Pregnant teen who drinks 32 units of alcohol a week
- Thread starter Ghostkai
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh, but guys! She said she would start drinking AT HOME!
She should not be allowed custody of this child, and I think maybe she should abort it.
She should not be allowed custody of this child, and I think maybe she should abort it.
I lol'd so hard at that! Well worded...Outlaw Torn said:
That's murder, unfortunately. Now if we had a time machine and a coat hanger that would be a different story...JackWestJr said:
EDIT: Sorry for the double post! Computer got hung up on me...
OT: (and for a different contribution, to make use of this double-post...)
Wall O' Text!
This situation troubles me, not just because she's willingly ignoring facts and convincing herself that she's not doing anything wrong, but also because it's a scary place to be judging pregnant women for their actions.
I was reading this just yesterday, actually. --> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges
( TL;DR: Women are being charged with murder due to miscarriages because a law meant to protect unborn children from meth cooking fumes and third-party assault on the mother is being used to go after women in an attempt to force the recognition of life at conception and make abortions illegal.)
Now, a woman who intends to keep the child and does something we KNOW could kill it or cause irreversible harm is really somewhere in the neglect/abuse range of things, but there is no reason to MAKE a woman carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes, especially if she isn't willing to take care of the kid for at least the duration of its gestation. I don't think this girl should keep it since even she says she's not ready, but I'm hesitant to have the law after her unless it's specifically worded and doesn't have the potential for abuse like the one's in those insane states here in the US.
And just for frame of reference, I feel that women have the right to abortions until the third trimester, when babies become "viable" outside of the mother because THEN it's along the same lines as infanticide/murder, but not before because fetuses are not really a separate functioning creature until then and are horribly fragile (miscarriages are very common in the animal world, and yes, humans are animals). HOWEVER, this does not mean "go do whatever the hell you want" until then, because fetuses have the potential to be a human who can have their life seriously impacted by choices made in those nine months. And seriously, if you WANT the kid, why the hell would you purposely deform them before they've even had a chance at life? It's just stupid, selfish behavior, not to mention short sighted. And-and, if you DON'T WANT it, why haven't you had an abortion yet? They're legal for a reason.
OT: (and for a different contribution, to make use of this double-post...)
Wall O' Text!
This situation troubles me, not just because she's willingly ignoring facts and convincing herself that she's not doing anything wrong, but also because it's a scary place to be judging pregnant women for their actions.
I was reading this just yesterday, actually. --> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges
( TL;DR: Women are being charged with murder due to miscarriages because a law meant to protect unborn children from meth cooking fumes and third-party assault on the mother is being used to go after women in an attempt to force the recognition of life at conception and make abortions illegal.)
Now, a woman who intends to keep the child and does something we KNOW could kill it or cause irreversible harm is really somewhere in the neglect/abuse range of things, but there is no reason to MAKE a woman carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes, especially if she isn't willing to take care of the kid for at least the duration of its gestation. I don't think this girl should keep it since even she says she's not ready, but I'm hesitant to have the law after her unless it's specifically worded and doesn't have the potential for abuse like the one's in those insane states here in the US.
And just for frame of reference, I feel that women have the right to abortions until the third trimester, when babies become "viable" outside of the mother because THEN it's along the same lines as infanticide/murder, but not before because fetuses are not really a separate functioning creature until then and are horribly fragile (miscarriages are very common in the animal world, and yes, humans are animals). HOWEVER, this does not mean "go do whatever the hell you want" until then, because fetuses have the potential to be a human who can have their life seriously impacted by choices made in those nine months. And seriously, if you WANT the kid, why the hell would you purposely deform them before they've even had a chance at life? It's just stupid, selfish behavior, not to mention short sighted. And-and, if you DON'T WANT it, why haven't you had an abortion yet? They're legal for a reason.
She'll hopefully miscarry. Terrible thing to say, but it would be better for everyone concerned.
That's why I asked if she was getting an abortion. If she is, then I don't see the big deal. If she isn't, she should be charged with negligence once the baby is born. Because for now she's done nothing wrong, but when she gives birth, she has wronged her child and should face the consequences.Atheist. said:
And I'd like to add that she is practically forcing the unborn child to consume alcohol. What happens to adults who force their children to drink alcohol? Surely that can't be legal.
Remove her from the gene pool and don't allow her parents to have any further children.
The cause of the majority of the bullshit with teens is shocking parenting and parents who are just as bad as these fuck-tards here.
I've seen scummy mothers handing out fags/alcohol/weed to their own fucking kids.
The cause of the majority of the bullshit with teens is shocking parenting and parents who are just as bad as these fuck-tards here.
I've seen scummy mothers handing out fags/alcohol/weed to their own fucking kids.
You're allowed to have a baby no matter your genetics or your class or many other factors, so there will always be many individuals who you may not be considered worthy to be parents, but can and do have children.
However, the right to have children does not give you the right to abuse them, so this is starting to enter a similar domain as abortion- at what point is a fetus considered its own person and therefore have a right not to be aborted or drowned in alcohol? Where does negligence start, and how can we police it?
However, the right to have children does not give you the right to abuse them, so this is starting to enter a similar domain as abortion- at what point is a fetus considered its own person and therefore have a right not to be aborted or drowned in alcohol? Where does negligence start, and how can we police it?
