NationStates Jolt Archive

In the Unborn Victims of Crime Act thread, we've talked a bit about women with substance abuse problems being possibly liable to their children etc...but I thought this topic needed its own discussion.

What, if any, kinds of intervention do you think should be brought to bear on pregnant women who are abusing drugs/alcohol during pregnancy?

On the extreme side of things, I came across Project Prevention (http://www.projectprevention.org/) formerly known as CRACK (Children Requiring Caring 'K'ommunities) who says that it "offers cash incentives to women that are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol to use long-term or permanent birth control".

Essentially what they're doing is paying women $200 to get temporarily or permanently sterilised. Various groups (http://www.cwpe.org/node/56) criticise this practice, but I want your opinion, both on this, an on other existing or possible forms of 'intervention'.

It's a tricky one. I'm all for the individual being in control of his or her own life. If a pregnant woman wants to abuse substancs, then that is her choice.

This though I think is a good idea, if a woman wants to except a cash incentive to be sterilised that too is her choice.

What, if any, kinds of intervention do you think should be brought to bear on pregnant women who are abusing drugs/alcohol during pregnancy?
I'd like to see a combination of soft and hard measures.

Soft measures - free addiction treatment, free birth control medication, as well as education and all that stuff.

Hard measures - voluntarily-mandatory pregnancy termination if the medical commission has found damage to the fetus significant. Incentives for compliance, major disincentives for non-compliance.

As for disincentives, they could range from light measures such as lose of parental rights and civil liability for child's treatment to highly effective ones such as exile (for the mother, before the child is born). The first variant though is not only effective, but realistically possible.

In the Unborn Victims of Crime Act thread, we've talked a bit about women with substance abuse problems being possibly liable to their children etc...but I thought this topic needed its own discussion.

What, if any, kinds of intervention do you think should be brought to bear on pregnant women who are abusing drugs/alcohol during pregnancy?

On the extreme side of things, I came across Project Prevention (http://www.projectprevention.org/) formerly known as CRACK (Children Requiring Caring 'K'ommunities) who says that it "offers cash incentives to women that are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol to use long-term or permanent birth control".

Essentially what they're doing is paying women $200 to get temporarily or permanently sterilised. Various groups (http://www.cwpe.org/node/56) criticise this practice, but I want your opinion, both on this, an on other existing or possible forms of 'intervention'.


I don't see how that is extreme. I don't think it's a bad idea at all. No one is being forced into anything.

What possible less extreme forms of intervention are there?

I don't see how that is extreme. I don't think it's a bad idea at all. No one is being forced into anything.

What possible less extreme forms of intervention are there?

Sterilisation is extreme...especially when you consider these women are addicts, and the lure of money to feed their addiction likely vitiates their ability to make a really informed choice on the matter.

we need to start by making sure that there is treatment available to every pregnant addict. we need to make sure its easy to find, easy to get into and doesnt scare away women by suggesting that they need to be sterilized or that their baby will be taken away once its born.

Sterilisation is extreme...especially when you consider these women are addicts, and the lure of money to feed their addiction likely vitiates their ability to make a really informed choice on the matter.

I don't see it that way. I mean, I get what you are saying, but how much money are we talking about here? Are these people being tricked? Are they being given too little information and not told about risks? Would you rather they fuck up some kids life? The women that this program targets haven't shown that they could make a responsible informed decision when they started taking addicting drugs int eh first place.

If it was forced sterilization I would agree, but this isn't anything of the sort. Besides, I'm a big proponent of less pregnancies int eh world no matter the condition of the parents.

Sterilisation is extreme...especially when you consider these women are addicts, and the lure of money to feed their addiction likely vitiates their ability to make a really informed choice on the matter.

If they can make an informed enough decision to churn out FAS children then they can make an informed enough decision to get sterilized.

I don't see it that way. I mean, I get what you are saying, but how much money are we talking about here? Are these people being tricked? Are they being given too little information and not told about risks? Would you rather they fuck up some kids life? The women that this program targets haven't shown that they could make a responsible informed decision when they started taking addicting drugs int eh first place.

If it was forced sterilization I would agree, but this isn't anything of the sort. Besides, I'm a big proponent of less pregnancies int eh world no matter the condition of the parents.


If they can make an informed enough decision to churn out FAS children then they can make an informed enough decision to get sterilized.

You know what is most effective when it comes to reducing pregnancies?

Education.

Perhaps THAT should be the focus instead of bribing women to sell their reproductive abilities, or threatening them with jail, etc, etc etc.

Sterilisation is extreme...especially when you consider these women are addicts, and the lure of money to feed their addiction likely vitiates their ability to make a really informed choice on the matter.
Execution or felony conviction is extreme. Sterilization is just a harsh, but not extreme response. If something is broken, you at the very least unplug it. If someone damages their reproductive ability with risk to produce heavy birth defects, they also should unplug it.

Is it really fair and humane to effectively convict an innocent person to suffer their entire life, just because someone couldn't lay off the bottle and the banger for half a year?

Pregnancy is a serious responsibility, a responsibility with a future person's life, not just some toying around.

we need to start by making sure that there is treatment available to every pregnant addict. we need to make sure its easy to find, easy to get into and doesnt scare away women by suggesting that they need to be sterilized or that their baby will be taken away once its born.

Pffft, that would suggest that addiction isn't just individual weakness and stupidity. People don't need help to fight their own stupidity, they just have to stop being so stupid.

why not just have the likes of drug dealers and door-door alcohol salesmen refuse sale of their produce on like terms of losing their license or something?

yes its not exactly going to work and sociaty already does this as a social rule already but what else can you do? (beside free birth control for all that is put in convenient places like on pillows in hotels)

Execution or felony conviction is extreme. Sterilization is just a harsh, but not extreme response. If something is broken, you at the very least unplug it. If someone damages their reproductive ability with risk to produce heavy birth defects, they also should unplug it.

Is it really fair and humane to force an innocent person to suffer their entire life just because someone can't lay off the bottle for half a year?

The main reason I started this thread was because I thought it was interesting how a few people in the other thread (though it was mostly you I think) were suggesting that we should force women to have abortions if the child is likely to be born with serious defects...or if we don't force them, they should be held liable for those defects after the child is born.

Forcing women to abort (encouraging women to abort)...odd position, I wanted to explore it.

You know what is most effective when it comes to reducing pregnancies?

Education.

Perhaps THAT should be the focus instead of bribing women to sell their reproductive abilities, or threatening them with jail, etc, etc etc.

:p Stop being logical.

You know what is most effective when it comes to reducing pregnancies?

Education.

Perhaps THAT should be the focus instead of bribing women to sell their reproductive abilities, or threatening them with jail, etc, etc etc.


Agreed. That should be step one. It doesn't always help though.

Still, there is the option of temporary sterilization right? What's so wrong with that?

