Should a pregnant woman be criminally charged for using drugs that can harm her baby

  • 83 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by ad1x2 (5402 posts) 10 days, 22 hours ago

Poll: Should a pregnant woman be criminally charged for using drugs that can harm her baby (45 votes)

Yes, she should think about her unborn child. 62%
Yes, but give amnesty to women who come forward for treatment on their own. 16%
No, it's her body and she can do what she wants. 18%

Yahoo - First Woman Charged on Controversial Law that Criminalizes Drug Use During Pregnancy

A Tennessee woman, 26, was the first woman charged under a new controversial law that criminalizes using illegal drugs while pregnant. Shortly after giving birth, both her and her newborn baby tested positive for meth.

The new law allows a woman to be charged if her baby is harmed or addicted to any illegal drug she took while pregnant. The woman confessed she smoked meth several days before giving birth.

Opponents of the law say it should be overturned because it causes drug addicted women to avoid seeking treatment while pregnant because of fears they may be arrested and charged.

Do you think the law is fair? Or do you think it should be overturned?

#51 Posted by toast_burner (21123 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@-Sun_Tzu-: Implying creationism causes harm to children is a slippery slope.

How is it a slippery slope? Teaching children creationism is intentionally limiting their education and ability to think rationally. It doesn't cause physical harm but it certainly is bad for the child.

If you and -Sun Tzu- are in agreement with your claim, then my response is meant for both of you.

Within creationism, there is rationale, believe it or not. Now, I am not sure if you implied there is none, but if you did then I must tell you that is simply incorrect. For example, Acts 17:27 of the Christian Bible gives reason for all that was, is, and ever will be. Teaching kids something with that kind of plan is explaining to them the idea of purpose which is the fundamental trait of rationale. Next, it is not limiting an education in and of itself. If no scientific studies are taught along with it then those individuals would have an understanding of the world and beyond in a sense since modern religion has not been proven to be false. However, creationism alone does not explain in detail why protons are positively charged, the tricarboxylic acid cycle, and so on.

You do realise that creationism is the believe that people and the world were created as is. It's not simply that god created the earth.

Making it impossible for a child to have a career in many science fields is definitely limiting their education.

#52 Edited by Star0 (311 posts) -

I think they should be charged with watching every overly grandiose episode of Game of Thrones. That's punishment enough.

If that's not possible, for whatever unforeseeable reason, then charging them in a more conventional manner would suffice.

#53 Edited by Star0 (311 posts) -
@XilePrincess said:

If she knows she's pregnant and she does drugs or ingests substances that are known to cause issues and defects in babies, then yes, she should be held responsible in some way. Not charged, perhaps, but she should be forced to get rehabilitation if she wants custody of her child. If you want to bring a child into the world and are not planning on an abortion and you cause birth defects by being high or drunk during your pregnancy, that is child abuse. You are damning a person to live life as a crack baby or in some way handicapped because of your actions.

Do I think jail is the way to go? Maybe not. But responsibility must be taken.

And if a woman is using drugs or alcohol in an attempt to miscarry in a place where abortion is legal, she should be held responsible for that too, especially if she lives somewhere where abortion is accessible and not outrageously expensive.

This has no parallels to the abortion debate, though. Aborting a bundle of cells so that it never becomes a child is far less cruel than abusing one inside the womb for 9 months and then forcing it to live its' life handicapped (often extensively with drug babies) and dependent on others for even simple tasks.

Being addicted to drugs is not a green light to terminate lives. Murder is murder. People may have their vices, I get that, but to abort a baby is akin to murdering a disabled person, such is the helplessness of the victim. To harm a fetus or unborn baby is tantamount to torture, but to kill them isn't ever the correct solution. Women need support before either of those outcomes are reached, however, should they indeed come to pass women should rightly be treated as criminals. The *insert term for life without actually acknowledging it as a life here" has no voice. As for rapes cases, put the baby up for adoption. Murdering a baby is in no way achieving any sort of revenge against the rapist as they have no consideration for the unborn child. Killing a baby will not magically heal psychological scars, it will only create guilt in the long term and deep depression.

#54 Posted by ShadowsDemon (10099 posts) -

If it harms the child, then yes, without question.

#55 Posted by BranKetra (47472 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@-Sun_Tzu-: Implying creationism causes harm to children is a slippery slope.

How is it a slippery slope? Teaching children creationism is intentionally limiting their education and ability to think rationally. It doesn't cause physical harm but it certainly is bad for the child.

If you and -Sun Tzu- are in agreement with your claim, then my response is meant for both of you.

