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

The stupid thing about this is that it is only being done because it is a way of accessing compensation. Without consideration as to the potential / consequences for all women as a result.

It will put something into law which would mean that there wasn't much ability to argue that abortion should be legal, for example.

Children who are ill / require additional care should, in a society like ours, get it. It should not only be available at the cost of hard-fought women's rights.

It's not about being able to sue the person (ie the mother in this case). It is about being able to get compensation via the pot of money in the criminal compensation fund thingy. Which is for people who have been victims of crimes. If it is allowed, then logically the women have committed crimes, and those crimes must be enshrined in law and prosecuted as is the custom in our society for acts that have been deemed criminal.

And there should be no differentiation for harm due to alcohol, smoking, eating a soft cheese, playing a sport or anything that has the potential to interfere with a pregnancy / foetus.

Any other position would just be wildly illogical.

There are some great posts on this thread and I don't think I can better them but I think this erosion of women's rights is utterly appalling.

Wanted to add my voice to those who are hoping this law doesn't sneakily get through. What I think of drinking alcohol in pregnancy is irrelevant; my right to do what I damn well please to my body is crucial.

There are some great posts on this thread and I don't think I can better them but I think this erosion of women's rights is utterly appalling.

Wanted to add my voice to those who are hoping this law doesn't sneakily get through. What I think of drinking alcohol in pregnancy is irrelevant; my right to do what I damn well please to my body is crucial.

I don't see the need to drink alcohol while pregnant

No. I don't see the need to drink alcohol either. Or coffee. Or eat sweets. Or eat salad that hasn't been washed in disinfectant. Or take any flights. Or eat anything other than what the dr prescribes. Or spend time around young children who may have chickenpox or CMV. And actually it's not just children who can pass these on so I'd best not take public transport for 9 months. Much better to sit at home incubating this baby without taking undue risks. So really the best thing for pregnant women to do is to check into a pregnant women farm where all we do is incubate future generations in perfect conditions.

The stupid thing about this is that it is only being done because it is a way of accessing compensation. Without consideration as to the potential / consequences for all women as a result

This.

I SHOULD BE WORKING!!!

I think that law moves slower, usually in reaction to a shift in culture/norms than perhaps is being envisaged here.

There is no way Court of Appeal will find in Rochdale's favour (am on phone so can't check if that is right council). It will be for Parliament to decide and I've heard no inkling from any Party on this.

However, I think, in certain cases a child should be able to sue parent/ state prosecute a parent. No, not cheese eating, or a quick jog round the park. But drink? Yep. Drugs? Yep. Mother has utmost freedom to do as she pleases - that is her choice. But if her choice has an adverse consequence to her child, child should be able to do something about it. In same way that if you abuse/neglect a kid during its childhood, you have to face consequences of your choices.

Exactly what Quangle said.

"if her choice has an adverse consequence to her child, child should be able to do something about it"

Slippery slope >> You didn't eat enough fish during pregnancy. If you had, your child would have been smarter. That is an adverse consequence. Should he be able to sue you?

Forget prenatal obligations, let's talk about early childhood. You didn't read enough to your child, take him to music lessons, teach him Mandarin. Now he is behind his peers who play violin and speak three languages. That is an adverse consequence. Should he be able to sue you?

I don't think I am buying the slippery slope of ingress into English women's rights - not under current political system. (Am angry about legal aid at mo, and have demonstrated, but don't view it as direct attack on women as it also affects men).

Yes, just keep it to "injury" as defined by tort, which would include FAS. If you cause "injury" intentionally or with reasonable foresight to a foetus, then when foetus is person, that person has a right to be pissed off at you?

To you too, Mrs Devere. If I had a faith, I would say your DD is in my prayers. But I lost my little slither when Mum died, so instead, she's in my thoughts.

" If you cause "injury" intentionally or with reasonable foresight to a foetus, then when foetus is person, that person has a right to be pissed off at you?"

I have the right to be pissed off that it rained during my wedding. Can I sue the weather? No.

Let's talk about "injury".

