Drug use while pregnant = assault?

Okay, so my roommate found this little gem on abcnews. This woman who was pregnant was found to be using methamphetamines while pregnant with her child and the child was found with addiction to the drug as well as having the drug in its system. She was prosecuted for assault on the fetus..

Now you guys are smart, so I need help clearing this up in my head with respect to social justice, and you guys are my logical muses..

Is this a just action? Like I think it is? Or is this just another case of stepping on the rights of women yet again?

: I wholeheartedly believe, before we even let the shit hit the fan, that this bitch should be VERY punished. I think that people with known severe heritable genetic defects should be punished like this too TBH. She fully intended to let the child live so it isn't about whether she was trying to abort with drugs. When a woman who is pregnant makes up her mind about keeping it, it becomes a person in my mind and should be treated like one, so this instance is like someone just shooting someone up with drugs without their consent, which would certainly be assault if the person was living but you see the confusion here? I'm having an (actually) pro-life response to this since the child was intended to be born (by its mother). I'm flip-floppy like that. See my confusion?

Help me my logical friends! Assemble!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So.. We know that food and water are running out, with overpopulation and all... Yet people keep on poppin' out those babies! I guess they want to have their baby and eat it too...

My top reason is that parenting gives you a free license to be selfish based purely on the fact that you're being selfish for an emanation of your own self. The illusion that what you do to benefit your children benefits them solely is a fallacy. Every parent benefits from the benefits that their children receive. Henceforth, it gives one a license to perpetuate a dog-eat-dog mentality that I perceive to be amoral. Parents say that their children are their greatest loves, what they forget to add is that they are their ONLY loves and only because their children are a reflection of themselves. I prefer to be able to love multiple people and have lasting relationships of many types and possess the essential core value of empathy for all than to restrict myself to an echo chamber of ego-masturbation and self-serving chicanery.

In short: Not parenting makes you a better person.

Whoops! Forgot the link. It's sorta important donchaknow.

Assault by drugs!

I don't like these laws. The primary intent isn't to improve pregnancy outcomes but to punish slugs, especially poor, minority sluts struggling with addiction I take a fairly routine med that doesn't go with pregnancy. If decide to carry to term or just can not access am abortion much of the damage was done in the first few months by a legal med that I later go off of when I realize I'm knocked up.

Sadly, this is just more personhood bullshit.

can't answer this one rationally. I've transported and treated to many of these kids.

_______________________________________________
“There are three things all wise men fear: the sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man.”

IMO, if she should have either chosen rehab or the pregnancy. Sure, fuck up your body if you want to. But if you wanna keep that baby, then you have no right to fuck up its body before it even has a chance to develop. Stop by an abortion clinic before you go ask the pharmacy for another box of Sudafed and 'syringes for grandma'.

I've said it on here before and I'll keep saying it, I have absolutely no tolerance or sympathy for meth heads.

I see it as a slippery slope, promoted by the same people who want to remove all contraception and abortions. These people have an agenda, and it's all about punishing women for being "sluts".

At the same time, I'd like to see pro-natalism tossed out the window and replaced with the idea of a society where what's best for each individual is taken into consideration, as well as the good of the whole. And it is good neither for the person that fetus will become nor society as a whole for it to be born like this. The right to be born with the best possible health and to be raised by emotionally stable people should replace the right to create new people if you feel like it.

I don't want her prosecuted, I want her to get an abortion.

Quote
yurble
I see it as a slippery slope, promoted by the same people who want to remove all contraception and abortions. These people have an agenda, and it's all about punishing women for being "sluts".

At the same time, I'd like to see pro-natalism tossed out the window and replaced with the idea of a society where what's best for each individual is taken into consideration, as well as the good of the whole. And it is good neither for the person that fetus will become nor society as a whole for it to be born like this. The right to be born with the best possible health and to be raised by emotionally stable people should replace the right to create new people if you feel like it.

I don't want her prosecuted, I want her to get an abortion.

See, I agree, but I still sorta think that the people who harm their children, even before their birth when they have to shoulder the burdens of their mother's habits, should be at least punished. Do we think then, that she should have actually been faced with a compulsory abortion more than a simple prosecution? Would compulsory abortion be just as bad as compulsory birth with respect to human rights? I want this to be more of a philosophical discussion of the rights of the mother vs. the fetus vs. the state. It's just way too intellectually juicy to let it stand as black and white, right and wrong.