Within creationism, there is rationale, believe it or not. Now, I am not sure if you implied there is none, but if you did then I must tell you that is simply incorrect. For example, Acts 17:27 of the Christian Bible gives reason for all that was, is, and ever will be. Teaching kids something with that kind of plan is explaining to them the idea of purpose which is the fundamental trait of rationale. Next, it is not limiting an education in and of itself. If no scientific studies are taught along with it then those individuals would have an understanding of the world and beyond in a sense since modern religion has not been proven to be false. However, creationism alone does not explain in detail why protons are positively charged, the tricarboxylic acid cycle, and so on.

You do realise that creationism is the believe that people and the world were created as is. It's not simply that god created the earth.

Making it impossible for a child to have a career in many science fields is definitely limiting their education.

The American Scientific Affiliation and myself say that there are varying individual beliefs regarding creationism. That is the truth.

#56 Posted by sSubZerOo (42919 posts) -

As if prisons aren't crowded enough. Doesn't seem like much more than a self-righteous law that doesn't do much good. I doubt any woman is deterred from a pipe just because the act has been criminalized, especially since the drugs in question have already been criminalized in the first place. This country has got to get beyond the mentality of using the penal code to solve all public health matters and try coming up with more imaginative solutions (then again this is Tennessee we're talking about, so maybe I'm asking for too much).

I would be in favor of fines, probation, rehab and/or community service at least.. Her negligence can cause severe problems of the child, from mental retardation, physical deformity, agonizing pain and death.... Not to mention the substantial health costs it would entail that such a mother in a position would never be able to pay to begin with, all due to her negligence when she should have had a abortion early on.. And this is coming from some one who is for the woman's right to abortion as well as against the war on drugs.. I mean if we look other negligent drug related behavior like drunk driving, no one here would be debating on if the punishment was too harsh, especially if it resulted in a death.

#57 Edited by toast_burner (21123 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@-Sun_Tzu-: Implying creationism causes harm to children is a slippery slope.

How is it a slippery slope? Teaching children creationism is intentionally limiting their education and ability to think rationally. It doesn't cause physical harm but it certainly is bad for the child.

If you and -Sun Tzu- are in agreement with your claim, then my response is meant for both of you.

Within creationism, there is rationale, believe it or not. Now, I am not sure if you implied there is none, but if you did then I must tell you that is simply incorrect. For example, Acts 17:27 of the Christian Bible gives reason for all that was, is, and ever will be. Teaching kids something with that kind of plan is explaining to them the idea of purpose which is the fundamental trait of rationale. Next, it is not limiting an education in and of itself. If no scientific studies are taught along with it then those individuals would have an understanding of the world and beyond in a sense since modern religion has not been proven to be false. However, creationism alone does not explain in detail why protons are positively charged, the tricarboxylic acid cycle, and so on.

You do realise that creationism is the believe that people and the world were created as is. It's not simply that god created the earth.

Making it impossible for a child to have a career in many science fields is definitely limiting their education.

The American Scientific Affiliation and myself say that there are varying individual beliefs regarding creationism. That is the truth.

ok but common usage of the word is different to the definition you use.

#58 Posted by BranKetra (47472 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@-Sun_Tzu-: Implying creationism causes harm to children is a slippery slope.

How is it a slippery slope? Teaching children creationism is intentionally limiting their education and ability to think rationally. It doesn't cause physical harm but it certainly is bad for the child.

If you and -Sun Tzu- are in agreement with your claim, then my response is meant for both of you.

Within creationism, there is rationale, believe it or not. Now, I am not sure if you implied there is none, but if you did then I must tell you that is simply incorrect. For example, Acts 17:27 of the Christian Bible gives reason for all that was, is, and ever will be. Teaching kids something with that kind of plan is explaining to them the idea of purpose which is the fundamental trait of rationale. Next, it is not limiting an education in and of itself. If no scientific studies are taught along with it then those individuals would have an understanding of the world and beyond in a sense since modern religion has not been proven to be false. However, creationism alone does not explain in detail why protons are positively charged, the tricarboxylic acid cycle, and so on.

You do realise that creationism is the believe that people and the world were created as is. It's not simply that god created the earth.

Making it impossible for a child to have a career in many science fields is definitely limiting their education.

The American Scientific Affiliation and myself say that there are varying individual beliefs regarding creationism. That is the truth.

ok but common usage of the word is different to the definition you use.

I do not agree with that, but that might be due to you and I being in different social circles rather than one of us being wrong.

