|
Post by Adona Mara on Feb 7, 2007 17:08:41 GMT -5
Originally posted by Icarus
Consider the following court cases:
A pregnant woman in Washington, D.C. was charged with check forgery. The usual sentence for first-time offenders is probation. When the woman tested positive for cocaine, the judge sentenced her to prison, saying, "I'm going to keep her locked up until the baby's born."
A California woman who had taken street drugs was charged with child abuse after she delivered a brain-damaged baby who died soon after birth.
An Illinois woman was charged with manslaughter when her two-day-old infant died due to her cocaine use during pregnancy.
In Florida, a woman was convicted of two counts of delivering drugs to a minor. The prosecution alleged that she had passed cocaine to her newborn child through the umbilical cord after the baby was delivered but before the cord was cut.
So...should judges jail pregnant women because she uses drugs such as cocaine that harm the fetus? If so, because alcohol and nicotine can harm a fetus, should judges be permitted to jail women who smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol? If not, what is the difference?
|
|
|
Post by Adona Mara on Feb 7, 2007 17:11:08 GMT -5
Originally posted by Tom W
If the person is mentaly capable of understanding the risks she puts the baby through by doing drugs, or the amounts of alcohol/harmful substances ingested - and still does it fully aware and knowingly, then yes. I'd say there are circumstances where extra consideration would have to be taken. There are people who truthfully dont know what they are doing. Is ignorance an excuse? No. But they did not cause the baby harm by an intentional act.
Touchy subject, and if i stepped on anyones toes - my apologies.
|
|
|
Post by Adona Mara on Feb 7, 2007 17:12:31 GMT -5
Originally posted by Jinsei
Quote: ?
Actually, I think that pregnant women should be jailed for doing anything that you're not legally allowed to give a minor. Now, drugs are illegal, so if you're doing them and you're pregnant, then you are technically giving the baby an illegal substance and should be jailed until it is born... and you should be charged with child abuse, possession of an illegal substance, use of an illegal substance, and unlawfully forcing a minor to use an illegal substance.
Nicotine... the law sets an age limit of 18 (sometimes 21) for someone to be able to legally smoke. So, if you're pregnant and smoking, again, you're actually forcing the fetus to smoke, which is illegal to do to any minor. Why should it be different for an unborn baby?
Alcohol... this one's tricky, because most laws regarding it actually allow the parents to let their children consume alcohol provided it's on private property and under parental supervision. It's illegal for a minor to consume it on public property or be served by any establishment that serves alcohol. My thoughts would be that if enough alcohol were consumed to damage the fetus, then the same laws that apply to hazing should apply here... basically, if it was administered in a lethal dosage for body mass, then you're charged for the crime. For a pregnant woman, I'd think that'd be about a beer or a shot of hard liquer. But, that'd be more for the OB doctor to determine more than anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Adona Mara on Feb 7, 2007 17:14:05 GMT -5
Originally posted by Hachelen
What if it's done on purpose for abortion purposes. That excuse could always be used and that's legal.......not right, but legal. That leaves open the whole "Is a fetus and person?" debate. The sad part is that if the right judge and lawyer got hold of this those women would walk free
|
|
|
Post by Adona Mara on Feb 7, 2007 17:15:30 GMT -5
Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
Hachelen wrote:
I personaly have no objection to abortion. In this perspective i have to take a bit biological standpoint. Up until a certain point of the featus development, its not sentient or aware. At least as far as we know today. If a pregnancy is endangering the health or life of the mother, then by all means - unless it has gone past the point where the featus is sentient. But abortions becuase mommy and daddy were stupid enough not to use condoms or pills, no way. But that's just my personal opinion. Then there are sanctity of life movements, religious perspectives etc etc that needs to be taken into accountance. So i'll just stick with my own perspective
|
|
|
Post by Adona Mara on Feb 7, 2007 17:18:19 GMT -5
Originally posted by Jinsei
As for, "Is a fetus a person?" in my opinion it is once it's been created.
Scientifically? I think we could probably determine exactly when the brain and nervous system develop. At that point, it's definitely a person, because it has its own brain.
If a pregnant woman is beyond "The Point of Sentience" then I believe a law should be in effect that if she administers a lethal dose to her child, then there are certain charges that will be brought against her.
Quote:
Of course, according to the laws in Michigan now, you can be sentenced to 99 years for cheating on your spouse, because the judges have been ordered to follow the law as it's written, not as they interpret it.
|
|
|
Post by Adona Mara on Feb 7, 2007 17:19:35 GMT -5
Originally posted by Icarus
You have to look at all of the factors that contribute to the mother's "using" in the first place. Instead of jail time, I suggest that they be put into treatment centers. That way, they are off of any drugs, they get care for the baby and themself, and they get counseling to overcome the psychological reasons that they are using in the first place.
Still, I have been pregnant three times. Each one of those times, I quit everything that could have caused harm to the baby. Yep, that includes smoking. I know that I have the right to smoke (for now ), but the child cannot make that decision. I have known people that have binged on whiskey and smoked pot the entire time they were pregnant. No amount of talking to them convinces them that they should stop. Well, it may convince them that they should stop, but for whatever reason, they cannot. That is when the judicial system should come into play.
I'm no fan of big government, but who ends up paying for these poor babies that are born addicted to drugs and such? The taxpayer's money, which is funneled to the government pays for such things. Therefore, the government has every right to intervene.
Now, abortion is tricky. I can't make the decision for another person, but I couldn't do it myself. I never wanted to be in such a position either, and my heart goes out to those that are in/have found themselves in such a situation. I do not judge them, just so you know, because some of what I'm about to write may seem like I do.
I KNOW-not believe, think to be true, etc.- I KNOW that life begins at conception because I knew when I conceived. Does this mean that a fetus is viable until after the 25th week, or whatever week that is? No, but life exists within that tiny being. If a woman has been saddled with the responsibility of a life within her, it is for a reason. It may not be apparent at that time, but there is a reason for it.
There are too many loving people out there that desperately want a child for so many women to just hack them up and throw them away. And, yeah, that's about what they do. Of course, I guess, dissolve and deteriorate would work just as well...
|
|
|
Post by Adona Mara on Feb 7, 2007 17:21:05 GMT -5
Originally posted by Tom W
I definitely think drugs during pregnancy should be illegal and prosecutable. Alcohol should be moderate (very, very moderate) but law on alcohol would be harder to get through parliament/congress/etc..
Tom W
|
|