Yikes! The Uterus Police!

reply to post by desert


Yep, he's a jack ass. I know that he is overly vocal about his religiousness, but I wonder if it is an act. I mean, and I apologize to daryllyn, but I (for myself) truly believe that if it were meant to be, that God's will (one way or the other) will be done. I may not understand, I may hate it with all that I am, but if a child were meant to dance on our little planet it will.

I do not deny that the things we do can impact the child, but at the same time I have seen drug addicts birth children. It makes no sense for a woman who constantly puts toxic substances into their body and produce a living child (yes the quality of that child's life has been effected, but they are developed and alive) and a woman who is super healthy and does everything right by the book suffers miscarriage or still births. It just doesn't make any sense, yet it happens everyday.

Originally posted by searching4truth
am I to come to the conclusion that the most negligent willful behavior is only the daily drinking of alcohol ?

No it's just an example.

Originally posted by searching4truth
The main reason is that there is no way to enforce it, unless you want to pay someone to follow her around every minute of the day.

It's probably a little harder to enforce than the law against drunk driving (which people also ussually get away with) but when you do see it happening there should be some legal provision to allow the police to prevent the person from continuing their reckless behavior.

Originally posted by searching4truth
Alcohol does not stay in the body system long enough to determine if a woman drinks alcohol while pregnant, the only way to determine it is to see if the child has signs of FAS.

Could you not do a blood alcohol test when you see her stumbling around and slurring her speech?

Originally posted by searching4truthHowever, like I said it has been misdiagnosed (although the studies do not show how frequently some case's are not FAS other cases should have been classified as such the early classifying system, well sucks for lack of a better word.

It's irrelevent whether the baby is born with FAS or not, just like it's irrelevent if a drunk driver kills someone because of their intoxication. You prevent the person from continuing their reckless behavior, whether someone has been hurt by it or not.

Originally posted by searching4truth
So, to fully enforce such a law we would in fact have to lock up all pregnant women in a facility that can monitor their every action, it's ridiculous.

No law is ever "fully enforced." That is like saying the only way to enforce the law against drunk driving is to test everyone's blood alchohol level before they start their car. Ridiculous indeed.

Originally posted by searching4truth
Also, since you said that it was your wife's unilateral decision to have the children, am I also to surmise that the two of you never discussed having children or that you told her you did not want them? It is not a unilateral decision, and if you didn't want them then you should have worn a rain coat.

Of course we discussed it, that doesn't change the fact that it was still her unilateral decision.

She could have aborted anyway. She didn't. It was her unilateral choice. My body, my choice... good grief.

I can say "yes I would like a child" or "no I don't want a child" all I want, it's still her choice.

reply to post by SevenBeans

I don't support investigating every single miscarraige.

[color=deepskyblue]
This is what I have been trying to say for how many pages now?

Obviously not but when they're all over the road they should be pulled over and if found to be drunk they should be arrested and not allowed to keep driving around just because they haven't hurt anyone yet.

I do not recall disagreeing with that statement.

This thread is about the proposal to investigate every miscarriage in the state of Georgia, not about DUI's and pregnant alcoholics. But for some reason you keep bringing it back to those topics.

The analogies that I presented are exactly same idea as the proposal in the OP. We all get that you think drinking whilst gestating should be illegal. I think you can probably stop saying it now.

reply to post by daryllyn

You have the patience of a saint. Well done.

reply to post by searching4truth
[color=deeppink]

I agree that if it isn't meant to be, than it won't be. I was only saying earlier that its not the statement you need to hear repeatedly after having a miscarriage (at least for me, I swear that I heard it from everyone). Doesn't mean that its not true No apology is needed.

Originally posted by daryllyn
This thread is about the proposal to investigate every miscarriage in the state of Georgia, not about DUI's and pregnant alcoholics.

But for some reason you keep bringing it back to those topics.

My position all along has been that the proposal in the original post is impractical and that instead of investigating every miscarraige that occurs for signs of abuse and neglect, we should instead address the willfully blatant and reckless behavior itself, that can cause miscarraiges (and other terrible consequences for the unborn and soon to be born), and develop laws which will allow us to prevent someone from persisting in those kinds of behavior.

When asked for examples of this (over and over again), I cite a pregnant woman that insists on getting drunk.

So why is it that you're so puzzled?

reply to post by ~Lucidity

[color=deepskyblue]
I have toddler and a preschooler.

reply to post by SevenBeans


Oh - so you're idea is essentially to regulate all behaviours of fertile women in every moment of the day.

You can have what you want.

Move to Saudi Arabia.

Originally posted by Aeons
Oh - so you're idea is essentially to regulate all behaviours of fertile women in every moment of the day.

You can have what you want.

Move to Saudi Arabia.

Here we go again...

I think that blatantly irresponsible, reckless behavior that can harm another person or cause suffering (such as a pregnant woman getting drunk) should be against the law.

