Personhood laws for foetuses - risks for all women of child-bearing age

[DebrisSlide]

I can't say much about this in text because I am frothing beyond coherence, but given the muted response in FWR, I thought I'd see what the wider MN community thought about this not a DM article

Rational response (imho) here

Thank goodness for that, it was a truly cowardly thing to post.

If you are going to say that women can be criminally liable in respect of their unborn foetuses, the logical conclusion is that you must have an inquest every time a woman has a miscarriage. You would have to check whether this was a natural death or brought about by the mother's deliberate action or carelessness. Mishmash, do you seriously want to subject women who have gone through that trauma to questioning by the police and coroners as a matter of routine? Do you think there might be anything dangerous about putting women in the position where they would avoid getting medical care after a miscarriage rather than go through that experience, possibly on a repeated basis?

There is a report www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges here discussing women in America facing murder charges following stillbirths and miscarriages.

It's very frightening reading, especially as these cases seem to be made by misusing a law meant to protect children already born and living in homes with parents who cook methamphetamine and expose those children to the fumes.

I wouldn't want to see those laws in place here and would be very frightened at the potential for misuse.

I have lost two babies, one to unexplained stillbirth and one to prematurity.

Although I have never smoked or taken drugs and I rarely drink, I have in the past taken the medication talked about above, Sodium Valproate, and I'm sure that over the course of my life they could find something to say I had done that I shouldn't have or not done something that I should, and link that to my losses if they wanted to.

As understand only a small proportion of alcoholic mothers give birth to children with FAS so the likely causes are far more complex than just drinking alcohol.

I'd also like to throw something else into the mix. Alcohol or drug addicted mothers are quite likely to have gotten pregnant by alcoholic or drug addicted men, could the quality of the sperm come into it? Therefore, all men capable of impregnating a woman should stop drinking alcohol or taking drugs, also, men remain fertile throughout their lives but the quality of sperm reduces. So if a man in his fifties or above has a child and they are disabled or impaired in anyway then the man should be sued. Or is it only criminal when women are doing it?

FFS unimpressed my posts were deleted. I don't think they breached talk guidelines.

WTF!

Why are your posts deleted?

They were in context to the OP. A debate. You were not PAing anyone. You did not use foul language excessively.
You gave your opinion.

Very unfair and now others cannot see why posters agreed with you so the whole thing looks ridiculous.

I don't think they did either, you just stated your case. Very unfair.

Quite agree, there was nothing wrong with SolidGold's posts and they should be reinstated.

Wtf why were golds posts deleted?!

I have been on this thread since it started and SGB's posts have in no way breached talk guidelines.

MNHQ can we have a response / explanation or preferably reinstatement of her posts.

I am not used to seeing this on MN it is a bit disturbing.

I was a bit torn on this subject, but have now got my thinking straight.

Here's my train of thought for anyone who cares:

Everyone agrees (I imagine) that it would be wrong to punish a woman who had no idea they were pregnant when they did something foetus-damaging. Also it would be wrong to punish a women who did something that had a risk of harming the foetus, but for completely understandable reasons (eg they were on a very necessary medication, and the risk of affecting the foetus was small). Let's call these women categories 1 and 2.

At the other end of the scale we have women who know they are pregnant and genuinely don't give a shit what happens to the foetus. They take drugs, drink loads, smoke, etc. Let's call these women category 4.

Perhaps somewhere in the middle sits category 3 - women who are, for example, alcoholic, or addicted to drugs/cigarettes. They know they are pregnant but due to their addiction they drink/take drugs anyway.

You might think that category 4 women deserve different and harsher treatment, legally, from categories 1 and 2. But the thing is, there is no practical way to distinguish between these categories. You can't be sure which women knew they were pregnant, and which didn't. And you can't draw any sensible line between a risk which was "necessary" and one which wasn't. (For example, if a pregnant women takes a car journey and the foetus is hurt in an accident, was that journey "necessary"?)

So, any law you make which is aimed at category 4 must also work for categories 1 and 2.

And there you end up with the result that this is bonkers.

I'm shocked that they were deleted.

If some opinions are not allowed then that should be made plain so we know to post on some other site.

I want to know what SGB said. I gave her an official pardon earlier on for her post about being drunk and pregnant. What's she done now?

horse IIRC the deleted posts were the ones where SGB said she supported abortion up to the moment of birth.

