quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

As I have said before, all we have to go on is what was written in one article and in one brief. The young woman in question has not gone to trial yet. No facts have been established, no witnesses have been presented.

quote:

However we can discuss whether the law is the best place to decide matters that arise from the intersection of pregnancy and substance abuse. Or even an appropriate place to determine issues of this nature. Or whether we'd all be better off looking at this as a matter of health and social policy.

quote:

FWIW, as suggested above, my view is that these matters fall under the umbrella of health and social policy. The law, murder/criminal charges and courtrooms are a most unsatisfactory, ham fisted way of resolving these matters.

quote:

How do we determine which is better?

quote:

The first question to ask is has making laws against drug use of any sort led to less drug abuse? Will making special laws about pregnancy and drugs save any babies? Does the risk of such laws in making women go underground when they use drugs and not seek medical attention lead to healthier babies?

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

You weren't talking about aborting viable fetuses.  You said a woman should be able to have her doctor induce labor.  Since medical tests can determine the chances of survival, inducing labor for a woman to give birth KNOWING that in all liklihood will result in the baby's death is not much different than abortion.

I think that is true...

I think that the life of the mother always trumps the life of a fetus. I think that if the mother's life will be negatively impacted because of medical circumstances that she should have the right to abort. I believe that being suicidal or lacking the ability to remain clean and sober to be medical reasons why abortion is medically sound as a form of treatment for mothers that are mentally unstable and wish to terminate their pregnancies at a time later than 24 weeks. I believe that if the fetus is viable it is okay to try to keep the child alive by inducing labor or surgical means... instead of abortion. I do not think it is okay to put the life of a fetus above that of the mother that is acting as host.

quote:

What pregnant women have been incarcerated? All of these women were charged AFTER their child was born. Viable fetus, stillborn or death after birth. They weren't pregnant when charged.

Further, I haven't mentioned the cost of caring for sick infants at all.

quote:



You are really reaching here. According to your statements, a woman can do ANYTHING she wants while pregnant and not be held accountable. Being held accountable for knowingly engaging in behavior that will cause harm to an unborn child is NOT the same as "backdoor rights."

quote:

What pregnant women have been incarcerated? All of these women were charged AFTER their child was born. Viable fetus, stillborn or death after birth. They weren't pregnant when charged.

Further, I haven't mentioned the cost of caring for sick infants at all.

quote:

But there aren't any reported DEATHS associated with it. I know you are super anti-smoking, and since you like to post supporting links, where are the links about coffee and chocolate. Since you always like to talk about how a link someone else posts isn't coming from a reputable source, why should I, or anyone else post a link for you. You want to find out if what I said is true, go look. I went and looked for more information about these women. Found some updated information, like the fact that now Kimbrough admits to smoking meth.

quote:

Did you read the 2008 study on smoking while pregnant? I posted it first.

I am antismoking, I am also anti being an addict. I think smoking is as bad as doing crack for babies as far as low birth weight, premature delivery, and it would be easy to argue that a mother who smoked while pregnant chemically damaged her child, causing SIDs.

BTW, I am not for incarcerating smoking mothers, either.

Now, as for the rest of it, if you post a genuine reply to have a conversation, I will respond... I am not responding to squawking, or other sorts of veiled insults designed to be confrontational.

I desire to learn more than I desire to be right

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I'm afraid I am not interested in indulging in amateur speculation in order to contrive a case of murder against Gibbs.

It could very well be my error, but I thought the law was supposed to concern itself with facts. If it cannot be established by experts that cocaine use is fetotoxic, it is a nonsense to expect ordinary souls to be aware of it. And it beggars belief how murder can be asserted if the chosen instrument of murder (cocaine use) cannot be proved to be potentially lethal to a foetus in utero.

quote:

The more I hear about this case the more it seems to me that the murder case is utterly and totally contrived. It is one thing to make an argument that Ms Gibbs may not have been acting responsibly as a mother-to-be. It is quite another to try to spin this as murder. To me, Ms Gibbs seems to be a quite innocent party caught up in the right-to-lifers' ruthless determination to stop abortions at all costs.

