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

It;s a branding thing. A positioning? DO YOU WANT BABIES TO BE ILL AND HURT?

Well of course you don't. Therefore, anything I say to STOP babies being ill and hurt is fine.

Now, interestingly, the only things I am going to mention that MAKE BABIES ILL AND DIE are to so with WOMEN doing things that I DON'T LIKE. I am not going to mention things that women do that I don't have a problem with, even if they harm of kill babies, and I'm not going to mention men and the part they have to play (eg old sperm = miscarriage = DV??????) in ANY of this. Because you can't restrict the rights of men no sirreee bob.

It is all just a massive crock.

God, apologies for crap typing, I have spent all day and evening dealing with vommiting children and I am tired and have had a drink to help me cope with the stench of puke... plus this samsung tablet is crap.

Anyway I find it worrying not only that some women agree with thiskind of draconian idea of controlling women nd removing their bodily autonomy but also that so many women are so passive and uninterested in tge issue. And the lack of media sttention its been given, if this case is won then its a huge case in test case law and should be a cause for concern for every woman in the uk.

If this case goes through then it opens the door for abortion being criminalised, and any woman who gives birth to a child which is not "optimal" being imprisoned.

People might see that as exaggeration or rhetoric. BUT actually a lot of people would actually really like that (see recent news from some US states) and that is super-worrying.

It could happen and this would be the first step.

The actions of men in this are never mentioned, at all.

You can take a case of 'wrongful birth' at the moment which is if someone is at fault for not allowing you to terminate a pregnancy you would otherwise have terminated. So a faulty amniocentesis result or the failure of a drug.

Women still have, and should have, ultimate control of their bodies and the baby does always have to come second. Most women will put their babies first and for those that don't, generally it's their problem later on if things go wrong. Responsibility and accountability has to lie with the mother and those responsible for her well-being.

A child can sue a parent for making them obese, but not for giving them fetal alcohol syndrome because they weren't a 'person' when the damage took place. A child should be able to sue the state for not protecting them when they were unborn. The onus should be on the state health and social services really.

i don't get the logic whereby someone said that they didn't think a parent should be sued for eating the wrong cheese but drink or tobacco absolutely.

that is so arse about face.

it's easy not to eat cheese - we don't have any literal unpasteurisedcheeseoholics nor is it a recognised medical condition.

we do have alcoholics and we do have people addicted to nicotine - we as a society choose to sell these highly addictive substances knowing they will have a lot of victims. an alcoholic or smoker who has been trying to give up their addiction for years but is unable doesn't suddenly upon seeing a line on a pregnancy test become a different person who by the magic grace of the madonna of fertility can suddenly be cured of their addiction.

if there are damages to be had then it is not the victim of the substance who is to be looked to but the dealer! in this case the tobacco and alcohol industries and the state that allows them to legally operate despite knowing the damages.

and if the woman is an alcoholic who has been begging to be sent to rehab but is in a pct that doesn't fund it? she can then say they are responsible and they can be sued. or perhaps the alcoholic woman who shared that she was having black outs and engaging in risky behaviour can sue her gp for not making her have weekly pregnancy tests. it is a ridiculous avenue to go down not ONLY for women's rights (though that should be enough for anyone who doesn't want to end up living in a dystopian novel) but also for the implications of potential legislative action and the effects that come of trying to avoid being sued by patients for example.

and what of the person who impregnated the addict? they have caused an embryo to grow in an unsafe incubator (know thy place woman). will they be sued to? perhaps it could become illegal to have sex with vulnerable women to protect the potential child? reckless insemination of life giving sperm?

it is a nonsense. we can't even effectively tackle men fucking trafficked women and drug addicts but what we'll then prosecute those women for being impregnated by these punters and pimps?

the context really does matter. we have judges letting off groups of men for gang raping minors. will the minor then be criminalised for drinking white lightning to dampen her trauma because they managed to impregnate her in the process?

if amnesty get their way it will be legal for men to prostitute women, if the man fucks the crack addict without protection who is clearly an emotional and mental wreck and impregnates her he'll have done nothing wrong but she can be sued for continuing to be a crack addict?

The vast vast majority of women adapt their behavior to pregnancy and do the best they can to look after themselves and the fetus they are supporting.