Also, I don't see it as a punishment for being a slut, more of being a druggy who is harming their child with their irresponsibility.. She just happens to be pregnant at the time.. It, in a way, is no worse than smoking in the child's presence after birth and giving the risk of lung cancer, but is still bad due to the direct harm factor.. What say anyone else? I really do want to know opinions. It will help me in my thoughts for future instances of this issue as they are (regrettably) common. My goal is to consolidate thoughts and come up with my own response to this delicate issue, nothing more and nothing less.

The greatest damage to feti is done before the woman is even aware of being pregnant.

This is the same stuff that makes all women be considered pre-pregnant, who makes hard for people who don't want children to get necessary drugs (I have known women who had to fight to get drugs for their mental healt, on the ground that it could harm the blob of cells if the woman happened to get pregnant).

I don't want those people persecuted.
I want everybody to get some sort of permanent birth controll installed around 14 yo (like the chips they are making). They can have it removed when they EFFECTIVELY want to TTC, and the docs are entitled to negate it in case of comprovate drug abuse, and only after 19 years of age.
Fuck. The World would be a better place.

But as things stand now, this is just a way to take away women's right. Next, you won't be able to get your medicines because think of the -potential- children!!1!

_______________________

“I was talking about children that have not been properly house-trained. Left to their own impulses and indulged by doting or careless parents almost all children are yahoos. Loud, selfish, cruel, unaffectionate, jealous, perpetually striving for attention, empty-headed, for ever prating or if words fail them simply bawling, their voices grown huge from daily practice: the very worst company in the world. But what I dislike even more than the natural child is the affected child, the hulking oaf of seven or eight that skips heavily about with her hands dangling in front of her -- a little squirrel or bunny-rabbit -- and prattling away in a baby's voice.”


― Patrick O'Brian, The Truelove


lib'-er-ty: the freedom given to you to make the wrong decision, based on the reasoned belief that you will normally make the right one.

My thing is this: if you're not able to forego some of the more "selfish" destructive pleasures for 9 months, you're not responsible enough for parenthood. The child never asked to be exposed to drugs and deserves the best possible chance at a healthy life. (Though meth doesn't carry a huge risk of birth defects like alcohol or thalidomide. Low birth weight is probably the worst that will happen).

On the other hand, drug abuse will never, ever go away no matter how harshly you punish it. Preventing pregnancy is MUCH easier than wiping out addiction. I'm firmly against drug laws but would be in favor of laws requiring a psychological evaluation (at minimum) before getting knocked up.

Will they punish alcohol consumption while pregnant as well? Because it's far more harmful than meth to the developing fetus. If not, then FUCK this ruling in its unscientific ass.

Quote
t.

I don't want those people persecuted.
I want everybody to get some sort of permanent birth controll installed around 14 yo (like the chips they are making). They can have it removed when they EFFECTIVELY want to TTC, and the docs are entitled to negate it in case of comprovate drug abuse, and only after 19 years of age.
Fuck. The World would be a better place.

Yeah... Except for, say, people like me who have a long family history of severe medical proems, metabolic, circulatory, heart , blood, livers, kidneys, hormonal etc and choose NOT to take long term medications, ESPECIALLY not long term hormonal medications with risks of things like heart attacks and strokes.
No easy answer.
IMO, not only should birth control be free , there should be cash incentives to get it, the more long term the higher, and the more messed up the person the more money.

This is a really thorny issue. Sure, we all want the kid born healthy and ready for life. Here's where I have problems:

If you prosecute for assult on the fetus, then are you giving personhood status to a fetus?
If it's assault on a fetus for drugs, then could abortion be considered feticide/murder?

Whose rights come first, the woman's or the fetus's? Or are their rights intertwined? Where do her rights end and the fetus rights begin? Does the fetus have more legal rights than the woman/incubator?

If the fetus has no legal rights, then how can you prosecute the mother for assult on a fetus?

I could go on and on, but you see my point.

I think this is all about trying to end abortion, by trying to find a way to give the fetus backdoor personhood status. Those fuckers want to control women's bodies at all costs. They are furious that women can control their own fertility, that they're no longer under the rule of a man when it comes to sexuality and child bearing. So if they cannot outlaw abortion, they'll control her by giving rights to the fetus. They control what happens to the fetus, they can control her.