Remove her from the gene pool and don't allow her parents to have any further children.
The cause of the majority of the bullshit with teens is shocking parenting and parents who are just as bad as these fuck-tards here.
I've seen scummy mothers handing out fags/alcohol/weed to their own fucking kids.
The cause of the majority of the bullshit with teens is shocking parenting and parents who are just as bad as these fuck-tards here.
I've seen scummy mothers handing out fags/alcohol/weed to their own fucking kids.
Well the problem here is that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy (her body) yet exposing it to alcohol surely can't be right. It's not like it is cancelling the process of creating life, it is damaging it to leave someone with a lifetime of disability and suffering they may have been better off not being born at all.Ghostkai said:
It's a fine line, I can't condemn here too much without also condemning women who intentionally end their pregnancy with an abortion. Already in the US women are being charged with murder for having a miscarriage even though their actions didn't directly relate to the miscarriage. It seems like an attempt to ban abortion by the back door.
My mum is a midwife and she'd told me she hardly sees serious foetal alcohol syndrome any more, though she adds this is not because people drink less in pregnancy, it is because the syndrome is discovered much more reliably now at the 25 week scan. Then the mother is told all about the burdens of the condition and given the option to terminate the pregnancy and usually they do.
I should add that 25 weeks is a very important borderline period in neonatal (pre-birth) care:
-it is a week before the abortion limit*
-this is the point in development when all the major structures have developed, and where major deformities and diseases can be determined from Downs syndrome to Spina Bifida
-autopsies have determined it is not till AFTER this date that the foetus produces any neurochemicals, so regardless of brains structure they have had no feelings, desires or consciousness at all. So following how life "ends" being brain dead, life does not "begin" till the neurochemicals are produced and the brain "switches on". So that's an ethical consideration of abortion the foetus isn't really "alive" yet.
*note to those objecting to late-term-abortions, you cannot detect these debilitating conditions till scanning at that late a stage.
I suspect if her foetus even survives swimming in 4.5 units of alcohol per day then she will get very bad news at her 25 week scan and will be heavily recommended to terminate the pregnancy.
Of course there is always the outside chance the foetus will develop without obvious deformities, though a great certainty is a low birth weight and a lower IQ than the child could have achieved.
The thing is sonographers (people who use ultrasound scanners) in the UK are in a tricky legal situation as they can be sued by the mother if the medic fails to both diagnose and inform her that their foetus is deformed. They can be sued up to 21 years after the child is born, so they can have the threat of lawsuit hanging over their head for decades if they fail to diagnose a condition that was apparent in the scan.
'I'm not an idiot, I know I might be doing my baby harm.'
No, you kind of are. You either get an abortion and continue your lifestyle, or you gear up to have a kid. You can't do both, you little moron. Have fun with your tard kid. I hope you realize at some point what fetal alcohol syndrome does to people
No, you kind of are. You either get an abortion and continue your lifestyle, or you gear up to have a kid. You can't do both, you little moron. Have fun with your tard kid. I hope you realize at some point what fetal alcohol syndrome does to people
Assuming the baby dies, this would be an interesting one for the Darwin Awards. She removed herself from the gene pool by being so stupid she compulsively kills her child.
in the UK units is a measurement for alcohol, beer is something like 3 and wine is 2.3 etc.Chibz said:
this is an argument for eugenics. or vigilantism. which is bad. people like that shouldnt be allowed to have a pet, let alone a baby.
Well science can't say when a foetus actually has thoughts, emotions and consciousness... but they know the point where it cannot possibly have them.DanDanikov said:
It's the neuro-transmitters, essential chemicals that without your brain cannot function at all, regardless of structural development. Autopsies of foetuses that are lost to abortion or miscarriage have found neuro-transmitters are not produced till a very distinct point. Before that point thinking/feeling is impossible. So if we define the "end of life" as ceasing of brain activity, then life "begins" when they begin producing these chemicals in the brain when activity can begin. That's my main argument against "life begins at conception".
But it's irrelevant what point the foetus becomes conscious, the damage is done weeks before that as the brain is being developed the alcohol causes the damage and the deformity is permanent.
I suppose you could look at this as like incest laws. It is illegal to have children with a close relative, largely because it is gross but also because the danger of in-breeding is well know. That is where the government can justifiably have control over someone's body to protect the FUTURE well being of the individual.
That's where I think the law need to walk the fine line, where women can be both justified in terminating a pregnancy, yet they cannot take the middle ground of a "botched" pregnancy with a foetus that is malnourished, poisoned or injured to the point of deformity.
Seeing as how this kid's got an absolute ass for a mom and a good chance of being born with deformities, I think an abortion is the way to go. Now if we could sterilize her as well, she can drink as much as she wants and nobody'll give a shit! Problem solved!
Wow, that came out mean.
Wow, that came out mean.
There's also the fact that there's no medical consensus on how much/when during the pregnancy causes fetal alcohol syndrome. And the fact that we let women over 35 bear children even though we know it puts their children at significantly higher risk of chromosomal birth defects, including Down's Syndrome. Or that we don't force feed pregnant women folate enriched bread/vitamins because we know that not enough folate seriously increases the risk of neural tube defects like spina bifida. Ad nauseum.Atheist. said:
