Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    if it does I'm gonna hop down to the clinic and get fixed.
    
    
    it'll probably mean women have to sit still for 9 months, no walking,
    no talking, no aerobics, no dancing, no sitting at movies (the loud
    noises could frighten the fetus), no giving blood (might affect
    prenatal nutrition).....
    
    I'm all for intelligent prenatal care, but seriously.  Who can tell
    what affects them and how?  
    
    -Jody

    No shit, huh Jody?  To hell with fertility!  Let men make their own
    babies and we'll see how quickly sex turns *them* into saints.
    
    The phrase "unborn children" is as ludicrous as the phrase "born
    fetuses".  There's no child, no nothing until a woman presents one
    to the world.  Some people have a tough time accepting that that much 
    power actually belongs to women.  Well it does.  So accept reality and
    let's move on and start dealing with starving "born children", homeless
    "post-children", diseased "actual and post-children" and war which
    kills "previous children" and all the other <prefix>-children in the
    world. 
    
    S.

    re.1 While some of the activities you mention are probably
    really _good_ for mother and child-to-be, I think the question
    in .0 was aimed more at things _obviously_ unhealthy. Drinking,
    drugs, smoking, etc. My gut feeling is that a woman should 
    clean up her act if there is _any_ chance that she might choose
    to have the baby rather than abort. (IMO, anybody who can't go
    straight for 9 months would make a damn poor parent anyway.)

    re -1  Is that so?  Did you ask your parents about their
    smoking/drinking habits while they were conceiving/carrying you?  Most 
    of us in the boomer generation are nicotine babies and a large 
    majority of our parents drank, too.  Let's not get hysterical here.
    But hey, when we're talking about giving women sexual/reproductive
    freedom, that often causes quite a bit of hysteria.  The world will go
    to hell in an instant!  Women smoking crack and aborting in the
    streets.  Can't trust 'em.  We've just been outrageously lucky that
    women have, since the dawn of humanity, given birth to "enough" healthy 
    babies to overrun the planet.  Let's not take any more chances!
    
    S.

    
    
    This note has obviously struck a nerve, and I think we need to be
    careful here.  To the basenoter: I think calling the note "Do children
    have rights before birth?" might be partly responsible for the
    reaction.  There is great division over the issue of when life begins,
    and we're certainly not going to settle that question here.  Also, you
    claim to be interested in the rights of children, and yet in your
    question, you only focus on behavior that women might engage in that
    might damage the health of the future/unborn child.  What about the
    behavior of fathers?  Does anyone even know about the effects of
    alcohol and other drugs, or workplace contaminants on future offspring?
    ANd what about environmental pollution?  Shall we hold the
    environmental president responsible for the miscarriages caused by
    illegal toxic dumps (not to mention legal toxic dumps) that abound in
    this age of deregulation?  Or what about the role of government-sponsored
    drug trafficking in the deaths of LIVING, BREATHING, WALKING AROUND
    people?
    
    In other words, why is it that we are ready to regulate, humiliate, and
    incarcerate women who happen to be pregnant and not all the other folks
    who are intentionally and/or carelessly taking and risking lives all
    the time?
                                                                    
    Justine

    In light of the fact that many grown children are suing their parents
    for sexual abuse these days, I can really see the possibilities... but
    ONLY in cases where the parent is now wealthy and the child is seeking
    to publicly humiliate the parent. I think in most cases, a mother who
    is a substance abuser during pregnancy is not going to make a good
    lawsuit target...
    
    Not every parent is a good parent. If more children step forward with
    claims against their parents, the US is gonna have some major
    re-thinking to do about parenting. I'm not 100% sure that I see a big
    difference between suing for something my parents did to me while I was
    in the womb and something they did to me outside of the womb, if it
    falls clearly in the category of active, intentional abuse. But then,
    as Dana says, all the more reason to abort a fetus you can't take care
    of. 
    
    The one I think would be amusing would be suing your dad for having
    missionary sex with mom who's 6 months along. Sounds like a traumatically
    crushing experience to me!

re .2:

	As a previous "unborn child", I find your comments personally 
	insulting.