Where does it end, do all women suddenly become pre-pregnant under the law? Will our bodies be monitored, observed, evaluated, and inspected for any substance, illegal or otherwise, because we will all be classified as pre-pregnant? Because you know that if they put personhood on a fetus, then it is just a matter of years until young women are classified as such, where anything and everything she does impacts her uterus and some future child.

Imagine a future world where women's career choices, choice of food, medications, living conditions, etc...are all based on her being "pre-pregnant." You think it could never happen in the USA? I am old enough to see this country make a huge right-wing turn when it comes to women and their rights.

So no, I think prosecuting this young woman for fetal assult is bad. Bad law, and bad for women's rights.

Quote
catharsist
Also, I don't see it as a punishment for being a slut, more of being a druggy who is harming their child with their irresponsibility.

We should distinguish between the argument which is being made and the people who are making the argument. The reason I said it is about punishing sluts is because the majority people who push for laws like this tend to be part of the pro-liar, anti-contraception crowd. The particular argument as it is expressed is not about punishing sluts, but that is a favourite pasttime of these people.

So even if I find myself in agreement on some points, I am quite reluctant to agree with them on anything, because I know their overall agenda. Peace explained it pretty well.

I am thinking that they are looking at her intent, and not so much anything pro-life/pro-choice.

She intended to keep it, so I think they are looking at this through that lens instead of if she said "I intended to abort." Keeping it means that she's intending for it to live and become a viable offspring, but insists on taking drugs that will knowingly be harmful to this offspring she is fully intending to have.

I think that is the main distinction they are looking for.

Stuff like this is really tricky because of course if the loaf is born defective it's unfair towards the loaf, but if the loaf is fine then why should there be a problem? I see it as an assault on women's rights and other rights in general. Crap like this is what gives prescription meds like e.g. Accutane such a bad name and makes it so hard to get in many countries.
I however find that if you take drugs/meds/drink alcohol although you've been warned that it could/will damage the chyld and then go on to have a deformed chyld you should be heavily fined for inflicting problems on to people around you and tax dollars shouldn't have to take care of you or your defective loaf. You made a choice, you pay for that choice.
I just wonder, did the moo in the article visit the doctor while pregnant? If yes, did the doctor say anything? Was she warned? I don't think that prosecuting and jailing people like this is the answer because it costs taxpayers money. But if there were zero financial incentives for people to breed I am sure they would think several times before having a loaf.

Maybe she can be civilly liable to the kid, once it is born, if it is defective?

I think there should be a 'catch and release' program where drug addicts are forcibly sterilized and sent on their way.

Quote
Peace
This is a really thorny issue. Sure, we all want the kid born healthy and ready for life. Here's where I have problems:

If you prosecute for assult on the fetus, then are you giving personhood status to a fetus?
If it's assault on a fetus for drugs, then could abortion be considered feticide/murder?

Whose rights come first, the woman's or the fetus's? Or are their rights intertwined? Where do her rights end and the fetus rights begin? Does the fetus have more legal rights than the woman/incubator?

If the fetus has no legal rights, then how can you prosecute the mother for assult on a fetus?

I could go on and on, but you see my point.

I think this is all about trying to end abortion, by trying to find a way to give the fetus backdoor personhood status. Those fuckers want to control women's bodies at all costs. They are furious that women can control their own fertility, that they're no longer under the rule of a man when it comes to sexuality and child bearing. So if they cannot outlaw abortion, they'll control her by giving rights to the fetus. They control what happens to the fetus, they can control her.

Where does it end, do all women suddenly become pre-pregnant under the law? Will our bodies be monitored, observed, evaluated, and inspected for any substance, illegal or otherwise, because we will all be classified as pre-pregnant? Because you know that if they put personhood on a fetus, then it is just a matter of years until young women are classified as such, where anything and everything she does impacts her uterus and some future child.

Imagine a future world where women's career choices, choice of food, medications, living conditions, etc...are all based on her being "pre-pregnant." You think it could never happen in the USA? I am old enough to see this country make a huge right-wing turn when it comes to women and their rights.

So no, I think prosecuting this young woman for fetal assult is bad. Bad law, and bad for women's rights.

