September 8, 200619 yr what if they dont know they're pregant? One of the points in the article was that if you did drugs and didnt realise you were pregant you could be locked up. It makes the point that women will have to presume at all times that are. I'm still waiting for reasons why the guardian - a newspaper that been round for over a hundred years (or so) is just as bad as Fox News. To be honest its stuff like this and Bush's views on Abortion and stem cell research (the one he used his veto on what was it called?) that make me want to believe the 9/11 theories. If they dont know thats another thing.
September 8, 200619 yr Author well the woman in the article didnt know either and when she did find out she was hooked on cracked- she shouldve been helped not left on her to be jailed. And the Crack didnt have anything to do with the stillbirth. Whats wrong with the guardian?
September 9, 200619 yr I'd like to add that any women who uses drugs while pregnant should be charged with a crime. What crime?
September 9, 200619 yr Using illegal drugs That doesn't make sense... Any women who uses drugs while pregnant should be charged with the crime of using illegal drugs I'm not sure if using illegal drugs is actually a crime, selling them might be. Besides what about if preggers is using legal drugs.
September 10, 200619 yr Well thats another story, its not their fault, but when they know and still do it, they should get charged.
September 10, 200619 yr Author How can you prove they knew they were pregant if the woman says she didnt know? What about smoking and drinking?
September 10, 200619 yr Well if the doc says she is or she can tell....thats how. If they can prove she knew then yes, it should be a crime. Its illegal to give your child alcohol or smokes...that would be child abuse too. so drinking and smoking should be banned.
September 10, 200619 yr Author Do you think women should really have to go around presuming to be pregant all the time thou? "New federal guidelines issued this year ask any woman capable of conceiving to treat themselves - and to be treated by their health-care provider - as "pre-pregnant" at all times. Women between their first menstrual period and the menopause are told to take folic acid supplements, stop smoking, stop drinking regularly, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control; not primarily for their own health but to protect any baby that they may or may not be planning to have. They're also advised to steer clear of lead-based paint and cat faeces - a problem for any "pre-pregnant" folk whose household chores include cleaning the litter tray. There is no mention of "pre- fertilisers", ie, fathers, taking similar steps to ensure their sperm are healthy, despite studies that suggest male alcoholism can cause birth defects in children." The rationale for the guidelines is that half of all pregnancies are unplanned and that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than most other industrialised nations. At the moment there is no talk of criminal sanctions against women who fail to comply with the pre-pregnancy guidance but it's another worrying sign that US women are expected to treat themselves as incubators first, individuals second. And the onward march of foetal harm legislation suggests that it's not entirely Orwellian to suspect that women might, in future, be criminalised for any indulgent behaviour before a pregnancy - as well as during - that ends up harming their child. Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the New York-based group, National Advocates for Pregnant Women, believes that hatred of women is at the root of the trend. "It's linked to 30 years of vicious anti-abortion rhetoric that describes women who terminate pregnancies as murderers," she says. "You can't have that level of hateful rhetoric and just limit it to abortion. Once pregnant women are seen as capable of heinous crimes like murder, they are dehumanised." Of course, it's obviously far better for a developing foetus if an expectant mother gives up drinking, smoking and taking drugs. But while it seems no expense is spared to prosecute and jail women addicts, far too little is spent on getting them appropriate treatment. And the women involved in these cases are almost always those most in need of support - there have been no stories of children dragged from rich Manhattan mothers who choose to snort a few lines of coke before breakfast. Those targeted are disproportionately black and poor. And all the sound and fury about the highly prized foetus evaporates once it is no longer in utero: children of drug-addicted mothers are often dumped in foster placements, where study after study has shown they have little chance of thriving.
September 10, 200619 yr No, I never suggest anything like that. But if a women goes to the Doctors or takes the test and finds out she's pregnant then by law she shouldnt be allowed to do any sort of drugs. No need for child abuse. It should be illegal to do child abuse.
September 10, 200619 yr Author Well you just cant stop smoking or doing crack. etc, You need help and that takes time.
September 10, 200619 yr It does, but you should still be punished for child abuse no matter if you're addicted or not. I may be addicted to violence is that an excuse to beat my child?
September 10, 200619 yr Author Well if you were addcited to violence it wouldve been noticed way early on. Why are males allowed to do drugs and drink etc - that damages sperm does it not?why single out women? Are you a pro-lifer or pro-choice? (just out of interest)
September 10, 200619 yr Well if you were addcited to violence it wouldve been noticed way early on. Why are males allowed to do drugs and drink etc - that damages sperm does it not?why single out women? Are you a pro-lifer or pro-choice? (just out of interest) Sperm isnt a human child, a baby in the mothers womb is...thats why. women can do whatever they please to thier bodies when not having another human life within them, thats how it should be. Im all for womens body rights, anyone should have the right to do what they please with thier body as long as its not hurting anyone else, whole being pregnant you are caring for another body besides yours...see my point? its not a sexist thing, its because nature chose them to give life. Im a pro-lifer..why should we make it legal to kill babies?
September 10, 200619 yr Author Lets not go into the whole pro-life, pro-choice debate. I was just curious. I just think women shouldnt have to go worrying about what they can/cant do becasue they might or might not be pregant. Sounds a bit oppressive to me. People with addictions should be helped, not treated as scum.
September 10, 200619 yr Lets not go into the whole pro-life, pro-choice debate. I was just curious. I just think women shouldnt have to go worrying about what they can/cant do becasue they might or might not be pregant. Sounds a bit oppressive to me. People with addictions should be helped, not treated as scum. I agree. But once they know for a fact they are pregnant they should legally have to do all they can to make the baby safe.
September 10, 200619 yr Author "Despite medically disputed evidence about the role cocaine had played in the tragedy" It isnt even proven that crack played a part in this case...Its like being done for murder because you held the gun for a while. And why is Abortion legal, but smoking etc whilst pregant isnt?
September 10, 200619 yr Author OOOOOoooo LETS NOT EVEN GO THERE!!!!!!!! And yes just smoking one fag could have you locked up in Arkansas.
September 10, 200619 yr OOOOOoooo LETS NOT EVEN GO THERE!!!!!!!! And yes just smoking one fag could have you locked up in Arkansas. Good, if the women knows she's pregnant and does that its child abuse, child abuse should be illegal.
September 10, 200619 yr Author What about people in pubs and restaurts who smoke around children? Should they be jailed?What about the owners alllowing this abuse on their property? Or parents who smoke in front of their kids whilst watching tv? Passive smoking can kill.
September 10, 200619 yr What about people in pubs and restaurts who smoke around children? Should they be jailed?What about the owners alllowing this abuse on their property? Or parents who smoke in front of their kids whilst watching tv? Passive smoking can kill. No, they arent forcing the pregnant mother to go there...thus its her fault. If you get lung cancer for 2nd hand smoke, its not the smokers fault if you chose to be around it! Second hand smoking is not as dangerous as smoking while pregnant anyways.
September 10, 200619 yr Author Says who? and i wasnt talking about pregnant mothers, but families with kids who take them to a restaurant, where there are smokers. What about people in pubs and restaurts who smoke around children? Should they be jailed?What about the owners alllowing this abuse on their property? Or parents who smoke in front of their kids whilst watching tv? Passive smoking can kill. Should smoking be banned outright?
Create an account or sign in to comment