Being jailed for having a miscarriage? Is society really that insane now?

[SomeRandom]

Anything parents eat or drink, even how many times the man ejaculated has impact on the health (physical, emotional, mental) of the child

CPS gets very busy

Freedom to Live gets very limited

I live a very limited life
BUT
By choice no sex & drugs & Rock'n Roll

That's the difference

But not everyone has such self discipline.

I think it’s better to give people a chance to avoid such things during pregnancy (provided they know) rather than expect it from folks all the time

 

[Guitar's Cry]

This is something I've addressed in years past on RF.
I argued that the mother has a legal responsibility to
conduct her life during pregnancy such that she doesn't
cause birth defects. I recall vigorous disagreement
about this, ie, the mother can do as she pleases, without
regard for the health of a baby later born.

Does a community have a responsibility to conduct itself in such a way that it doesn't lead to the conditions where drug use is a problem?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Does a community have a responsibility to conduct itself in such a way that it doesn't lead to the conditions where drug use is a problem?

To absolute in its wording.
Minimize yes, but remove could be to costly.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

To absolute in its wording.
Minimize yes, but remove could be to costly.

Mind elaborating?

 

[MikeF]

Is a society that wants her to carry the child to term responsible for reasonable care of her and the fetus?

Excellent point. Might it be in societies best interest to ensure every mother has the appropriate resources prenatally, to provide the best possible outcome for every baby born. I can see an argument for that position.

The flip side, however, is whether it is appropriate for people to have children if they are not in a position to care for, and raise a child. Then it's a slippery slope of how do you decide what constitutes 'appropriate'. And last, what if generous benefits simply act as an enabling force for people to make inappropriate life choices without bearing much consequence.

 

[Revoltingest]

IF you hold the mother accountable
THEN I hold the Father accountable

As I addressed in a later post, it should be
prohibited for anyone to do something to
the mother that would harm the fetus, &
consequently the baby.
So the father could abuse his body with drugs
that would cause congenital damage to a fetus,
but the mother should be prohibited. This
asymmetry strikes me as useful & not unfair.

 

[Revoltingest]

Does a community have a responsibility to conduct itself in such a way that it doesn't lead to the conditions where drug use is a problem?

Sure.
But I don't see this as rising to the level
of prosecuting individuals for legal conduct
that leads to others abusing drugs.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

US women are being jailed for having miscarriages

Unbelievable.

This kind of post is why we have an outrage culture in the US. There is more to the story than she just had a miscarriage and then sentenced to jail because of it. I am not saying she should be in jail, but lets be honest with our headlines.

 

[stvdv]

But not everyone has such self discipline.

Exactly, hence we can't expect this from anyone, even not during pregnancy. Some people have a horrible youth, being beaten up and/or sexual abused etc., and their only way out they could find was addiction

Impossible to change that for 9 month in a row, going cold turkey sober.
And to jail them for it equals lack of empathy and psychological knowledge.

The judge who would order that, should first give up his major addiction (sex, alcohol, drugs, coffee, sugar, salt or oil, chocolate, milk, or go vegan over night to mention the major ones) for 9 month.

I think it’s better to give people a chance to avoid such things during pregnancy (provided they know) rather than expect it from folks all the time

Oh, to expect it for 9 month from an addict is more difficult than expect it from a non addict for life

It is just not Dharmic to jail an addict for being an addict. IF they want to control this they should monitor all people 24/7 from bring born till they promise not to get pregnant again. That way they can stop faulty upbringing, the usual cause of addiction at the root, and then addicts can be treated more successfull

But that would be like China 100.0. Not the dream most Americans have I think.

 

[stvdv]

As I addressed in a later post, it should be
prohibited for anyone to do something to
the mother that would harm the fetus, &
consequently the baby

Hence I said the father should be jailed too. He should have been ordered by the judge for having sex with a drug addict.