Education.

pfft what has education ever done for the poor!

seriously though education helps but shit happens etc

If their actions can be demonstrably shown to have caused harm to whatever child is born, charge them with battery.

If their actions can be demonstrably shown to have caused harm to whatever child is born, charge them with battery.

Battery of what? Fetuses aren't people.

Pffft, that would suggest that addiction isn't just individual weakness and stupidity. People don't need help to fight their own stupidity, they just have to stop being so stupid.
im so stupid!

it seems to me that before we start penalizing women for not getting treatment we should make sure that treatment is easy to get.

What about concerted efforts to convince a parent to abort a pregnancy if the resulting child will have serious defects? Explain to them what challenges they will face and give them incentives to terminate the pregnancy. Perhaps, after offering them the choice, penalize them for going through with it by not offering social services to them for being so unforgivably irresponsible, if they had been proven to abuse drugs and alcohol while pregnant.

On the extreme side of things, I came across Project Prevention (http://www.projectprevention.org/) formerly known as CRACK (Children Requiring Caring 'K'ommunities) who says that it "offers cash incentives to women that are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol to use long-term or permanent birth control".


That's not particularly extreme, it's absolutely nothing compared to what happens in other parts of the world.

What about concerted efforts to convince a parent to abort a pregnancy if the resulting child will have serious defects? Explain to them what challenges they will face and give them incentives to terminate the pregnancy. Perhaps, after offering them the choice, penalize them for going through with it by not offering social services to them for being so unforgivably irresponsible, if they had been proven to abuse drugs and alcohol while pregnant.
do you really think that that is a good idea?

Battery of what? Fetuses aren't people.

So?

Battery of what? Fetuses aren't people.
No, but they are going to become people. If you agree to consider the person to be the human consciousness, they're unbuilt vehicles for people.

If you work in a car factory and knowingly and willfully damage a vehicle intended to be sold, so that it crashes and injures or kills the driver, you will be charged with a crime against a person.
Even though the vehicle isn't a person, and it isn't driven yet, you still have committed a crime against its future driver.

If the fetus is a yet unbuilt vehicle, the situation with damaging it, even before a consciousness takes a seat in it, is fairly similar.

That's not particularly extreme, it's absolutely nothing compared to what happens in other parts of the world.

No offense, but that is a terrible argument.

"Oh well over there, they um, they like do really really bad things to women so you know, if we just do bad things, we're still better, right?"

So?

You can't batter a parking metre, a cat, or a garden gnome.

If a fetus isn't a person...following?

Nonetheless, in civil law, a child once born can sue third parties for harm done in utero (here in Canada), but cannot sue it's own mother.

Battery of what? Fetuses aren't people.

you don't think those substances remain in their body once they're born? Despite what you might think, battery is not just "I punched you in the face", it's any harmful or offensive contact, either person to person, or person to object in control, or object in control to person, or object in control to object in control.

If you take drugs, those enter the body of the fetus, they remain in the body of the fetus, and continue to be in the system once it's born. Thus you cause a contact of drugs to the persons body.

You can't batter a parking metre, a cat, or a garden gnome.

If a fetus isn't a person...following?

Nonetheless, in civil law, a child once born can sue third parties for harm done in utero (here in Canada), but cannot sue it's own mother.

as I said, take it to the next level, if the child is born with drugs in its system, that's a battery, since the mother's intentional conduct caused these drugs to contact the baby's body.

No, but they are going to become people. If you agree to consider the person to be the human consciousness, they're unbuilt vehicles for people.

If you work in a car factory and knowingly and willfully damage a vehicle intended to be sold, so that it crashes and injures or kills the driver, you will be charged with a crime against a person.
Even though the vehicle isn't a person, and it isn't driven yet, you still have committed a crime against its future driver.

If the fetus is a yet unbuilt vehicle, the situation with damaging it, even before a consciousness takes a seat in it, is fairly similar.

But, if a baby is born after a failed abortion, they don't have a right to medical care because they aren't "people" and giving them that right will erode abortion rights because it's making it seem like the fetus is actually a legal person with legal rights.

It seems like the same situation to me, fetus injured born not person, fetus injured born not person. Right?

No offense, but that is a terrible argument.

"Oh well over there, they um, they like do really really bad things to women so you know, if we just do bad things, we're still better, right?"

Nice strawman. In no way was that an argument defending the practice, all I'm pointing out to you is that it's not extreme in the least bit comparatively.

as I said, take it to the next level, if the child is born with drugs in its system, that's a battery, since the mother's intentional conduct caused these drugs to contact the baby's body.

By that reasoning you could charge a mother with battery even if she was taking a round of penicillin. Or vitamins. Battery is not necessarily harmful contact...if you're talking civil battery, it's ANY unwanted contact, strict liability, no damage needed.

Nice strawman. In no way was that an argument defending the practice, all I'm pointing out to you is that it's not extreme in the least bit comparatively.

It's not a strawman, I'm pointing out to you why 'comparatively' is a stupid argument.

You look at your own system, your own values, your own constitutional principles, and you apply them in these situations...you don't go on about how in Zimbabwe, they'd just do 'x' to her, so 'it's therefore not that extreme'.

do you really think that that is a good idea?

What alternatives do you suggest?

It's not a strawman, I'm pointing out to you why 'comparatively' is a stupid argument.

You look at your own system, your own values, your own constitutional principles, and you apply them in these situations...you don't go on about how in Zimbabwe, they'd just do 'x' to her, so 'it's therefore not that extreme'.

I dunno, female genital mutilation might be JUST the right punishment for going through with it.

But, if a baby is born after a failed abortion, they don't have a right to medical care because they aren't "people" and giving them that right will erode abortion rights because it's making it seem like the fetus is actually a legal person with legal rights.

It seems like the same situation to me, fetus injured born not person, fetus injured born not person. Right?

Just as a sidenote, there is a cause of action for 'wrongful life', though again, it's aimed at the doctors, not the mother, and is an attempt generally to get compensation to deal with birth defects. It can arise when an abortion failed, or when the parents weren't properly informed of a birth defect, or the consequences of said birth defect.

What people here are talking about is removing the barrier which prevents a child from suing its mother.

So perhaps the best question to ask would be...why do we currently have that barrier in place? Why would we, as a society, not want children to have the ability to sue their mothers for acts or omissions while that child was in utero?

I dunno, female genital mutilation might be JUST the right punishment for going through with it.

*slaps you with a live trout*

Quit trolling.

It's not a strawman, I'm pointing out to you why 'comparatively' is a stupid argument.

You look at your own system, your own values, your own constitutional principles, and you apply them in these situations...you don't go on about how in Zimbabwe, they'd just do 'x' to her, so 'it's therefore not that extreme'.

But even in America I'm sure there are much more extreme institutions, cash incentives are pretty much the least extreme intervention you can do.