#59 Posted by XilePrincess (13096 posts) -

@Star0 said:

Being addicted to drugs is not a green light to terminate lives. Murder is murder. People may have their vices, I get that, but to abort a baby is akin to murdering a disabled person, such is the helplessness of the victim. To harm a fetus or unborn baby is tantamount to torture, but to kill them isn't ever the correct solution. Women need support before either of those outcomes are reached, however, should they indeed come to pass women should rightly be treated as criminals. The *insert term for life without actually acknowledging it as a life here" has no voice. As for rapes cases, put the baby up for adoption. Murdering a baby is in no way achieving any sort of revenge against the rapist as they have no consideration for the unborn child. Killing a baby will not magically heal psychological scars, it will only create guilt in the long term and deep depression.

Abortion does NOT always cause any type of guilt or depression. A large number of women who do experience post-abortion guilt or depression do so because of people like yourself SHAME them for THEIR decision. People like YOU create a stigma and call these women everything from murderers to whores to demons to blah blah blah. If a huge group of people stood in the chip aisle of grocery stores across the continent and called people horrible names for picking out a bag of chips, eventually they'd feel guilty and depressed about eating chips, too. You should be the last person to talk about 'support' when what you really mean is shaming them into doing what you want.

Were YOU volunteering to take that crackhead's baby? Do YOU donate a significant portion of your income to supporting children put up for adoption? Where are you stepping up here to help all these fetuses you demand be 'saved'? How about the ones so screwed up by their mother's drug use that they're basically a potato with a face? I find it doubtful you're just throwing money to help these kids.

You know what drugs do to fetuses? Horrible shit. I've spent time in highschool working with some kids who were severely disabled due to their mother's drug use. Some were missing organs or had significant organ failure and TONS of medical conditions, lots had to have medication repeatedly through the day. Almost all of them were noticeably disfigured in some way, many couldn't walk or stand. Mental conditions were all over the place. Some were fairly responsive but were stuck in the mind of a 2-5 year old and others would just sit and stare at the wall all day, wouldn't respond to anything or anyone, and had to be fed through tubes. They were blinking vegetables. Does THAT sound like a great life to you? I'd have rather been aborted. They will NEVER do anything on their own, they are utterly dependent on others and can't even use the toilet for themselves. Aborting someone who would end up that way is mercy, not murder.

On TOP of that, guess who's there for them when they pop out, all barely-alive and screwed right up? Mommy dearest and her bff the crack pipe. What a sight would that be, a new mother breastfeeding her baby, picking her meth scabs all the while. When Mommy ends up in jail, they bounce around in foster care and never get adopted because nobody adopts 'special' kids, certainly not the kids who need round-the-clock care.

And as for rape babies, what in the fuck are you talking about? Nobody aborts the product of their rape to get back at the rapist. They abort the baby they didn't want that was forced on them BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT IT. You know what causes psychological scars? Being forced or shamed into carrying a baby for 9 months that you don't want, and then going through the adoption process.

Go ahead and have your opinion, but have real facts, not 'facts' from pro-life organizations.

#60 Posted by whipassmt (13831 posts) -

Well it's illegal to do those drugs anyway so even if she wasn't pregnant she could still be charged. I guess the law that at issue here involves an additional penalty or a harsher penalty if the woman is pregnant because of the possibility/likelihood that the drug use can harm the child. That makes sense. I do however think the middle option in the poll (the amnesty if she comes forward for treatment) is a good idea: rehab is preferable to imprisonment.

#61 Posted by RadecSupreme (4602 posts) -

Of course, she risks forcing the child to be born with severe deformities and handicaps. She should face the law!

#62 Posted by whipassmt (13831 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

Criminally charged? No. But I do think they should get help.

Also, wouldn't this conflict with abortion laws?

I guess that might depend on what Tennessee's abortion laws are. I don't know what they are at the top of my head. But the drug abuse could affect the child not only before birth but also after birth, plus the drugs in question are already illegal.

Personally, I think that they should lose custody and be sent to prison.

but legally speaking, I don't see how it can be illegal to do drugs while pregnant. Harming an unborn baby obviously isn't illegal, as they aren't legally considered human lives until they're born.

Actually harming an unborn baby is illegal and in many states (and some federal laws) they are considered human lives, outside of the context of abortion, before birth. Hence in many states a person who knowingly and deliberately causes the death of an unborn baby can be charged with homicide (double homicide if he kills the baby by killing the mother, single homicide if he only kills the baby), and a person who causes the death of an unborn baby by crime or negligence can be sued for wrongful death. Under the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence act, a person can be tried for causing the death of an unborn baby if he does so in the process of committing a federal crime.

#63 Posted by vl4d_l3nin (758 posts) -

ya. we should also raise the kid inside of the prison. i mean, with drugged up pregnancies, the babies are born druggies, they obviously going to grow up to rape and kill. gotta stay ahead of the game. then we can use those kids to make our Nikes.

