized if they dropped the charges. They agreed.

In answer to the question in the OP: If a woman has made it clear she intends to carry the child to term, whether to keep herself or give up for adoption, then ABSOLUTELY somebody should step in if the woman is actively participating in activities which she knows can/will harm the fetus. That is not to say she should be thrown in jail or forcefully sterilized or any other extreme "state-control" scenario. Therapy, rehab, counselling, and state intervention at birth are all viable and (IMO) necessary options that must be available. If the woman neglects the fetus or harms the fetus during pregnancy, there are serious risks of that harm continuing in other ways post-birth. The idea that we can't intervene while the baby resides in the uterus is ridiculous, especially when the precedent is set that we MUST intervene once the baby is born.

Now, if the woman doesn't WANT the pregnancy but lacks the means to acquire an abortion, if she rejects attempts to get her off the harmful substances then the state has a vested interest in helping her acquire one. A child born to a drug user or alcohol abuser will often be plagued by challenges that don't present themselves until early childhood (3-5)....from mental deficiencies to physical abnormalities to developmental delays...and it's mostly avoidable with the right approach.

I think it's a bit hypocritical to rail on about the rights of a woman over her body during the pregnancy, acting as if it's somehow sacrosanct..but the minute she gives birth we'll jump in and snatch the kid because NOW all of a sudden the risk to the child matters. I'm pro-choice in the sense that a woman should have access to a safe abortion prior to the point of viability unless the fetus is NOT viable or the mother's life is in jeopardy. At the same time, I don't think that necessarily means that we should have absolutely no say in sexual care (including prenatal care) and a woman's responsibilities. If we can pick organ recipients based upon their likelihood of risky behavior, if we can dictate behaviors for those undergoing weight loss procedures, if we can demand that doctors with specific specialties meet specific standards in EVERY OTHER AREA of health care...then we should be able to do the exact same things with pregnancy and sexual care. Nobody's "right" is trampled on by demanding better quality clinics or doctors, and a woman's "right" to abuse her fetus shouldn't be greater than her "right" to abuse her born child if she intends on carrying the child to term.

In NY, it's the same - if she wants an abortion and does not intend to carry the child to term, she doesn't have to make an effort to avoid the most risky behaviors, but if she clearly intends to carry the child to term, she is expected by law to stop illegal drug use and excessive alcohol use.

The government doesn't take this tack if she's a smoker, in fact, as that ordinarily can have an effect only on birth weight, and no one can fault her if she has an occasional single glass of wine now, because new research has indicated that such moderate drinking cannot be claimed to put the embryo/fetus at significant risk for fetal alcohol syndrome any more.

Even though I understand the sentiment behind stressing the liberty of the woman, my view is that she has the liberty to decide whether or not to carry the child to term, and that is the important part. If she decides to carry to term, she has an obligation to the future born child to minimize the worst risks to its future health. But of course, I would also like to see an exception after viability allowing abortion in cases of serious fetal anomaly or severe disability, too, as the Euro countries with 20 week bans have, because some women feel they have an obligation not to impose such a body on a future child.

 

[joko104]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

This is a BADLY worded poll as its only presents and absolute about a subjective gray area.

What is the answer to this question:

"Should a parent be allowed to endanger the life of his/her child?" YES or NO?

If you say no, then we are arresting people who take their children for motorcycle ride and who own a swimming pool. If you say yes, then you have agreed you can leave a 2 year old alone to play on the shoulder of an Interstate highway.

For this poll, to an answer of yes, then people are wanting to arrest and prosecute women for having a cigarette or eating a non-organic veggie hamburger.

 

[nota bene]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

If yes, please explain the morality of this position.

If no, please explain how this should be enforced.

(P.S., assume this is a fetus that by all indications will be carried to term and delivered.)

Thanks.

What does this have to do with abortion?

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

its not a yes no question becuase its not reality based, for me there many times id say no, but theres times id say yes too :shrug:

mother is pregnant
mother wants to have child
mother has cancer
to have a good chance of living she must take cancer meds 75% without them 20%
these cancer meds will probably guarantee she lives but they have a possible side effect of hindering zef brain development

IMO she wants to live, she wants to have the baby, she should be allowed to take the meds

now a different scenario
mother is pregnant
she is 32 weeks and decided she wants to terminate her pregnancy so she does a whole punch of crack or heroin or something
then of course my answer is no

another scenario theres lots of studies out there that list possible side effects where is the line drawn?