					Tom_K

Consider the following:

A poor, uneducated pregnant woman of color gives birth to a malnourished, under-
weight and sickly child somewhere in the poorer districts of Metropolis.  She 
was never made aware of her legal right to an abortion or was physically 
prevented from entering a clinic. Thus she had no option but to carry the child
to term. 
 Now, let us further assume that the child survives but is somehow damaged -- is
perhaps mentally or physically handicapped -- as a result of the poor diet of 
the mother, and perhaps because the mother went out to work while pregnant 
instead of staying "home" and nurturing. 

So, as the child grows up and becomes another of life's failures (no, not 
stereotypes, merely statistics), what then?  

Consider the following potential lawsuits.

Can the child sue the mother for "failing to provide a suitable environment" 
and/or "crimes against the unborn"?

Can the mother bring suit against Operation Rescue (the Ku Klux Klan of the
Womb Patrol) for interfering with her civil rights??  

Can some professional "busy-body" bring suit against the mother on behalf of 
her child whether the child wants the lawsuit or not??  

Can the child sue Operation Rescue and/or the US Government for failing to make
an abortion available to the mother?? 

						Nigel

ps: I'm not sure what an "unborn child" is, other than a piece of semantic 
garbage/rhetoric/propaganda. I was a foetus prior to my birth (so I am told). 
Foetus doesn't sound as romantic as "unborn child", but then facts often get
in the way of flowery inaccuracies and lies. 

    Being pregnant and giving birth are two very risky activities. 
    Can I sue my mother for getting pregnant, my father for providing the
    sperm?
    
    Nancy

    This gives me the heebie-jeebies...
    
    I suppose this partially stems from that publicized situation where an
    obviously pregnant woman was refused a glass of wine at a restaurant. 
    I believe that there was then a proposal for a law to "protect fetuses"
    from "dangerous behaviors" by would be mothers.
    
    This situation kept playing in my head:
    
    *knock knock*
    
    "Yes?"
    
    "Excuse us, Ma'am...we're from the Sheriff's department. We heard from
    the hospital that your son was born with some minor...defects...Would
    you care to comment?"
    
    "Beg pardon?"
    
    "Ma'am we have witnesses who'll testify that you were spotted drinking
    half a glass of wine two weeks before your due date..."
    
    No way.
    
    No Day.
    
    If you want to protect the "unborn" then get us some national prenatal
    health care system going...get us some widespread education...don't get
    us another law that invades our dwindling privacy rights!
    
    Daniel

    Fetal alchohol syndrome is a well-known and well-documented syndrome.
    Being born addicted to various drugs is well known and well-documented.
    The risks to fetuses associated with smoking cigarettes is well-known
    and well-documented.
    
    All of the above activities as well as others, result in fetus abuse.
    Sure would be nice if folks could agree that such things happen,
    independent of whether some punitive laws ought to be ennacted.
    We certainly know that marijuana, alchohol, cigarettes abuse our
    systems. That is true whether there are laws against that activity or
    not.
    Suggesting that laws be ennacted seems to be making some people feel
    very defensive.
    Perhaps women would be less reluctant to recognize and acknowledge
    responsibility, if no penalty accrued for such acknowledgement.
    It doesn't strike me as excessive to characterize such behavior as the
    first instantiation of child abuse.

but "abuse" is such a loaded term, herb.  Do we apply the term to other possibly
damaging things that we can do, eg:

Misuse of alcohol can cause "abuse to the liver" (cirrhosis)
Misuse of hallucinogens can cause "abuse to the brain" (neural damage)
Reading Notesfiles can cause "abuse to the circulatory system" (high blood 
pressure (-: )


My take on this (and then I'll shut up, I promise) is that the foetus is 
legally no different from any other piece of body tissue until birth.  I
subscribe to the ideal of "children's rights" but as far as I can tell, the
foetus becomes a child by being born. At which point, it acquires magically
the rights and privileges accorded to a living being.  Prior to being born, 
too bad.  I'll argue the point in mail, but I'd prefer to see women's voices
in this file for a while (I've been bad and entered acouple of notes today).