By that reasoning you could charge a mother with battery even if she was taking a round of penicillin. Or vitamins. Battery is not necessarily harmful contact...if you're talking civil battery, it's ANY unwanted contact, strict liability, no damage needed.

that's not actually true, at least under US civil law. Battery is a "harmful or offensive" contact. It's also a contact that is abnormal from the normal hustle and bustle of daily life (I can't sue someone for bumping into me on the train this morning, it's the green line, it's crowded in rush hour, get over it). Likewise I think you'd have a hard time quantifying penicillin or vitamins as "harmful" or "offensive"

But, if a baby is born after a failed abortion, they don't have a right to medical care because they aren't "people" and giving them that right will erode abortion rights because it's making it seem like the fetus is actually a legal person with legal rights.
What are you talking about?

It's not the case in the real life, and it's in no way related to what I propose, so I don't exactly see where it comes from. Is it a general anti-pro-choice or anti-pro-life argument (and I'm not sure which)?


The fetus, obviously, is neither a person, nor an inanimate object, it should be treated somewhat specially. It's not yet a person, but should it be born, then it will be a person.


It seems like the same situation to me, fetus injured born not person, fetus injured born not person. Right?
I never said it's not a person after birth.

But even in America I'm sure there are much more extreme institutions, cash incentives are pretty much the least extreme intervention you can do.

Cash incentives to, at the extreme end, be permanently sterilised.
Oh sorry, shouldn't say extreme, since apparently this isn't really extreme at all.

Let's completely ignore that these women are addicts, that the money is most likely going to feed their habit and that they, by all accounts, are not going to be able to make longterm decisions about their reproductive health when the more immediate concern is getting a fix.

While we're at it, why don't we just offer money to ALL poor women to get snipped? I mean, choosing between the ability to have children, and eating that week...well hey, it's totally a valid choice, no coercion, nothing unethical there.

Oooh! Wait, I've got an even better idea! Why don't we offer these women the chance to sell their organs too!

that's not actually true, at least under US civil law. Battery is a "harmful or offensive" contact. It's also a contact that is abnormal from the normal hustle and bustle of daily life (I can't sue someone for bumping into me on the train this morning, it's the green line, it's crowded in rush hour, get over it). Likewise I think you'd have a hard time quantifying penicillin or vitamins as "harmful" or "offensive"

Okay, so let's use a real example - prescription medications. Some of them can cause birth defects. I've taken a couple such drugs for medical issues myself. What you're suggesting would seem to make it possible to hold a woman liable for taking medications legally prescribed to her because she happened to be pregnant at the time. I think it's rather obvious that any woman in such a position should carefully weigh the risks to herself from going off her medications against the risks to her unborn child from staying on it; your suggestion would seem to mandate putting the latter ahead of the former no matter what.

You know what is most effective when it comes to reducing pregnancies?

Education.

Perhaps THAT should be the focus instead of bribing women to sell their reproductive abilities, or threatening them with jail, etc, etc etc.

I would agree with education, but once someone becomes a meth addict, it doesn't matter what education you gave them - it's fucking gone.

As for "punishment" for having a baby while being an alcoholic (crack addict, fill in the blank) - by the time you find out she's pregnant, the damage is likely to already have been done. Punishing her isn't going to unfuck the baby.

I think that I would take the baby away from her at birth (permanently). I would then forcibly sterilize her, so it wouldn't happen again.

I'm all for education, and making her free to fail - but once she does so in such an egregious manner, I'd say she loses the right to reproduce.

that's not actually true, at least under US civil law. Battery is a "harmful or offensive" contact. It's also a contact that is abnormal from the normal hustle and bustle of daily life (I can't sue someone for bumping into me on the train this morning, it's the green line, it's crowded in rush hour, get over it). Likewise I think you'd have a hard time quantifying penicillin or vitamins as "harmful" or "offensive"
Actually it is true. There is no need for proof of damage.

'Harmful OR offensive', and it's still a strict liability tort, being an element of trespass.

You can absolutely quantify penicillin or vitamins as offensive (harmful would be stretching it, but it's not strictly necessary), just like you can qualify any medical intervention as offensive if there was no necessity or consent.

What are you talking about?

Either the fetus has rights over the mother, or the mother has rights over the fetus.

You choose.

Either a fetus has rights, or they do not. Choose.

Let's completely ignore that these women are addicts, that the money is most likely going to feed their habit and that they, by all accounts, are not going to be able to make longterm decisions about their reproductive health when the more immediate concern is getting a fix.


Hold on, can't sterilisations be reversed?


While we're at it, why don't we just offer money to ALL poor women to get snipped? I mean, choosing between the ability to have children, and eating that week...well hey, it's totally a valid choice, no coercion, nothing unethical there.


Such schemes already exist actually. But that is more extreme, being a drug addict is inherently harmful, being poor isn't nescecerally.

Hold on, can't sterilisations be reversed?
Only rarely.

Such schemes already exist actually. But that is more extreme, being a drug addict is inherently harmful, being poor isn't nescecerally.
Being poor has often more health and social risk factors for the parents and the children than drug abuse has.

Actually it is true. There is no need for proof of damage.

You're conflating your terms. Just because "harm" is not an element of the tort does not mean that any form of contact gives rise to a legitimate claim of battery. There are still other elements to be proven, and just because one does not need to suffer damages to sustain a claim of battery, doesn't mean that ANY contact is sufficient to substantiate such a claim.

The term you are looking for is "actionable per se"

'Harmful OR offensive', and it's still a strict liability tort, being an element of trespass.


Again you're conflating terms a bit, even if it were true that ANY contact were a battery, this would NOT make it a strict liability offense. For it to be strict liability, not only would ANY contact have to be a battery, but it would be a battery if that contact were caused BY ANY MEANS. A totally involuntary muscle spasm that causes my hand to touch your shoulder would be a battery, but (at least in the US) it's not.

Battery is, in fact, an intentional tort. One must INTEND to cause contact. Now, true, one need not intend to cause HARM, and indeed no harm needs to be caused, but that still makes it an INTENTIONAL tort, not a strict liability tort.

You can absolutely quantify penicillin or vitamins as offensive (harmful would be stretching it, but it's not strictly necessary), just like you can qualify any medical intervention as offensive if there was no necessity or consent.

Interesting point this, but give me a moment to address it more fully.

Hold on, can't sterilisations be reversed?

...

No. Not unless it's a hormonal, temporary sterilisation. I'm more worried about the permanent sterilisations, frankly, though to be honest, I don't know what kinds of risks are associated with temporary sterilisation.



Such schemes already exist actually. But that is more extreme, being a drug addict is inherently harmful, being poor isn't nescecerally.

Sure it is. Poor people can't afford to have kids. It's pretty much child abuse, right there.

Sorry, I'm avoiding studying. Perhaps I shouldn't.

Only rarely.