 

[joko104]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

This is a BADLY worded poll as its only presents and absolute about a subjective gray area.

What is the answer to this question:

"Should a parent be allowed to endanger the life of his/her child?" YES or NO?

If you say no, then we are arresting people who take their children for motorcycle ride and who own a swimming pool. If you say yes, then you have agreed you can leave a 2 year old alone to play on the shoulder of an Interstate highway.

For this poll, to an answer of yes, then people are wanting to arrest and prosecute women for having a cigarette or eating a non-organic veggie hamburger.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

You really don't give a **** about kids, do you?

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Tough question there, Skippy. "Should women be free to...?", um - yes. If the "damage" (during pregnancy) can be proven, in a court of law, and was either done with criminal intent or through gross negligence then that is already a crime. What exactly would you do to make women not free to do this? Will we assign all women a gov't nanny, upon "properly" reporting their pregnancy, to watch them 24/7 thus ensuring that they adhere to some gov't defined standard of behavior?

I guess this is a semantic clarification. I.e., to say they "should not be free to ______" might imply that they be searched and/or detained preemptively, which of course I would not advocate.

So a different way to pose the question would be "Should society run some sort of interference, against the woman's will, when she is actively brain-damaging a fetus she intends to carry to term?"

Your response also suggests society already could (via due process in a court).

This is a BADLY worded poll as its only presents and absolute about a subjective gray area.

What is the answer to this question: "Should a parent be allowed to endanger the life of his/her child?" YES or NO?

If you say no, then we are arresting people who take their children for motorcycle ride and who own a swimming pool. If you say yes, then you have agreed you can leave a 2 year old alone to play on the shoulder of an Interstate highway.

For this poll, to an answer of yes, then people are wanting to arrest and prosecute women for having a cigarette or eating a non-organic veggie hamburger.

It's not that hard to answer general legal questions about rights at face value and then get down to the minutia. "Do people have a right to express themselves, own firearms, etc.?" Generally speaking, yes, of course with the following list of specific exceptions. Pretty much every individual right has exceptions and contingencies, especially when exercising those rights can impede the rights or wellbeing of others.

The reason I'm asking the question is because, of all the individual rights out there, a woman's right "to her body" has been presented as virtually absolute within this subforum, whereas pretty much no other individual right is. The scenario this question presents is an attempt to put a little bit of pressure on the supposition that a woman's reproductive process is 100% sacrosanct.

What does this have to do with abortion?

Abortion examines the woman's right balanced against the hypothetical or putative right (recognized or not) of her fetus, as well as the state's role (or non-role) in the process. I think this question points to the same issue, even if not directly asking about abortion specifically.

 

[Paschendale]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

You really don't give a **** about kids, do you? Your defense of a pregnant woman doing things which are known to increase the odds of an unhealthy baby is sickening. What your moral beliefs are based on, I haven't got the slightest clue.

Not in the abstract. Individual ones, of course. But certainly not children as a class (despite the fact that fetuses are what we're talking about, not children, and even if you think that a fetus is equivalent to a child, it's still a very small subset that lacks basically all of the qualities that make a child something to care about) enough to turn around and treat women as second-class people, and strip them of basic liberty so that you or I can force them to reproduce for us.

Unlike you, I don't think that aborting a pregnancy and then intentionally becoming pregnant a few years later when circumstances are better is somehow evil compared to having a child when one is not ready. The net result is still a child, and in ensuring that the first one is born, we'd be preventing the second one from being born, and I don't see why there would really be any functional difference between a child not being born because it wasn't conceived or because it was aborted as a fetus. I'm not even sure why they shouldn't be viewed as two attempts to produce the same person. It's not destroying a life, merely postponing it.

So, in real answer to your silly opening question, of course I do. I just do it with less panic than you seem to.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

You're launching way ahead here. What I'm asking is what I asked: should women be free to do this to their fetuses?

Hmm, should women be allowed to damage their livers drnking alcohol? Should they be allowed to damage their lungs smoking cigarettes? Should they be allowed to damage their teeth by eating and not brushing? Ad nauseum ad infinitum.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Hmm, should women be allowed to damage their livers drnking alcohol? Should they be allowed to damage their lungs smoking cigarettes? Should they be allowed to damage their teeth by eating and not brushing? Ad nauseum ad infinitum.

