Best
176 Comments
Post
  • #5
    !
    Will pregnant women who use drugs be charged with child abuse only if they give birth? Will they get a pass if they have an abortion? Will they be charged if they didn't know they were pregnant when they used drugs? Will drug dealers who sell to pregnant women be charged as accessories to child abuse? Will charges be dropped if pregnant women say they didn't know the drugs would hurt the fetus? Will drug companies be charged for child abuse if they say that they didn't know the drugs that they were selling to pregnant women would hurt their fetuses?
  • #74
    !
    And what about pregnant women who drink?

    I can see a future when the day a woman is found to be gravid, she is arrested and incarcerated until delivery. Then both she and the newborn are promptly forgotten.
  • #7
    !
    I do not agree. This is a conscious decision to take drugs knowing the effect on your child. Purposeful child abuse. Jail time just like if they beat their child.
  • #17
    !
    @thatgirl Oh yes. I know a lot about addiction. My own brother is one of the biggest drug addicts I have ever seen. I have seen baby after baby being born with withdrawals, born just TINY, because the mother was doing heroin, cocaine, pills, whatever. They really don't care. To add to my other statement, I think they should be sterilized so they can't have any more children. I have no patience for women who would willfully harm their unborn child, possibly kill them, just for a hit. Absolutely none.
  • #19
    !
    I both agree and disagree with your statement here. Consider it a gray area with both legal and moral obligations. A person who violates the laws and abuses an illegal drug should indeed face jail time. While at the same time that results most often then not them returning to their habits and eventually ending right back up in jail. I think their jail time should be focused on addiction abatement, counseling and paying back their debt to society for violating the law. Granted it is a very fine line between punishment and helping someone and we need to tread closer to it.
  • R Load more replies

  • #16
    !
    This question amazes me. Many say this is just a "fetus" if that is so why would we prosecute for drug abuse while pregnant when we ok "killing" what "they" want to call a "fetus" when in fact it is an unborn child? You are free to make your own choices UNTIL it infringes on the rights of others!!! I would say this AND Abortion are infringement on the rights of others. Until we learn to love our brothers as we love ourselves this type of evil will continue.
  • #35
    !
    I don't believe in pro-choice. It means that a baby is a baby if the mother's whims that day say it's a baby. If her whims that day are it's not a baby, it's some tumor like growth in her body, then the growth needs to be removed.

    I believe in standards. I believe in the rule of law. I believe we all need to live by the same rules. Either it is a baby, or it isn't. I think most women would agree that a person doesn't become pregnant with a tumor, they become pregnant with a baby. If it's a baby then that baby has the right to be protected from having its life slaughtered, regardless of the motivation.

    This site here is a haven for those who do not believe in family. I'm heartened to see there are a few people, of which you are one of them, that consistently stand up for the rights for the unborn. Please continue to be a strong voice for those who have no voice. Your impact is heard and felt.
  • #38
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix

    God Bless you for your resolve to the unborn. i will stay strong on this issue until I pass from this world. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. While it was evil as well in the killing of the children of Sandy Hook....this country kills millions upon millions of babies yearly with not a bat of the eye. God is counting. We are all called upon to do our part against this evil.
  • #76
    !
    But as long as abortion is legal and constitutionally protected the drug-using women will just get abortions to avoid charges.
    Wouldn't it make more sense for you to oppose these laws now given that it will lead to more abortions and only support them if first abortion is made illegal.
  • #79
    !
    @CommonSense

    Not sure I am understanding the point you are trying to make. I got one of those information emails from Rand Paul where he was proposing that Congress determine that life begins at conception. If he is able to accomplish that.....that point will make Roe vs. Wade null and void....because every life by our Constitution has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    also look at this....heard this on Laura Ingraham's show and did a search and found this:

    Late-Term Abortion Death in Maryland: Time for Maryland to take action against late-term abortions
    by Anna Higgins
    Feb. 8, 2013

    Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg represented FRC today at a Maryland Coalition for Life (MDCFL) press conference in Germantown, Maryland where it was announced that a 29 year-old woman was pronounced dead at a Germantown hospital as a direct result of complications from a 3rd trimester abortion.

    The abortion was performed by Dr. LeRoy Carhart. Carhart, former associate of late-term abortionist George Tiller, was recently hailed a “hero” in the film “After Tiller” at the Sundance Film Festival. Carhart was the abortionist who performed a late-term abortion on a young woman with Downs Syndrome who died following complications from that abortion in 2005 at Women’s Heath Care Services in Wichita, KS.

    The young woman who died Thursday was approximately 33 weeks pregnant and came to see Carhart for an abortion procedure that lasted four days and ended in her death from apparent blood loss and shock, according to MDCFL.