#64 Edited by whipassmt (13831 posts) -

If she knows she's pregnant and she does drugs or ingests substances that are known to cause issues and defects in babies, then yes, she should be held responsible in some way. Not charged, perhaps, but she should be forced to get rehabilitation if she wants custody of her child. If you want to bring a child into the world and are not planning on an abortion and you cause birth defects by being high or drunk during your pregnancy, that is child abuse. You are damning a person to live life as a crack baby or in some way handicapped because of your actions.

Do I think jail is the way to go? Maybe not. But responsibility must be taken.

And if a woman is using drugs or alcohol in an attempt to miscarry in a place where abortion is legal, she should be held responsible for that too, especially if she lives somewhere where abortion is accessible and not outrageously expensive.

This has no parallels to the abortion debate, though. Aborting a bundle of cells so that it never becomes a child is far less cruel than abusing one inside the womb for 9 months and then forcing it to live its' life handicapped (often extensively with drug babies) and dependent on others for even simple tasks.

"bundle of cells" is a stupid term. Also there is a possibility that the child could survive the abortion and be born with some sort of handicap due to the abortion attempt.

#65 Posted by Sword-Demon (6871 posts) -

@Sword-Demon said:

Personally, I think that they should lose custody and be sent to prison.

but legally speaking, I don't see how it can be illegal to do drugs while pregnant. Harming an unborn baby obviously isn't illegal, as they aren't legally considered human lives until they're born.

Actually harming an unborn baby is illegal and in many states (and some federal laws) they are considered human lives, outside of the context of abortion, before birth. Hence in many states a person who knowingly and deliberately causes the death of an unborn baby can be charged with homicide (double homicide if he kills the baby by killing the mother, single homicide if he only kills the baby), and a person who causes the death of an unborn baby by crime or negligence can be sued for wrongful death. Under the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence act, a person can be tried for causing the death of an unborn baby if he does so in the process of committing a federal crime.

Morally, I can completely understand that

But how can that be explained legally? How can unborn babies be legally killed, but have it considered homicide in some cases?

#66 Edited by whipassmt (13831 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@toast_burner said:

@BranKetra said:

@-Sun_Tzu-: Implying creationism causes harm to children is a slippery slope.

How is it a slippery slope? Teaching children creationism is intentionally limiting their education and ability to think rationally. It doesn't cause physical harm but it certainly is bad for the child.

If you and -Sun Tzu- are in agreement with your claim, then my response is meant for both of you.

Within creationism, there is rationale, believe it or not. Now, I am not sure if you implied there is none, but if you did then I must tell you that is simply incorrect. For example, Acts 17:27 of the Christian Bible gives reason for all that was, is, and ever will be. Teaching kids something with that kind of plan is explaining to them the idea of purpose which is the fundamental trait of rationale. Next, it is not limiting an education in and of itself. If no scientific studies are taught along with it then those individuals would have an understanding of the world and beyond in a sense since modern religion has not been proven to be false. However, creationism alone does not explain in detail why protons are positively charged, the tricarboxylic acid cycle, and so on.

You do realise that creationism is the believe that people and the world were created as is. It's not simply that god created the earth.

Making it impossible for a child to have a career in many science fields is definitely limiting their education.

It's not impossible for a child to have a career in "many science fields" just because he was taught creationist beliefs by his parents. According to one of my biology professors, about 25% of biologists in the U.S. are creationists. If a person is to get a degree in science they would most likely learn about evolution in school. A person can understand evolution and how it works without actually believing in it. All that's necessary would be that the person would be familiar with the theory and how it works, not that he believe in it.

I did some google searching, and this site has a list of some prominent scientists who are creationists.

#67 Posted by tocool340 (20415 posts) -

If she wasn't planning on aborting, IMO, yes...

#68 Posted by XilePrincess (13096 posts) -

"bundle of cells" is a stupid term. Also there is a possibility that the child could survive the abortion and be born with some sort of handicap due to the abortion attempt.

Why do you figure that's a stupid term? In the early months of pregnancy, when most abortions happen, that's exactly what it is. It's a clump indistinguishable as a human being that is made of cells.

And considering North America is a first-world continent and we have actual healthcare, it's rare for abortions to fail when carried out by a medical professional or under the supervision of one, for medicinal abortions. It's 2014, not 1945. The possibility is so small it's almost nonexistent. A huge portion of the results you'll find if you google that are from pro-life groups, and it's fear mongering and nothing else.

#69 Posted by whipassmt (13831 posts) -

@whipassmt said:

@Sword-Demon said:

Personally, I think that they should lose custody and be sent to prison.

but legally speaking, I don't see how it can be illegal to do drugs while pregnant. Harming an unborn baby obviously isn't illegal, as they aren't legally considered human lives until they're born.