You had CVS early in your pregnancy, due to which your baby was born with damaged hands & feet. Should he be able to sue you for having asked for this procedure?

You neglected to take your folic acid supplements during pregnancy and your child was born with spina bifida. Should he be able to sue you?

Going too fast! Can I come back to your examples when you've done mine? Drink and drugs, taken with knowledge of possible consequences to foetus, which the unfortunately occur?

Foetus becomes person has suffered injury due to actions of other person. Why can't they sue?

cote it's not the same. you willingly consuming something that has no nutritional value and can be potential damaging,just for the sake of it. You choose to be pregnant and if your going to keep it you should bloody well look after it! If you can't go dry for nine months you have got issues !

quangle why dont you spark a fag up as well as it's all bollocks about that too isn't it.

Clearly scientists and doctors tell lies. They just want to spoil your fun. Hell your not an incubator your a free thinking woman that do what the fuck she wants!! Who cares if your growing a central nervous system or any other important organ - if You want to drink you will do! Yay go sistas!!!!!

It's all lies and the world is flat!!!

Don't have kids if you wanna get pissed all the time. Simple.

Getting pissed while pregnant - raining on wedding day ? really ...... Your waaaaaay of mark if you even think there is a comparison .

Maybe it's because your fundamentally selfish.

Mishmashfamily, if someone was in court for say horseriding when they were pregnant and causing some damage, on what legal basis would that be ok?

See, it's no good thinking "oh but common sense says that's different from drinking". There has to be a clear legal difference.

Mish - It is the same. Pregnant woman makes a conscious choice, knowing that there is a risk to the baby - signs on the CVS form or does not take folic acid. Injury to baby results. It is exactly the same thing as what you suggest should be criminalised.

"you willingly consuming something that has no nutritional value and can be potential damaging,just for the sake of it"

Oh consumed something with no nutritional value, how dare I?

Everything can be potentially damaging - crossing the street, riding a bike or a car, eating salad/soft cheese/rare meat... How about walking down a dark alley? You knew you could get mugged. So it is your fault that your tummy was hit & you gave birth prematurely, causing your baby to have damaged lungs.

I didn't say that getting pissed while pregnant is the same thing as rain on wedding day. Maybe you need to read posts more than once to properly understand them.

"Your waaaaaay of mark if you even think there is a comparison . Maybe it's because your fundamentally selfish."

Ah, personal attack - the last resort of the wrong and the weak-minded

By the way, you mean to write "you're" in the two sentences above. It may help to write "you are" for a while until you get the hang of when to use "you're" as opposed to "your".

Oh consumed something with no nutritional value, how dare I?
So basically you want to get pissed so sod the baby ? Why would you even have a baby if you feel like that?

Can you actually not give up drinking for nine months ??

You can over generalise all you like cote the fact is still hidden there is all your huff that you can't give up the booze for nine months.

Go and see some one if it's an issue love.

I have the right to be pissed off that it rained during my wedding. Can I sue the weather? No I'm taking that you wrote that???

If you did, your suggesting that they both have the same value

I am unsure why people keep talking about this being about the child suing the mother.

This actual case is about carers being able to access compensation via the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. This is for people who have been victims of crime.

If an action (or failure to act) by a woman when pregnant leads to some kind of injury to the child which is deemed eligible for this compensation, then that means that the action (or failure to act) was a criminal offence, and thus the women who committed it must be prosecuted.

So when women have babies, if there is something wrong with it, that can be linked to an action or inaction on the part of the woman, then she is a criminal and needs to be treated as such. The punishments for people who injure children are quite severe I think? So prison.

Also, clearly abortion would need to be illegal. You don't get much more severely injured than dead.

No, "basically" no such thing. I didn't say or insinuate any such thing. This is not about what I can or can't do. It is about what can be a criminal offence and what cannot.

If you had read the thread, you would know that I gave up alcohol completely during my 1st pregnancy so clearly I can survive without it for 9 months. (More actually, as I didn't drink during breastfeeding, either)

By the way, after ad hominem you have gone on to straw man. If you continue at this rate, you can aim to run through the complete list of Logical Fallacies in the next hour. Good luck