    
    One of the points I wanted to make is that I bet that there are things
    men do that are not good for the health of future offspring, but we're
    only looking at the things women do that might be harmful.  You
    (generic you) say, but the things women do are documented, and I say,
    exactly.  
    
    Justine

    but Herb, the damage from alcohol in Fetal Alcohol Syndrome occurs very
    very early in pregnancy, possibly even before the woman knows she is
    pregnant.  The case someone mentioned, where restaurant staff refused
    to serve a 8.5 months pregnant woman a single drink, is illustrative
    NOT of abuse of any kind -- indeed, some docs *tell* pregnant moms that
    *moderate*occasional* glass of wine or beer is good -- but of ignorance
    and hysteria on the part of the staff, and incidently the media for
    blowing it up like fools.
    
    Similarly, it has been shown that a pregnant mom's smoking of
    cigarettes can cause lowered birth weights in their babies. But
    consider:  I quit smoking while pregnant both times.
    It turns out that I am diabetic when pregnant, gained 50 lbs with each
    kid.  The first kid weighed 9 lb 8.5 oz at birth (3 wks post-due) and
    was born by Caesarian, because she plain and simple wouldn't fit
    through my pelvic bones.  (2nd kid induced 2 days past due date,
    weighed 8 lb 13 oz.)  I joked with my doc that in *my* case, it
    might have been a *feature* to have had a slightly smaller baby!
    
    Being drunk is often offered as an excuse (wrongly, I think, but that
    doesn't stop it) for bad behavior of various kinds.  Think of a woman
    addicted to alcohol or drugs.  Her volition is clearly in question;
    there is at least one case (in Fla) that made news, where a pregnant
    woman sought treatment for her crack addiction, was refused and turned
    away (no room at the inn, y'know!), and when her baby was born addicted
    she was arrested for abusing her unborn child.
    
    It's a crazy world.
                           

    B.S.
    
    How in the world do you folks expect men to EVER acknowledge their
    (our) guilt about ANYTHING having to do with women or children, if
    women are unable to acknowledge their complicity in anything.
    
    Many of you women speak very proudly -it seems to me- about how
    superior you are to us men. I agree with you.
    
    Now put your money where your mouth is

    all I'm saying is that things are not necessarily as clear as they
    appear on first looking.
    
    Sara
    

    re .-1
    no kidding, Sarah
    
    Nothing is necessarily as clear as it appears on first looking.
    
    I think that acknowledging complicity would go a fair distance toward
    convincing many that the views of this conference deserve serious
    considerations.
    

I'm with you, Nigel.  If a fetus is going to have the rights and privileges
of a dependent child, then it seems only reasonable that the one the fetus
is dependent upon have the concomitant tax benefits.

I've always found it interesting that *nobody* will intervene if they see
a parent yelling at their kid and slapping him/her in a supermarket,
but a lot of public outcry can be unleashed when it's a pregnant woman
ordering a glass of wine.

The more laws we have to "protect" fetuses, the more we edge towards a
society in which those ultimately "in power" have no voice, no vote, pay
no taxes, and have zero responsibility or accountability to society.

For those of you who believe that children should be allowed to sue their
parents for abuse that occurred before their birth, how many of you would
also argue that an mother should be able to sue an unwanted child for
committing a 9-month rape?

    Sharon

    re. Note 967.12           
    SNOBRD::CONLIFFE "out-of-the-closet Thespian"        16 lines  13-AUG-1991 13:26

>Misuse of alcohol can cause "abuse to the liver" (cirrhosis)
>Misuse of hallucinogens can cause "abuse to the brain" (neural damage)
>Reading Notesfiles can cause "abuse to the circulatory system" (high blood 
>pressure (-: )

    None of those has even the potential to develop into a person.

>My take on this (and then I'll shut up, I promise) is that the foetus is 
>legally no different from any other piece of body tissue until birth.  I
>subscribe to the ideal of "children's rights" but as far as I can tell, the
>foetus becomes a child by being born. At which point, it acquires magically
>the rights and privileges accorded to a living being.  Prior to being born, 
>too bad.  
    