Being poor has often more health and social risk factors for the parents and the children than drug abuse has.

Smoking meth is a guarantee you're going to fuck up the baby.

Being poor is a risk factor, but not a guarantee. Plenty of kids raised being poor who turn out fine.

I can spend money and help the poor - if you're a meth baby, you're just fucked.

You're conflating your terms. Just because "harm" is not an element of the tort does not mean that any form of contact gives rise to a legitimate claim of battery. There are still other elements to be proven, and just because one does not need to suffer damages to sustain a claim of battery, doesn't mean that ANY contact is sufficient to substantiate such a claim.
I'm quite aware of that.
I'll argue with you off forum.

Either the fetus has rights over the mother, or the mother has rights over the fetus.

You choose.

Either a fetus has rights, or they do not. Choose.

If a fetus is not a person and is aborted, they will never become a person, so no issue.

If, however, the mother chooses to have a child after drug and alcohol abuse, amongst other things, and the child ends up mentally or physically handicapped because of the mother, is that child not a person now?

If the mother aborts the fetus, then she avoids the situation entirely, as it never became a person. However, the child that has handicaps was once that fetus and the child is a person, even if they weren't when the fetus was.

Does it make any sense? I think it does.

If a fetus is not a person and is aborted, they will never become a person, so no issue.

If, however, the mother chooses to have a child after drug and alcohol abuse, amongst other things, and the child ends up mentally or physically handicapped because of the mother, is that child not a person now?

If the mother aborts the fetus, then she avoids the situation entirely, as it never became a person. However, the child that has handicaps was once that fetus and the child is a person, even if they weren't when the fetus was.

Does it make any sense? I think it does.

If a mother attempts to abort a fetus and it's unsuccessful and the baby is born it doesn't currently have legal rights to medical care because it's not a person. I'm trying to figure out why it's a person when we want to punish a drug addict and it's not a person when we are worried about 'eroding abortion rights'.

But, if a baby is born after a failed abortion, they don't have a right to medical care because they aren't "people" and giving them that right will erode abortion rights because it's making it seem like the fetus is actually a legal person with legal rights.

I've been seeing this come up a lot in threads related to abortion lately. Has that ever actually happened?

If a mother attempts to abort a fetus and it's unsuccessful and the baby is born it doesn't currently have legal rights to medical care because it's not a person. I'm trying to figure out why it's a person when we want to punish a drug addict and it's not a person when we are worried about 'eroding abortion rights'.

Interesting point.

I'd think it would be very important that it is the person abused who gets to take any sort of action and not anyone else.

Other than that, not quite sure how to deal with the difference. However, when you're aborting the fetus, you don't want it to grow up to be a child. If you're taking drugs and drinking alcohol, you might not either, but you're not doing anything actively to prevent it, while you're harming it. I see a difference, but I am uncertain how to make that difference stick in lawful terms.

In any case, wouldn't it require a late term abortion for the fetus to survive?

If a mother attempts to abort a fetus and it's unsuccessful and the baby is born it doesn't currently have legal rights to medical care because it's not a person.

wait, huh? What law are you referring to here?

I've been seeing this come up a lot in threads related to abortion lately. Has that ever actually happened?
I'm unsure of the frequency. I know a woman who was born after a failed abortion.....I only know one though. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_aliv.htm
The least biased info I could find for you.

Either the fetus has rights over the mother, or the mother has rights over the fetus.

Either a fetus has rights, or they do not. Choose.
Not everything has a simple yes or no answer.

And it's not about fetus rights, it's about the future person's rights.

A car has no rights. None at all, just a piece of metal. You can damage it all you want. If, however, that car is to be sold as new (a fetus is to be born as a new person - "sold to a free soul", if you want a religious phrasing), then it must be sold in an intact condition; and it in particular can't be sold if it's dangerous to drive.
Willfully damaging the vehicle (the fetus) before the sale (the birth) becomes a crime against the future owner. However, you have the right to scrap the dangerous vehicle before it's delivered, and as such not be subject to liability.



This is not entirely hypothetical. A couple years ago, Mazda scrapped 4,700 new cars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_Ace) because the ship delivering them heavily heeled and there was a risk that the vehicles became potentially dangerous. That was done to avoid (in this case civil) liability for the harm to drivers, should it occur because of the vehicles' damage.

Cash incentives to, at the extreme end, be permanently sterilised.
Oh sorry, shouldn't say extreme, since apparently this isn't really extreme at all.

Permanent sterilization is extreme, but I don't see an issue with them incentivizing long-term forms of birth control.

Let's completely ignore that these women are addicts, that the money is most likely going to feed their habit and that they, by all accounts, are not going to be able to make longterm decisions about their reproductive health when the more immediate concern is getting a fix.

When cities set up needle exchange programs, they know with near-certainty that the clean needles they are handing out are going to be used to feed an addiction, but the overall health benefits of being sure that clean needles are used is believed to outweigh the harm done by helping them feed their addiction.

One could similarly argue that the overall health benefits of keeping addicts from becoming pregnant and having children outweighs the harm done by the fact that you give them money that then funds their habit.

Would you feel better about the program if it were not cash incentives? If the incentive were something else, like food?

As to the original question, I think incentive-type programs and education are really all we can do during pregnancy without taking it too far. A pregnant woman doesn't lose her rights to control her own body because she is pregnant.

As for possible civil cases that a child might have against a mother who knowingly engaged in unnecessary behavior that could cause birth defects, I think it's a good idea in principle. Then, I look at words like "knowingly" and "unnecessary" and things start getting fuzzy. I think that any kind of legal construct for this would have to be very, very clear and well-constructed to avoid the slippery slope. The standard of proof would need to be very high. We would have to avoid instances in which a woman's actions before she was aware of her pregnancy were used. We would have to avoid instances in which a woman was held responsible for health risks that she would not have been aware of. And so on....

Problem is, the law generally doesn't work that way and trying to make it work that way often invites abuse and makes laws virtually unenforceable.

What, if any, kinds of intervention do you think should be brought to bear on pregnant women who are abusing drugs/alcohol during pregnancy?



After they are aware of their pregnancy? Monitor the baby and abort it if there is any alcohol related abnormalities? Then jail the woman and ban her to be pregnant for some time. Repeat of offense: forced sterilization.

If a mother attempts to abort a fetus and it's unsuccessful and the baby is born it doesn't currently have legal rights to medical care because it's not a person. I'm trying to figure out why it's a person when we want to punish a drug addict and it's not a person when we are worried about 'eroding abortion rights'.

I'm not certain the legal issue actually exists in the way that some would have us believe. It may be fuzzy, but it isn't fuzzy because an infant who is born after a botched abortion doesn't have the same rights as any other infant. It's because words are somewhat open to interpretation.

As your link says, many are opposed to passing this legislation, not because its stated purpose is something bad, but because they don't feel that the legislators have been careful enough in defining these things.

