Feminism has gone too far now Watch

ClickItBack
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 years ago
#21
(Original post by Blazar)
I don't know what on earth makes you think this is to do with feminism, which is the promotion of gender equality. This issue is to do with bodily autonomy. I personally think that the mother should have been prosecuted, not for injuring the foetus per se (as a foetus in its early stages isn't a human being any more than a skin cell is a human being), but for allowing the injured foetus to develop and giving birth to a severely affected child.
So according to you drinking to excess and damaging the foetus is fine for any pregnant woman as long as she makes sure to abort it before giving birth (and before the abortion cutoff date)? But if she does miss the cutoff date and carry to term, she should be punished?

I'm not saying I disagree with you necessarily; your proposal is absolutely logical if you begin from the assumption that a foetus is categorically not a human being before 24 weeks, and categorically IS a human being after 24 weeks. However, there is an overall sense in which this doesn't quite seem to be a satisfactory state of affairs . . .
0
reply
inthechaos
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 years ago
#22
I think the reason she can't be criminally prosecuted is because to charge with something like administering a noxious thing the victim has to be classed as a human being, which the courts have decided a baby cannot be until it is born (the actual term they used is "expelled from the womb" which sounds really horrible.) For example, if she stabbed herself in the stomach to deliberately kill the baby then she wouldn't be guilty of murder either.

So basically, the law is broken.
0
reply
missfats
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 years ago
#23
I hope that feminism becomes illegal.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Blazar
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 years ago
#24
(Original post by ClickItBack)
So according to you drinking to excess and damaging the foetus is fine for any pregnant woman as long as she makes sure to abort it before giving birth (and before the abortion cutoff date)? But if she does miss the cutoff date and carry to term, she should be punished?

I'm not saying I disagree with you necessarily; your proposal is absolutely logical if you begin from the assumption that a foetus is categorically not a human being before 24 weeks, and categorically IS a human being after 24 weeks. However, there is an overall sense in which this doesn't quite seem to be a satisfactory state of affairs . . .
I'm acting on the assumption that it isn't "human" until the point at which abortions are generally illegal (although I understand it's a bit of an arbitrary deadline as some babies will develop more quickly than others). I don't think it's wise to drink during pregnancy if you intend on carrying the baby to term. However, saying that damaging the foetus is bad no matter how developed it is would lead to a conflict with my views on abortion, and I believe that the freedom to choose to terminate the pregnancy is more important than the welfare of a foetus that is little more than a blob of cells. At this stage, foetal damage is somewhat analogous to liver damage - it's damage to a non-sentient part of an organism, although the liver may recover and the foetus won't. The problem is when a mother intends to carry the child to term and then deliberately acts in a manner that will severely affect the child after birth.
0
reply
Mimsycrafts
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 years ago
#25
Oh god i see some of the bonkers brigade have arrived. Look the woman was let off because THE LAW decided she could not be held liable for damage to a foetus. Rather than blaming feminists who have said and done nothing and have nothing to do with this other than the fact the beeatch who did this was female why not tackle THE LAW.
2
reply
BitWindy
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 years ago
#26
(Original post by Mimsycrafts)
On the grounds that it is a womans absolute right to choose what they do with their body if they choose to carry a baby full term they are choosing to take on the responsibility of giving that child the best chance in life. ie not drinking and causing illness.
So a baby being a human has nothing to do with the present physical state of the baby, but rather the possible future state of it exiting the womb by birth as determined by the mother's choice?

What if the mother changes her mind? Does the baby suddenly lose its personhood? And once it's born, what renders the mother's opinion on its classification as a human being irrelevant?
0
reply
miser
  • Forum Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 years ago
#27
I totally disagree with the ruling. The moment we stop allowing a woman to abort her child is the moment we recognise that child's personhood. At that point we should protect its rights as a person and not allow the mother to harm it in any way.

Now, whether such a law would have any efficacy in bringing about justice is another matter.
0
reply
Mimsycrafts
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 years ago
#28
(Original post by BitWindy)
So a baby being a human has nothing to do with the present physical state of the baby, but rather the possible future state of it exiting the womb by birth as determined by the mother's choice?

What if the mother changes her mind? Does the baby suddenly lose its personhood? And once it's born, what renders the mother's opinion on its classification as a human being irrelevant?
Yes thats what i believe.

I think you are deliberately being a bit nit picky. A mother would have chosen to have given birth to the child. Should something happen that makes the mother change her mind and choose an abortion that should still be respected as long as it is within the correct time frame. She wouldnt be signing away her right to abort just her right to cause deliberate harm that could affect the child at the point of birth.