So your response is that a fetus is no different from any other body part or organ (despite the fact that it becomes an independent human that is put at an automatic neurological disadvantage).

Not in the abstract. Individual ones, of course. But certainly not children as a class (despite the fact that fetuses are what we're talking about, not children, and even if you think that a fetus is equivalent to a child, it's still a very small subset that lacks basically all of the qualities that make a child something to care about)

Everyone here understands that fetuses are not regarded as fully human by current laws. This thread asks whether the mother should have the right to damage a fetus she intends to carry to term and deliver without interference or penalty, or if society should intervene in some way.

enough to turn around and treat women as second-class people, and strip them of basic liberty so that you or I can force them to reproduce for us.

Every basic right is subject to certain limits, especially when a particular individual's exercise of that right directly harms another. Is your opinion that a woman's reproductive right is different from all other rights in that it is 100% sacrosanct, not subject to any interference by others in any circumstances? Or are there circumstances in which society should intervene?

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

If yes, please explain the morality of this position.

If no, please explain how this should be enforced.

(P.S., assume this is a fetus that by all indications will be carried to term and delivered.)

Thanks.

This may be a little convoluted, but bare with me.

1. In a recent thread, we discussed a man who administered an abortive drug to his girlfriend causing her to miscarry, as the drug is meant to do.

2. In that case, the man was charged with murder - although according to all those who are pro-abortion will tell you that a fetus is not a human or a person, so murder seems to be misplaced.

3. The majority of women felt that the man should be charged with some form of assault or attempted murder because the drugs are dangerous if not taken appropriately and could kill the woman or at least cause her physical harm - we can agree on this.

4. If I understand the OP correctly, you're talking about a woman administering some substance to herself that will cause a miscarriage or damage the fetus in such a way that it will be stillborn or not come to term. Keep in mind that those who support abortion always claim that a fetus is not a separate entity, it is simply a "growth" attached to the woman's body and part of her body until such time as the fetus becomes viable.

5. If I understand the OP correctly, this is not a doctor prescribed action since no doctor would administer drugs to purposely brain-damage a fetus. That is outside the realm of what I would consider normal chemical abortion.

6. If we agree that this is not the normal process, similar to the previous case of the man administering the drug to his girlfriend outside the normal process, this also has the potential to physically harm and/or kill the woman.

7. When another person physically harms or potentially kills someone it's a crime, usually called attempted murder, when a person physically harms or potentially kills themselves, that's usually called suicide or attempted suicide.

8. Since suicide is illegal in all jurisdictions, at least that I know of, this would, therefore, be a crime against one's own person. Such crimes are not usually, if not never, charged with a crime but mandated by a court to get psychiatric treatment and care, then this would be the appropriate action to take in connection with any woman who took it upon herself to harm her body or any part of her body.

Therefore, in summary, as related to the OP, my answer would be no.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Gee, what an objective thread title, clearly looking for honest discussion. :roll:

If you're asking if we should just start tossing pregnant women in jail, absolutely not. What if she is early on and didn't even know she was pregnant? What if she is mentally ill?

This is a very slippery slope, and we have already seen cases of the descent down that slide, with crap like this being used to throw women in jail. A psychotic, mentally ill woman miscarrying after a suicide attempt and being charged with something insane a couple years ago comes to mind.

To employ laws like that is to say that the woman's body belongs to that state. Since you are clearly in support of this, and you also state your lean is "libertarian," I have no idea how you reconcile such an extreme degree of totalitarian hypocrisy in your own mind.

Outreach, education, and health care is a far better way to tackle this problem.

In no way does that make the woman's body property of the state. Instead it protects the child.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

In no way does that make the woman's body property of the state. Instead it protects the child.

You're going to have to support that with more than simply "nuh-uh."

How does it not make her the property of the state, so tell her what is allowed to do with her body according to the state's best interests?

 

[calamity]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

If yes, please explain the morality of this position.

If no, please explain how this should be enforced.

(P.S., assume this is a fetus that by all indications will be carried to term and delivered.)

Thanks.

By carrying it to term, the mother risks the well-being of a human being. Thus fetus's brains are leagaly protected.