Actually harming an unborn baby is illegal and in many states (and some federal laws) they are considered human lives, outside of the context of abortion, before birth. Hence in many states a person who knowingly and deliberately causes the death of an unborn baby can be charged with homicide (double homicide if he kills the baby by killing the mother, single homicide if he only kills the baby), and a person who causes the death of an unborn baby by crime or negligence can be sued for wrongful death. Under the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence act, a person can be tried for causing the death of an unborn baby if he does so in the process of committing a federal crime.

Morally, I can completely understand that

But how can that be explained legally? How can unborn babies be legally killed, but have it considered homicide in some cases?

I guess the key legal difference is that in abortion the baby is theoretically being killed with the mother's consent (in reality, in many cases the mother is pressured or coerced into the abortion by the "baby daddy" or by her parents if she is a minor) while in the other cases the baby is being killed against its mother's will. However I have heard of a case in which a woman told someone to stomp on her stomach in order to cause an abortion and that person was later arrested.

#70 Posted by whipassmt (13831 posts) -

@whipassmt said:

"bundle of cells" is a stupid term. Also there is a possibility that the child could survive the abortion and be born with some sort of handicap due to the abortion attempt.

Why do you figure that's a stupid term? In the early months of pregnancy, when most abortions happen, that's exactly what it is. It's a clump indistinguishable as a human being that is made of cells.

And considering North America is a first-world continent and we have actual healthcare, it's rare for abortions to fail when carried out by a medical professional or under the supervision of one, for medicinal abortions. It's 2014, not 1945. The possibility is so small it's almost nonexistent. A huge portion of the results you'll find if you google that are from pro-life groups, and it's fear mongering and nothing else.

I find the term "clump of cells" dumb because I think it implies that the embryo/fetus is just a haphazard group of cells without much shape. The embryo fetus, from its earliest moments is not a haphazard grouping of cells, the cells are highly organized and multiplying in a specific pattern. Here are some of the highlights from the early months of pregnancy (dating from the last missed period - meaning that the fetus/embryo is actually two weeks younger than the weeks mentioned) described by the Mayo Clinic:

Week 4: Implantation

By the time it reaches the uterus, the rapidly dividing ball of cells — now known as a blastocyst — has separated into two sections.

The inner group of cells will become the embryo. The outer group will become the cells that nourish and protect it.

Week 5: The embryonic period begins

The fifth week of pregnancy, or the third week after conception, marks the beginning of the embryonic period. This is when the baby's brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form.

The embryo is now made of three layers. The top layer — the ectoderm — will give rise to your baby's outermost layer of skin, central and peripheral nervous systems, eyes, inner ears, and many connective tissues.

Your baby's heart and a primitive circulatory system will form in the middle layer of cells — the mesoderm. This layer of cells will also serve as the foundation for your baby's bones, muscles, kidneys and much of the reproductive system.

The inner layer of cells — the endoderm — will become a simple tube lined with mucous membranes. Your baby's lungs, intestines and bladder will develop here.

Week 6: The neural tube closes

Growth is rapid this week. Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby's back is closing and your baby's heart is pumping blood.

Basic facial features will begin to appear, including passageways that will make up the inner ears and arches that will contribute to the jaw. Your baby's body begins to take on a C-shaped curvature. Small buds will soon become arms and legs.

eek 7: Baby's head develops

Multimedia

Seven weeks into your pregnancy, or five weeks after conception, your baby's brain and face are rapidly developing. Tiny nostrils become visible, and the eye lenses begin to form. The arm buds that sprouted last week now take on the shape of paddles.

By the end of this week, your baby might be a little bigger than the top of a pencil eraser.

Week 8: Baby's eyes are visible

Multimedia

Eight weeks into your pregnancy, or six weeks after conception, your baby's arms and legs are growing longer, and fingers have begun to form. The shell-shaped parts of your baby's ears also are forming, and your baby's eyes are visible. The upper lip and nose have formed. The trunk of your baby's body is beginning to straighten.

By the end of this week, your baby might be about 1/2 inch (11 to 14 millimeters) long.

Week 9: Baby's toes form

Multimedia

In the ninth week of pregnancy, or seven weeks after conception, your baby's arms grow, develop bones and bend at the elbows. Toes form, and your baby's eyelids and ears continue developing.

By the end of this week, your baby might be about 3/4 inch (20 millimeters) long.

Week 10: Baby's neck begins to develop

Multimedia

By the 10th week of pregnancy, or eight weeks after conception, your baby's head has become more round. The neck begins to develop, and your baby's eyelids begin to close to protect his or her developing eyes.