Peace makes some excellent points and I highlighted in red some of the major ones that popped into my head as well. Some of the other reasons I don't like prosecution in these types of cases include, but are not limited to, the following:

1)What about the women who use drugs or alcohol up until the 8th month and the loaf is born addicted and/or fucked up, but her tox screen comes back clean since she hasn't done drugs in the past 30 days before she sluiced? Are we to also prosecute women for PRIOR drugging-drinking while inpig? The same goes for those who stopped drugging-drinking at 2-3 months after they found out they were inpig and stopped doing it, but the damage has been done. Then there are the rare cases of, "I didn't know I was inpig!". Does ignorance of inpigness mean they aren't held accountable?

2)Even though there are a list of known symptoms of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, for example, if there is no alcohol present in the moo or loaf's system at the time of birth, does she still get prosecuted if it has the symptoms of the syndrome? Is evidence of FAS so precise as to be without error? Is there a specific test?

3)What if a pregnant woman attempts suicide with an overdose of drugs and she survives but the loaf is damaged or dies? I think there was a movie about one of these cases.

4)Out of fear of prosecution, won't less addicts seek medical care for the sluicing and new loaf care? As I am certain they would,,how does that help the loaf?

5)What about the baby daddys who infect feti with faulty sperm due to drug use? Are they to remain free from prosecution? If they are to be held accountable too, what about if they thought the woman was on the pill or they used a condom and it failed?

6)Have they defined, "drug", as far as what all counts towards getting prosecuted? What about prescription medication with the, "Don't take if you are pregnant or might become pregnant" warnings, like they all have? This would include most ALL prescription drugs like heart drugs, high blood pressure medicine, anti-depressants, anxiety drugs, pain medicines, antibiotics,among many others, as well as a host of over the counter medications like cold medicines,antihistamines, and most anything with caffeine in it.

7)What about if she is on her way to an abortion clinic for a LEGAL third trimester abortion, and she had the intent to abort all along but was just now able to raise the money, and she goes into labor before she makes it to the clinic and gives birth to a defective drug addled loaf? Are we to allow an hour's difference in the timing between a legal abortion and the birthing of a defective loaf to draw the line at when they are prosecuted?

8)Who decides which pregnant women are to be tested and which ones aren't? If an upper middle class married woman with insurance, for instance, who appears healthy, but her baby is born with an apparent drug addiction, going to be left alone and pitied for having a defective kid, but the uninsured druggie looking single woman, in the next room with the same situation, going to be singled out for drug testing?


For all these reasons and more, especially the control over the right to choose abortion issues and this being an end run around making a fetus or embryo a "person", I vote NO to prosecution. There's just no way to make it fair as there are too many gray areas. Instead, let's require testing for ALL women giving birth and the babies and require sterilization for those who have defective loaves due to drug and alcohol use regardless of their "status" in society. At the very least it's a good way to slow down these baby making machines in a world that's bursting at the seams with too many people as it is. If they are a drug addict or alcoholic they don't need to be raising kids anyway. Win-win. There again, I advocate mandatory sterilization after the second kid for ALL women, so I am not exactly what one might call "objective" in these matters.

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!

I wish there was a way to codify the intent... Whether she meant to keep it does make a ton of difference!

BUT!!! Then we get the bleeding hearts baaaawwwwing, "You could change your mind right before the procedure! What if you decide to keep it after all??!"

Women are not safe until the clump is actually and totally evicted.

I do not want women's medical and legal matters being decided for them based on being pre-pregnant nor pregnant.
Many of these issues are a wedge so that fundies can get these powers over women.

I of course do not agree with meth-heads doing drugs while pregnant and intending to keep the babby. Sadly I do see how a law like that could fuck up the rights of women who are trying to get abortions, BC, or even self induced abortions due to lack of access to abortion clinics. I also do not care to be considered pre pregnant. I also agree with one of the above posters that mentioned that the moo should be made to have an abortion.

don't agree with forced abortions but fuck, if you're going to mess up that kyd and it will live a miserable shitty life, by all means. On top of that we don't need yet another veggie to pay for, especially if it could have been prevented.

Unless she's having an abortion, yes, she should be prosecuted. Either get off the drugs at least while pregnant or don't breed. No one should have the right to cause someone to be born harmed. But if she aborted, all charges should be dropped.