Is smoking/drinking/doing drugs while pregnant child abuse?

Turkey · January 21, 2015, 09:46:20 PM

t4r

Had a discussion with the wife, a nursing student, about a baby with severe defects likely caused by the parents' being blood relatives. I say likely because it's considered unprofessional to legitimately attribute incest to birth defects, apparently. But the discussion moved to whether it's abusive to drink alcohol/do drugs/any other harmful activity while pregnant, or does the mother have a right to do whatever she wants?

Spoiler

I don't mean legally, I mean ethically.

DAS B00T x2 · January 21, 2015, 09:49:55 PM

Ethically? I would say that without a doubt it should be considered so.

Verbatim · January 21, 2015, 09:55:46 PM

Uh.

Yes.

Mad Max · January 21, 2015, 10:03:14 PM

Child abuse? No, since it isn't a person yet.

Verbatim · January 21, 2015, 10:06:46 PM

Semantics.

The point is, you shouldn't do it. Otherwise you're an evil cunt. No getting around that.

Forgewolf · January 21, 2015, 10:45:24 PM

I think it should be considered so

January 21, 2015, 11:00:21 PM

While it's definitely not child abuse on the level of "you fucked up, pick between a belt, stick, or wrench for me to punish you with," it's not something insignificant. I'd definitely condemn anyone who did that to their child. Smoking weed while pregnant, though, is harmless.

Turkey · January 21, 2015, 11:06:05 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on January 21, 2015, 11:00:21 PM

While it's definitely not child abuse on the level of "you fucked up, pick between a belt, stick, or wrench for me to punish you with," it's not something insignificant. I'd definitely condemn anyone who did that to their child. Smoking weed while pregnant, though, is harmless.

It could be argued that alcohol or drug use has much longer-lasting impacts than even physical beatings. In the scenario I included in the OP, the couple's kid is going to die in a few days because of defects caused by incest.

DAS B00T x2 · January 21, 2015, 11:07:52 PM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on January 21, 2015, 11:06:31 PM

I would say so, yes. The child becomes much more likely to be fucked up for life and it's entirely the mother's fault for being irresponsible. It's not like...beating your kid senseless, but it's equally bad.

I'd rather be beaten a bit too much than live with the effects of FAS.

January 21, 2015, 11:09:42 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 21, 2015, 11:06:05 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on January 21, 2015, 11:00:21 PM
While it's definitely not child abuse on the level of "you fucked up, pick between a belt, stick, or wrench for me to punish you with," it's not something insignificant. I'd definitely condemn anyone who did that to their child. Smoking weed while pregnant, though, is harmless.

It could be argued that alcohol or drug use has much longer-lasting impacts than even physical beatings. In the scenario I included in the OP, the couple's kid is going to die in a few days because of defects caused by incest.

Of course it has the potential for a larger defect (a fetus is a lot more susceptible than a child), but you have to factor in psychological damage to the child. A parent, the one you're supposed to trust and rely on, beating you when you mess up is a lot more likely to give the child long-lasting psychological issues than smoking while pregnant. In addition, the difference in maliciousness is notable. IMO, you have to be a much shittier person to physically beat a defenseless child than to fuck up while you're pregnant.

maverick · January 21, 2015, 11:40:48 PM

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on January 21, 2015, 11:07:52 PM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on January 21, 2015, 11:06:31 PM
I would say so, yes. The child becomes much more likely to be fucked up for life and it's entirely the mother's fault for being irresponsible. It's not like...beating your kid senseless, but it's equally bad.
I'd rather be beaten a bit too much than live with the effects of FAS.

This.

I'd say calling it "abuse" might be cutting it short.

More Than Mortal · January 22, 2015, 02:07:12 AM

That's about as morally reprehensible as harming your child after birth.

Mat Cauthon · January 22, 2015, 03:07:12 AM

It's not a human at that point, but it is completely immoral and irresponsible to do so anyway.

It's not child abuse, but it's still wrong.

Mordo · January 22, 2015, 06:16:41 AM

If she's intending to keep it then yes.

Mordo · January 22, 2015, 06:24:05 AM

Quote from: XxNuKeZxX on January 22, 2015, 06:18:07 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 22, 2015, 06:16:41 AM
If she's intending to keep it then yes.
Are you...saying that if the baby is going up for adoption that it doesn't matter? Please tell me that's not what you mean.

No.

As in if she intends to keep the pregnancy after the third trimester.

Turkey · January 22, 2015, 09:27:37 AM

Quote from: Nagato on January 22, 2015, 03:07:12 AM

It's not a human at that point,

I think the word you're looking for is 'person'. Fetuses are human.

Mat Cauthon · January 22, 2015, 09:34:17 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 22, 2015, 09:27:37 AM

Quote from: Nagato on January 22, 2015, 03:07:12 AM
It's not a human at that point,

I think the word you're looking for is 'person'. Fetuses are human.

Uh, yeah >.>

More Than Mortal · January 22, 2015, 09:35:19 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 22, 2015, 09:27:37 AM

I think the word you're looking for is 'person'. Fetuses are human.

Even if they weren't biologically human, it seems pertinent to bestow personhood upon them at least from the point at which the CNS is developed, if not conception.

Mr. Psychologist · January 22, 2015, 09:35:44 AM

Ethically/Morally - Without a doubt. Forcing toxic substances onto another living creature that you are supposed to be looking after is wrong. If you care so little for the wellbeing of your future child then do yourself and it a favour and just get an abortion.