quote:


I am yet to hear a convincing argument why this whole area - an alleged failure by a mother-to-be to meet social expectations on her behaviour - is a matter that even falls into the legal domain in the first place. It is illuminating that the reason why we are discussing it as such is because of an attempt by disaffected people to back door abortion rights. The context in which this discussion is occurring has been set by political/legal manoeuvres by those whose primary aim is to stop all abortions.

quote:


Is the law the best arena to resolve issues around the responsibilities of mothers-to-be, especially where substance abuse in involved? The law has singularly unsuccessful in dealing with substance abuse issues of any kind.

quote:


Why should it suddenly change spots and become the best arena to deal with issues thrown up by the intersection of pregnancy and substance abuse? Since when is the law the place where the best interests of a mother-to-be and her foetus are decided? That we are looking for legal remedies suggests to me that the health of mothers and babies isn't the agenda here. The history of "depraved heart" law and politics confirms this objection.

quote:

Surely this is a matter of health and social policy. Any solutions to the issues of pregnant women who abuse various substances (including tobacco and alcohol) will be found in the domains of health and social policy, not in prison cells.

quote:

quote:

Surely this is a matter of health and social policy. Any solutions to the issues of pregnant women who abuse various substances (including tobacco and alcohol) will be found in the domains of health and social policy, not in prison cells.


Can you show something that says this is the case? Do you believe ALL substance abuse should not be handled by the law when the substance abuse leads to the commission of a crime?

quote:

There is nothing in the article of the OP, or any other article I read, where anyone has said that this women being charged is a "best interest" issue

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

How do we determine which is better?

The first question to ask is has making laws against drug use of any sort led to less drug abuse? Will making special laws about pregnancy and drugs save any babies? Does the risk of such laws in making women go underground when they use drugs and not seek medical attention lead to healthier babies?

I would define "better" as more healthy babies being born, and mitigating damage to them by mothers who have substance abuse issues, and I do not believe those laws protect babies at all, in fact there is a legitimate argument that they could harm them

quote:

First, no one has put the life of the fetus ahead of the mother. Based on the information given, NONE of the women sought help from their physicians. In fact, according to the article, the exact opposite is true. With Gibbs, she didn't speak to her doctor about her cocaine use or ask for help. Shuai didn't seek help for her depression. In that case, I would still like to know how long ago her boyfriend left her since that was the reason she gave for the suicide attempt. With Kimbrough, She had been to the doctor 13 days before using meth. The test she took did NOT definitively detect Down Syndrome. I suspect the test was a CVS, which is known for false positive readings. She chose not to have the test that would definitively determine the health of the baby (likely amn

I don't disagree that women should be entitled to terminate their pregnancy for medical reasons, or even that 2nd trimester abortions should be legal in some cases. But I do believe that women need to validate those claims in the 2nd trimester. Further, depression is a temporary condition. How many women, with treatment would regret aborting their babies? Talk about a slippery slope. The point is that at some point, before birth, the law has already granted "personhood" to the fetus. Further, we are not talking about situations where the women sought, and were denied, help. We are talking about women who took things into their own hands. No one would question the wrongness of a woman who gave drugs to her month old infant or who, mental illness or not, decided to kill her baby because she was depressed.

quote:

The study you refer to has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. That is the point. Your apparent inability to focus on the subject at hand and actually understand it is frustrating.

You say you desire to learn more than you desire to be right. Lesson one: This post is about women charged with murder for causing the death of the babies through drugs or poisons. It has nothing to do with cigarettes, coffee or chocolate.

You are trying to find ways to support your argument which is weak and you are getting pissy because it isn't working.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

It is usually a health official who calls a social worker who gets the law involved.

Amazing how that works.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

quote:

Surely this is a matter of health and social policy. Any solutions to the issues of pregnant women who abuse various substances (including tobacco and alcohol) will be found in the domains of health and social policy, not in prison cells.


Can you show something that says this is the case? Do you believe ALL substance abuse should not be handled by the law when the substance abuse leads to the commission of a crime?