Week 11: Baby's genitals develop

At the beginning of the 11th week of pregnancy, or the ninth week after conception, your baby's head still makes up about half of its length. However, your baby's body is about to catch up, growing rapidly in the coming weeks.

Your baby is now officially described as a fetus. This week your baby's eyes are widely separated, the eyelids fused and the ears low set. Red blood cells are beginning to form in your baby's liver. By the end of this week, your baby's external genitalia will start developing into a penis or clitoris and labia majora.

By now your baby might measure about 2 inches (50 millimeters) long from crown to rump and weigh almost 1/3 ounce (8 grams).

Week 12: Baby's fingernails develop

Multimedia

Twelve weeks into your pregnancy, or 10 weeks after conception, your baby is developing fingernails. Your baby's face now has a human profile.

By now your baby might be about 2 1/2 inches (60 millimeters) long from crown to rump and weigh about 1/2 ounce (14 grams).

As far as babies being born after abortion attempts (this usually happens in later trimester abortions) it may not be common but it does happen. Gianna Jessen and Melissa Ohden are prominent activists who have survived abortion attempts. In 2002 there was a big deal in the U.S. after a nurse at a Chicago hospital came forward and reported that babies had survived abortion attempts and were born and left to die in hospital utility closets. This inspired the passage of the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act. A few years ago there was big news about Kermit Gosnell who killed infants after they were born alive from failed abortions.

According to a 2007 study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology about 1 in 30 abortions after 16 weeks’ gestation result in a born-alive infant. At 23 weeks’ gestation, the number reached 9.7%. By a very conservative estimate, this study would suggest that over 900 babies survive late-term abortions each year in the U.S

#71 Edited by Sword-Demon (6871 posts) -

@Sword-Demon said:

@whipassmt said:

@Sword-Demon said:

Personally, I think that they should lose custody and be sent to prison.

but legally speaking, I don't see how it can be illegal to do drugs while pregnant. Harming an unborn baby obviously isn't illegal, as they aren't legally considered human lives until they're born.

Actually harming an unborn baby is illegal and in many states (and some federal laws) they are considered human lives, outside of the context of abortion, before birth. Hence in many states a person who knowingly and deliberately causes the death of an unborn baby can be charged with homicide (double homicide if he kills the baby by killing the mother, single homicide if he only kills the baby), and a person who causes the death of an unborn baby by crime or negligence can be sued for wrongful death. Under the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence act, a person can be tried for causing the death of an unborn baby if he does so in the process of committing a federal crime.

Morally, I can completely understand that

But how can that be explained legally? How can unborn babies be legally killed, but have it considered homicide in some cases?

I guess the key legal difference is that in abortion the baby is theoretically being killed with the mother's consent (in reality, in many cases the mother is pressured or coerced into the abortion by the "baby daddy" or by her parents if she is a minor) while in the other cases the baby is being killed against its mother's will. However I have heard of a case in which a woman told someone to stomp on her stomach in order to cause an abortion and that person was later arrested.

I don't see why the mother's will should factor into whether it's considered homicide. An unborn child's status as human or not human shouldn't be dependent on the mother's opinion, especially in the eyes of the law.

#72 Posted by roulettethedog (10927 posts) -

She should be put in prison for endangerment of a child and lose custody.

#73 Edited by Star0 (311 posts) -

@XilePrincess: People like me who shame them? Hahaha that's funny, so they feel a certain way because others do. Riiiiiight. Gotcha.

@XilePrincess said:

@Star0 said:

Being addicted to drugs is not a green light to terminate lives. Murder is murder. People may have their vices, I get that, but to abort a baby is akin to murdering a disabled person, such is the helplessness of the victim. To harm a fetus or unborn baby is tantamount to torture, but to kill them isn't ever the correct solution. Women need support before either of those outcomes are reached, however, should they indeed come to pass women should rightly be treated as criminals. The *insert term for life without actually acknowledging it as a life here" has no voice. As for rapes cases, put the baby up for adoption. Murdering a baby is in no way achieving any sort of revenge against the rapist as they have no consideration for the unborn child. Killing a baby will not magically heal psychological scars, it will only create guilt in the long term and deep depression.

(1) Abortion does NOT always cause any type of guilt or depression. A large number of women who do experience post-abortion guilt or depression do so because of people like yourself SHAME them for THEIR decision. People like YOU create a stigma and call these women everything from murderers to whores to demons to blah blah blah. If a huge group of people stood in the chip aisle of grocery stores across the continent and called people horrible names for picking out a bag of chips, eventually they'd feel guilty and depressed about eating chips, too. You should be the last person to talk about 'support' when what you really mean is shaming them into doing what you want.