You seem very interested in my opinion and not very forthcoming with your own
0
reply
Copperknickers
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#29
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#29
(Original post by Blazar)
However, saying that damaging the foetus is bad no matter how developed it is would lead to a conflict with my views on abortion, and I believe that the freedom to choose to terminate the pregnancy is more important than the welfare of a foetus that is little more than a blob of cells.
And this is why it is a Feminist issue and not just a loophole in the law. Besides it isn't a loophole, it's entirely deliberate: there has been a movement for some time now in the Feminist community to stress that foetuses are not humans until they are born, or at least until 28 weeks, and this is the logical conclusion of that opinion, as you can see above. Of course it makes no difference to the baby if you poison it before or after 24 weeks, its still going to be irreparably damaged, but try telling a Feminist that something which depends on her for its survival might somehow incur a duty of care. We afford more legal protection to goldfish than we do to our own children pre-24 weeks.

Which is rather ironic, since with that logic you'd think they'd also be in favour of Sharia law, since if a woman is the property of her husband and not a full human being then he should have full rights to treat her how he wishes. But no, women need the freedom to drink and take drugs and all those other important things, never mind if the direct consequence of that is the murder or grievous torture of their own future child(!)

At this stage, foetal damage is somewhat analogous to liver damage - it's damage to a non-sentient part of an organism, although the liver may recover and the foetus won't. The problem is when a mother intends to carry the child to term and then deliberately acts in a manner that will severely affect the child after birth.
I am trying to keep this civil, but I really struggle to have anything but for contempt for someone who seriously compares one's own liver with a living organism that is going to grow into a human.

Think about it: foetuses are objectively not internal organs, they are effectively the larval stage of the human being. Are you seriously saying, that if we were all superintelligent butterflies rather than superintelligent apes, that killing a caterpillar would not be considered murder, just because it wasn't a full butterfly yet? It's an early stage of the same lifeform. It makes no sense to say that foetuses are part of the female body, it just doesn't make sense scientifically. They are incubated within it and depend on it, they're even directly connected to it, but even at the very earliest stage they are cohesive, individual lifeforms with different DNA to their mother, no more a part of the body than the millions of other distinct lifeforms that exist within the human body (bacteria, viruses, the odd parasite, etc).

Conjoined twins are not considered 'the same person' just because they share the same space and the same nourishment, and they are actually even more connected to each other than a foetus to its mother, they share the same internal organs and DNA.
0
reply
Mimsycrafts
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#30
Report 4 years ago
#30
(Original post by Copperknickers)
And this is why it is a Feminist issue and not just a loophole in the law. Besides it isn't a loophole, it's entirely deliberate: there has been a movement for some time now in the Feminist community to stress that foetuses are not humans until they are born, or at least until 28 weeks, and this is the logical conclusion of that opinion, as you can see above. Of course it makes no difference to the baby if you poison it before or after 24 weeks, its still going to be irreparably damaged, but try telling a Feminist that something which depends on her for its survival might somehow incur a duty of care. We afford more legal protection to goldfish than we do to our own children pre-24 weeks.

Which is rather ironic, since with that logic you'd think they'd also be in favour of Sharia law, since if a woman is the property of her husband and not a full human being then he should have full rights to treat her how he wishes. But no, women need the freedom to drink and take drugs and all those other important things, never mind if the direct consequence of that is the murder or grievous torture of their own future child(!)



I am trying to keep this civil, but I really struggle to have anything but for contempt for someone who seriously compares one's own liver with a living organism that is going to grow into a human.

Think about it: foetuses are objectively not internal organs, they are effectively the larval stage of the human being. Are you seriously saying, that if we were all superintelligent butterflies rather than superintelligent apes, that killing a caterpillar would not be considered murder, just because it wasn't a full butterfly yet? It's an early stage of the same lifeform. It makes no sense to say that foetuses are part of the female body, it just doesn't make sense scientifically. They are incubated within it and depend on it, they're even directly connected to it, but even at the very earliest stage they are cohesive, individual lifeforms with different DNA to their mother, no more a part of the body than the millions of other distinct lifeforms that exist within the human body (bacteria, viruses, the odd parasite, etc).

Conjoined twins are not considered 'the same person' just because they share the same space and the same nourishment, and they are actually even more connected to each other than a foetus to its mother, they share the same internal organs and DNA.
Im a feminist and I believe the only damage a woman can carry out on her unborn child is any action required to abort. A woman has the right to abort and that is an important right to respect and retain. A woman has the responsibility to do everything she can to protect any child she brings into the world form harm.

