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

Horse, don't get me started on Sodium Valproate, I could rant for hours. (Woman of childbearing age with epilepsy here...)

Don't rant Couthy, join Justice for FACS kids, we need as much help as we can get right now.

m.facebook.com/FetalValproateSyndrome?id=129803703744374&_rdr

I was just 'lucky' that I was well informed, seeing as the local consultants lied to me about the tetarogenic effects of SV...and that was as recently as 2008/2009. I lost that baby due to something else anyway, (Chickenpox), but I swapped meds as soon as I found out I was pg!

Thing is, it could have been too late by that point anyway, he already had hypowhateveritis where the penis was malformed, and I stopped SV by 5 weeks.

But if he HADN'T been stillborn, who would have been able to separate out what was sodium valproate syndrome and what was varicella syndrome...?!

So would I have been charged for the SV syndrome issues, or would they have been unable to as varicella syndrome wasn't caused by me, other than the fact that I CAUGHT CP as I have no natural immunity to it despite having had it 5 times now...?!

don't want to be an incubator

Of course it would all be your fault Couthymow. I always get asked about feelings of guilt. Feelings of anger yes, not guilt. They can't lay that one on me. I told members of the press after we lost the court case against the pharma that if it wasn't their fault, wasn't the medics fault, it wasn't an accident, then it must be ours. Cue deadly silence.

Urgh. It WAS well known even in the late '80's / early '90's but consultants were PAID to hide it, and it didn't appear in the Patient Information Leaflet's until 2010...

There probably aren't any reliable stats on the incidence of SN four or five hundred years ago, when everyone drank beer all the time because it was cleaner than water. But, you know, the human race isn't extinct yet. And in the middle of the last century, pregnant women were encouraged to drink alcohol - Guinness for the iron, red wine 'for the blood' and generally because alcohol was supposed to prevent premature labour or something.

The brutal truth remains: you can be as obedient and self-denying as you like during your pregnancy and still have a baby born with problems of some kind. Faulty gene combination, accident or medical incompetence during the birth process, inadvertent exposure to something harmful in your workplace or home or just shit bad luck somewhere along the line.

There have always been plenty of people wanting women's rights and full human status removed or restricted, and it's always been pushed on the grounds that women have babies and that's the only important thing about them, it's what they're for.

So just think a minute about the idea that no woman of childbearing age should be allowed to drink alcohol in case it harms a foetus. That would include women who have chosen to be sterilized as they don't want children (or any more children), women who are celibate, women who are lesbians, women who have completed their families, women who are infertile... We are 'of childbearing age' for over half our lives, which is a fucking long time to spend being treated as potential incubators rather than people.

I was living in the UK at that time as well and I recall a very different vocal conversation. Whether or not something is vocal will depend on what media one is exposed to and consumes as well as who one is around - just because one doesn't hear about it doesn't mean it's being hidden or ignored or not there even if one consumes a lot. The legal change was not really connected to gay marriage, even though the two are often interconnected, but about whether people needed to have invasive surgery - something many trans people wouldn't be able to have for other medical reasons even with gender dysphoria and many do not want it for many reasons - to be able to change their gender to the other side of the binary and have it legally recognised. As the gay marriage laws stand now, a person who did so and was already in a civil partnership or marriege would have to legally separate/divorce and do it again under the opposite system (because it's still wrapped up in the gender and sexual binaries), so the gay marriage laws haven't exactly thought about trans people.

The internet in general is a horrible place to gauge or research interest, there are too many other factors that would get in the way of any true numbers. Just because people don't click or comment doesn't mean they don't have any interest or aren't fighting for social justice and equality. Since this is a general website in a general news area (not the busiest area on the site), it's not a good source of gauging interest. Especially when considering that those actively fighting it may be doing more active things or want to relax by not talking about this if they've talked about it a lot elsewhere. Personally, I tend to avoid a lot of social justice talk here, I tend to do it elsewhere, unless I'm particularly up for it (and even then I tend to post and run because there are previous times it was a real energy drain)

And it's not women born women. It's women born as babies who are designated by their phenotype or the closest to by appearance or surgery (since intersex is not a legal designation within the UK).
Saying that other people are born one because of their apparent genitals and somehow becomes the other ignores a lot of people's life experiences for the theory that we are defined by our apparent genitals (which is part of patriarchy's binary system that needs to be challenged). Even with DNA testing there are so many questions about defining it as there are more than two sex karotypes, and there are those with XY chromosomes with typical female phenotypes due to androgen insensitivity syndrome, and so on and so forth.

