Feminism has gone too far now

Original post by The Epicurean

The fact is that we know full well that alcoholics and drug addicts cause harm to themselves and without the proper support and assistance, will continue to do so. If they are unable to prevent themselves from causing harm to themselves, then it logically follows that such self-harm will continue if they are also pregnant, only this time, another potential human being is involved.

Should we punish an alcoholic or drug addict for harming themselves? Obviously not, as it is something they don't have control over. Rather what is needed is support, medical help etc... But as soon as they become pregnant, you think they should be punished, despite still being just as helpless as before. In both scenarios, pregnant or not pregnant, they are first and foremost causing harm to themselves.

To what extent does someone who is permanently under the influence of alcohol or drugs think rationally? Normally the first thing on their mind is meeting their addiction and not the innocent potential human who might suffer. Can we really expect them to actively opt for an abortion?

How would prosecuting individuals who are alcoholics or drug addicts help the situation. If all it took to stop addicts from consuming alcohol or drugs was a thread of prosecution, alcoholism and drug addiction would not exist.

Ultimately we should not be taking such a reactive stance and prosecuting these vulnerable individuals, but rather taking proactive steps to prevent people from becoming addicts in the first place and providing the proper support and medical care for those who are addicts.

I'm referring to individuals that when given help still do not care. They still persistently do whatever they want regardless of whether it has an effect on their child. You can only give help to people that want help. Believe it or not, some people don't want to be helped.

Prosecuting people that extensively take drugs and know how it's affecting their child should be held accountable. For example Katie Price, look at what she did to her eldest son Harvey.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 42

Original post by The Epicurean

The fact is that we know full well that alcoholics and drug addicts cause harm to themselves and without the proper support and assistance, will continue to do so. If they are unable to prevent themselves from causing harm to themselves, then it logically follows that such self-harm will continue if they are also pregnant, only this time, another potential human being is involved.

Should we punish an alcoholic or drug addict for harming themselves? Obviously not, as it is something they don't have control over. Rather what is needed is support, medical help etc... But as soon as they become pregnant, you think they should be punished, despite still being just as helpless as before. In both scenarios, pregnant or not pregnant, they are first and foremost causing harm to themselves.

To what extent does someone who is permanently under the influence of alcohol or drugs think rationally? Normally the first thing on their mind is meeting their addiction and not the innocent potential human who might suffer. Can we really expect them to actively opt for an abortion?

How would prosecuting individuals who are alcoholics or drug addicts help the situation. If all it took to stop addicts from consuming alcohol or drugs was a thread of prosecution, alcoholism and drug addiction would not exist.

Ultimately we should not be taking such a reactive stance and prosecuting these vulnerable individuals, but rather taking proactive steps to prevent people from becoming addicts in the first place and providing the proper support and medical care for those who are addicts.

Okay what do you propose then? Banning alcohol altogether? Even that won't work. There will always be alcoholics in the world. There is a subculture of UK citizens who live to get pissed at all cost. You can't change that. If as you said yourself these people are incapable of rational thinking the decision must be made for them and they must be institutionalised. You can't let them go about recklessly endangering another person.

Reply 43

If this woman knowingly endangered her child, then she should have been institutionalised. You can't just give her the option to actively seek help or abort the baby because you can't expect an alcoholic to think rationally. She should have been put in an institution until she had achieved sobriety and only then given the decision on whether to abort the child or not. If she decides to keep the child then how much she drinks should be monitored throughout her pregnancy. This has to be the law, or more children will continue to be born with foetal alcoholic syndrome because of the negligence of the mother. The law MUST protect the child if the mother wont.

I'm aware there maybe flaws in my proposition but I'll let someone else do the analysis.

Reply 44

KingStannis

3

lets not pretend pro choice extremism isn't linked to feminism guys.

Reply 45

Also about the thread title, perhaps it is to do with feminism. Or at least liberalism. The appeals court judge ruled she hadn't inflicted GBH because the child was a foetus at the time and in the eyes of the law not a person. They essentially ruled that the child at the time had no rights and that the fact it does now makes no difference. They have decided she has the right to do what they want to her unborn child and not be held legally responsible for any damage caused, which is pro-women's rights if not feminism.