    The old knotty question of _when_ does a fetus become a child.
    My take is that it happens when a woman decides _not_ to have 
    an abortion. Once you decide to carry to term, you're a parent,
    with all the obligations thereof. (Rights entail responsibilities.
    The right to freely become a parent incurs the responsibility to
    be a good one.)
    
    dana

    
    I'll think about allowing governments and other facilities and
    governing bodies to protect my fetus from my actions 24 hours a day,
    when they are fully dedicated and completely ready to protect my body
    from others' actions (abuse, rape, beatings) 24 hours a day.
    
    they've got a lot of work ahead of them already.
    
    why don't they finishe what's on their plate before they take another
    helping?
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Why don't we just give every pregnant woman a yellow ribbon to wear
    around her belly so that everyone will know how much we all care
    and how seriously we take the mother and potential baby's safety.
    
    Justine

Maternity ribbons! Good idea.

Bruce

    Yeah, that's the ticket.. The yellow ribbons that say.....
    
    
    
    CAUTION - UNDER CONSTRUCTION
    
    REK

    I had a shirt that said that -- "Under Construction" that is.  It was a
    heck of a long sight better than the shirt with horizontal stripes. 
    Gads, I looked like a beached blue whale in that one.  My eyes still
    hurt when I see the picture of it.
    
    
    
    the fetus becomes a baby when the pregnant mom decides to bear a child
    -- I like that!  it's as close as anything to how I felt.
    
    
    
    Herb, yes some women, sadly, deliberately disregard their pregnancy in
    considering what they should do, how they should eat/act/etc, in cases
    where they don't intend to have an abortion.  And that's bad.  I just
    think it would be very very hard to define "deliberate" and "harmful to
    the fetus/baby" adequately in laws, without trampling on the rights of
    the woman herself.  And, based on my views in favor of women's choice
    about abortion, the woman's rights are paramount for easily the first
    third, probably for the second third of the pregnancy.  Third is
    hardest to legislate about.
    
    Just my opinion.
    
    Sara
    

    I agree with you! 
    (which is why complicity ought be separated from culpability).
    

    >>complicity ought be separated from culpability
    
    ah!  thankyou!  I had not made the distinction, based on my reading of
    what you said.  My misinterpretation; but maybe there's a better word
    than "complicity"?  that one kind of implies culpability in my mind.
    
    Sara
    

    Complicity ought to be seperated from culpability????
    
    You've got to be kidding!  That means you are culpable for things you
    had no idea were wrong!!!!
    
    D!

    yup, good point!
    how about good old fashioned responsibility?
    
    how about "sacred trust" (which carries with it some responsibility/duty)
    i mean it in a PURELY humanistic sense, but if folks want to use the
    more "religious" sense as well, i wouldn't quibble

    re .27
    thankyou madam

    re complicity vs culpability
    
    i was trying to draw the distinction between doing something 'wrong'
    and being convicted of a crime. I was using culpability in the sense of
    breaking a law. And using complicity in the sense of doing something
    'wrong' for which there is no law (and shouldn't be)
    In that sense i think i was groping more at ethics and morals, rather
    than law.
    Perhaps there is a better way to draw that distinction.
    
    

    The topic is moot since "children" don't become children until after
    birth.
    
    Maia
    

    .2, .31, and others
    
       I just get so offended when people insist on stating OPINIONS as
    if they were pure unalterable FACT.  In my OPINION, my children were
    children from the moment God made them.  and I believe that with every
    bit as much passion as you have for your OPINION.  So please do not
    dismiss so casually the option of differing OPINIONS.  
     
    
    KC

    re -1  I agree.  This issue is hard to talk about, but fewer sparks
    will fly if we avoid stating opinion as fact.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Justine 

>Note 967.33           Do Children have rights before birth?             33 of 33
>                     This issue is hard to talk about, but fewer sparks
>    will fly if we avoid stating opinion as fact.
>    
      This is difficult if not impossible Justine, The line between opinion
      and fact is very thin. example, if someone holds a certain opinion they
      will seek facts that support that opinion. They will passively/actively,
      depending on how well their thought process are developed (ex)include any
      information which (does not) support(s) their opinion.