The issue is that those who can or are pregnant deserve the same rights and anyone else alive who cannot be forced to give anything of themselves or give up anything to improve the quality of another person's life, let alone save or sustain it, and surely more than the dead who cannot be forced to give anything as well. This is being and will be fought. The discussion of this issue is also wrapped up in the concept that women are defined by this ability is a far larger social issue that needs to be deconstructed and fought as well outside of the current court battle to prevent the resurging of this issue as one of the many problems with this ideology.

I think most people are presuming this case will not succeed in court. I think I am.

Contemplating that it could succeed is too scary to think about.

Are people on this thread seriously suggesting that once females menstruate they must act as if pregnant at all times?! I am shocked.

I really want this case to fail, not because I don't feel sorry for children born with FAS but because of the implications. Firstly, how does it help a mother who MUST have problems with alcohol to be jailed? What good does it do her already damaged child? It isn't going to take the FAS away, is it?

Secondly, as mentioned by almost everyone on this thread, it reduces women to childbearing vessels who must always be considered potentially pregnant. The consequences of this are already being felt by women in the US. We must not follow that example.

I think it will fail because someone with influence will make sure it does to avoid the political consequences.

But the idea must not gain ground that the fetus is a member of the community and the woman is just the container.

I understand that it's already acceptable to refuse to sell alcohol to a woman who looks like she might be pregnant and even to a woman who has kids with her. Presumably because she might get drunk and fail to look after them properly.

I'd be ok with a blanket ban on alcohol, but all people must have equal rights and respect.

AF - have you seen the paintings of Breugel's peasants? Facial features are very similar to FAS faces. And you didn't need an intellect to be a peasant, just physical strength. Alcohol IS very bad for the foetus.

I think it's stretching it a bit to use someone's painting style as proof of widespread foetal damage. Have you seen how people and things looked in Picasso's time?

If the danger is proven why is there not a call to ban all alcohol?. You'd think that would be an obvious move.

Not doubting that it is generally dangerous btw. Just that surely we've always known it was a poison for anyone and suddenly it becomes essential for pregnant women to stop drinking.

I think pregnant women should stop drinking. That's common sense. But putting them in jail for not stopping drinking is several miles too far. Women who are so dependent on alcohol that they find it difficult to stop when pregnant need help and support, not condemnation.

I also think that if you are TTC then you should consider your alcohol intake, but criminalising women who don't do this is beyond the pale.

Education and support are the key, not criminalisation.

There ought to be a ban on alcohol really, it's not exactly good for you. A much higher price might be effective and a better medical alternative for those who use alcohol to self medicate.

Lol at Picasso's paintings - they all had fetal absinthe syndrome. Clearly.

Anyway Breugel's faces are all different. Some people probably drank stronger mead than others. And it's a myth that everyone drank beer all the time, only those in cities would have, or those with limited access to fresh water, like the lowland Flemish. The highlanders would have had plenty of clean mountain water.

"I think pregnant women should stop drinking"

I don't agree. Because:

(1) There is no evidence whatsoever that half a glass once a month for example does any harm to the baby

(2) Slippery slope: If it will be a crime for a pregnant woman to drink alcohol, what about coffee? Rare meat? Soft cheese? What about exercise in the 3rd trimester?

3. If the fetus is a person, then surely abortion can't be allowed at any point of pregnancy and for any reason.

Yes, refusal to sell Brie to pregnant ladies. Or ladies with big tummies a shop assistant thinks looks pregnant. That's definitely the way forward.

Why criminalise WOMEN for drinking when they are potentially pregnant, or pregnant? Why NOT ban alcohol entirely?

Because that would adversely affect MEN, that's why...

Personally I agree with it.

Any woman who knowingly puts her unborn baby at risk through drinking (which is usually heavy) should be held damn responsible!

Stuff the womans rights in those circumstances,the child does not deserve to have disability forced upon them by a poor excuse for a mother.

Good point, Cote. Let's go with 'Pregnant women, like anyone else, should limit their alcohol intake.'

FWIW I did stay off soft cheese - that was the hardest thing for me, far harder than not drinking. I also gave up fencing bouts after 16 weeks because an epee hit to the abdomen wouldn't have been a great idea - but it really has to be up to the individual and their personal sense of responsibility.

I definitely didn't give up rare steak - was veggie for the first 20 weeks due to intense sickness and not wanting meat at all, but afterwards went back on steak in a big way.

And point 3) is the most pivotal of all - we shouldn't risk our hard won rights to safe legal abortion.

You are anti abortion then I'm guessing trip?