what the hell

Ermmm maybe you should read the article? Because it has contradicted you.

For example, you asserted earlier that drug addiction is a mental illness. The article you just linked has the head of the Parole Board saying that it is not a mental illness at all - ie. if someone commits a crime while in the throes of a drug induced psychosis, they should not be able to take the mental impairment defence, because she believes that drug induced psychosis is not a mental illness...

That was Ms Nelson's response to criticism towards the mental health system in South Australia. What she has failed to consider is concrete evidence that those who are mentally ill are more likely to actually be drug addicts.

I am not saying you ignore what addiction is. I am saying that you discount it when and where it suits you.

 

Thankfully for them, none of them was pregnant, otherwise you'd want them jailed for ingesting something that you did not approve of.

 

Why?

If you must know, none.

I didn't do drug cases. I dealt with sex offences mainly.. quite a bit with those involving children if you must really know.

But way to try to change the subject.

In this thread, you have again displayed your flagrant sexism and then contradicted yourself and now you try to change the subject.

This is what you do all the time.

 

Yes.

You wish to restrict women's rights Asguard.

The story you linked in the OP is your virtual dream, where women are held accountable and undergo criminal investigations if they miscarry or have a stillborn child because of what they may or may not have ingested during the pregnancy.

Adoucette made a very valid point, which you have completely disregarded:

"More to the point, it would seem that your position, carried to it's logical conclusion, would ultimately mean that any woman who has a miscarriage or deformed child will have to prove to a court that it wasn't her fault." ​

In that same post, he pointed out the actual truth about FAS, which you also disregarded:

Yes but studies show that :

◦Many women who drink alcohol continue to drink during the early weeks of pregnancy because they do not realize that they are pregnant.

◦Only about 40% of women realize that they are pregnant at 4 weeks of gestation, a critical period for organ development.

And that ~12.2% of pregnant women (about 1 in 8) reported any alcohol use in the past 30 days. This rate has remained stable over the 15 year period, but only 0.2 to 1.5 cases of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) occur for every 1,000 live births (.02 to .15%)

So clearly, your "there is no safe level" is not true.

Indeed, approximately 2% of pregnant women (about 1 in 50) engage in binge drinking or frequent use of alcohol, or roughly 13 times as many women binge drink as have children with FAS, so the relationship is clearly related to more than just drinking, but for some reason you want to punish the 1 out of 13 binge drinkers that have an FAS child, when the damage might have been caused before the woman even knew she was pregnant. ​

But according to you, she should be held responsible for something she may or may not have done before she even knew she was pregnant.

You say that abortion is a woman's choice, which it is. Unfortunately, that choice ends there. If she has had a drink before she finds out she is pregnant, then in your world, if that child is born with FAS, then she should be held responsible for it and possibly jailed or sued on behalf of her own child... In other words, if a woman discovers she is pregnant, and she has had a drink, she should have an abortion or face legal consequences. That is not choice.

Countless of women who suffer from drug or alcohol addiction give birth to healthy children on a daily basis. A woman has one drink a week after she conceives, without knowing she has conceived, and she could end up having a child with FAS. So who is more to blame? Who do you think should be held more accountable?

How can I put this... the notion of choice does not give you the right to dictate what women ingest or do not ingest, nor should it have the law investigating miscarriages to make sure the mother did not possibly cause it because of what she may have ingested.

 

You really don't get it, do you?

 

Hahahahahaaa!

Ah dear, you made a funny! The stupid is strong in you..

I have to ask, but where did you hear that from? Because what you are saying is that the 'child' is entirely protected from any harmful substances until week 10 because there is apparently no placenta to transfer any harmful substance onto the 'child', correct? I am just confirming what you have said here Lori.

Then I want you to go back, google or open a book on human reproduction, and read what is written. Primarily from about week 3.. And then I want you to consider that the greater majority of women do not even realise they are pregnant until after week 5-6. Hell, in some instances, even towards the end of week 5, the over the counter tests will come back negative.

But please, if you wish to partake in this discussion and not sound so, ermm, silly, please at least know the basics of human reproduction. You can start here and here.

Why?

They're just doing your God's work to bring about your utopia, Lori.

I know! You and Asguard can have your combined utopia where women face criminal investigations if they miscarry or have a child that is ill in some way! Then you can go back, week by week and see if she has consumed any harmful substances or food or burned the wrong fragrant oils in an oil burner or consumed the wrong cooking, which caused issues in her pregnancy.

Hell, you can also start arresting pregnant women who dare to eat a ham sandwich or a runny egg. Or worse.. tuna..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You really have to get out more.

