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

" '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"

Oh dear. We have an English comprehension problem.

notbloodybranson asked "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 answered this by pointing out that there is a difference between having the right to be pissed off and having the right to sue. The sentence you are quoting gives an example where the person has the right to be pissed off but can't sue and is obviously meant to contrast being pissed off with being able to sue, which can happen when a crime has been committed.

HTH.

By the way, you still don't know when to say "you're". I suggest you take my earlier advice about using "you are" until you understand where "your" and "you're" are used.

Just wanted to add my voice to the thread and say how shocked I am by this case. It's very scary to think that women could be criminalised for taking decisions about whether or not to have an alcoholic drink. And then, by extension for not eating the right things, taking risks etc.

It's very worrying, for all the reasons given above.

Mishmash way to miss the point there, and patronizing too... The point is - where do you stop? Zara Tindall rode way into her pregnancy. If she had had a fall, should she have been criminalized for it? I fenced bouts until 16 weeks and did footwork/bladework until 34 weeks - if either of my DDs had had birth defects should I be blamed for having exercised? At which point do YOU think women should give up autonomy? This is NOT just about alcohol, it is about freedom. If you cannot see that you either think the US way of dealing with 'personhood' is just fine or you are very naive.

Another interesting one.

If you / your partner have a disease or ailment which is definitely / probably hereditory,

Should these rules apply, if you have a child? If you have a child and it inherits that disease / problem / propensity to have a problem, then that is injurious to the child (now, or later) then should that also be a criminal offence?

If not, why not. Is the question some of you need to be asking yourselves.

Everyone's like oh well but this is OK, people have to do that, such-and-such doesn't count. It's just DRINK to get worked up about. Ask yourself why that is. If the child has a negative outcome, it has a negative outcome. The reason for the difference is because of people's ideas about how women should be, and punishing them when they don't behave that way.

Lets not lose sight of the fact that the majority of pregnant women do put the foetus first. They carry out risk assessments all the time.

To suggest that we criminalise those who get their risk assessment wrong is absurd, especially given that those risk assessments are based on continually changing and contradictory medical advice.

To suggest that women simply don't care and are recklessly risking their babies for their own fun is a trite argument and not worthy of discussion, imo.

I'm sorry you thought I attacked you. I was being helpful. Every day is a school day on MN, as is often said.

There is indeed far worse than "snotty grammar pointing out" [sic] to devalue a poster around here. This, for example:

"maybe all the booze has muddled your brain or maybe your mother was a drinker???"

Bye.

And mishmash dear... Cote was quoting you when she made the 'error' you pointed out. Labelling her as 'wanting to get pissed' when she says she had half a glass of wine does not help your cause either. Please stop it with the ad hominem attacks and address the very many ethical questions raised in this threads.

Exactly, NiceTabard.

THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT THE RIGHT OF A CHILD TO SUE A PARENT.

Christ, how many times do I have to say this?

Oh cote with your P.A , stop it now, you really are a MN bingo master!

Bye your self

TA TA !

Mish - You are beginning to sound unhinged.

NiceTabard - I understand that now, thanks for the explanation.

Unhinged - bingo ,Jesus !

Waiting eagerly for...

Hysterical
Boils my piss.
Sick in my mouth

cote

Mishmashfamily, you certainly may post whatever you like and there's no requirement for it to be coherent. There's also no requirement for you to have any understanding of the actual issue here. You may simply string words together in an approximation of english until you get tired of pressing the little buttons.

Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously unless you engage with other posters regarding the pros and cons of such a law change.

BOB

I'm off to bed. Maybe tomorrow there will be someone on the other side of this fence we can debate with.

bob where in my post was incoherent ?

What's with the passive aggressive if people don't agree with you?

And I do have an understanding off the issue.

When you are pregnant you have a moral duty to protect the life you want to grow. It takes nine short months.

If you undertake activities which have a high chance of harming the baby then that's selfish.

Yes drinking caffeine has it's risks and there are advice guidelines but you really can't compare drinking coffee to drinking wine.

Crossing the road is dangerous but drinking vodka is even more so.

Laws need to be put in place because as usual people abuse their right to an alcoholic beverage.

I'd rather 100 pissed of pregnant woman because they can't have a glass of wine to one poor child that has been brain damaged.

I find this terrifying. As a woman my right to bodily autonomy is very importsnt to me. This could be the start of very slippery slope.

"If you undertake activities which have a high chance of harming the baby then that's selfish."

Well it may be selfish (that is another debate), but this thread is about whether it should be criminal.

Do you think that women who "undertake activities which have a high chance of harming the baby" should be prosecuted?

Abortion has a VERY high risk of "harming the baby". 100%, if done properly. A criminal act?

Yes 5madthings it is fucking terrifying, and more terrifying that there are people including women who are all for it.

Mishmash, you CAN compare drinking coffee to drinking wine. They can both harm the foetus. Where is the difference? A matter of degree? Well, which is worse- the woman who drinks 10 cups of strong coffee a day, or the woman who has half a glass of wine every month? Or is it the woman who goes rock climbing in the first trimester? She is knowingly putting the foetus at risk, after all. You are trying to draw lines where none exist.

You would prefer 100 pissed off women to one damaged child? Ok. How about 1000 pissed off women compared to one child who may have a very mild disability which may possibly be attributed to a decision that the woman made while pregnant? Still better not to risk harming a child? Well, where do you draw the line? Would you like to draw up a list of 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' risks for a pregnant woman to take?

What if the pregnancy is unplanned and unwanted? If the woman decides to terminate, does she get back her right to autonomy? What if she then changes her mind- maybe she discovers that she's further along than she thought.

The only possible way to avoid the slippery slope (where women of 'child-bearing age' lose all rights) is to accept that the foetus does not have rights, and is not a person until it is born.

Totally agree nice and it s terrifying that other women think it would be ok that we should lose bodily autonomy in this way.

Sorry but my rights wil aways trumo that of a fetus, when I chose to be pregnant I made choices I was hapy with but I will be damed if anyone dictactes or legislates what I can and cant do with my body whilst pregnant.

The sitation in amerca is awfulnwith the eroding if womens rghtd t abortion, and then there is the appaling situation in Ireland.

@ 5madthings post.