I think you are being a bit blinkered and a bit conspiracy theorist about it all. Read all the articles it is a loophole that a woman who cause foetal damage cant be charged- a loophole that needs closing
0
reply
Hickory Dickory
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#31
Report 4 years ago
#31
Ok, consider this - a male's drug use can change his sperms which can lead to birth defects. Do you think a male should have no control over his body also?

What about other factors, such as environment? A pregnant woman near a nuclear waste/toxic dump area is probably going to have a higher chance of giving birth to a child with defects than to say, a woman living in the suburb of NY. Do you think the woman living in the poor condition should be charged criminally for knowingly causing birth defects?
2
reply
ClickItBack
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#32
Report 4 years ago
#32
(Original post by Blazar)
I'm acting on the assumption that it isn't "human" until the point at which abortions are generally illegal (although I understand it's a bit of an arbitrary deadline as some babies will develop more quickly than others). I don't think it's wise to drink during pregnancy if you intend on carrying the baby to term. However, saying that damaging the foetus is bad no matter how developed it is would lead to a conflict with my views on abortion, and I believe that the freedom to choose to terminate the pregnancy is more important than the welfare of a foetus that is little more than a blob of cells. At this stage, foetal damage is somewhat analogous to liver damage - it's damage to a non-sentient part of an organism, although the liver may recover and the foetus won't. The problem is when a mother intends to carry the child to term and then deliberately acts in a manner that will severely affect the child after birth.
I don't believe you can compare the liver to a foetus. They are both qualitatively and quantitatively very different.

I disagree with the idea that we should condition women to think of pre-24-weekers as 'a blob of cells' or 'non-human'. This doesn't mean I disagree with abortion - I'm actually very much in favour of it. I just think that we can have a law that permits abortions without having to label the foetus as non-human - in the same way we can have a law that permits euthanasia while still recognising the person being euthanised is fully human.

Anyway, we agree on the point that carrying to term a baby developmentally impaired by heavy drinking should be punished; I'm still undecided on my opinion on it being OK if the foetus is aborted.
0
reply
The Epicurean
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#33
Report 4 years ago
#33
I am not quite sure what this has to do with feminism. I don't even think this is even an issue of bodily autonomy. The article clearly says this of the women:

She consumed eight cans of strong lager and half a bottle of vodka a day
her mother drank the equivalent of 40-57 units of alcohol a day
So essentially she was an alcoholic? To what extent does an alcoholic or drug addict have control over their addiction? Can an alcoholic or drug addict be held accountable for harm caused to their baby when pregnant? Can we really expect a drug addict or alcoholic to steer clear of these substances? Maybe the real issue is to ask whether it would be morally acceptable/reprehensible to enforce an abortion on those individuals who are unable to undergo pregnancy without causing the baby harm, such as is the case with alcoholics and drug addicts? Drug addicts and alcoholics harm themselves on a daily basis through their addictions, and so obviously will cause harm towards any baby if they were pregnant.
0
reply
inthechaos
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#34
Report 4 years ago
#34
Sadly its not even a loophole in the law, the courts have decided that a baby in the womb is not human until its born and its not looking like anyone is changing it any day soon.
0
reply
Mimsycrafts
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#35
Report 4 years ago
#35
(Original post by The Epicurean)
I am not quite sure what this has to do with feminism. I don't even think this is even an issue of bodily autonomy. The article clearly says this of the women:




So essentially she was an alcoholic? To what extent does an alcoholic or drug addict have control over their addiction? Can an alcoholic or drug addict be held accountable for harm caused to their baby when pregnant? Can we really expect a drug addict or alcoholic to steer clear of these substances? Maybe the real issue is to ask whether it would be morally acceptable/reprehensible to enforce an abortion on those individuals who are unable to undergo pregnancy without causing the baby harm, such as is the case with alcoholics and drug addicts? Drug addicts and alcoholics harm themselves on a daily basis through their addictions, and so obviously will cause harm towards any baby if they were pregnant.
Maybe it wouldnt be morally acceptable to enforce an abortion but I do think that they should certainly face prosecution for doing harm to a child they choose to carry
0
reply
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#36
Report 4 years ago
#36
(Original post by lucaf)
While I agree this woman should ne seeing some serious jail time, wasnt the decision because they didn't want to set a precedent that could result in women getting sued who didn't know they were pregnant or who suffered side effects from medication?
i'm not a lawyer, but it seems the word "knowingly" could solve the problem entirely.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#37
Report 4 years ago
#37
(Original post by Copperknickers)
Utterly disgusting: a ruling by the court of appeal has set one of the most appalling precedents I have ever seen. It's irresponsible, sadistic, and diabolically, maliciously stupid. This country has actually managed to make Sharia law look rather tame compared with the extremes of liberalism, all in the name of Feminism. Here it is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30327893

It has been decided that a woman has absolutely NO obligation to her child while it is inside her body, and she can drink and take drugs with total freedom while pregnant without fear of any criminal repercussion, even when that leads to the child being forced by the selfishness of the mother to live a life of misery with severe development problems. A girl has been cripplingly disabled by her mother, and the mother gets off Scot free. If you were to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach you'd be liable for jail time, but if she did it too herself it would be totally OK.

I don't care what your opinion on abortion is, or contraception, or even Feminism: anyone who seriously argues that a woman has total freedom over her own body, even in the certain knowledge that her body contains another body that will soon be a human being, is a vicious monster who has no place in a civilised society. Ignoring all of the ethical issues, from a civil perspective, we can't seriously expect to have a functioning society when we are allowing thousands of our children to be irreversibly crippled for life without any sort of deterrent. Whether or not you believe a foetus is a human, to poison one by drinking whole bottles of vodka every week while pregnant is to create a child with severe problems as surely as battering a baby over the head with a brick. I'd like to see anyone defend this in the name of 'pro-choice'.
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:

-The CICA administers a scheme which considers claims for compensation "from people who have been physically or mentally injured because they were the innocent -victim of a violent crime ..." (paragraph 6);
The mother was alleged to have committed is from s23 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861: "Whosoever shall unlawfully administer to ... any other person, any poison or destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby ... to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm, shall be guilty of felony" (paragraph 12);
-The House of Lords has previously judged that although a foetus is a "unique organism and ... neither a distinct person nor an adjunct of the mother" there can be charges of manslaughter in where damage to the foetus is concerned, although there cannot be charges of murder (paragraph 18);
-One of the established rules of criminal liability is "in the absence of a specific statutory provision, an embryo or foetus in utero does not have a human personality and cannot be the victim of a crime of violence. Although the foetus is a unique organism it does not have the attributes that make it a person." (paragraph 19);

Conclusion: Because the foetus cannot be said to be 'any other person' under s23 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, and because the case does not involve manslaughter but only damage to the child, in this case it is not possible to claim for compensation "from people who have been physically or mentally injured because they were the innocent victim of a violent crime ..."
You can read the judgement here.
0
reply
alis-volatpropriis
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#38
Report 4 years ago
#38
Why are you people so adamant on slamming feminism all the time? It's getting old.. really old.. pro - choice movements differ from feminist movements. Pro-choice--> women should be able to make decisions regarding their body. Feminism--> women and men should be equal.

I personally do not agree at all with the ruling. It's a stupid ruling that's just going to lead to more strain on the nhs. It's tough enough raising disabled children. This ruling is perfect for the drug addicts and unkempt mothers, they're just gonna produce disabled kids that will be thrown into the system for the tax payer to pay for.

There should be an offence created specifically for this and women that abuse their bodies while pregnant in terms of drinking and drugs should be prosecuted.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
The Epicurean
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#39
Report 4 years ago
#39
(Original post by Mimsycrafts)
Maybe it wouldnt be morally acceptable to enforce an abortion but I do think that they should certainly face prosecution for doing harm to a child they choose to carry
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?


(Original post by alis-volatpropriis)
I personally do not agree at all with the ruling. It's a stupid ruling that's just going to lead to more strain on the nhs. It's tough enough raising disabled children. This ruling is perfect for the drug addicts and unkempt mothers, they're just gonna produce disabled kids that will be thrown into the system for the tax payer to pay for.

There should be an offence created specifically for this and women that abuse their bodies while pregnant in terms of drinking and drugs should be prosecuted.

Posted from TSR Mobile
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.
2
reply
Drunk Punx
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#40
Report 4 years ago
#40
(Original post by Copperknickers)
It's clearly a product of the pro-choice movement, the movement which claims that women should be treated exactly the same as men. This ignores the small problem that men and women are not the same, because men don't grow people inside them, so allowing a man freedom over his own body is not the same as allowing a woman freedom over her own body.

And depending on the period of pregnancy, a foetus can a highly developed animal, about the level of a lizard or a bird, and it is going to become a human, so it's a lot more than a 'skin cell'.
It's neither about Feminism nor whether one is pro-choice or not.

Feminism is about equality of the sexes, being pro-choice is holding the belief that you can have an abortion if you so desire (whereas being pro-life is the belief that abortion is immoral, to put it basically).

This article is about neither of those things, it's about an idiot doing what she does best; being an idiot.

I agree with nearly 100% of what you said in the OP, but don't try to blame feminism or being pro-choice on this because the two have slightly less than **** all to do with it.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (315)
37.77%
No - but I will (64)
7.67%
No - I don't want to (62)
7.43%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (393)
47.12%

Watched Threads

View All