This is perhaps one of the core points. Is the law a useful domain to address drug issues?

The norm is Western countries is prohibition. This has been so for over 50 years. During that time, the amount of drugs available has become far greater, their cost has reduced, levels of addiction have grown and their consumption increased in all Western countries. Associated ills such as corruption, gangsterism, prisons overflowing with drug-related prisoners, decreases in civil liberties and a host of other negative outcomes have materialised.

quote:


It is impossible to point to a single Western country where this policy could be said to be successful in achieving any of its aims. The law has been singularly unsuccessful as a counter to the drug trade. There is no evidence to suggest nor reason to believe it will be any more successful in this instance. Solutions are not on the agenda of those who propose using criminal law as the policy to deal with the issues raised by these 3 cases in the OP.

quote:

We might not like or approve of drug taking. But legal sanctions to prevent it have been, by any standard, universal failures. Broadening the application of these failed policies will only guarantee more failures.

quote:

quote:

There is nothing in the article of the OP, or any other article I read, where anyone has said that this women being charged is a "best interest" issue

This may identify another key difference.

My approach to this issue is to try to identify the best interests and policies likely to foster the best interests of all concerned. I can't see anything reprehensible in this approach. I'll choose this approach over a legal one that insists on punishment and regulation as its first and only 'remedy' every time.

I hope that we can agree that a resolution of these problems so that they cease occurring is a desirable goal. I am unable to see how throwing 'errant' mothers-to-be in prison on contrived murder charges will achieve that. I can see how enlightened health and social policies might achieve far better outcomes.

quote:

Ah, so some of us are engaging in "amateur speculation" regarding the facts provided, but you are presenting what? A professional opinion? You are stating "your approach" as though you have some say in the matter. You don't even live in this country! Further, your "approach" is to talk about best interests and policies but you offer not one single suggestion as to what those solutions might be. At least JO has suggestions as to what she would like to see happen.

You are nothing more than the worst type of philosopher. Sitting on your ass telling everyone what is wrong, but not willing to get up and actually find a solution. Apparently, you just like to see your words in type.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Tweaky is a very educated and knowledgeable person. I see nothing wrong with looking for multiple ways to approach the same problem, instead of a one size fits all approach using the legal system. We have not had much luck with the heavy handed legalistic approach to drug use. Decriminalization seems to be a much more productive way to handle drug addiction. We lost the war on drugs, it failed. It seems wise to consider approaches other than failed ones. I do not think one needs to be a legal expert to understand policies that do not work. The law is only one part of public policy, there is the implementation of it, also.... and lawyers are not the only people who do that work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

The first question to ask is has making laws against drug use of any sort led to less drug abuse? Will making special laws about pregnancy and drugs save any babies? Does the risk of such laws in making women go underground when they use drugs and not seek medical attention lead to healthier babies?

So its your belief that decriminalizing the use of drugs by pregnant women would be a better option.

quote:

What do you do with a pregnant woman who admits to using, has no intentions of stopping, and no intentions of ending her pregnancy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Tweaky is a very educated and knowledgeable person. I see nothing wrong with looking for multiple ways to approach the same problem, instead of a one size fits all approach using the legal system. We have not had much luck with the heavy handed legalistic approach to drug use. Decriminalization seems to be a much more productive way to handle drug addiction. We lost the war on drugs, it failed. It seems wise to consider approaches other than failed ones. I do not think one needs to be a legal expert to understand policies that do not work. The law is only one part of public policy, there is the implementation of it, also.... and lawyers are not the only people who do that work.

And if she offered even one suggestion about what she thinks might work, my response would have been different. As much a disagree with you on this issue, you offered thoughts to alternatives you thought might work.

You know the old saying, "if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem?" Well, long wordy diatribes about history without offering a potential solution, all while stating other people are engaging in "amateur speculation" screams, "I'm a pompous ass."

Lots of people here are educated and knowledgeable. Doesn't mean they know anything about the subject being discussed or even have something worthwhile to say.