To wonder if social services are involved?

[HickDead]

I'll probably get flamed for this but finding the whole situation desperately sad for the child(ren?) involved. Who does this and in the full glare of the media too, I'm getting that they are two damaged individuals but come on, this is awful if true!

www.google.co.uk/amp/metro.co.uk/2017/07/05/jeremy-mcconnell-confirms-stephanie-davis-pregnancy-and-truth-behind-horrific-hotel-fight-6756942/amp/

And a lot of the bruising on her arms could be caused by the police having to restrain her

She was pictured with those bruises on her arms 5 or 6 days ago. Her spokesperson claimed they were as a result of deep tissue massage as she bruises easily. Whether or not that's true and they were the result of an earlier assault, they definitely didn't happen the night she was arrested.

Along with the ones on her legs, they are not fresh bruises and any doctor examining her will record that.

Their stories contradict each other (as usual). She says she acted in self defence, he claims he was in bed and she hit him in the face with a piece of wood. His injuries certainly indicate a blunt object was used.

will your first comment was that it wasn't social services business if she gets completely wasted whilst pregnant. That is the statement the majority have objected to. That part alone is completely untrue.

Who wouldn't want to see women encouraged not to drink or do drugs while pregnant
It's a grim form of feminism that just says tough. That was said to me on here by a feminist
The ones who cause the harm don't live with the consequences
Those who just say tough should go and spend time on scbu and watch the withdrawal symptoms

she care's for nobody but herself and uses being pregnant and the little boy as attention for herself

I would disagree that it is a "grim form of feminism". I think it's one of the absolute basic principles of feminism. That women are as free as men to do what they wish with their bodies. It's very easy to make it into a sentimental issue and insinuate that anyone who disagrees isn't thinking of the 'poor babies' when, in actual fact, that couldn't be further from accurate.

adalind of course I understand that you're talking about intervention.

But as will also said, a woman can't be forced to co-operate with SS when pregnant so really, what can SS do?

Educate, inform and support a willing, open woman by all means.

But they don't have any power to change her lifestyle choice.

I don't think is grim feminism. What's the alternative? You can't argue for the right to abortion without accepting a woman should be able to do what she likes to her body whilst pregnant (and acknowledging the way to deal with poor choices is education, incentives, support and options)

will your first comment was that it wasn't social services business if she gets completely wasted whilst pregnant. That is the statement the majority have objected to. That part alone is completely untrue

Then clearly the majority didn't understand that comment was a RESPONSE to an earlier comment. You have to actually follow the flow for things to make sense, you see?

No one has the "right" to do what they like when what they like is illegal.

Male or female, pregnant or not pregnant, we are all subject to the law.

If she wasn't pregnant no one would be defending her "right" to commit crimes without facing any consequences.

Yet again, drinking while pregnant is not illegal.

And if she committed any other crime, pregnancy has zero bearing on that.

No-one has defended her right to commit any crime. Are you reading the wrong thread?

will that doesn't stop your comment being incorrect.

I agree you can't force a woman to do anything. But as social workers have explained in this thread it is social services business if she is getting incredibly drunk whilst pregnant.

adalind of course I understand that you're talking about intervention

But as will also said, a woman can't be forced to co-operate with SS when pregnant so really, what can SS do?

Will said it is not social services business if a woman drinks while pregnant. This is not true, and This is what I and others have tried to argue the point over.
And I'll tell you what social services can do - they can initiate a section 47 investigation, they can seek information from health and other professionals, they can convene child protection conferences, they can write court statements and chronologies, they can identify foster placements etc. They can do all this before the baby is born. They are legally empowered to do that.
The phrase 'not their business' is legally, ethically and practically incorrect. There is a lot more that is done before a baby is born than just offering support to a pregnant woman.

I personally haven't defended her right to commit crime. I don't think anybody on this thread has? Being drunk whilst pregnant isn't a crime.

I think that's part of the misunderstanding we're having. I totally understand social services can have conferences and arrange foster care. None of that affects the woman's decision to drink. You're sounding as though having the child taken is a "punishment" to them for being naughty. In reality those steps have nothing to do with the woman or her behaviour, they're simply about protecting the child when it arrives

Well my response was and always has been to the statement Will made that pregnant women drinking is nobody's business.
I am not saying any of that is a punishment for behaviour. I'm just trying to show what involvement social services can have before babies are born. The vast majority of times the woman does engage and look after their babies. But in no cases do we say

As if SS have any involvement unless there are lots of other issues and problems. There is no case for per birth involvement when the only issue is drinking in pregnancy. And if you pretend you do that I call liar.
We haven't reached that level of Big Brother interfering yet.

Oh my god!!!

WillRikersExtraNipple is saying that they can't really be "involved" if it's one way. They can't make her do anything, they can't do anything to her.

If they are writing up cases and preparing to remove the baby, that is something they are doing on their own.

Involvement implies that the woman is ... involved. And she's not really, not legally. They can't do anything to her or make her do anything. They can take away her baby when it's born. They can offer help. So they could become involved with her, by her consent.

It's really simple, it's just reality!! She's not even talking about what the law should be, or what it used to be, or anything like that - she's just describing the current laws, the current system, and the current agreement of most people (women own themselves even when pregnant, but they do not own their children once born)

Why are you arguing with someone describing current reality! Oh my god

Thanks!

What about drinking and violence Will?

Of course it's grim
Offering help and support shouldn't not go against feminism

What about drinking and violence?

Offering help and support shouldn't not go against feminism

Who said it did? No-one here.

You said it was nothing to do with anyone

I can't believe people are advocating a woman's right to abuse her body with drink and drugs when pregnant, knowing that this would seriously damage and handicap her baby when born. Surely there has to be a limit and they have some responsibility towards the unborn baby.

Is the thread not about Stephanie, her baby, possible pregnancy, drinking and alleged abuse?

What do you mean you can't believe it Chester? Isn't it obvious? Otherwise you would be murdering a foetus when you had an abortion, and would be arrested and improsined for it.

And thank god we are more enlightened than that in this country