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 - How about we stay on is thread and you go if you are not happy with people posting views opposing yours

I'm not convinced the case will necessarily fail. Damages have been awarded in the past to people who suffered damage due to their mothers taking medically recommended drugs during pregnancy so there is precedent for such a judgement.

Does anyone know if Thalidomide victims were found to be entitled to damages via the Courts or was it simply a drugs company settlement ? The fact that damages are awarded to the children and not the mothers would seem to suggest that the law does recognise the possibility that someone can be held accountable for damage caused to a foetus that goes on to be born.

I suppose the difference in this case is that we are talking about potentially holding the mother responsible for apparently reckless behaviour during pregnancy and for behaviour that is entirely subjective.

Much as I have sympathy for the sufferers, a judgement in favour of the children in the case would potentially open the floodgates for claims against women who did anything less than optimal during pregnancy and yes, potentially, prior to pregnancy. That is quite simply incompatible with the rights of women to bodily integrity.

And as for the hysteria about these bad women, the fact is that the majority of pregnant women do attempt to do their best during pregnancy but given the conflicting advice given out by the medical profession, is it any wonder that pregnant women are confused and misled ? To suggest that women wilfully and intentionally cause harm during their pregnancy is something that doesn't sit well with me and for the vanishingly small minority who act in ignorance, surely the answer is to better educate people and not to criminalise them. We're not that far from times where we sterilised women deemed not suitable for breeding - do we really want to go back there ?

Do we really want to punish women who continue to work during pregnancy for the risks they might encounter ? For perhaps unwittingly eating a food substance deemed to be a bit risky ? For indulging in dangerous sports ? How about for driving or flying during pregnancy ? The law cannot simply draw a line and say this is risky during pregnancy and this isn't. And would we punish women who happened to get away with risky behaviour ? Or just those whose risk taking resulted in actual harm ? Or do we stick with the logic that women who are pregnant are simply entitled to the basic premise that they have autonomy over their bodies and trust that the majority of women will do their best to ensure the safety and well being of themselves and their pregnancies.

How about we recognise that pregnancy is a risky and often dangerous process for women and their health, both mentally and physically and we support them instead of condemning them ?

And the other key thing is: a lot of women don't know that they are pregnant, early on in a pregnancy. Yes, plenty of women decide they are going to start TTC and embark on a regime of vitamins/folic acid/no booze etc, and then POAS every couple of days after a shag, but plenty of others are either in a zone where they and their DP/DH have decided to stop using contraception or have just got a bit indifferent to it as it doesn't matter whether she gets PG now or in a year's time.
And plenty of pregnancies are entirely unplanned. When I referred to getting drunk and falling over upthread, the fact I was holding back was, at the time, I had no idea I was PG. Hadn't been trying, had no intention of having children, my period was about a week late but I vaguely suspected I was perimenopausal, not pregnant, so had no reason not to drink if I wanted to.

I think things around women and pg get so badly reported in the media.

The smoking quote around this case being reported is a great example. Maybe I'll swap my occasional glass of wine I normally have when pg for a big fat spliff during pg no 3 then?!

The other example was again alcohol and pg and it made me want to weep - the fascinating genetic/iq/alcohol in pg study was reportedly so terribly. Must be crap for scientists to have such interesting findings distilled down to hysteria for the masses.

Scary to see how many people on this thread would happily see women's rights reduced.
Actually really frightening

Yes solid but thats fine because any woman between the age of 15 and 44 can just stop drinking, eating brie and skydiving.
Small price to pay to ensure the health of any potential child. Maybe we could all just be sedated and hooked up to ivs for essetial nutrients and folic acid. Other tha n for the actual conception because that involves a man.

Right. Ok so those of us here (mainly) are in agreement; it stinks.

So, how do you complain? Who to? Things like this get my back up but I don't know what to do or who to.

Does anyone else please? I get fed up agreeing but not doing. So how do I do?

And in case I sou d flippant I will clarify

this is my life. I will live it. I will do what I want within the law and the consideration of those around me. That may at times include making decisions and doing things that others may agree with. It WILL NOT involve sacrificing ME to my children. And one of the main reasons for that is that I want my dd to have that attitude herself.

Or the alternative Stealth is that all women of child bearing age doing "risky" activities should just not have sex on the off chance they might be/might get pregnant.

Colley but what about the men? They have a right to sex.