(2) Were YOU volunteering to take that crackhead's baby? Do YOU donate a significant portion of your income to supporting children put up for adoption? Where are you stepping up here to help all these fetuses you demand be 'saved'? How about the ones so screwed up by their mother's drug use that they're basically a potato with a face? I find it doubtful you're just throwing money to help these kids.

(3) You know what drugs do to fetuses? Horrible shit. I've spent time in highschool working with some kids who were severely disabled due to their mother's drug use. Some were missing organs or had significant organ failure and TONS of medical conditions, lots had to have medication repeatedly through the day. Almost all of them were noticeably disfigured in some way, many couldn't walk or stand. Mental conditions were all over the place. Some were fairly responsive but were stuck in the mind of a 2-5 year old and others would just sit and stare at the wall all day, wouldn't respond to anything or anyone, and had to be fed through tubes. They were blinking vegetables. Does THAT sound like a great life to you? I'd have rather been aborted. They will NEVER do anything on their own, they are utterly dependent on others and can't even use the toilet for themselves. Aborting someone who would end up that way is mercy, not murder.

On TOP of that, guess who's there for them when they pop out, all barely-alive and screwed right up? Mommy dearest and her bff the crack pipe. What a sight would that be, a new mother breastfeeding her baby, picking her meth scabs all the while. When Mommy ends up in jail, they bounce around in foster care and never get adopted because nobody adopts 'special' kids, certainly not the kids who need round-the-clock care.

(4) And as for rape babies, what in the fuck are you talking about? Nobody aborts the product of their rape to get back at the rapist. They abort the baby they didn't want that was forced on them BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT IT. You know what causes psychological scars? Being forced or shamed into carrying a baby for 9 months that you don't want, and then going through the adoption process.

Go ahead and have your opinion, but have real facts, not 'facts' from pro-life organizations.

(1) I didn't say abortion always causes depression, but it's most definitely a driving factor. I don't need statistics to state that. I'm sorry I'm of the view that killing a baby is wrong, but you know, that's the NORMAL AND RIGHT way to react no matter how tough the consequences are to acknowledge and live with.

You're comparing aborting a life to some slob chowing down on a bag on crisps in a grocery store? I think you're insane. Shaming is part of the rehabilitation process. If there's no shame then why should anyone bother to mend their ways? Don't tell me, you're pro-drugs too? I can speak from experience when I say they are selfish people and that selfishness manifests itself even when they're not doped. Too much? I might be shaming addicts here, my bad.

(2) Nope, but my stand still stands...miraculously. I guess you don't value life or should I say you value life if it meets a certain criteria. Women in these instances need to take responsibility. Simple as that.

(3) "Does THAT sound like a great life to you? I'd have rather been aborted."

Speak for yourself. You're not an authority to decide when a person should live or die. Murdering a baby is not mercy, it is a rejection of responsibility and humanity. If a life can exist then let it exist - live and let live so says SCIENCE - murder on compassionate grounds has no place in any discussion let alone this one. Who exactly is being compassionate here? The heroin addict mother? Where was her compassion before? So essentially what YOU'RE saying is anyone who's "screwed up" should be terminated. I'm glad we cleared that up.

(4) "Nobody aborts the product of their rape to get back at the rapist."

How do you know that? It's a perfectly viable reason for doing so. Reasonable perhaps not.

All I'm hearing from you is an Aryan argument. People should live long, healthy lives even before birth, they shouldn't burden the mother with any responsibility, the get-out-clause that is abortion is okay so long as you don't want the baby etc.

Facts? I'm looking at this logically. What facts have you provided? Don't make me laugh.

#74 Edited by jasean79 (2178 posts) -

I think most definitely the mother doing drugs should be held accountable for her actions. Not only is she endangering her own life, but the life of the unborn child.

I know someone personally who was a "crack baby". He's 37 and can't read or write. He has serious mental health issues (bipolar) and can't hold a simple general labor type job because of this. He collects disability and does nothing but sleep and play video games all day long. Do you think he feels okay with the cards he's been dealt in life? Cards that he had not choice in the matter over? His mom is still a druggie and a thief. She steals from her own family, the government, has committed fraud numerous times (without getting caught - AMAZING) and never thinks twice about it. Just real, low-life scum. I think that if this law were in place in my state and she were convicted many years ago because of it, it MIGHT have had a positive influence on her life. Instead, she continues down the same path she always has, and will do so until she is arrested. And her son is the one who will always suffer from her poor life decisions.

So, yes, having seen the effects of drugs during pregnancy first-hand, I'm in favor of the law.

#75 Posted by whipassmt (13831 posts) -

@whipassmt said:

@Sword-Demon said:

@whipassmt said:

@Sword-Demon said:

Personally, I think that they should lose custody and be sent to prison.

but legally speaking, I don't see how it can be illegal to do drugs while pregnant. Harming an unborn baby obviously isn't illegal, as they aren't legally considered human lives until they're born.