It's certainly a controversial position, but it doesn't breach talk guidelines.

Has anyone reported them and asked why they were deleted? MNHQ are usually pretty good at giving explanations for things.

And I love the people who've asked about the men's contribution to all this.
Domestic violence often starts or exacerbates in pregnancy. Alcohol fuels violence, including DV. Therefore if a man is ttc or if his partner is pregnant he should not drink at all. Yes, for most men the risks are small but it minimises the risk. It's only 9 months (plus the bit after where mother and baby are still so vulnerable), what could men possibly have to complain about?

There's a woman in jail in the USA right now because she tried to kill herself when she was 8 months pregnant. Very serious attempt - she took rat poison. She survived, the foetus didn't, so she was charged with murder.

www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/15/woman-attempted-suicide-pregnant-accused

They charged her after she emerged from a month in a psychiatric hospital. Her own distress and suffering was apparently not relevant, and nor was the fact she had to watch her baby die in a NICU, knowing her actions had caused that.

Most women who take risky actions when pregnant aren't doing it because they don't care - or at least, they don't care for themselves, either. Criminalising women for not being good enough incubators is a very scary concept. It's Handmaid's Tale territory.

And while I don't think termination till birth should be legal in a foetus that isn't so badly disabled it isn't in their interests to allow the pregnancy to continue, I do think allowing a woman to have a C section and the baby cared for in a NICO/SCBU thereafter should be, as long as she's of sound mind and able to fully understand the ramifications of that choice.

I don't agree with SGB's views but I am pretty appalled if she was deleted just for stating them. There are plenty of misogynists posting MRA crap on MN who are only deleted if and when trolling is evident, and in the past I had to namechange because BNP members were posting on MN around the general election and challenging them meant I was worried as I was identifiable (and my husband is Jewish, which wouldn't help). MN said they were sympathetic but couldn't remove posts with opinions that didn't break guidelines, however abhorrent they might find them. So this is not consistent.

I can't believe SGB's comments were deleted - on what basis MNHQ?

I'm alarmed by the potential consequences of this case, and will be watching with interest.

Any restriction placed on the activities of pregnant women for the good of the foetus necessarily means treating her as less than human. People's objections to the principles being argued in this case are not about alcohol per se, but about the precedent which it would set for controlling women's behaviour in a whole variety of other ways, set out by many posters above.

That is why, if you see women as full human beings, you should support the legal principle of abortion up to the point of birth, whether you personally think you would exercise your right to do it or not. It is the only logical conclusion which you can draw if you see women as fully human.

Just googled, and she pleaded guilty to criminal recklessness as a plea bargain, so was sentenced to time served and is now free. But it sets a precedent, nonetheless.

Has anyone read the article by Judith Jarvis Thomson, using the analogy of the blind violinist? It is a very good explanation of why abortion should be allowed even if we were to define foetus's as living people.

Sorry - not blind, unconscious!

I have been lurking on here, haven't posted because others are saying what I think very eloquently.

I am also apalled that SGB's posts were deleted and would like an explanation.

Was just going to ask why he had to be blind :o

I've yet to encounter a pro-life activist - or anyone who ullulates over the plight of the unborn - who actually demonstrates any sign of caring about children. A lot of the most disgusting US antichoices are also anti-childcare, anti-welfare, anti-sex-education etc. Oh, and they tend to be opposed to women's refuges. THey are pretty blatant about their desire to reduce women to walking incubators.

But defending women's rights to abort up until birth, to down a litre of gin. leap out of an aeroplane and pig out on shelfish, Brie and unwashed salad while PG isn't to say that women should do such things. It's a matter of accepting that women belong to themselves, and that a small number of them making choices you don't agree with is IN NO WAY a justification for treating all the rest of us as feral animals who need to be monitored and policed and controlled FOr The Sake Of The Babies.

Aurora thanks for the link. I've just read it (think I may have heard of it before but never read it). I like the unconscious violinist analogy a lot.

Trouble is, the essay does conclude that abortion is sometimes unjustified - see the bit towards the end about the requirement to be a "Minimally Decent Samaritan". It seems to envisage a sliding scale of abortions - some justified, some not, depending on whether the mother "invited" pregnancy or not and depending on the level of inconvenience/risk to the mother.