Women who drink alcohol to the point of giving birth to a baby with FAS, are women with problems. And those problems have a source - most likely society; poverty, lack of education and support, childhood issues, DV, etc. And alcohol is legal, readily available, relatively cheap, and a good tax earner so it is hardly surprising that people with problems abuse it. To criminalize individual women for societal problems is misogyny. And what about the fathers of these children? Are they to be criminalized too? Children have two parents - surely it would need to be a crime for a man to have PIV sex with a woman who drinks heavily? What was he thinking potentially impregnating a woman who has a problem with alcohol? Where is his responsibility in all this?

Much as we may all see the utter injustice for a child living with the consequences of FAS, we cannot award all women of child bearing age the status of incubators. This is an erosion of hard won rights, and open to abuse by those who wish to control and subjugate girls and women via our reproductive rights.

A case like this has the potential to change the legal status and rights of all post pubescent girls and women even though only a very small number abuse alcohol during pregnancy (and the solution to that is not to criminalize).

Attempts to subordinate girls and women often ride on the back of 'but we must think of the children' rhetoric.

OK, so if we are thinking of the children then hold the fathers responsible too for not stopping the mother from drinking or for not being around to stop her, or not getting her help. Or for getting her pregnant in the first place. Yeah, let's prosecute men who can't refrain from putting their penises in women with substance abuse issues...

Gets worse snd worse. Women as human sacrifice to the next generation.
Mishmash love quit it with the personal attacks, love

i think some women lack the ambition to be seen as actual full, whole human beings and decide the shortcut of being 'better than other women' is an easier way to fake self esteem.

they'll quite happily play scapegoat and say yes, it's 'those' women, but look at me i'm respectable and decent, i'm a wife, i didn't sleep around, i'm a good girl (have a badge) and so i'll be alright. you won't. you don't get a promotion to human being status simply for learning to sit and beg on cue and turn your nose up at dogs with poor recall skills.

sorry.

I agree Numpty! I find it astonishing and quite depressing that in 2014 there are still women who not only don't see themselves are fully paid up members of the human race, but also expect the rest of us to consider ourselves second class citizens too.

A lot of people are sentimental and not great at logical thinking. It's a mixture of' Isn't it terrible that some babies are born with preventable disabilities' well-meaning dimwittery and quite often a kind of muddled, unacknowledged magical thinking on top -' If I not only do EVERYTHING i'm told but also scream and howl about the wicked selfishness of other women, my babies will all be fine.'

And the poster who would rather have 'a few pissed off women denied a drink' than FAS in a single baby - My position is I'd prefer a few hundred or so dead or damaged foetuses than every woman in the country/the world reduced to the status of a breeding animal with no human rights.

I also support abortion up to the moment of birth. To save you the bother of asking.

Words fail me gold just awful

I agree with solidgold and actually in Canada abortion is allowed up to term. Oddly enough it's something women rarely choose unless necessary. It seems to work well in Canada.

Why limit a woman's access to abortion? We deserve and need bodily autonomy.

As it stands the current abortion laws in the UK are disability.

I believe women are able to choose what is best for them and their circumstances 're abortion, it doesn't need legislating other than to ensure it is safe.

Is late term abortion unpalatable...yes but just because I find it hard to think about doesn't mean other women should be denied it. Their body, their choice.

Do you have a daughter mishmash?

jezebel.com/5992056/north-dakota-senate-passes-personhood-amendment-forgets-women-are-people
The article is from last March but illustrates a personhood law passed in America. Strangely one of the comments underneath references A Handmaid's Tale as well.

Mishmashfamily

Ha ha ha you have just done the same, maybe all the booze has muddled your brain or maybe your mother was a drinker???

Don't you dare pretend to be concerned about the families of disabled children elsewhere on MN, when you happily use disablist insults. Don't you fucking dare.

Hypocrite.

I have come to this thread as a result of MishMash's TAAT regarding SGB.

Reading the other thread the comments sound horrific, having read this I agree with SGB and wholeheartedly agree MM that your other thread is totally out of line.

Women who resort to extreme late term abortion tend to do so because of lethal and catastrophic birth defects, and anyone denying a woman that option is seriously lacking in morals.

Well on pg the op on this thread was worried it wasn't getting much attention - that's probably changed now

Page 2, page 2 silly fingers

What spindoctor said.

TAAT has now gone. And so it should of.