      I posed this question after the protest in a previous note about the
      infringement of women's rights in the case of medical checks in the
      factory.
      To me, once the decision has been taken that the thingey/lump of tissue
      will not be used for Parkinson's disease injections. The decision has
      80+ years consequence. It reflects the age old battle of the pecking
      order, in that if a person has absolute power over another, should they
      be allowed to exercise it.
      Rgds,

I wasn't gonna jump in on this one because it will never be resolved to please
everyone, but I can't resist...

FACT: in the biological sense, the fetus (or, if you prefer "unborn child") is
in a parasitic relationship to the host woman's body.  The fetus receives
that sustenance from the host woman's body which is necessary to continued
growth while delivering nothing of biological value back to the host woman's
body.  This does not address any emotional aspect of the relationship, simply
the physical.  This is the description of a parasitic relationship.

OPINION:  In this context, then, the question is really whether the woman, 
having started this parasitic relationship, is OBLIGATED to maintain the 
fetus at optimum health.  If she fails to do so, she and the fetus will BOTH
suffer - there is no way to damage a fetus without also taxing the host 
woman's body in the process other than surgical intervention.  Nature has a 
savage attitude towards this particular form of parasitism.  The fetus takes
precedence unless the fetus is defective, at which point nature will generally 
"cut it's losses" and force a natural abortion - the purpose of which is to
maintain the host body with sufficient resources to support another pregnancy.
This is the rule of reproduction for all mammals.  Therefore, the fact that
the fetus exists means the fetus will TAKE the best that the host body can
give.

Does the woman have an obligation to maintain HERSELF at optimum health?  No,
we have not yet established LAWS demanding that a citizen refrain from all
unhealthy behavior and maintain a perfectly healthy body (who knows about
tomorrow, though).  Does the woman have a MORAL obligation to maintain HERSELF
at optimum health?  I am not aware of any religeon that does NOT dictate at
some level the requirement that the body which houses the soul be maintained.
For a religeous person, therefore, I must assume the answer is "YES".  If
you are irreligeous, as I am, then the moral mandate to gain/maintain optimum 
health will generally come from "enlightened self-interest" or the sense that,
as a capable representative of my species, I am obligated to not only take
care of myself, but to also offer aid and comfort to those who are not fully
capable for any reason.  Obviously, I can only do that by remaining as healthy
as possible.

Given that the woman has a moral mandate to keep herself at optimum health, the
question of whether there is a moral mandate to maintain the fetus at optimum
health is moot - it is a "given".  

THE REAL PROBLEM HERE:  Does society have the "right" to demand that the
woman maintain optimum health while pregnant, thereby reducing the risk that
society will have to PAY for care and maintenance of a sick or damaged human
which results from a poorly maintained pregnancy?  In the case where the woman
is not informed, or when she is suffering from drug addiction in some form,
does society have the moral right to intervene?  Now, here is the REAL issue.
We may cloak this question (and our answers) in any philosophical manner we
choose, but at the bottom of the pile, this question sits waiting to be
faced.  There is not only the woman's investment to be considered...an
investment which, in the purely physical sense, can be terminated after approx.
9 months.  Once the child is born, the parasitic relationship is terminated
and the host female's body is no longer necessary for survival of the child.
However, if the host female has not maintained her body properly, the child
may become a permanent tax on society - requiring resources while contributing
no resources to the social "bank".  We, as members of society must decide
how much of such a burden we are willing to bear.  In some cases, recent events
have forced the hand of social groups, and women are being forced to
stop behaviors known to be damaging to fetal development.  In the 
USA, for instance, several native-american tribes have been jailing pregnant
women alcoholics to keep them from drinking alcohol during pregnancy.  Their
purpose is to protect their tribal future...children with fetal alcohol 
syndrome cannot learn the tribal ways, nor can they learn to protect their own
young from the damages of drugs and alcohol.  This is an instance when the
social group has determined that the freedom of the individual woman does not
override the needs of the social group.  If events continue to transpire as
they have in recent history, I can forsee a time when society at large may 
decided to minimize the cost of damaged fetal development - at that point,
women will have to decide whether they wish to be "free" or whether they
wish to be parents.