What you support Asguard is a restriction of women's right to choose. To the point where she can be held criminally responsible for what she consumes if she is pregnant, even if she does not know that she was pregnant in the first instance. What you demand is that if a woman consumes or ingests something that could cause the embryo, then she should have an abortion or face prosecution. That is your stance and has been for a while now.

To the point where you even place demands and rules on your partner on what she can and cannot ingest while you apparently try to conceive.

Now you can discuss me or my opinions with your acquaintances as much as you like. All that shows is that you obviously lack a social life. That said, I am sure you feel comforted in the knowledge that you surround yourself with people who share the same social values and norms as you do and who also wish to restrict a woman's right to choose, to the point where if she is pregnant, she could be held criminally liable if she consumes something that may or may not damage the "child".

I have highlighted what you clearly misunderstand.

The placenta begins to form and function by the time it implants in the uterus - which is within a few days. Therefore, from what is known scientifically, the blastocyst and then embryo can begin to absorb and be affected by what the mother consumes, smokes, breathes in, comes into contact with, rubs on her skin, etc pretty much from the 2nd week or so. By the 4th week, the affects on anything she may have consumed or come into contact with before she even realises she is pregnant can affect the development of the fetus. In fact, it is when the damage will most likely be done. Not after 11-12 weeks when the placenta has become fully developed.

While the notion of the "yolk sac" providing protection may be a fanciful one, it is actually just that, fanciful.

It might benefit you to read the thread and especially the OP and the article in said OP, where women in the US are being held criminally liable for miscarriages and still births because of what they may have ingested during the pregnancy.

This is actually what this thread is about.

So you would call the police and demand to have a pregnant woman arrested if you saw her eating runny eggs or sushi or a can of tuna?

What if you know a woman who miscarried and you knew she ate runny eggs on her toast every morning, you'd be calling the local police to report her for having been negligent and causing the death of her "child"?

It is clear that you have little to no idea of what these kinds of prosecutions actually do or what they entail or damage it could do.

I am going to ask you Lori. Do you think women who miscarry should be made to undergo a criminal investigation to make sure she was not "negligent" or "murderous"?

Do you think women should be questioned and all around them questioned to make sure she was not "negligent" or "murderous"? How about if the child is born with a disability of some sort?

Because by the way you have flung yourself into this thread and stated, it appears as if you agree with Asguard.

 

In other words, you and your errr supposedly left leaning friends support holding women criminally responsible if they give birth to a child with a deformity or disability of any sort, as well as if she miscarries.

Righteo.

It also seems as if you seem to believe that if a woman is sexually active, she should either refrain from ingesting anything that could harm a pregnancy, just in case she falls pregnant.. or get her tubes tied as you so err eloquently put it. And if she does consume alcohol or any other substance, be it legal or illegal and then several weeks later discovers she is pregnant, she should get an abortion.. so she does not face criminal sanction because of the mouth breathers such as yourself.

Would that be about right?

I mean thus far, this is the stance you have supported on this issue.

Now apparently, if you were to be believed, you are pro-choice. Well looking at what you advocate in regards to women's reproductive rights, you are not that pro-choice after all. In fact, one could say that you are not pro-choice at all.

Here is something that you cannot seem to grasp when it comes to pregnancy and women's rights.. And that is privacy. Or more to the point, bodily privacy.

Once you understand what that means, then you will come to realise how repulsive and repugnant your views that women should be held criminally liable for anything that happens to their embryo or fetus to determine if they ingested or consumed something that may or may not have caused the actual issue. In the case of FAS, most women don't even know they are pregnant when they have had a drink or 3. To hold them liable because of something that may or not be is ridiculous in my opinion. And to expect or demand that they either get an abortion or face legal sanctions removes and negates the notion of choice and bodily privacy that currently exists.

As a woman who was being rushed to hospital every week for the first 16 weeks of my pregnancy with miscarriage scares, I cannot begin to tell you of the further horror that would have been endured if the police would have been called in be questioned, as an example, about what I may or may not have consumed. You stated in another thread that your partner miscarried. If women were to be held liable for their pregnancies, your partner would have had to endure a criminal investigation to make sure she was not the cause of her miscarriage. That is what your position in this debate entails.

Now you can blather on about how she or your supposed left leaning friends feel about my position. But understand one thing, once you go down the path where you start saying "if your direct actions such as smoking, drinking or doing drugs leads to damage to the baby the mother should be held responsible", then yes, your wife would have been questioned about what she had ingested or consumed that could have caused the miscarriage. Which is exactly what you reported in your OP.

If you find that acceptable, then good for you.

Personally I do not.