 

[digsbe]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

No, much like I don't have the right to force someone to drink a substance that may leave them brain damaged. A knowingly pregnant woman shouldn't have the right to try and abuse her unborn child. It's not her property and the child is not her body.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

You're going to have to support that with more than simply "nuh-uh."

How does it not make her the property of the state, so tell her what is allowed to do with her body according to the state's best interests?

The state also says we can't smoke crack cocaine, does that make us property of the state? No....

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

You're launching way ahead here. What I'm asking is what I asked: should women be free to do this to their fetuses?

It is, as others said, a disingenuous question. Explaining why is a bit tough because what you're doing here is so slippery in its dishonesty, so I will put some words to that which, as of yet, no one else seems to have done.

You're asking whether evil, horrible people should be allowed to intentfully do evil horrible things.

Problem is, we're not talking about evil, horrible people intentfully doing evil horrible things.

We're talking about regular people who didn't know, or people who are suffering, or people with serious problems.

And your attempts to vilify that by whatever comic book narrative bloviating possible makes your question dishonest, and thus unanswerable as it is stated.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

There's nothing about protecting a kid from being abused and damaged by the mother that's incompatible with libertarian beliefs. You don't cry about the state owning your body when you're not allowed to drink under 21.

You have no idea what my thoughts on the drinking age are. Way to assume. You're wrong, by the way.

It is completely incompatible, and you are just as dishonest about it as he is.

You want to claim the rights to the woman's body by classing the fetus as property of the state, and thus a pregnant woman as property of the state. That is fascism.

 

[Paschendale]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Everyone here understands that fetuses are not regarded as fully human by current laws. This thread asks whether the mother should have the right to damage a fetus she intends to carry to term and deliver without interference or penalty, or if society should intervene in some way.

No, the thread is about whether the woman should have the right to risk damage to the fetus, or whether she can be compelled not to do things that might harm it. Intentional harm is an entirely different subject. The examples that spurred this discussion were about women who drank or took some drugs while pregnant, with no intent either way about the risk to the fetus. It is absolutely not okay to demand that she live some kind of sterilized life while pregnant, not punish her for a miscarriage or damage, because something she did might have (not did, but only might have) caused it.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

The state also says we can't smoke crack cocaine, does that make us property of the state? No....

Yes, it does, actually.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Yes, it does, actually.

How does that make us property of the state simply by there being restrictions on things we can or cannot do? That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

How does that make us property of the state simply by there being restrictions on things we can or cannot do? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Because it is something we do to ourselves. There is no justification for the state telling us we can't.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

You have no idea what my thoughts on the drinking age are. Way to assume. You're wrong, by the way.

It is completely incompatible, and you are just as dishonest about it as he is.

You want to claim the rights to the woman's body by classing the fetus as property of the state, and thus a pregnant woman as property of the state. That is fascism.

Your hyperbole makes your argument very weak. There are thousands of every day things that the government prevents you from doing (or at least attempts). Why don't you whine about all of those other things?

If the government tells a kid he can't drink because he's 12, is he owned by the state? Fascism? Why can the state tell a 12 year old he can't drink but not an 8 month pregnant mother?

Now, if you can drop the ****ing bull**** hyperbole about making pregnant women government property, we might be able to have a fruitful debate.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Because it is something we do to ourselves. There is no justification for the state telling us we can't.

But that doesn't make us property of the state.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Your hyperbole makes your argument very weak. There are thousands of every day things that the government prevents you from doing (or at least attempts). Why don't you whine about all of those other things?

If the government tells a kid he can't drink because he's 12, is he owned by the state? Fascism? Why can the state tell a 12 year old he can't drink but not an 8 month pregnant mother?

Now, if you can drop the ****ing bull**** hyperbole about making pregnant women government property, we might be able to have a fruitful debate.

It isn't hyperbole. It's the only logical justification for this, and it's a fact of the government telling the woman that the laws change for her and she can be incarcerated for not living the way the government dictates, or simply NOT KNOWING she's pregnant.

A lot of states allow alcohol consumption by minors subject to parental approval and supervision, which I support in all 50. So no, it would be considered the parents' decision based on the fitness of their child.

You aren't even the tiniest bit interested in fruitful debate. After all, you're the one giving the censor a good work-out, not I.