XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.books   
   From: jclarkeusenet@cox.net   
      
   In article , lcraver@home.ca   
   says...   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   And therein lies your problem.  You think that the state has "rights"   
   tha can be in conflict with the rights of the individual.  The state has   
   duties and powers, it does not have rights.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   So what are you proposing, to sterilize your entire aboriginal   
   population on general principle?   
      
   > 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?   
      
   That's a problem with the courts.  Fix it.   
      
   > Does society have a duty to endlessly   
   > financially support such people?   
      
   It's called "charity".   
      
   > 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?   
      
   Can such sanctions be targetted specifically at person who give birth to   
   children with identifiable deficits?  Will such "sanctions" prevent   
   further occurrances?   
      
   > 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   
      
   Orange juice?  Is there some problem with vitamin C and pregnancy of   
   which I am unaware?   
      
   > and even know one whose husband brought a bottle of   
   > champagne and glasses to the delivery room!   
      
   And having some champagne to celebrate the birth is a problem because?   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Forced sterilization should not be allowed except as punishment for a   
   crime after due process.  I'm fine with voluntary sterilization being a   
   condition of recieving certain kinds of government assistance--nobody is   
   forced at gunpoint to take Welfare.   
      
   > I personally think our current policy of doing nothing is a complete   
   > abdication of responsibility as a civilized society.   
      
   And there in is more of your problem.  Government does not have a duty   
   to srolve all social ills.  The law is a blunt implement and should be   
   the last resort, after all else has failed.  However it is becoming the   
   first resort with the result that we fill up the courts with a bunch of   
   picayune bullshit and the jails with people who harmed nobody.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)