    Another botched abortion at an Elkton, Maryland resulted in a woman suffering from a ruptured uterus and the discovery of three dozen late-term aborted fetuses in the clinic freezer. This led Maryland, one of the most abortion-friendly states in the country, to quietly enact stricter abortion facility regulations in July, 2012. Those regulations require licensure of facilities and basically mirror regulations that govern outpatient surgical facilities.

    http://www.frcblog.com/2013/02/late-term-abor ...
  • R Load more replies

  • #78
    !
    @harold_lloyd If you are a drug addict you have no business being pregnant or being a mother. You have a whole trimester to realize that, and do what is necsessary, whether it's getting an abortion or locking yourself up in a rehabilitation fascilty for 9 months. If after that trimester you procede wrecklessly and selfishly, it should be on you!
  • #91
    !
    @ AlexMIA
    I agree with your reasoning as to why doing drugs while pregnant is wrong and should be morally condemned.
    But you forgot to think about the effects of the law. Since abortion is legal (and if it wasn't the same drug dealers who sold them their drugs would offer them abortions) these women will just all get abortions so they don't get charged with child abuse.
  • #93
    !
    Looked at your comments again. "whether that is getting an abortion".
    Even though it does pose a risk, most children born to mothers who take drugs will be healthy. Add to that that having health problems does not always mean they are insurmountable or that one wishes one was dead. It is not preferable for them to get abortions.
  • R Load more replies

  • #24
    !
    Killing your baby with an abortion is legal. While if a woman smokes a joint or self medicates and takes a xanax, ohhh NO! That's illegal. Let's jail her and take her baby and throw him/her into foster care, how does that make more sense than getting treatment for the pregnant woman?
  • #8
    !
    If an assailant can be charged with a double murder by killing a pregnant woman, I guess a pregnant woman should be able charged with endangerment, abuse or even murder.
  • #77
    !
    So if the pregnant woman visits a person who has a certain type of license granted under the approval of state laws and has the fetus killed should she then be charged with murdered?
  • #86
    !
    @CommonSense

    Depending on the age and viability of the fetus, I'd say yes. I know that partial birth abortion is practiced and I completely disagree with that.
  • #88
    !
    @Thunderchicken
    Then shouldn't we only apply the drug endangerment laws once she is at viability.
    Before that she has the legal right to kill the fetus so it doesn't make sense to have a law against drug endangerment at that point. Allowing her to kill but not to risk the fetus' health by taking drugs doesn't make any sense and would just mean she'd get an abortion to avoid prosecution.
  • #92
    !
    @CommonSense

    At what point in a pregnancy is an assailant charged with the harm of a child? I think it varies from state to state. My point is that if an assailant can be charged, so should the mother. When (if) that happens would be up to the laws in whatever jurisdiction.
  • #95
    !
    @Thunderchicken
    So if they charge the assailant for it before viability then you don't care about the larger number of abortions that would result from this law?
  • R Load more replies

  • #9
    !
    I voted no, they should receive treatment, but real my answer is no, mind your business. Her body. What she does to it is her business. Crap mom, yep. Her being able to raise the kid is a whole other issue.
  • #114
    !
    That crap might work for abortion, but if the mother planned to carry the child to term then the "her body" bit no longer applies. It isnt "her body" that is a living member of our species, that's what we call a human being.

    If I caused your baby to be stillborn or have a birth defect you *and the law* would hold me accountable...so if a piece of trash intentionally puts the life lf their child at risk they should also be held accountable.
  • #118
    !
    @callmecrazy until the kid is out it is a guest in her body. Since you can't separate the two. Personally my preference would be for a woman under those circumstances to have an abortion, but I would never want to impose my preference on someone else's body. Now if they came up with a way to separate the two systems my answer would change. Until then, the self sustaining human has all the rights.
  • #152
    !
    I agree. The role of government is not to regulate people for dumb shit. If she does drugs while pregnant and it adversely affects the baby, then let her deal with the personal consequences of that. Mind your business
  • #173
    !
    @jamie91
    " I would never want to impose my preference on someone else's body."

    Isn't this what the mother's doing though. She's knowingly doing harm to another human's body.