Also, while I can't seem to find the full text of the legislation right now, there's this from your link:

"The first defines the words 'person', 'human being', 'child', and 'individual', as including "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." Although the term "infant" normally refers to a newborn baby, here its meaning is extended to also include fertilized ova, pre-embryos, embryos and fetuses."

This is pretty clearly a backdoor attempt at eroding abortion rights. There is absolutely no reason that this law would require fertilized ova, pre-embryos, or embryos to be defined as a human person.

It's important to remember that laws are often opposed, not because of their stated purpose, but because of what else they do. I opposed a law in GA to set up an umbilical cord stem cell bank, not because that's a bad idea (in fact, it's a good idea and they should have actually funded it), but because the entire first portion of the bill was an attack on embryonic stem cell research and contained quite a bit of erroneous "scientific" analysis. The original version of the bill would have defined an unfertilized egg as a human person.

What alternatives do you suggest?
making the option of abortion available but doing nothing to coerce a woman into having one no matter what condition her pregnancy is in.

making the option of abortion available but doing nothing to coerce a woman into having one no matter what condition her pregnancy is in.
And if she doesn't? If she goes all the way, to produce a child that will be suffering all their life, what then?

And if she doesn't? If she goes all the way, to produce a child that will be suffering all their life, what then?

What then, indeed.

Anorexia can make a woman more likely to terminate early, or to have an underweight, under-developed baby.

Anorexia is no one's 'fault'.

An anorexic teenage girl goes on to have a baby, and the baby is born suffering from some complication. What then?

And if she doesn't? If she goes all the way, to produce a child that will be suffering all their life, what then?
then it will be treated the same as every other human being perfect or not.

Anorexia can make a woman more likely to terminate early, or to have an underweight, under-developed baby.
Anorexia is no one's 'fault'.
An anorexic teenage girl goes on to have a baby, and the baby is born suffering from some complication. What then?
IANAD, so, unfortunately, I can't tell how serious these complications are.
[Although by adding "teenage" you would make it easy for a con on my side to argue that it actually is someone's fault, and add that teen pregnancy is a social problem already.]

If they're serious enough to risk a permanent disability, we have to conclude that the price is too high, and action should be taken to prevent birth.

If it's merely need for extra care and a high risk of infancy death, then it's a price our society can afford.

My guess though would be that it's perhaps the latter case with anorexia.

IANAD, so, unfortunately, I can't tell how serious these complications are.
[Although by adding "teenage" you would make it easy for a con on my side to argue that it actually is someone's fault, and add that teen pregnancy is a social problem already.]

If they're serious enough to risk a permanent disability, we have to conclude that the price is too high, and action should be taken to prevent birth.

If it's merely need for extra care and a high risk of infancy death, then it's a price our society can afford.

My guess though would be that it's perhaps the latter case with anorexia.

The mention of 'teenage' wasn't to suggest teen pregnancy, indeed - quite the opposite. The highest risk group for anorexia is teenage girls, but the ramifications of the problem can be decades down the line.

The biggest risks would be simple failure to carry to term, quite possibly failure to carry even as far as viability. Low birth weights, and all the risks that go with that, would be another risk. Possibly, restricted development.

When you say 'action should be taken to prevent birth'... what KIND of action? All anorexics have increased risks in pregnancy. Are you going to serially abort? Or are you saying they should be sterilised?

Every pregnancy, even for a recovered anorexic, carries higher than normal risk. You were willing to call for punitive action when the 'mother' was an addict, what about when she wasn't?

The biggest risks would be simple failure to carry to term, quite possibly failure to carry even as far as viability. Low birth weights, and all the risks that go with that, would be another risk. Possibly, restricted development.
Then it's up to the medics to determine how high the risk of permanent disability is, and how severe are the possible consequences (say, physical disability might become well repairable in the near future, while brain prosthetics, even if possible, would kill their own purpose).
Just professional risk management.


When you say 'action should be taken to prevent birth'... what KIND of action?
Strong recommendation for an abortion (with incentives for compliance and soft disincentives for noncompliance). But preferably, birth control before it comes to that.


Every pregnancy, even for a recovered anorexic, carries higher than normal risk. You were willing to call for punitive action when the 'mother' was an addict, what about when she wasn't?
This would probably put criminal penalties out of the question. However, we still need to take any reasonable action to prevent citizen disability, whenever necessary - after the birth, during it, or before.

In the Unborn Victims of Crime Act thread, we've talked a bit about women with substance abuse problems being possibly liable to their children etc...but I thought this topic needed its own discussion.

What, if any, kinds of intervention do you think should be brought to bear on pregnant women who are abusing drugs/alcohol during pregnancy?

On the extreme side of things, I came across Project Prevention (http://www.projectprevention.org/) formerly known as CRACK (Children Requiring Caring 'K'ommunities) who says that it "offers cash incentives to women that are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol to use long-term or permanent birth control".

Essentially what they're doing is paying women $200 to get temporarily or permanently sterilised. Various groups (http://www.cwpe.org/node/56) criticise this practice, but I want your opinion, both on this, an on other existing or possible forms of 'intervention'.

Well technically speaking they are no longer effecting their body but that of their offspring so she cannot argue that it's her body and her choice because a future sentient within her is suffering medically for her mistakes.

The evolutionary/scientific side of me says that her behaviors are due to abuse she suffered which can effect how she'd raise said child or because she is genetically inclined to act in such a way. In which case the child would not only be born with medical problems but be forced to grow up in an unhealthy environment where the mother is either somebody who doesn't deserve a place in the gene pool which would also make the offspring the same or somebody who will develop phychological issues like that of the parent(s). So sterilizing such an individual may benefit society since it'll mean one less screwed up victim for the social service to get into.

Well technically speaking they are no longer effecting their body but that of their offspring so she cannot argue that it's her body and her choice because a future sentient within her is suffering medically for her mistakes.


By the same logic, a woman who ends up in a car crash while pregnant would open herself up to the same kind of response. So - pregnant women shouldn't drive? Or even.. be driven? Or... walk near roads?

By the same logic, a woman who ends up in a car crash while pregnant would open herself up to the same kind of response. So - pregnant women shouldn't drive? Or even.. be driven? Or... walk near roads?

You are a ridiculous little man lol. So I guess I'll play word twister and twist your dialogue to match this forum's soul.

*ahem* So somehow driving, walking and being driven causes fetal alcohol syndrome and drug damage??? :confused:

So anybody who walks near roads and drives has a right to force drugs into babies??? You are a sick sick man!

Then it's up to the medics to determine how high the risk of permanent disability is, and how severe are the possible consequences (say, physical disability might become well repairable in the near future, while brain prosthetics, even if possible, would kill their own purpose).
Just professional risk management.


This is a not-an-answer.