The legal side of this was covered in a thread I made a month or so ago, which was to the effect of jailing the mother and taking away the baby can be more harmful than the damage wrought during the pregnancy (Can be, not will be).

Either way, it's disgraceful behaviour.

Statefarm · January 22, 2015, 09:59:19 AM

I'd say it's worse than child abuse in most cases.

Turkey · January 22, 2015, 10:35:24 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 22, 2015, 09:35:19 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 22, 2015, 09:27:37 AM
I think the word you're looking for is 'person'. Fetuses are human.
Even if they weren't biologically human, it seems pertinent to bestow personhood upon them at least from the point at which the CNS is developed, if not conception.

Really? I'd always taken you as a 'personhood at birth' kinda guy.

More Than Mortal · January 22, 2015, 11:01:50 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 22, 2015, 10:35:24 AM

Really? I'd always taken you as a 'personhood at birth' kinda guy.

Absolutely not. If you think--as I do--that morality necessarily relates to human well-being, them you get worried about the consequences of being liberal with procedures like abortion.

gats · January 22, 2015, 11:03:46 AM

It's not child abuse because it's not a child yet, but it definitely is some form of abuse.

Dan · January 22, 2015, 12:03:42 PM

Absolutely it's child abuse. It may not be a child yet, but it will be.

Camnator · January 23, 2015, 03:30:47 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Mordo · January 23, 2015, 06:12:44 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 22, 2015, 09:27:37 AM

Quote from: Nagato on January 22, 2015, 03:07:12 AM
It's not a human at that point,

I think the word you're looking for is 'person'. Fetuses are human.

I think what he means is that a fetus isn't as biologically sapient as a developed human, any more than an acorn is a developed tree.

Turkey · January 23, 2015, 08:35:08 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 23, 2015, 06:12:44 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 22, 2015, 09:27:37 AM
Quote from: Nagato on January 22, 2015, 03:07:12 AM
It's not a human at that point,

I think the word you're looking for is 'person'. Fetuses are human.
I think what he means is that a fetus isn't as biologically sapient as a developed human, any more than an acorn is a developed tree.

Humans aren't sapient until after infancy. That doesn't seem pertinent to personhood.

Mordo · January 23, 2015, 11:11:43 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 23, 2015, 08:35:08 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 23, 2015, 06:12:44 AM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 22, 2015, 09:27:37 AM
Quote from: Nagato on January 22, 2015, 03:07:12 AM
It's not a human at that point,

I think the word you're looking for is 'person'. Fetuses are human.
I think what he means is that a fetus isn't as biologically sapient as a developed human, any more than an acorn is a developed tree.

Humans aren't sapient until after infancy. That doesn't seem pertinent to personhood.

By sapience I mean something that can register physical pain. Fetuses do not fall under that category, and I fail to see how they can be different from a clump of skin cells and deserve the same rights as a grown human.

Turkey · January 23, 2015, 11:16:40 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 23, 2015, 11:11:43 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 23, 2015, 08:35:08 AM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 23, 2015, 06:12:44 AM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 22, 2015, 09:27:37 AM
Quote from: Nagato on January 22, 2015, 03:07:12 AM
It's not a human at that point,

I think the word you're looking for is 'person'. Fetuses are human.
I think what he means is that a fetus isn't as biologically sapient as a developed human, any more than an acorn is a developed tree.

Humans aren't sapient until after infancy. That doesn't seem pertinent to personhood.
By sapience I mean something that can register physical pain. Fetuses do not fall under that category, and I fail to see how they can be different from a clump of skin cells and deserve the same rights as a grown human.

Sapience refers to awareness and comprehension, not simply pain. I'm not convinced by using the point of feeling pain as the start of a person's humanity; it just feels arbitrary. I don't think anyone's arguing that fetuses deserve the same rights as a grown human -- they can't own property, get married, work, etc. But I agree with the founding fathers when they describe the self-evidence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all humans at their creation. At a basic level it only seems logical for a fetus to be given the very basic right to be unharmed.

Mordo · January 23, 2015, 11:19:52 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 23, 2015, 11:16:40 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 23, 2015, 11:11:43 AM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 23, 2015, 08:35:08 AM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 23, 2015, 06:12:44 AM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 22, 2015, 09:27:37 AM
Quote from: Nagato on January 22, 2015, 03:07:12 AM
It's not a human at that point,

I think the word you're looking for is 'person'. Fetuses are human.
I think what he means is that a fetus isn't as biologically sapient as a developed human, any more than an acorn is a developed tree.

Humans aren't sapient until after infancy. That doesn't seem pertinent to personhood.
By sapience I mean something that can register physical pain. Fetuses do not fall under that category, and I fail to see how they can be different from a clump of skin cells and deserve the same rights as a grown human.

Sapience refers to awareness and comprehension, not simply pain. I'm not convinced by using the point of feeling pain as the start of a person's humanity; it just feels arbitrary. I don't think anyone's arguing that fetuses deserve the same rights as a grown human -- they can't own property, get married, work, etc. But I agree with the founding fathers when they describe the self-evidence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all humans at their creation. At a basic level it only seems logical for a fetus to be given the very basic right to be unharmed.

I think it's a bit more problematic than that.

Morally I can see where you're coming from even if I disagree, but legislatively outlawing abortions just causes more problems than solves them. The lesser of two evils at this point is to maintain the safe and medically sound practice of legal abortions, even if it goes against your sensibilities.