    When a child is aborted, the only thing harmed is a fetus. It's not an issue because that fetus never truly becomes a human. When the fetus lives long enough to be born, that child's life is going to permanently be screwed up because of the mother's choices. When the rights of another human being, not a fetus, are at stake, the mother should be punished.
  • #70
    !
    If I were an alcholic or a drug addict, and accidently hit a pregnant woman with my car and the unborn child died only, can I get help instead and no jail time?
  • #37
    !
    NO it IS a child at the moment of conception . Its not a dog is it?? Women dont give birth to monkeys.. Stop trying to play the stupidest game on earth.. Its a HUMAN being not dog woman give birth to.. Its child abuse. Take the child and lock them up!
  • #14
    !
    Yes they should be charged for endangering their childs health and safety,along with the loss of government assistance if they are receiving such .My guess would be that most self destructive pregnant women in this situation are.
  • #2
    !
    Yes, yes, yes. 100% absolutely. If you take recreational drugs while pregnant, that is ABUSE. I undwrstand that some women have to take certain medications during pregnancy (i had to take three because of complications), but that is different. If it is not ok'd by the obstetrician, then it is not to be taken during pregnancy. And if they do, that is abuse.
  • #138
    !
    Totally agree. I, too, had to take meds while pregnant but they were prescribed & only went to my breast milk & I couldn't breast feed due to medical reasons. I know a lady that has done drugs & drank liquor during her pregnancies & caused major damage to all children that she had & no one would help those babies or turn her in until it was to late, damage was done. So yes, all pregnant women should face serious consequences.
  • #162
    !
    It's interesting to me that Alternet is interested on the effect of drugs on "fetal tissue". It is further interesting that they use the term unborn babies.
  • #160
    !
    I think they should face charges bc if they are doing things like that to the child while they are pregnant then who knows what willl happen when the child is born and this right here people is a lot of the reason why we have foster kids without parents bc they are to worried about their freaking drugs then they are about their kids that child is a gift sent from god and when you become pregnant you need to care of the child while you carry it and when the child enters this world they better thank god that he give them a chance to be a mom unlike some of us who ain't so lucky
  • #161
    !
    "who knows what willl happen when the child is born" That's correct, Who Knows? answer No One Knows. What you are recommending is to prosecute someone on mere speculation. That is more baseless that prosecuting them for moral issue such as drug use. Any law aimed at protecting the unborn child can only be based upon scientific factual knowledge. Speculation and morals is better off left to the old women's gossip session after church. That means that if you smoked cigarettes while you were pregnant you placed your child's health at greater risk than an expecting mother that smokes meth. If you drank alcohol, the risk to your child is even greater than the cigarettes. But we live in such a hypocritical world.
  • #163
    !
    @DiverBoone but you know you haven't seen half the things I have seen bv of stuff like this so if the one who is pregnant. Is crazy enough to do drugs then they don't need the child if the child makes it then they need to be with a family who can take care of them and be able to give them the medical treatment they need bc a crack ho done that to them bc if they stay with the birth mom they won't get the medical care they need bc she will be worried about where she is going to get her next high
  • #164
    !
    @Slov2 I understand what you are saying. But we can not prosecute someone on mere speculation. That would be a direct violation of Due Process. The "Actus Reus" is the abuse/harm to the unborn child. Given that abortion is legal, any charges against a mother for abuse would fly in the face of common sense. But if these laws were pursued then they would/should be based upon scientific factual knowledge. If the mother knowingly consumes something that is scientifically proven to cause harm would be the only way to do it. To just prosecute mothers for use of illegal drugs would fly in the face of common sense. Yes many of our present day laws do not make sense either and nor is it a requirement that they do apparently. If the health of the unborn child is the issue, then alcohol and cigarettes are known to cause more harm than crack or meth with the research we have available at this time.
  • #165
    !
    @DiverBoone if the psyical proof is there then yes but just bc someone says that the person done it then no but if it has been a continuing problem with the person about the drugs then yes the should face jail time
  • #166
    !
    @Slov2 I can agree with that. Personally I fell that any unwarranted drug test is a violation of the 4th Amend. We've all heard about the "crack babies" , but science has never found one. Now we have "meth babies" "oxytots" and more. Before we cast stones such as we did with the crack baby myth, maybe we should allow research and base what ever laws are needed from that.
  • R Load more replies

  • #154
    !
    I do hope that every one that post here are aware that from what is scientifically known at this time Smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol is more harmful to an unborn child. It is well known and documented about the dangers of these two. So if it's the child's health and well being that you base your thoughts upon. These two drugs should in no way be precluded from your prosecution.
  • #153
    !
    so your saying a woman smokes marijuana she should be locked up even if it has no effect on the baby its not like she would be a meth head or a crack head it deffinatly depends on the drug
  • #142
    !
    They are abusing a child they give birth to. Selfish mothers should not be allowed to walk away free and let the child and taxpayers pay for her actions.
  • #143
    !
    Maybe she wasn't raped or impregnated by family. Her reasons her decision whether or not to remain pregnant. If she does she can not use damaging drugs.
  • #144
    !
    @catiz if its mothers right to keep baby, it should bet her right to use drugs. If it is baby's right not to be hurt by drugs, then it should be babies right not to be murdered. Can't have it both ways, because sometimes mothers rights and babies rights contradict one another.
  • #146
    !
    @johnny_potseed Women choose to remain pregnant or not. If she remains pregnant she can't give an unborn or a six year old child drugs. Then you would force rape and incest victims to give birth against their will?
  • R Load more replies

  • #139
    !
    If your pregnant and abusing drugs any drugs I hope you die and rot in the hottest part of Hell that poor baby didn't ask to be.inside you. You put it there and now your gonna get it hooked on drugs or deform it
  • R Load more comments...
Post