I really need to stop reading fucking newspapers (or online news) because I seriously walk away in such a rage that even a Xanax AND Valium laced martini won’t have me not seeing red and wanting to lose my shit in an epic way.
We all know (or at least my regular readers and friends do) that I’m a very hardcore advocate for children’s rights. From immunizations, to fetal rights and it goes on. All controversial topics, which we won’t get into here and now because they are a series of vitriolic rants that can be saved for another day. You’re excited right??
Todays offender? HERE….. A mother in the UK has been found NOT guilty of drinking so much during pregnancy that her daughter was born disabled, due to the alcohol consumption. Yes, it was CAUSED by her drinking, no question and she’s disabled her child for life but because a fetus has no rights as a human being and the damage was done when she was a fetus, the mother is not guilty. A bottle of vodka and 8 beers A DAY!!
Though if you did something that equaled the level damage to a child outside the womb you’d have all types of charges against you and find yourself in jail. Don’t pass go and don’t collect $100. The end.
Though because the fetus is not recognized as a person (yes this is a slippery slope when you being in other topics like abortion) mother is not guilty for the DIRECT and DELIBERATE harm that disabled an innocent who did nothing to deserve this. The mother was counseled and aware of the risks and the consequences of her heavy drinking.
All I can say is what the living fuck? Let alone has this woman have no business having children, because alcoholics make great mothers, but not to be held accountable for the grievous bodily harm she’s caused? I’m actually so angry that I can’t form a sentence to express how angry I am. So imagine every swear word possible, say them all and repeat a million times over and you’ve scratched the surface, just.
See in MY world when you are growing a child your body while yours is really no longer yours. Its state and what you do/don’t put into it directly affects the child you are growing and that comes way fucking above what you want. If you want to drink, want to smoke, want to take drugs then fucking go for it because you’re only harming yourself (well mainly let’s not get into the way families are ripped apart and intoxicated driving). When you’re growing a child they should be your first and only fucking priority. Your body is their incubator and in my mind belongs to them or at the very least you should treat your body in the best interests of your unborn child. If you don’t, then you should be held accountable for the consequences. It’s called being an adult.
From alcohol, to smoking, to drugs to even the food do’s and don’t because of potential risk. I’ve heard women argue the risks are so small for say toxoplasmosis (if you contract during pregnancy through cat poo or undercooked meat) or Listeria (deli meats, soft cheeses, pre-made salads) that is not worth the sacrifice. But to me ANY risk that is voluntary is too much. Damn, you won’t die without those things for 9 months but there is a small chance your baby could die from it or be born with disability and then it’s a total no go area. Period.
See in my eyes voluntary risk, without medical reasons behind it (amniocentesis or say antibiotics or antidepressants) that are a cost v benefit situation, to risk your child’s health out of sheer selfishness makes you a piss poor excuse for a mother. If you fit this category and think I’m being harsh, I don’t even give the resemblance of a fuck. Honestly you can bend over and take it up the ass… I’m smiling while I deliver it FYI.
Everything you choose to do/don’t do is for them. It’s the same sacrifices you make as a parent. Baby before mother. Same comes to birth choices. You do what’s best for the baby, not what your ideal labour is. It’s valuing your child’s life or safety over your desires. I can’t see why that is too hard for some women.
I have first hand experience in this, I got diabetes when pregnant and had to have a total diet overhaul. I was constantly monitoring my food intake, my blood sugars, seeing specialists and was a human pin cushion. Was it fun? Fuck no, it wasn’t REALLY a choice though it was a “choice” it was what I HAD to do to make sure MY child grew well and came out healthy. There were a lot if sacrifices but then comparison to the risk to my baby they were minuscule and while I sometimes lamented “why me”, I never ONCE broke them. It wasn’t THAT hard…. I could eat the cake and risk he baby or not eat to the cake and not risk the baby. No cake tastes better than having a healthy baby. You’re talking with a person who’s never met a carb they wouldn’t marry and I was suddenly on the lowest carb diet possible, swallowed my meds to keep my blood sugar down and visiting an endocrinologist who is as tough as nails (2am blood checks and phone calls if the were out are not my idea of fun), I did it FOR my unborn child. As their mother and protector it’s my job in life to sacrifice everything for them, this would include my life. Maybe I’m an anomaly or maybe im just a good fucking parent. You can decide.