"It's up to the medics". Okay. The medics think the prognosis very unfavourable. What should they do? What should they be ABLE to do?


Strong recommendation for an abortion (with incentives for compliance and soft disincentives for noncompliance). But preferably, birth control before it comes to that.


Birth control isn't 100% effective. Again, it's a not-an-answer.

First - are you saying that all former anorexics should be permanently using birth control?

We're already assuming that pregnancy is going to happen, which means we're already allowing for the failure of birth control.

so... second - what are you saying SHOULD happen when the former anorexic becomes pregnant?

How 'strong' is the recommendation?


This would probably put criminal penalties out of the question. However, we still need to take any reasonable action to prevent citizen disability, whenever necessary - after the birth, during it, or before.

So - if you're baby is ill as a result of no-fault, there is no punishment... but the babies should be aborted if they're damaged, and the mothers should be on permanent birthcontrol?

What about if the doctor/dentist/radiologist can be linked to the disability? Should a doctor that prescribes a drug that directly or indirectly harms a foetus be punished?

You are a ridiculous little man lol. So I guess I'll play word twister and twist your dialogue to match this forum's soul.

*ahem* So somehow driving, walking and being driven causes fetal alcohol syndrome and drug damage??? :confused:

So anybody who walks near roads and drives has a right to force drugs into babies??? You are a sick sick man!

You said that "...technically speaking they are no longer effecting their body but that of their offspring so she cannot argue that it's her body and her choice because a future sentient within her is suffering medically for her mistakes..."

A woman who drives a car, has an accident, and harms the foetus is affecting the "offspring" and, according to you, that means the mother "cannot argue that it's her body and her choice". You qualify this by saying "a future sentient within her is suffering medically for her mistakes".

I'm using your OWN words, and your OWN model.

By YOUR logic, the mother can't claim that driving the car was her own choice, because it's her own body, and you hold her accountable because she makes a future sentient suffer medically for her mistakes.

If that makes you launch into a flurry of ad hominem, that's not my problem. But it does mean you're not addressing the logical problem I'm highlighting.

The woman (in Canada) can drink or use illegal drugs that harm the baby without being charged. Also, it is legal to provide alcohol to a pregnant woman. It is her choice to harm the infant cause its her property

This is a not-an-answer.
"It's up to the medics". Okay. The medics think the prognosis very unfavourable. What should they do? What should they be ABLE to do?
They should strongly recommend an abortion. Their decision will be recorded. By strong recommendation, I mean a decision with legal validity and consequences.
If it stands, and birth is given, then the record of this decision might serve as either evidence of criminal negligence or a basis for other action.


First - are you saying that all former anorexics should be permanently using birth control?
IANAD, but from what I understand, the risks for permanent untreatable disability resulting from former anorexia should be low enough to make the risk reasonable.


We're already assuming that pregnancy is going to happen, which means we're already allowing for the failure of birth control.
Stage I (Contraception) fails, stage II (Abortion) enters. It's not too late yet.


So - if you're baby is ill as a result of no-fault, there is no punishment... No criminal penalty, perhaps. Depends on the circumstances. But in general - a mother giving birth to a child is a matter between them two; there's nothing to give the government a right to interfere. It has the right to refuse service, though.

BTW, I'm somewhat surprised about why does someone as pro-regulation as you argue against regulation in such a crucial area as creating new citizens.


but the babies should be aborted if they're damaged, and the mothers should be on permanent birthcontrol?
Again, this is what should be done. Under the totalitarian doctrine you appear to support elsewhere, this can be done simply by ordering the people.
Under a libertarian system, the means are limited, but at the very least soft incentives and disincentives have to be used in an attempt to prevent the damage from being transferred to a person.


What about if the doctor/dentist/radiologist can be linked to the disability? Should a doctor that prescribes a drug that directly or indirectly harms a foetus be punished?
This is called medical malpractice liability, and it has been talked all over already. I don't see why this case would be any different from that regarding any other patient and condition. Just the same as with any other patient.

You said that "...technically speaking they are no longer effecting their body but that of their offspring so she cannot argue that it's her body and her choice because a future sentient within her is suffering medically for her mistakes..."

A woman who drives a car, has an accident, and harms the foetus is affecting the "offspring" and, according to you, that means the mother "cannot argue that it's her body and her choice". You qualify this by saying "a future sentient within her is suffering medically for her mistakes".

I'm using your OWN words, and your OWN model.

By YOUR logic, the mother can't claim that driving the car was her own choice, because it's her own body, and you hold her accountable because she makes a future sentient suffer medically for her mistakes.

If that makes you launch into a flurry of ad hominem, that's not my problem. But it does mean you're not addressing the logical problem I'm highlighting.

I was referring to substance abuse and you knew it. An accidents are accidents, substance abuse is intentional. Substance abuse is forcing an unborn life to take in poison which would harm the fetus in every case, driving however does not harm the fetus in every case. You knew exactly what I meant and what I was referring to thus this logical problem you are addressing is nonexistent and threadjacking. This thread is not discussing penalties for pregnant drivers but penalties for pregnant women who abuse substances.

By the same logic, a woman who ends up in a car crash while pregnant would open herself up to the same kind of response. So - pregnant women shouldn't drive? Or even.. be driven? Or... walk near roads?
Replace "pregnant" with "together with her child", and you'll have clear answers to all these questions.

In each of these situations with a child, she would not be held liable (with a few exceptions); so there's no reason for it to be different with an unborn child.


If a woman injected heroine into her child, however, or crippled it in malicious act or criminal negligence, or willfully performed other crimes against her child, she would be held criminally liable.

I was referring to substance abuse and you knew it.


Yes, you were. And I was referring to a different type of incident, using the rationales YOU gave - to show that they are pleading special exception.


An accidents are accidents, substance abuse is intentional.


No - substance USE is intentional. Substance ABUSE can be an accident.


Substance abuse is forcing an unborn life to take in poison which would harm the fetus in every case...


Not at all. The whole reason why babies aren't wired directly into the mother's blood supply is to make that not true.


...driving however does not harm the fetus in every case. You knew exactly what I meant and what I was referring to thus this logical problem you are addressing is nonexistent and threadjacking. This thread is not discussing penalties for pregnant drivers but penalties for pregnant women who abuse substances.

And I'm pointing out that your RATIONALE is pure special exception. You don't apply the alleged qualifiers equally.

The woman (in Canada) can drink or use illegal drugs that harm the baby without being charged. Also, it is legal to provide alcohol to a pregnant woman. It is her choice to harm the infant cause its her property

However, this will harm a very real person later on in life. The correlation is direct as is the cause.

It is assumed, in this case, that the fetus will one day be born. And since the fetus will one day be born, then it will one day be a person. Therefore, this argument doesn't support anti-choice people, because in the case of abortion, there is no intent to allow the fetus to become a person in the first place.

