XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.books   
   From: lcraver@home.ca   
      
   On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 15:00:30 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy   
    wrote:   
      
   >> I tend to be impatient with those who proclaim loudly that the   
   >> state has no business in how a woman lives during her pregnancy   
   >> but somehow unlimited liability for her offspring when their   
   >> injury is pregnancy due to her self-abuse during pregnancy.   
   >>   
   >> Bottom line is you can issue a pregnant woman with a 2 litre   
   >> bottle of orange juice every week but if she insists on mixing   
   >> it with vodka there is nothing to be said!   
   >>   
   >> I'm enough of a redneck to think  mandatory sterilization for   
   >> women who produce fetal alcohol syndrome is a reasonable   
   >> societal option since a woman who will do that to her own child   
   >> before he/she is born is quite capable of even worse abuse later   
   >> on.   
   >>   
   >I got no problem with it as long as I, and *only* I, get to decide   
   >who gets sterlized (starting with anyone who believes that force   
   >sterlization can *ever* possibly be anything other than a form of   
   >genocide).   
      
   My point is that we have an essential conflict of rights between the   
   individual and the state here with respect to pregnant women who   
   recklessly endanger the health of their unborn through use of drugs   
   and alcohol - and I'm not completely convinced what the proper balance   
   is.   
      
   We DON'T want to treat women as mindless breeders yet at the same time   
   the state DOES have a right and a duty to act on behalf of those who   
   would abuse their children in this way. It's not politically correct   
   to say so but in Canada a huge proportion (i.e. far exceeding their   
   numbers in the general population) of fetal alcohol syndrome kids are   
   of aboriginal origin. It's not politically correct to take note of   
   this but it has been the case as long as this type of statistic has   
   been kept.   
      
   Courts are ruling these people as adults should get a special break on   
   the criminal justice system - is this reasonable given they clearly DO   
   know right and wrong? Does society have a duty to endlessly   
   financially support such people? Does society have a right to impose   
   sanctions on those who do give birth to such _PREVENTABLE_ tragedies   
   who could have had healthy lives if not for prenatal abuse?   
   Particularly those who do so more than once.   
      
   I think these are questions that society NEEDS to have an open debate   
   on - I know plenty of women who drank huge amounts of orange juice   
   while pregnant and even know one whose husband brought a bottle of   
   champagne and glasses to the delivery room! But MOST pregnant women do   
   want the best for their kids and do take personal measures to make   
   sure their diet during pregnancy is sound and provides the right   
   nutrients for their child.   
      
   Sorry - but I do reject your use of the word "genocide" as it's   
   unnecessarily inflamatory - yes this is a probably more of the   
   disadvantaged than society generally but the solution is better   
   prenatal care not punishment. Still there are cases where positive   
   action just plain doesn't work so the debate needs to take place on   
   what's an appropriate societal response in these cases.   
      
   I personally think our current policy of doing nothing is a complete   
   abdication of responsibility as a civilized society.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)