Abortion and Child Abuse

I was having this discussion on feministing and i wondered what people here would think.

 

The argument for allowing abortion is generally that up until at least a few months if not later but definitely for all the time in the womb a baby is not really a person. The reason you cant kill very young infants is because they are often wanted by others and they dont impinge on the mothers right to control her body so its better to put them up for adoption or in foster care.

 

But given that you have decided to have the baby and it will absolutely be a person, do you have the right as a pregnant mother to do things which are harmful to the child? Smoking, drinking, serious drugs, whatever else you can think of that could harm the child in utero. Because the baby is going to be a person and anything you do will affect them when they qualify as human does it constitute a crime or child abuse to do things which will damage its cognitive development, or other parts of its development? After all you cant make a baby or even a child under 18 smoke or drink, which is effectively what you are doing to the child.

 

Thoughts?

Views: 72

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Matthew Shafer-Skelton on June 12, 2011 at 6:48pm
well dealing with addictions is a problem. like ive said our biology doesnt lend itself to moral constraints. if you want to assure a certain kind of freedom, you are then stuck with the consequences when people fuck up, getting addicted is just one example. you have to make the decision, who suffers, women or children? and you can say you dont want to make that decision all you want, but a consequence of individual freedom is that people can make choices that harm others, intentionally or not.
Permalink Reply by Dogly on July 1, 2011 at 7:43pm

Why do we call a baby "IT"?  Even "Right to Lifers" do it.

I think the important matter is not whether or not to punish an addicted woman, who has given birth to a baby who is born with mutations, addiction, or fetal alcohol syndrome.  Punitive treatment of addicts doesn't work, except in so far as keeping them dry until they detox might help them break the habit.  What is important is protecting an individual - the child - from further abuse and neglect at the hands of a parent who has already neglected and abused him.  I think that abused children should be taken from their abusers.  Also, although, as a feminist, I have been condemned for this view, I think those who have abused children should be sterilized.  Children are not just things to be had.  Babies don't "belong" to their parents.  At least, once we are born, we have individual rights.  The question to consider is, "Are children people, or are they possessions of their parents?"

Permalink Reply by Matthew Shafer-Skelton on July 2, 2011 at 8:44am
Children are not people in the eyes of the law, they are bound by the same proscriptions often used to control women, except in some cases in a much stricter manner. Children do not have autonomy, everything they "own" is in fact owned by their parents. They cannot produce their own food, shelter, or clothes. Their toys, games, and such are not theirs. In fact, one of the reasons kids like the internet so much is, their parents do not/should not/cannot own their online "things". Free internet games that don't cost anything can't be owned by parents. Although they often require their children's passwords to email and social net working. Basically children have no rights at all, even child abuse, spanking, emotional abuse, and so forth is allowed by parents against their children, its called discipline.
Permalink Reply by Grace Fitzpatrick on June 12, 2011 at 6:23pm

My doctor seemed to think my baby was going to end up mentally challenged because I refused to take fish oil.   What's deemed good and bad during pregnancy changes with the times.  My kids are healthy as horses and I took gummy vitamins  and ate vegetables instead of taking prenatal vitamins.  I ate fish from time to time instead of eating fish oil supplements.  Then again, eat fish and they tell you not to because it's full of mercury.  Sometimes it seems you can't win for loosing when you're pregnant. Here's an article all about the bad things that can happen because mom didn't take her prenatals:  http://www.hollybaby.com/2011/05/26/prenatal-vitamins-autism-link-m...    

 

Considering most vitamins can't even be processed by the body (don't ask, I knew a guy who cleaned port-a-potties for a living), it seems like a gummy vitamin or a liquid vitamin supplement would be better.  (Of course, just eating fruits and vegetables is best.)

 

I don't think a mother addicted to hard drugs and alcohol is actually capable of caring for her children in any sense of properly (ie - like not leaving her drug needles and booze lying around or maybe ODing in front of her kids).  On the other hand, I don't think drug and alcohol addicted men make very good parents either. 

 

This article is by the NARCONON (I'm guessing it's like NA in the US) about the damaging effects of heavy hard drug and alcohol use on unborn babies and their mothers;  http://www.drugrehab.co.uk/drug-use-pregnancy.htm

 

 I don't think there's a lot that can or maybe should be done before the baby is born.  However, I do think after the baby is born, if the mother and father are out of control drug users, then the children would probably be safer somewhere else. 

Permalink Reply by Matthew Shafer-Skelton on June 12, 2011 at 6:50pm
well if you are willing to admit that you've made the choice that the parents freedom is more important than the child's health, i have no problems. thats a logically consistent position.
Permalink Reply by Grace Fitzpatrick on June 12, 2011 at 7:11pm
I'm saying I don't see any way around it without turning women into womb slaves and giving the christian right huge in roads into human rights of the born.
Permalink Reply by Matthew Shafer-Skelton on June 12, 2011 at 7:21pm

you clarified by agreeing with my statement of your argument :P

Permalink Reply by Grace Fitzpatrick on June 12, 2011 at 8:21pm

Until we can devise some sort of artificial womb to transfer these children to where they could be safely transfered and well cared for, yes, I am agreeing that the mother has the pre-existing right to her own body and to do with it as she pleases even if I don't like it , agree with it or see it as flat out abusive and wrong. 

 

Of course, if we had an artificial womb like that, no rich woman would ever become pregnant again.  LOL!

Permalink Reply by Matthew Shafer-Skelton on June 12, 2011 at 8:52pm
yes they would. you get pregnant from sex. you would still have to submit to invasive surgery to have the fertilized egg moved to the artificial womb.
Permalink Reply by Grace Fitzpatrick on June 12, 2011 at 10:00pm

No, they would have the doctor collect a number of eggs when they were in their prime.  Freeze the eggs and them thaw them for use later.  Mix the magic ingredients together in a test tube, implant them in the artificial womb and in nine months - wella!  Instant baby.  No stretch marks or morning sickness required.  In the case of trophy wives, they would never have to be "fat" to get their heir and a spare. 

 

Thanks to modern science, you do not need  to have sex to get pregnant.  Men don't even have to be in the same room, same city, same state, same country... That's kind of sad for men when you think about it.   

Permalink Reply by Matthew Shafer-Skelton on June 12, 2011 at 10:17pm
i meant that without invasive surgery you needed to have sex. i know you can freeze. its not sad, its happy. no more annoyingly complex reproductive rights problems.
Permalink Reply by Grace Fitzpatrick on June 12, 2011 at 11:00pm

They would still be around, because it would be very expensive just like hiring a surrogate is.  Low and medium income people would probably still have kids the old fashioned way.  Also, it seems weird, but I think babies are socialized in the womb - especially towards the end when they can hear.  I know my kids both turned their heads when someone said their names the day they were born.  It could potentially cause social problems not to be inside a mother for nine months.  Babies can determine between their parents and strangers even at birth. Who knows how they will be effected not hearing the filtered sounds of the mother's voice and the inner workings of her body?  I guess you could play tapes of the parents' voices and womb sounds, but would recordings be the same?

 

I meant it would be sad for men never getting to actually do the fun part of having a baby and maybe even becoming seen as unnecessary apart from donating their genetic material in doctor's office. 

RSS

© 2013   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service