    Some of this is confusing to me, particularly the deformity from
    diet/drink/smoking/drug habits.  I have always wondered why rules
    aren't also imposed on fertile males.  
    
    Method to this thinking?  My mother told me about when women, "just
    didn't drink" because it was too costly but children of alchoholic 
    fathers often had many of the problems we now associate with FAS.  
    Maybe we should also keep men restricted from any drugs or 
    environmental hazards which might damage sperm, and if they refuse 
    to do this or get a vasectomy toss them in the clink until they 
    change their ways as well.  After all, don't men have a moral
    responsibility to see to it that their sperm is healthy enough for
    children?
    
    Meg

    Aspirin can cause defective fetal development if taking in the first 3 
    weeks of pregnancy.  Women typically don't know they are pregnant
    during that time, so the solution is to prevent all women of
    child-bearing age (which begins at age 7 and ends at 92, if you read
    the Enquirer) from taking aspirin.  Only males should be allowed to buy
    aspirin, and any male caught giving aspirin to a woman should be
    charged with "contributing to the delinquency of a female."
    
    D!

    Thank you D!
    
    That was beautiful...(and so're you)
    
    Daniel

what is most interesting about the "fetal damage" subject is the growing
realization that sperm DOES contribute to the problem...and they are
citing damage from such things as low-levels of alcohol consumption, caffine
consumption, SMOKING anything, and working in chemically hazardous areas.
It is quite possible that future research may show that damaged sperm
cause MOST of the problem...and women seeking parenting mates will be looking
for men who abstain from all unnecessary drugs.  Won't that be a revelation?

This issue is far from resolved for the woman who chooses or happens to become
pregnant, nor is it resolved for society.  The ugly questions must be faced
and addressed in some fashion....and I don't see any movement to truly
address these issues in a meaningful fashion any time in the near future.  The
government doesn't WANT to address these issues - any way you look at it,
someone is going to lose.  If the government finally agrees that women are
full citizens under the Constitution, then they cannot FORCE, nor can
they allow any institution to FORCE, women to abstain from any behavior or
participate in any activity UNLESS THEY DECIDE THAT THE LAW SHALL BE UNIVERSAL.
In this way, governments can restrain behavior of women...simply make the
men behave the same way....or be willing to pay the price for maintaining
the children who are the result of damaged fetal development.

    Well Mr. Binger, how nice for you and your partner to be actively
    persuing a baby.  It must be very nice not to have to worry about the
    possibility of birth control failure, a very real factor for many of
    us who haven't made a permanent decision on no or no more children.  
    
    I'm sure the two of you are absolutely squeaky clean and have done
    nothing in your past to jeapordize you gene plasm.  Great you can have
    super children, just like you and raise them to know that their only
    responsibility to the planet is to remain away from all hazards so they
    can in turn make super children also.
    
    However for those of us who have had unplanned, but not necessarily
    unwanted pregnancy (The old surprise factor) we will just have to
    muddle along hoping that we didn't do too much damage, before we found
    out.  Oh well serves us right for having sex just for fun huh.
    Meg  

re: Meg

     That was an unnecessary attack.... I see nothing wrong with his
     response.

     Karen

    Karen,
    
    I'm sorry, but the reality is that not all children are planned, and I
    am very tired of the holier conception than thou attitude I heard.  
    
    I guess my temper sometimes gets the best of me.
    
    Meg

    ::BINGER...
    
    Uh, I think you missed my point...
    
    D!

    re .41, I totally agree with you and don't consider your reply to be an
    unwarranted attack.  
    
    I've also never planned a pregnancy in my life, (my daughter was a
    happy surprise) :-) and, despite taking asperin and the occasional
    drink to say nothing of birth control pills for the first 2 months of
    pregnancy before I knew, I still have a super kid.  
    
    I can certainly understand the advisability of not drinking or doing
    drugs to excess while pregnant, but having men go on and on about how
    careful women should be for the health of their unborn children has
    become very tiresome to me.  Afterall, *most* babies in the US are born
    healthy so we can't all be doing anything so very bad.
    
    Lorna
    

    Men are just as good - some are better! - at looking after sick
    children as women are. And at taking M/Paternity leave.
    
    Alice T.