Tbh I can understand why the cases have been brought to some extent but the wider implications for women seem enormous

colleys that's certainly an option but would us pesky women be trusted to have told the truth?

Colleys I feel hugely sorry for the children affected. Its not fair and needs to be addressed. But making women lesser citizens is nkt the answer. Also assuming that women need to b e controlled. I doubt any woman - alcoholic or not - wants her child to s uffer. So why not start onthat premise and work from there?
(Sorry, ranting, know you agree)

Ah yes well "Sorry dear I'm skydiving/indulging in a drink tomorrow" would replace "ive got a headache"!

it is insane.

can you imagine arresting a woman who is 12wks pregant for drinking? err but i'm having a termination tomorrow anyway. then what? she can be criminalised for drinking whilst pregnant with an embryo she can legally terminate the next day?

and what if the woman is an alcoholic? in the midst of a schizophrenic episode? manic? etc? does she get off on the grounds of diminished responsibility?

and if it is illegal to drink then the state surely has a legal duty to protect the unborn child - how would they enact that protection? lock the mother up? foot the bill for 24hr supervision lest they risk being sued themselves for failing to protect the unborn 'person' from a known risk?

no chance.

You only have to look at cases in America surrounding personhood to see how scary this can get. Can't link because my phone is knackered but Jezebel tends to have a lot of articles on the subject.
Will have a proper look at the OP article later when I can get to a computer, but if I get the gist right it needs fighting at the highest level. It could only be the first step along a bloody scary road.

I think that's the biggest issue for me Something in that it could be a very slippery slope.

It's a side issue but I was reminded of the controversy and debate around recent stories that have looked at mother rights vs those of unborn children in the media - the Irish lady who sadly died having been denied a termination and to some extent the lady who was unwell and had her baby by c section against her wishes (although iirc that was for her health not that babys but still it caused great debate on here)

And I do have enormous empathy for the children involved in this case and the people now caring for them and that provision needs to be made for their longer term care but I just can't help feeling apprehensive about what this might mean for all of us if its successful.

Has anyone read Margaret Attwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale'? Now, surely THAT would be a good solution. In fact, it is the logical conclusion.

Not read it, what is thw conclusion?

It is a dystopian tale from the past (set with present day a long time in the future) where 'handmaids' are used to bear children instead of the wives (with sex done at a 'Ceremony' with the wives present) due to a very religious regime and falling birthrates.

If you could be prosecuted for how you act during pregnancy and you were wealthy, you would outsource, no? Then wealthy women could eat brie/drink alcohol/go skydiving whilst servants do pregnancy for them.

how about the financial recompense coming from the alcohol industry?

you can't have a situation really where you legally sell something known to be extremely addictive and destructive for significant portions of the population and then blame and criminalise those who have problems with it.

if people want to make billions from selling potentially fatal drugs then they need to pick up at least a significant part of the bill for clearing up their mess.

Alcohol and tobacco duty rates make the UK quite a nice bit of income though...

"Scary to see how many people on this thread would happily see women's rights reduced.
Actually really frightening"

This ^

I feel very strongly that women should not be held criminally responsible for damage to the health of their unborn child. I could potentially have been prosecuted for the 3 week bender I went on when I was 19 and split up with my boyfriend. I had no reason to believe I was pg, we hadn't had any contraceptive mishaps. I had no job, no responsibilities, so I went out with friends and got very drunk for about 3 weeks. When it dawned on me that I hadn't had a period for a while. (I have pcos so only have 2 or 3 per year normally so it took a while for me to notice) I was 16 weeks pg. Who knows the damage I could have caused to dd1, I was lucky and she's absolutely fine, but if she hadn't been fine I would have had to deal with that and prosecuting me would not have helped her at all.

I didn't know I was pg. Lots of people drink heavily when they aren't TTC and some of those women end up pg anyway. They should not be criminalized for doing the same thing as everyone else but just being unlucky enough to fall pg and unlucky enough to have their baby affected.

Women should absolutely have the right to live their lives however they choose within the law. Most women stop drinking heavily once they know they are pg and are continuing with it. If they don't then they probably have a big problem with alcohol and need more support in giving up drinking, criminal action against them is not going to achieve that is it?

I doubt whether there is any desire to criminalise women's behaviour during pregnancy but if this case succeeds, it sets a precedent for women being held responsible and thus potentially liable for damages for any harm done to a foetus.

Where do you draw a line after that ? And what does it say about how we value the lives of women against the unborn and potentially never to be born ?