Sure he should. But only if the woman can sue him for the pain and suffering involved in childbirth. What next? Lawyers of newborn babies sueing their mothers' for false imprisonment for the last nine months?
Although heroin is not a great drug while you are pregnant, it does NOT cause any type of brain damage.
Some women who are raped or sexually abused and wind up pregnant want to carry their pregnancy into full term, but they can't be fully responsible if they don't give up every single thing that is marginally harmful to "her" baby. Some people do not know that they are pregnant. I watched a tv program just the other day, where a husband was having sex with his wife and got her pregnant while she was completely asleep. If a depressed mother has a couple cigarettes or a couple drinks while pregnant, she will eventually have to care for the future needs of her children and whether or not she is blessed with a healthy baby - that is her choice to make. Come on. This is a couple drinks and a couple cigarettes. The mother is at more risk of killing her children in a car accident driving them to school everyday. It's a woman's choice to know the risks but weigh them appropriately, and logically. If a woman has the right to abort, then she damn well has the right to make a mistake. There are some diseases that are only transmitted through breastfeeding. Can you then sue a mother who gave her child a disease, knew the risks and made a choice to breastfeed as little as possible relying mostly on nursing from the bottle? Life isn't always peaches and cotton candy.
If the mother engaged in any kind of risky behaviors (drugs, alcohol, whatever) while she was pregnant and she knew that she was pregnant, she should absolutely be held accountable for any damage done to her child. I understand that women who are raped or suffer other abuses in relation to their pregnancy may be depressed and need a way to ease their pain, but their actions affect not just them, but their unborn child. There are resources out there for women who have a hard time with a pregnancy. I'm sorry, but knowingly harming a being that can't defend itself...there's no excuse for it.
Well, we could always build a big barn, and start test all women regularly for pregnancy...then stick all the pregnant women in the stalls and make sure they all exercise the same, eat the same, listen to the same music... The first time they imprison a woman on behalf of a fetus....I bet you'll see a spike in back-alley abortions...and dying women. They would also have to build several more jails.... And what about medication? Some women need meds that may or may not harm a fetus...what about them?
Right Daisymae. All this "Fetal Rights" stuff is about control, not health. Most "Fetal Rights" advocates abandon all interest in the fetus, once it is born. And, yes, many womyn need to take medications which may or may not harm the baby, or may cause problems. One womyn can drink like a fish and not have any problems, an other can have two drinks at the wrong time and have a baby with FAS. Outside untreated AIDS (and that is still up in the air) and TB, before treatment, I can think of nothing which is transmitted. The breast is an excellent filter. On par with the liver. Probably, in some cases, better. But, you are right in one way. Can a child with serious health problems sue his mother for NOT breastfeeding? I think we would get into really dangerous waters here. Hell, I'd like those extra 5 to 15 IQ points, and I could use a better immune system, but I'm not going to sue my mama over it.
wow, good point there, though Maggie. I've never actually looked at it in that way before. (ps, I know you were joking, and seem to think as much as me that "fetal rights" is a really messed up issue, but still...)
I mean if this things can get started, you could sue your mother for giving your the "cheap" powdered formula, or the generic. You could sue your mama for letting you eat sugar, or for not providing organic foods. Or for taking you to Mc Donalds ("I'm fat because my mama let me eat a quarter pounder." some could say.) Or for (unknowlingly) giving you foods you know now you are allergic to (hell, my mama fed me on peanut butter and Cow milk, and I am allergic to both, I have lasting GI problems from that, but I am NOT gonna sue my mama over this, she did her best. Oh, and she smoked 2 packs a day and ate valium like candy when she was pregnant and while I was young, but claims "We didn't know." It still isn't a reason to SUE your own mama.) You could sue your mommy for not allowing you to take skating lessons, claiming "I could be an Olympic figure skater now." There will be no end to it. People would be afraid to parent. NO ONE can do everything perfectly. Blatent stuff, like if you were kept in a cage or something is one thing, but suing because your mama smoked some weed, or didn't give you breastmilk, that is just insane! (And you all know how I feel about breastfeeding, but damn, mamas, for the most part do their best. No body, unless they were blatently abused, should be suing their mama.)
There was lawsuit here in Aus a while back where some disabled children (or rather, their lawyers) sued for a case of "wrongful life". They sued the doctors because they (the docs) did not diagnose diseases that would have led the mothers terminate the pregnancy. More here http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/02/1083436478926.html It ended up being dismissed. After a point it just becomes insane. Sueing for being born, sueing for how your mother acted while she was pregnant - what else? Sueing your mother for picking the wrong man to have sex with? Sorry mum, but I'm ugly and have poor eyesight, you should have bred with a different man. Lawsuit time! http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/02/1083436478926.html
"Wrongful Life?" I've heard that. I wonder if their "clients" would rather be dead? Somehow I doubt it.