A good analogy is driving drunk, it doesn't matter if the drunk driver hasn't actually hurt anyone, we still have laws against that behavior because it's reckless. Those laws allow us to prevent the person from persisting in their reckless behavior.

reply to post by SevenBeans


Well, I disagree with children being a unilateral decision, especially within a marriage. My husband and I discussed more or less had a plan, but sometimes things happen, like getting pregnant on birth control and we TOGETHER decided that there would be zero abortions within our marriage. Had I one day decided to have one, he would have been within his right to leave me, but we together made our decision and I would sneak around and get one anyway (I don't believe in them).

You and your alcohol argument may enjoy this news.illinois.edu...

Under a legal theory known as fetal rights, more than 20 states have enacted laws that target women for actions taken during pregnancy. What began as legislation requiring hospitals to report an expectant mother’s crack-coc aine use has expanded to laws that punish women for drinking alcohol that may harm the fetus they are carrying. Such efforts are “inherently flawed,” according to a University of Illinois legal scholar. “Not only does a punitive approach assume that a pregnant woman and her fetus occupy adversarial roles, but it also fails to address addiction as the root of the problem,” Erin N. Linder wrote in the University of Illinois Law Review. “Even more troubling,” Linder noted, “is the notion that states can intrude into the lives of pregnant women when the conduct at issue is a legal activity, such as the consumption of alcohol.” Historically, a fetus had no rights under common law, but more than 20 states, including Illinois, have amended laws in recent years to protect potential human life. The new statutes range from prosecution for attempted murder against women who use alcohol or illegal drugs during pregnancy to forced confinement and termination of parental rights. In Wisconsin, for example, juvenile courts have the power to take protective custody of a fetus, and pregnant women may be subject to criminal and civil sanctions for “unborn child abuse.” Some proponents have called for legislation to allow children to sue their own mothers for “prenatal injuries.” Ironically, according to Linder, jailing a woman for substance abuse cannot reverse the damage already done to her unborn child. In the case of alcohol, the worst damage takes place in the two-to-eight-week period after conception, “when many women do not even realize they are pregnant.” As a result, Linder continued, “statutory schemes that seek to prevent FAS (fetal alcohol syndrome) by identifying pregnant women who are abusing alcohol only prevent further damage to the fetus.”

However, I agree with Lucidity that this is more and more smelling like a covert attack on Roe v Wade. According to the Supreme Court, a fetus is not a person and has no protections. Also, according to the law a fetus must be born alive before a criminal charge can be brought forth, in most states.

reply to post by SevenBeans

[color=mediumorchid]
I am confused because:

• You keep focusing on pregnant alcoholics when this thread is about the investigation of all miscarriages and how that would be invading the privacy of women that do not engage in negligent behavior whilst pregnant.
  
• You keep repeating yourself.
  
• You keep asking the same questions over and over.
  
• You refuse to try to see anything from any perspective that doesn't conform to your jaded, black and white, close minded point of view.
  

Originally posted by searching4truth
Well, I disagree with children being a unilateral decision, especially within a marriage. My husband and I discussed more or less had a plan, but sometimes things happen, like getting pregnant on birth control and we TOGETHER decided that there would be zero abortions within our marriage.

Agree, disagree... talk and plan until you're blue in the face... it is still your unilateral choice.

Originally posted by searching4truth
What began as legislation requiring hospitals to report an expectant mother’s crack-coc aine use has expanded to laws that punish women for drinking alcohol that may harm the fetus they are carrying.

Good.

Originally posted by searching4truth
Such efforts are “inherently flawed,” according to a University of Illinois legal scholar. “Not only does a punitive approach assume that a pregnant woman and her fetus occupy adversarial roles, but it also fails to address addiction as the root of the problem,”

When the Mother is behaving in ways that can result in a child being born addicted to drugs, or brain damaged, it certainly is an adversarial relationship.

As for addiction, like I've said, drunk drivers are often alcholics. Driving drunk is still against the law.

Originally posted by searching4truth
Erin N. Linder wrote in the University of Illinois Law Review. “Even more troubling,” Linder noted, “is the notion that states can intrude into the lives of pregnant women when the conduct at issue is a legal activity, such as the consumption of alcohol.”

Once again, we already have legal precedence for making the immoderate consumption of alcohol illegal in certain circumstances.

Originally posted by searching4truth
In Wisconsin, for example, juvenile courts have the power to take protective custody of a fetus, and pregnant women may be subject to criminal and civil sanctions for “unborn child abuse.”

Good, abuse is exactly what it is.

Originally posted by searching4truth
Some proponents have called for legislation to allow children to sue their own mothers for “prenatal injuries.”

Why not? The Mother can sue someone else who causes injuries to her fetus because of blatant neglect, it makes no sense to hold everyone accountable except for the Mother.