Anyway I think the council have grounds to take this to the supreme court. You currently have up to 24 weeks to have an abortion after conception, I believe. Now how come you cannot terminate the child after this time but you CAN poison it? That's wrong and it's an issue that needs to be resolved. Assuming this woman drank heavily throughout her pregnancy and not only before 24 weeks, then I'm no lawyer but surely the council have a case.

Reply 46

RumpeIstiltskin

10

Original post by awkwardshortguy

surely the council have a case.

Given how contentious the issue is I highly doubt the Supreme Court would be willing to decide that a foetus can be a legal person. If the law is going to change it's something parliament will have to do

Reply 47

Original post by RumpeIstiltskin

Given how contentious the issue is I highly doubt the Supreme Court would be willing to decide that a foetus can be a legal person. If the law is going to change it's something parliament will have to do

If you can't kill a foetus after 24 weeks, surely you cannot poison it. If one is a crime, the other must also be.

Reply 48

RumpeIstiltskin

10

Original post by awkwardshortguy

If you can't kill a foetus after 24 weeks, surely you cannot poison it. If one is a crime, the other must also be.

A crime doesn't exist for poisoning a foetus rather than killing it which is why they had to rely on the Offences Against the Person act to try and bring a prosecution. By common sense you'd think if one is a crime the other should be, but that's not how the law stands and the courts can't create new offences.

Reply 49

Original post by RumpeIstiltskin

A crime doesn't exist for poisoning a foetus rather than killing it which is why they had to rely on the Offences Against the Person act to try and bring a prosecution. By common sense you'd think if one is a crime the other should be, but that's not how the law stands and the courts can't create new offences.

I imagine they can find a way of interpreting the laws we have and using the example I gave in order to try and set a precedent. After all that is how new laws get made, as I understand, by proving we have a need for them in the first place. But you sound a lot more read up on the law than myself so I accept you're probably a better judge of what will happen now, if anything does.

Reply 50

RumpeIstiltskin

10

Original post by awkwardshortguy

I imagine they can find a way of interpreting the laws we have and using the example I gave in order to try and set a precedent. After all that is how new laws get made, as I understand, by proving we have a need for them in the first place. But you sound a lot more read up on the law than myself so I accept you're probably a better judge of what will happen now, if anything does.

Judges have the power to make small changes to the law but any substantial change has to be made by parliament. The main problem in this case preventing a judge from changing the law is the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law which means you can't be convicted of a crime for an act which wasn't illegal at the time that you did it.

Reply 51

Hickory Dickory

1

Original post by missfats

I hope that feminism becomes illegal.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I hope islam becomes illegal. Oh wait, you don't like it?

You can't put a ban on what people think

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 52

treetrunks

14

Original post by missfats

I hope that feminism becomes illegal.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You do realise that a feminist is just somebody who wants complete gender equality? Why should that be illegal?

Reply 53

KingStannis

3

oh for **** sake, do you lot even know that a definition can't be intrinsically "true" or "false" right? Only consistent or inconsistent with itself or reality.

So repeating a given definition of feminism is NOT an argument.

Reply 54

felamaslen

Original post by BitWindy

So when does it become human?

When do you become an adult?

Reply 55

Copperknickers

OP

Original post by Captain Haddock

Where exactly does feminism come into this? You cannot convict somebody if there is no law to convict them under. It's that simple. The court found that she hadn't broken any laws, and therefore no crime had been committed. No crime, no conviction. You're tilting at windmills in a massive way.

Look I'll copy and paste a summary of the laws at play and how they reached this judgement:

You can read the judgement here.

Fair point. It turns out that it all stems from the so-called 'Born Alive Rule', which has been part of English common law for hundreds of years. Although, it has long since been revoked in the USA, so what is stopping them from revoking it here, if as we have seen the Lords can easily change it? Judges can interpret the law as long as they don't change it drastically, I don't see why they could have done the woman for manslaughter but not for GBH.

Or surely there is some obscure law they can invoke whereby causing someone harm in the future is illegal, for example setting a bear trap outside someone's front door would probably make you liable for any damage the bear trap does even though you didn't personally attack the victim at the time of the offense.

But anyhow, it's a moot point, because regardless of the history of the law or the current legal framework, you can see from this thread that there are actually Feminists who are justifying this state of affairs on the basis of Pro-choice, exactly as I said.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 56

Copperknickers

OP