Actually harming an unborn baby is illegal and in many states (and some federal laws) they are considered human lives, outside of the context of abortion, before birth. Hence in many states a person who knowingly and deliberately causes the death of an unborn baby can be charged with homicide (double homicide if he kills the baby by killing the mother, single homicide if he only kills the baby), and a person who causes the death of an unborn baby by crime or negligence can be sued for wrongful death. Under the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence act, a person can be tried for causing the death of an unborn baby if he does so in the process of committing a federal crime.

Morally, I can completely understand that

But how can that be explained legally? How can unborn babies be legally killed, but have it considered homicide in some cases?

I guess the key legal difference is that in abortion the baby is theoretically being killed with the mother's consent (in reality, in many cases the mother is pressured or coerced into the abortion by the "baby daddy" or by her parents if she is a minor) while in the other cases the baby is being killed against its mother's will. However I have heard of a case in which a woman told someone to stomp on her stomach in order to cause an abortion and that person was later arrested.

I don't see why the mother's will should factor into whether it's considered homicide. An unborn child's status as human or not human shouldn't be dependent on the mother's opinion, especially in the eyes of the law.

I see what you mean. The legal situation isn't really logical. Biological speaking of course the unborn child is human, it is the offspring of two human parents and has a human genetic code.

#76 Edited by Xeno_ghost (262 posts) -

" Should a pregnant woman be criminally charged for using drugs that can harm her baby"

Well using drugs is illegal anyway so anyone using them is criminally charged.

I think a woman in that situation should be helped as much as possible. These drugs are mind altering drugs and sometimes grown adults can't handle the effects of the drugs on their mind and they freak out, but they have chosen to take the drug so no one to blame but themselves, but a unborn child has no choice in the matter imagine the effects of these drugs on their little brain. But Pregnant women who do this should be helped, only if it's found that the child has sustained serious negative effects from the mothers drug/alcohol abuse should she be severely punished, for a mother to put a unborn child through the effects of these powerful drugs is one of the lowest of the lowest acts one could perform, and is also abusing that unborn child while it is most vulnerable, the risk of the child being born with disabilities and deformities associated with alcohol and drug abuse while pregnant is nothing to be ignored.

A pregnant woman found to be using drugs should be put in a secure rehab center for the duration of her pregnancy with the option at the end to keep baby if she has proven she is a changed person, and maybe even helped with a education and training housing, if she slips up into old ways she'll face prison and loosing her child and loosing her chance of a normal life. A pregnant woman (if any good morals are left in her brain) with a drug problem should go to rehab off her own back as soon as she finds out she is pregnant. If she is to much into her drugs rather than the health of her child she should just abort the child ASAP it's just evil to put an unborn child through the effects of drugs and alcohol.

I don't necessarily agree with abortion but I do feel there are certain circumstances where it is acceptable if done early on in the pregnancy. After all what kind of mother is she going to be if she is already abusing the child before it's born.

#77 Posted by Chutebox (36179 posts) -

Yes, they should be punished.

#78 Edited by BossPerson (9374 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

Uh, yeah. As should anything that could harm a child that will be brought to term.

didn't you once say that you should be able to abort 8 1/2 month old fetuses?

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/at-what-month-should-nonmandatory-abortions-be-sto-29350981/

#79 Posted by Star0 (311 posts) -

^ Columbo INDA FRESH!

#80 Posted by foxhound_fox (86844 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

Uh, yeah. As should anything that could harm a child that will be brought to term.

didn't you once say that you should be able to abort 8 1/2 month old fetuses?

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/at-what-month-should-nonmandatory-abortions-be-sto-29350981/

You spent time looking for that?

This issue isn't about abortion, it's about a child that WILL come to term and is being harmed by the mother's drug use.

#81 Posted by BossPerson (9374 posts) -

@BossPerson said:

@foxhound_fox said:

Uh, yeah. As should anything that could harm a child that will be brought to term.

didn't you once say that you should be able to abort 8 1/2 month old fetuses?

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/at-what-month-should-nonmandatory-abortions-be-sto-29350981/

You spent time looking for that?

This issue isn't about abortion, it's about a child that WILL come to term and is being harmed by the mother's drug use.

it took me 30 seconds. i have a good memory.

and the issues are inexorably linked.

#82 Posted by foxhound_fox (86844 posts) -

and the issues are inexorably linked.

No, they really aren't.

And I personally disagree with abortion, but that's not the point.

#83 Edited by ArmoredCore55 (23809 posts) -

Absolutely.