So, all people must be monitored 24/7 to have totally fair control and fair legal system. Otherwise it's totally Adharmic

 

[stvdv]

So the father could abuse his body with drugs that would cause congenital damage to a fetus,

but the mother should be prohibited. This
asymmetry strikes me as useful & not unfair

I think I misunderstood OR you made an error, because how I read this, I totally disagree.

First it's discriminating women, because men are as much responsible than women, and I think men are more responsible, because they give, and the woman receives, so actually the man should be jailed, not the woman

Other problem "both man and woman are addicts of sex and drugs".

Who to jail now?
IF you jail woman
THEN you must jail man too

 

[SkepticThinker]

And for many, whether using an IUD, morning after pill, or vacuum aspiration procedure, you are interrupting the development of a fertilized egg. Within certain time limits there is no significant difference. Taking an unwanted pregnancy to term is always significant.

That's not quite accurate.

IUDs prevent sperm from fertilizing the egg.
The morning after pill (Plan B) temporarily prevents ovulation, like regular birth control pills do. It can also prevent a sperm from fertilizing an egg.

Neither are abortifacients.

RU-486 (Mifeprex) is the drug used in medical abortions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes. In each case we are stopping the process well before viability.

They're definitely not the same thing.

 

[MikeF]

That's not quite accurate.

IUDs prevent sperm from fertilizing the egg.
The morning after pill (Plan B) temporarily prevents ovulation, like regular birth control pills do. It can also prevent a sperm from fertilizing an egg.

Neither are abortifacients.

RU-486 (Mifeprex) is the drug used in medical abortions.

Thanks very much for the clarification. I mistakenly thought an IUD primarily prevented implantation. Perhaps that was the original mechanism before copper and hormones were used in making the IUD.

I will try to be more careful to distinguish between Plan B and RU-486.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thanks very much for the clarification. I mistakenly thought an IUD primarily prevented implantation. Perhaps that was the original mechanism before copper and hormones were used in making the IUD.

I will try to be more careful to distinguish between Plan B and RU-486.

No problem! Cheers!

 

[Revoltingest]

Hence I said the father should be jailed too. He should have been ordered by the judge for having sex with a drug addict.

I oppose that level of restriction.
But then....I don't live in Europe.
(They get pretty oppressive there.)

So, all people must be monitored 24/7 to have totally fair control and fair legal system.

That's a pretty strange conclusion.
I'd oppose that.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think I misunderstood OR you made an error, because how I read this, I totally disagree.

First it's discriminating women, because men are as much responsible than women, and I think men are more responsible, because they give, and the woman receives, so actually the man should be jailed, not the woman

That is a very strange view. It appears that you're
claiming that if a pregnant woman harms the baby,
the father should be jailed.

Other problem "both man and woman are addicts of sex and drugs".

But only one of them is a mother, whose drug use
could ultimately cause congenital damage to the baby.
If one isn't pregnant, then one wouldn't be subject to
that restriction. This includes women who aren't
pregnant. So while it has a disparate effect with
respect to gender, it's not solely about gender/sex.

Who to jail now?
IF you jail woman
THEN you must jail man too

It seems that you're big on imprisoning people.
I'm not.

 

[stvdv]

It seems that you're big on imprisoning people.
I'm not.

No, I am totally against jailing people for abortion.

But men are as responsible for creating the baby, knowing the woman is an addict resulting in trouble he should not have made her pregnant

And if they jail the women, which I am against, then be consistent

Don't blame the woman alone for it.

(Also.. Men have to pay for child support too, so that proves he is held accountable)

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I am totally against jailing people for abortion.

But men are as responsible for creating the baby, knowing the woman is an addict resulting in trouble he should not have made her pregnant

And if they jail the women, which I am against, then be consistent

Don't blame the woman alone for it.

(Also.. Men have to pay for child support too, so that proves he is held accountable)

It's one thing for the father to pay child support.
But it's a far different thing to jail a father because
the mother abused drugs during pregnancy.
Fathers cannot legally control the mother's actions,
so making them criminally liable smacks of misandry.