Originally posted by searching4truth
Ironically, according to Linder, jailing a woman for substance abuse cannot reverse the damage already done to her unborn child. In the case of alcohol, the worst damage takes place in the two-to-eight-week period after conception, “when many women do not even realize they are pregnant.” As a result, Linder continued, “statutory schemes that seek to prevent FAS (fetal alcohol syndrome) by identifying pregnant women who are abusing alcohol only prevent further damage to the fetus.”

It "only prevents further damage?" That's the point. DUH!

I guess if we can't reverse the damge that's already been done we shouldn't prevent even more damage..

Originally posted by daryllyn

You keep focusing on pregnant alcoholics when this thread is about the investigation of all miscarriages and how that would be invading the privacy of women that do not engage in negligent behavior whilst pregnant.

You must have missed it.

You and I agreed several pages back that the proposal in the OP was absurd. We then started talking about my alternative proposal. If you don't want to discuss it anymore that is fine, but you did begin a discussion about it with me (so it's silly to feign confusion about why I'm talking about something other than the proposal in the OP).

reply to post by korathin

[color=deepskyblue]
You replied to me first. So you started the discussion.

I only agreed reluctantly.

I get that pregnant alcoholics are related to the OP.

Did you really just call me "silly"?




I just realized this reply is to the wrong person. I don't know how it happened, but sorry! This message is intended for sevenbeans.

Wow, that is just plain crazy.

Tea Party people sure make a name for themselves.

reply to post by Turq1

It's so tricky, though, with any politician. They can have 10 things on their platform that they run and focus on during a campaign, things that people believe in, so they get elected (not in this case as this dingbat ran unopposed) and then they go off the rails when they're in office. And if people don't notice or don't care because the other things outweigh the one or two batty or flat out alarming things in their view, they get to stay. You have to ask yourself if there's a certain level of deception and opportunism going on here. (Of course there is, it's politics!) But if enough of these kinds of people start getting into office, our representative republic starts going off the rails too, even if it's only in having to put up with this kind of time- and money-wasting nonsense over and over again.

reply to post by SevenBeans


So you suggest, that just because you don't feel like supporting a child you help create, she get rid of it?
Just because you don't feel any love for the child or mother?

Selfish much?

If you don't feel like dealing with the consequences of sex, masturbate. Wear protection, if it breaks their is always the day after pill. Is it really that hard to make sure the woman will not get pregnant?

Originally posted by celimonster
So you suggest, that just because you don't feel like supporting a child you help create, she get rid of it?
Just because you don't feel any love for the child or mother?

Selfish much?

What on earth are you talking about?

I love all of my children and my wife, and I happily support them all.

I'm not equally responsible for my kids existing though (and therefore it makes no sense to force me to support them under threat of jail). My kids are in the world not because my wife and I had sex, but because she made a unilateral choice to continue a pregnancy to term (rather than throwing the fetus into the garbage).

Originally posted by celimonster
If you don't feel like dealing with the consequences of sex, masturbate. Wear protection, if it breaks their is always the day after pill. Is it really that hard to make sure the woman will not get pregnant?

Oh brother.

Kids aren't a consequence of sex, they can only come to be as the result of a woman's unilateral choice. Didn't you get the memo? "My body, my choice." I could have unprotected sex ten times a day and never end up with any kids.

reply to post by SevenBeans


Personally, I do not think that there is enough of a problem with pregnant women drinking (meaning I personally have never seen one, let alone one that drinks everyday, I know that it happens, I just do not think it is common) to warrant making yet another law. I do not think it is a right to drink, and I do not think it should be protected, but I don't think we need legislation for it.

Also, a number of states do have laws protecting the unborn in the cases where women want to have the child and not abort, yet for some reason are unable to not partake in their vices. These states put the women in rehab and monitor until birth.

The law as it stands, a person must be born alive for the mother to be charged with a criminal offense. If your state does not already have a ruling on the rights of the unborn, perhaps you could contact your state representatives.

I just saw that Fox picked up the story www.foxnews.com...

Based upon their comments I will give my reply, which surprisingly has not changed, much

The legislation from Rep. Bobby Franklin, a Republican, would make all abortions, described as "prenatal murder," illegal based on the belief that all life begins at conception. The bill's definition of "prenatal murder" excludes miscarriages "so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever" in causing them. Anyone convicted would face the death penalty or life behind bars. Miscarriages, defined as pregnancies that end on their own within the first 20 weeks, are quite common. As many as 40 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, often before a woman misses a menstrual period or even knows she is pregnant, according to the March of Dimes. About 10 to 15 percent of recognized pregnancies end in a miscarriage, the group found. Read more: www.foxnews.com...

I am now, even more opposed to this proposed law, than before. He specifically cites miscarriages (not still births) and the woman must prove there was no human involvement (sounds a little guilty until proven innocent). An autopsy typically can not be done on a baby less than 20 weeks gestation, and a cause of death is almost never determined. A baby over 20 weeks gestation usually can have an autopsy, and usually does, and in many cases even then a clear reason for death is often not found.