This brings me back to the article and the absolute cunt disgrace of a mother who willfully disabled her child. To be found not guilty boggles my mother brain. My legal brain says giving fetal rights opens a slew of legal issues (abortion would be murder if a fetus had the same right as a born baby) but there has to be some middle ground. Abortions can’t be performed after 12 weeks or 24 weeks without sound medical reason (say a congenital defect incompatible with life), if a baby dies and is born stillborn after that point they have a birth and death certificate, need a legal name and a funeral, they are recognized as a life. Then why is a child harmed in utero after 24 weeks not recognized in the same way? That any harm done to them is punishable by law. If you were kicked deliberately in the stomach and the baby died as a consequence manslaughter charges would be brought at best, murder at worst (or best depending on how you look at it).
So how is there THIS legal loophole possible or how was this verdict made? Doesn’t it defy logic and legal precedent? Surely you can’t claim ALL the damage was done before 24 weeks? Since she was drinking a bottle of vodka a day a 8 beers, I think it’s safe to assume damage occurred right till the baby was born. Or that the mother wasn’t negligent and the child disabled as a direct consequence. Imagine the detox period that baby went through when it was born, more harm. It’s a recognused life then, so why isn’t that a crime? Because it’s all due to in uterine exposure?
If a doctor did something that harmed a baby the medical malpractice suit would be instant. So someone please explain to me the difference. Had Mum not been aware of the risks, she was, then maybe I might feel a bit more empathy for a mother who knew no better, who through medical supervision should have known better (bet THAT mother would sue her doctor) then why is an informed parent who inflicted deliberate harm free from any kind of consequence? I really just don’t get it. I really don’t.
If the mother was KNOWN to have a substance abuse issue how far should the medical professions duty of care extend? Why shouldn’t mother be forced into rehab, willing or not, to save the baby and hopefully make the woman a fit parent? God if you exist that woman should never see that child again once she’s given birth to it. No way should she have any parental claim, even if she cleaned herself up and became dry. I don’t care if that seems hardline, but some things are unforgivable. This is very much one of those things.
You could argue that you can’t hold a person against their will, except under certain psychiatric laws where they are a credible threat to themselves or others. Doesn’t this fit that category? They are a credible threat to the baby. Sure the period of hold is longer, it costs money and resources. It could also be argued that the life long cost for caring for a disabled child and then adult is far more than that cost. So cost shouldn’t be an issue. It’s a civil liberty issue but as I established, there is precedence for that if you’re a credible harm to yourself or others. So the crux of the matter is if and when a fetus should have rights? Since they live with the outcome of the choices through their quality of life I think from conception they should have rights. Again, yes I understand this would be a precedent that could be used to lobby anti-abortion, though courts tend to look at a bigger picture. Why does a fetus that can survive outside the womb from as young as 22 weeks have NO rights at all, since by all other situations they are considered “a life” and subject to the same birth/death/naming laws. If a baby can survive without the incubator how can it NOT be considered an individual with the same rights as any other child? It’s a nonsensical paradox.
So this brings me to the end of this horrendous decision that has set a very dangerous and abhorrent legal precedent and my thoughts on the matter. I’m sorry it’s not as succinct or even witty (am I witty?) as normal but honestly the screen is glowing red, my blood pressure is through the roof and I’m surprised I can feel my fingers enough to even type. My nose has bled several times.
I’m interested in my readers thoughts?
HERE is a link on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders for those interested in why drinking during pregnancy is irresponsible, at any level. No one knows what point the effects of alcohol will damage the baby, because you can’t measure potential on an unborn child. One drink might only have minimal effect, but it still has an effect. But how much we can’t measure and will never know. So why do women take the risk? Every person/fetus threshold is different in life to certain substances, so one drink might only drop the IQ of one baby 1 point while another it might damage them to the point of disability for life. Voluntary risk is NOT acceptable when it comes to your child, their quality of life and health, EVER!