Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Parliament doesn't consider heavy drinking by pregnant mothers to be a crime against the child. This is absurd and outrageous, in my opinion. For heavy drinking to cause harm to the child even before its birth is irresponsibility on the mother's part, an action the consequences of which will be suffered by the child - sometimes even throughout his/her life.

    I think that such drinking whilst pregnant should certainly be criminalised - the court handling the case should issue orders for rehabilitation and longer-term counselling to help alcoholic mothers to reduce their drinking during this crucial period for the child's development.

    As for the women's rights campaigners exclaiming that this would lead to the banning of many things, even boiled eggs (metro, 05/12/14), this is nothing but ridiculous. Alcoholism and eating eggs are two different things. Each would need to be assessed individually.


    What is your view?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Brother ash, alcohol is haram anyway. There is no room for debate on this matter

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ash92:))
    Parliament doesn't consider heavy drinking by pregnant mothers to be a crime against the child. This is absurd and outrageous, in my opinion. For heavy drinking to cause harm to the child even before its birth is irresponsibility on the mother's part, an action the consequences of which will be suffered by the child - sometimes even throughout his/her life.

    I think that such drinking whilst pregnant should certainly be criminalised - the court handling the case should issue orders for rehabilitation and longer-term counselling to help alcoholic mothers to reduce their drinking during this crucial period for the child's development.

    As for the women's rights campaigners exclaiming that this would lead to the banning of many things, even boiled eggs (metro, 05/12/14), this is nothing but ridiculous. Alcoholism and eating eggs are two different things. Each would need to be assessed individually.


    What is your view?

    I have to agree. If you can't leave drinking out of your life for 9 months you have a problem. Not to mention harming your baby.

    People need to get a grip.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    They should be free to do what they want up to 24 wks. If she wants to she can kill the baby if she feels like it until then so possibly harming it with FAS is the least of it.
    After that, imho you have signed up to care for that life until full term. For me doing drugs or alcohol in such quantities as to harm the baby while she is carrying after this time, it is just as bad as if a father gets drunk or drugged while in charge of a 3mth old and drops it on its head.
    In this day and age there is no excuse for not knowing the dangers of FAS.
    It is almost like saying women are like infants and shouldnt be held responsible for their actions.
    24 weeks is plenty of time to decide if you want to end its life.
    I am pro choice btw.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caravaggio2)
    They should be free to do what they want up to 24 wks. If she wants to she can kill the baby if she feels like it until then so possibly harming it with FAS is the least of it.
    After that, imho you have signed up to care for that life until full term. For me doing drugs or alcohol in such quantities as to harm the baby while she is carrying after this time, it is just as bad as if a father gets drunk or drugged while in charge of a 3mth old and drops it on its head.
    In this day and age there is no excuse for not knowing the dangers of FAS.
    It is almost like saying women are like infants and shouldnt be held responsible for their actions.
    24 weeks is plenty of time to decide if you want to end its life.
    I am pro choice btw.
    Playing devils advocate here. Say the mother wanted an abortion and drank but when it came to it, she didn't go through with it. Chances are her child would still be born with FAS.

    I watched a documentary on a woman whose child was had FAS and he was unruly, struggled in school, amongst other things. She wish she had known the effects earlier (she only drank up until about 10/12 weeks because she didn't know she was pregnant). The evidence is there. I don't want to come across that the government should control the women that drink but theres a degree of care required!
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    suddenly it's OK to refer to the baby in the womb as a child... not as a fetus or the horrendous products of conception
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    suddenly it's OK to refer to the baby in the womb as a child... not as a fetus or the horrendous products of conception

    Just to reiterate, I am pro choice, but.....
    there is a lot of hypocrisy around abortion and terminology.
    For me, you can call it what you like but it is still a baby. Have you ever heard anybody say they have lost a foetus, no matter how early on. I mean ever....not once.
    They always say they have lost a baby.
    I guess the difference is if you wanted it, it was a baby. If you didnt it was a foetus.
    If a mother took a substance to deliberatly harm or kill a baby she was carrying at 7 or 8 mths would that be ok?
    What is so different about massive amounts of alcohol?
    To me you have an unwritten contract with your baby to at least help it start its life as well as possible.
    I' ll just go and fetch the extinguisher to put my Rrse out when I get flamed.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caravaggio2)
    Just to reiterate, I am pro choice, but.....
    there is a lot of hypocrisy around abortion and terminology.
    For me, you can call it what you like but it is still a baby. Have you ever heard anybody say they have lost a foetus, no matter how early on. I mean ever....not once.
    They always say they have lost a baby.
    I guess the difference is if you wanted it, it was a baby. If you didnt it was a foetus.
    If a mother took a substance to deliberatly harm or kill a baby she was carrying at 7 or 8 mths would that be ok?
    What is so different about massive amounts of alcohol?
    To me you have an unwritten contract with your baby to at least help it start its life as well as possible.
    I' ll just go and fetch the extinguisher to put my Rrse out when I get flamed.
    certainly when the happy couple go to have their ultrasound picture done the nurse does not say "awww look the products of conception are sucking their thumb"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely not. Simply because of the negative effects it could have on the child.

    Women who heavily drink when they are not pregnant should be giving help, Women who do it when pregnant should be stopped completely.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Peer Support Volunteers
    Like with smoking, I don't think it should be at all. For the sake of the health of your child, 9 months is hardly a big ask.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    suddenly it's OK to refer to the baby in the womb as a child... not as a fetus or the horrendous products of conception
    here in lays the legal, moral, ethical and medical issue

    the definition of viability at 24 weeks is somewhat outdated, as significant proportions of 22 and 23 week gestation babies will survive with modern neonatal intensive care with variable sequale of not being left to die as they are under 24 weeks .

    I am unsure of why criminalising mothers who make unwise choices especially in early pregnancy will help, much like the public interest arguments over the prosecution of one or both parties in under-age sex cases where they are either both under age or the older party 16- 18 ( in all cases where the other party is 12 or over) / 21 ( where the other party is 14 + and they are in an established relationship)
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ash92:))
    .... What is your view?
    I find the whole thing very disturbing. If you are a pregnant woman and drink to excess knowing you are likely to harm your baby then I would doubt your ability to be a good mother. Same goes with smoking. To me it is very clear cut. Stop smoking and drinking for 9 months, if you can't do this then don't get pregnant until you can.

    I don't think it has anything do with women's rights this has everything to do with giving that baby the best possible start in life.

    As this link says, FAS is totally preventable, you can avoid giving your child mental and physical deficiencies for his or her entire life. If you knew this why wouldn't you do it.

    http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/brain/fas.html


    Education is the key. Perhaps mothers who drank to excess during pregnancy and have a child who is now suffering because of their poor choices should go into schools during PSHE lessons and let children know.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EloiseStar)

    I watched a documentary on a woman whose child was had FAS and he was unruly, struggled in school, amongst other things. She wish she had known the effects earlier (she only drank up until about 10/12 weeks because she didn't know she was pregnant). The evidence is there. I don't want to come across that the government should control the women that drink but theres a degree of care required!
    This surely is a perfect example why criminalisation will never work. How on earth could you prove at any sort of decent rate, that women were knowingly drinking to excess while pregnant, when many women go months before even finding out?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    • It's impossible to police
    • It's over-intrusion on the part of the state
    • Even if it's not over-intrusion, the unborn child is NOT a legal entity with its own right to life. Unless you want to ban abortion as well? No? Didn't think so.

    ​You surely don't expect doctors and midwives to report women who admit to drinking alcohol while pregnant; and if you did (and for some reason we actually obliged and did so) then women would simply lie about their alcohol consumption in clinic, defeating the purpose of such a law as well as putting their health (and that of the baby) at greater risk due to the lack of medical awareness.

    Dumb. There's a big difference between something being bad for you and something justifying legislation, a point missed by far too many people who don't consider the IMPLICATIONS for civil liberty and the practicality of the matter.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by what is life :/)
    Brother ash, alcohol is haram anyway. There is no room for debate on this matter

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    True dat. This is the society subforum though

    (Original post by caravaggio2)
    They should be free to do what they want up to 24 wks. If she wants to she can kill the baby if she feels like it until then so possibly harming it with FAS is the least of it.
    After that, imho you have signed up to care for that life until full term. For me doing drugs or alcohol in such quantities as to harm the baby while she is carrying after this time, it is just as bad as if a father gets drunk or drugged while in charge of a 3mth old and drops it on its head.
    In this day and age there is no excuse for not knowing the dangers of FAS.
    It is almost like saying women are like infants and shouldnt be held responsible for their actions.
    24 weeks is plenty of time to decide if you want to end its life.
    I am pro choice btw.
    Thanks for sharing your view. However, I would argue that to choose to abort the child is one thing; to choose to do something that would retard the child's development or cause a handicap is starkly different.
    The child is the one that will have to live with it - the mother may well neglect her child's care now as she did then. We can't say everything is ok based on the reasoning of dependance upon others for a significant part of her life.

    The intoxicated father in your example did not intentionally drop the child - rather it was accidental. However, the mother in this case did intentionally binge drink. The two are not equivalent.


    (Original post by the bear)
    suddenly it's OK to refer to the baby in the womb as a child... not as a fetus or the horrendous products of conception
    The terminology seems somewhat irrelevant in this case, given that the foetus did develop into a baby, which then developed into a child (ie. the baby was born and grew to become a child).

    (Original post by ngt93)
    Absolutely not. Simply because of the negative effects it could have on the child.

    Women who heavily drink when they are not pregnant should be giving help, Women who do it when pregnant should be stopped completely.
    Agreed. This drinking culture we have in British society is out of hand. We need to come out of the past and rise above alcoholism.

    (Original post by Viva Emptiness)
    This surely is a perfect example why criminalisation will never work. How on earth could you prove at any sort of decent rate, that women were knowingly drinking to excess while pregnant, when many women go months before even finding out?
    Good point. But does the action have to be taken after the child is born and unwell?
    Breathalyser testing could be used every so often, perinatally.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ash92:))
    Good point. But does the action have to be taken after the child is born and unwell?
    Breathalyser testing could be used every so often, perinatally.
    How would a breathalyser work unless she had been drinking that day, or heavily the previous evening?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No it shouldn't be allowed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viva Emptiness)
    How would a breathalyser work unless she had been drinking that day, or heavily the previous evening?
    It is impossible to monitor alcohol consumption constantly. Albeit intermittent, it is a realistic approach that would have some benefit rather than none. Surprise checks may be of further use.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.