As to the original question, I think incentive-type programs and education are really all we can do during pregnancy without taking it too far. A pregnant woman doesn't lose her rights to control her own body because she is pregnant.

As for possible civil cases that a child might have against a mother who knowingly engaged in unnecessary behavior that could cause birth defects, I think it's a good idea in principle. Then, I look at words like "knowingly" and "unnecessary" and things start getting fuzzy. I think that any kind of legal construct for this would have to be very, very clear and well-constructed to avoid the slippery slope. The standard of proof would need to be very high. We would have to avoid instances in which a woman's actions before she was aware of her pregnancy were used. We would have to avoid instances in which a woman was held responsible for health risks that she would not have been aware of. And so on....

Problem is, the law generally doesn't work that way and trying to make it work that way often invites abuse and makes laws virtually unenforceable.

All of the above, I agree with.

It's not an easy issue. While we know that alcohol and drug use will harm a fetus, it becomes more muddy when we try to figure out if this was intentional or not.

I'm not certain the legal issue actually exists in the way that some would have us believe. It may be fuzzy, but it isn't fuzzy because an infant who is born after a botched abortion doesn't have the same rights as any other infant. It's because words are somewhat open to interpretation.

As your link says, many are opposed to passing this legislation, not because its stated purpose is something bad, but because they don't feel that the legislators have been careful enough in defining these things.

Also, while I can't seem to find the full text of the legislation right now, there's this from your link:

"The first defines the words 'person', 'human being', 'child', and 'individual', as including "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." Although the term "infant" normally refers to a newborn baby, here its meaning is extended to also include fertilized ova, pre-embryos, embryos and fetuses."

This is pretty clearly a backdoor attempt at eroding abortion rights. There is absolutely no reason that this law would require fertilized ova, pre-embryos, or embryos to be defined as a human person.

It's important to remember that laws are often opposed, not because of their stated purpose, but because of what else they do. I opposed a law in GA to set up an umbilical cord stem cell bank, not because that's a bad idea (in fact, it's a good idea and they should have actually funded it), but because the entire first portion of the bill was an attack on embryonic stem cell research and contained quite a bit of erroneous "scientific" analysis. The original version of the bill would have defined an unfertilized egg as a human person.

So unless that embryo is born alive, then no, it is not classified as an infant. Not as far as I can tell. It is, however, a vague wording.

Few fetuses would survive very long either. It is a truly rare case where it would actually manage. Even then, it's not necessarily for the better, for anyone involved, least of all the (defined) infant.

Yes, you were. And I was referring to a different type of incident, using the rationales YOU gave - to show that they are pleading special exception.



No - substance USE is intentional. Substance ABUSE can be an accident.



Not at all. The whole reason why babies aren't wired directly into the mother's blood supply is to make that not true.



And I'm pointing out that your RATIONALE is pure special exception. You don't apply the alleged qualifiers equally.

1) Aspergers people do this all the time. It sucks :(

2) So what if I worded it wrongly? Everyone else got my point. Everyone else understood that I believe women who choose to push drugs and drink shouldn't do so to their unborn offspring. And that the "my body my choice" cannot apply in the particular exact instance that the OP pointed out explicitly.

3) We are talking about pregnant women are we not?

4) I am only taking the kind of women in question into consideration, that is why what I'm saying doesn't apply to drivers.

1) Aspergers people do this all the time. It sucks :(


Do what all the time?

And how does it relate to me using a parallel to illustrate that the 'logic' only 'works' in isolation?


2) So what if I worded it wrongly? Everyone else got my point. Everyone else understood that I believe women who choose to push drugs and drink shouldn't do so to their unborn offspring. And that the "my body my choice" cannot apply in the particular exact instance that the OP pointed out explicitly.


It's not a matter of wording it wrongly... use and abuse are different things. A woman who is prescribed medical marijuana is using the drug, but there comes a point where her self-administered dosage becomes abuse. A woman drinking a glass of wine is using the drug, but when she cracks the fourth case, she's probably safely abusing it.

But did she MEAN to take that second glass? The one that lead to another and another? When is it an accident?


3) We are talking about pregnant women are we not?


Yes. You are aware of the placenta, are you not?


4) I am only taking the kind of women in question into consideration, that is why what I'm saying doesn't apply to drivers.

The 'kind of women'?

This should be interesting... please expand on what 'kid of women' we are discussing?

Do what all the time?

And how does it relate to me using a parallel to illustrate that the 'logic' only 'works' in isolation?



It's not a matter of wording it wrongly... use and abuse are different things. A woman who is prescribed medical marijuana is using the drug, but there comes a point where her self-administered dosage becomes abuse. A woman drinking a glass of wine is using the drug, but when she cracks the fourth case, she's probably safely abusing it.

But did she MEAN to take that second glass? The one that lead to another and another? When is it an accident?



Yes. You are aware of the placenta, are you not?



The 'kind of women'?

This should be interesting... please expand on what 'kid of women' we are discussing?

1) Aspergers people are really inept when it comes to most expression, it sucks. Since your parallel is only my attempt to convey a message it doesn't convey the actual meaning of the message.

2)Either way the poor fetus receiving a lot of nasty drugs and alcohol.

3) If she's aware of her pregnancy then drinking is a big no no.

4) The placenta doesn't protect the offspring from alcohol and drugs or else the usage of substances when in the maternal state would not be an issue.

5)pregnant drug pushers

1) Aspergers people are really inept when it comes to most expression, it sucks.


In my day, down our way, what they diagnose as 'Aspergers' now, they diagnosed as 'voluntary autism'. Since I was diagnosed as 'voluntary autistic' in 1976, I have less tolerance than most for Aspergers as an excuse.


Since your parallel is only my attempt to convey a message it doesn't convey the actual meaning of the message.


The logic, if true, should apply across circumstances, which it doesn't.


2)Either way the poor fetus receiving a lot of nasty drugs and alcohol.


Which isn't strictly relevent.


3) If she's aware of her pregnancy then drinking is a big no no.


Sure. But is it a legally enforcable big no-no?


4) The placenta doesn't protect the offspring from alcohol and drugs or else the usage of substances when in the maternal state would not be an issue.


The placenta DOES provide protection to a fairly broad spectrum, actually. The problem isn't the water, it's the firehose.


5)pregnant drug pushers

Those who trade in illegal substances? Do you mean users/abusers?

Even so - why punish those who smoke pot, but not those that eat tuna?

In my day, down our way, what they diagnose as 'Aspergers' now, they diagnosed as 'voluntary autism'. Since I was diagnosed as 'voluntary autistic' in 1976, I have less tolerance than most for Aspergers as an excuse.



The logic, if true, should apply across circumstances, which it doesn't.



Which isn't strictly relevent.



Sure. But is it a legally enforcable big no-no?



The placenta DOES provide protection to a fairly broad spectrum, actually. The problem isn't the water, it's the firehose.



