In a case where parents knowingly pass on a genetic disease - then the question is whether is is better to prevent the life to begin in the first place. Maybe the child would be happy - the child can not know if it would have been better if it had not been born - because there is no way to evaluate the nonexistent child's view. And is happiness the only criteria from which to judge?
And to further complicate things - what if the parents are only risking passing on the genetic disease? Again, you have the case where you need to compare the existence and the non-existence of the child.
Either case, I think the parents are obligated (libel) for all the medical costs and long-term care the child may need.
Civil penalties are harder to justify. The genetic problems are there, or no child is there. (If no genetic problems occur - again no harm no fowl.)
I would say the same standard would work as applied to the drinking mother. There must be harm shown, and it must have been easily preventable. In this case though, harm would be hard to show since the alternative is non-existence.
Originally posted by KneverKnightJesus Christ, I never mentioned the word "addiction" and it is irrelevant to my point. I also wish you'd stop using the word "handicapped" as an emotional appeal to suggest that I'm in favor of eugenics or some such rot. I am talking about the effect that a DECISION of the parents would have on a child; I am NOT assuming that they are legally incapable of making a DECISION. My analysis remains the same either way, of course.
So, if it was decided that addiction was in some way equal to a handicap, then by punishing the smoker, we run the risk of punishing the handicapped as well because the same reasoning could be used in either case. OK.
What if the mother wasn't addicted to alcohol, yet still drank during pregnancy?
Originally posted by ColettiYou declared earlier that "I don't think you should convict someone for doing something that is otherwise legal, or for stupid behavior. (They might close down the forums! ) If you allowed both women to be prosecuted, you are opening a whole new can of worms. So I'd say no."
No. There are TWO factors:
1. stupid behavior on the mother
AND
2. harm caused to the child due to the stupid behavior.
One is not enough.
So you are actually saying that stupid behavior should indeed be punishable, upon proof that said behavior caused irreparable harm to the unborn child? How will it ever be possible to link the one with the other? I don't understand how that would happen.
Originally posted by no1marauderI think a case can easily be made that smoking during pregnancy is a glaringly stupid thing to do because it is well known that it causes a substantial risk of harm to a fetus.
A "gross deviation" means a particulary glaring and obvious one that has a substantial risk of serious harm; smoking a cigarette during pregnancy will not meet such a standard. .
You are only stating your opinion on the matter. I think a jury would disagree with you - especially if harm has been proven.
Originally posted by eagles54You are right. For any case, the harm must be proven to be caused by the mother's smoking. I don't know if this is possible either. But that is what I think needs to be shown.
So you are actually saying that stupid behavior should indeed be punishable, upon proof that said behavior caused irreparable harm to the unborn child? How will it ever be possible to link the one with the other? I don't understand how that would happen.
It is not enough to show harm. You would need to show that the harm was caused by the mothers actions.
Originally posted by no1marauderTell ya what. Why don't you stop using the phrase "Jesus Christ." It's offensive and makes you look like a blathering idiot.
Jesus Christ, I never mentioned the word "addiction" and it is irrelevant to my point. I also wish you'd stop using the word "handicapped" as an emotional appeal to suggest that I'm in favor of eugenics or some such rot. I am talking about the effect that a DECISION of the parents would have on a child; I am NOT assuming that they are legally incapable of making a DECISION. My analysis remains the same either way, of course.
Just some advice.
(Unless you are actually talking about Jesus Christ and not using the phrase as an expletive.)
Originally posted by no1marauderYou read too much into my use of the word "handicapped". Calm down.
Jesus Christ, I never mentioned the word "addiction" and it is irrelevant to my point. I also wish you'd stop using the word "handicapped" as an emotional appeal to suggest that I'm in favor of eugenics or some such rot. I am talking about the effect that a DECISION of the parents would have on a child; I am NOT assuming that they are legally incapable of making a DECISION. My analysis remains the same either way, of course.
Originally posted by ColettiMy informed legal opinion is that a judge would toss the case out before it got to a jury as legally insufficient. Has John Calvin passed you some predestined information on the legal system that causes you to think differently?
I think a case can easily be made that smoking during pregnancy is a glaringly stupid thing to do because it is well known that it causes a substantial risk of harm to a fetus.
You are only stating your opinion on the matter. I think a jury would disagree with you - especially if harm has been proven.
Originally posted by ColettiIf you don't like it, alert it. I'm not interested in a lecture from a religious fanatic, so otherwise STFU. Just some advice.
Tell ya what. Why don't you stop using the phrase "Jesus Christ." It's offensive and makes you look like a blathering idiot.
Just some advice.
(Unless you are actually talking about Jesus Christ and not using the phrase as an expletive.)