Those who trade in illegal substances? Do you mean users/abusers?

Even so - why punish those who smoke pot, but not those that eat tuna?

1) I actually do have it.

2) I was only referring to the situation in the op

3) Why not?

4) Then how come drugs and alcohol cause fetal damage?

5) Tuna? The only way I can see tuna being harmful is if was fished out of polluted mercury filled waters.

I don't see what the big deal is if these women take the money for sterilization hey that is their fault.

I've already stated my position on pregnant drinking and stuff like that in the unborn victims of crime thread (just to summarize: this is different from abortion because what happens before the baby is born will affect the baby after he or she is born, it may seem controlling but we have to draw the line somewhere, where the line is drawn should be based on what scientists and doctors suggest about it, etc...) but there's another point I want to bring in here, and I don't think this point could be labelled as being a point on the same side OR on the opposite side...

Why don't we hear as much about polluted air as we do about drugs? I forget how I first came across this, but the following web page is about damage nyc pollution does to fetuses:

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/07/23/airpolution.php

So yeah, it seems we hear more about stuff like fetal alcohol syndrome than fetal new york air syndome. I'm guessing this would have something to do with what seems to me to be a more general double standard between drugs and pollution, since this isn't the only case of it; smoking in public buildings seems to be thought of differently than driving in cities. Just figured I'd throw that out there into this topic and see where it goes.

The placenta DOES provide protection to a fairly broad spectrum, actually. The problem isn't the water, it's the firehose.

Just for clarification:

The placenta doesn't really filter anything. It keeps the two bloodstreams very thinly separated to prevent actual blood from mixing (which luckily helps avoid immune . Pretty much anything that can diffuse out of the mother's bloodstream and into her tissues can also diffuse through the placenta and into the fetal bloodstream.

I've been seeing this come up a lot in threads related to abortion lately. Has that ever actually happened?

It wasn't after an abortion, but my mother got pregnant after a screwed up sterilization procedure. Due to the health issues, the babies didn't make it to term and were extracted stillborn. Almost the same thing.

Just for clarification:

The placenta doesn't really filter anything. It keeps the two bloodstreams very thinly separated to prevent actual blood from mixing (which luckily helps avoid immune . Pretty much anything that can diffuse out of the mother's bloodstream and into her tissues can also diffuse through the placenta and into the fetal bloodstream.

Not strictly true - it's a semi-permeable membrane, and you can drive material through it by an osmosis or reverse-osmosis process. While 'filtering' might not be it's PRIME mission in life (so to speak) it is certainly a property.

I think the really disturbing thing is how much attention is given to which drugs or alcoholic products that pregnant women are abusing.... and so little attention is given to pregnant women that are abused.

Getting pregnant while addicted to any one of a variety of substances (including alcohol and tobacco) is irresponsible to say the least.

But then, of course, many of these people have some big issues going on, so it's a bit much to expect that much responsibility from some of them.

Not strictly true - it's a semi-permeable membrane, and you can drive material through it by an osmosis or reverse-osmosis process. While 'filtering' might not be it's PRIME mission in life (so to speak) it is certainly a property.

It is a semi-permeable membrane in the same way that any capillary bed is. Hence the reason I pointed out that anything which can diffuse into the maternal tissues from her bloodstream can also diffuse into the placenta, and thus into the fetal bloodstream. It would be likely to do so in lower concentrations, but it would still get through.

Osmosis is part of it - the blood pressure in those capillary beds is important, but most of the transport takes place through simple diffusion.

Pregnant women and alcohol abuse is a sight, of course, but the end result oftentimes is hilarious.

I think the really disturbing thing is how much attention is given to which drugs or alcoholic products that pregnant women are abusing.... and so little attention is given to pregnant women that are abused.
How common is that though? I don't know about it myself, but perhaps awareness should be raised about that as well.

How common is that though? I don't know about it myself, but perhaps awareness should be raised about that as well.

Well, I think it already happened in this thread, but it might have been another, we had a source presented that cites violence as the second most common cause of death in both pregnant women and mothers that gave birth within the last year. Automobile deaths were - unsurprisingly - the only higher contibutor in each category.

Well, I think it already happened in this thread, but it might have been another, we had a source presented that cites violence as the second most common cause of death in both pregnant women and mothers that gave birth within the last year. Automobile deaths were - unsurprisingly - the only higher contibutor in each category.
oh i thought that murder was the #1 cause of death of pregnant women.

guess i was wrong.

oh i thought that murder was the #1 cause of death of pregnant women.

guess i was wrong.

Pretty sure it was Neesika that posted it, but I wouldn't want to go under oath on it. I'll see if I can find the link, because I was fairly certain violence was number 2.

That said - thinking about it - I think we might have actually had two different studies posted. Hmmm. I'll see what I can find.

EDIT: I was right, Neesika posted it in the "Unborn Victims of Crimes Act" thread:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/20316.php

"Homicide is the second most common cause of injury-related death among pregnant women and new mothers, according to a... CDC study...

Well, I think it already happened in this thread, but it might have been another, we had a source presented that cites violence as the second most common cause of death in both pregnant women and mothers that gave birth within the last year. Automobile deaths were - unsurprisingly - the only higher contibutor in each category.
As I said in another thread, I think the fact that society uses automobiles as much as it does is part of the problem for that; automobiles tend to cause lots of problems in society, and people need to scrap the double standards (such as "if not for drinking there wouldn't be drunk driving in the first place..." not working if you replace [drinking] with [driving]) and face that.

As I said in another thread, I think the fact that society uses automobiles as much as it does is part of the problem for that; automobiles tend to cause lots of problems in society, and people need to scrap the double standards (such as "if not for drinking there wouldn't be drunk driving in the first place..." not working if you replace [drinking] with [driving]) and face that.

Which has what to do with the fact that he second highest cause of death in pregnant women and recent mothers is violence?

Youv'e got some kind of obsession about cars...


Not that I disagree, per se - most people I see on the roads don't deserve to be there. Being drunk at the same time? Not helping.

Which has what to do with the fact that he second highest cause of death in pregnant women and recent mothers is violence?

Youv'e got some kind of obsession about cars...


Not that I disagree, per se - most people I see on the roads don't deserve to be there. Being drunk at the same time? Not helping.
Ok, I kinda misread your post then... I do think that if that's the case, more awareness should be raised about the issue of violence towards pregnant women and recent mothers, hopefully to draw attention to that.

And I think you're kinda jumping to conclusions when it comes to the car "obsession" part; I didn't even talk about car-driving very much on this site until recently; I brought it up in the other thread, so I figured it'd only be consistent to bring it up in this thread as well. Though then again this afternoon there seemed to be a heck of a car build-up on Freshwater Road (street in St. John's) that slowed down the metrobus I was on and that might also have something to do with it...