+ Reply to Thread
Page 14 of 41 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 410
  1. #131
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,839
    Thanks
    6,199
    Thanked
    16,883
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by the girls mum View Post
    Well I dont know I guess, but how do you know they WOULDNT just stick with those that harm babies the most?
    Bc it sets a precedent

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (09-02-2013),peanutmonkey  (08-02-2013),SassyMummy  (08-02-2013)

  3. #132
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    747
    Thanks
    132
    Thanked
    395
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by peanutmonkey View Post
    But what you think is reasonable may differ from someone else? Cant you see that? It's subjective.

    My example from earlier was me being condemned for taking a class b drug ling term throughout my 3 pregnancies, because I was endangering my unborn children. I'm sure this person isn't the only person Who thinks like this. For them, it would be reasonable to ban the use of them. That's the point that I'm trying to make.

    ETA: I actually also had a Dr refuse to prescribe this medication to me in my first pregnancy, despite being hospitalized 3 times in the space of 2 weeks and losing over 12kg in the first 14 weeks of my pregnancy. The next time I was admitted to hospital they said that that Dr was insane to not prescribe it as my health was seriously deteriorating - so 2 people, in the medical field with completely different opinions. How do we know that the extreme one won't be one of the ones contributing to the laws?

    Sent from my GT-I9305T using BubHub
    I don't think anyone who is ignorant or uneducated about what is or isn't safe during pregnancy will make those decisions. It's not society that will decide the law, its law makers that will look at all the variables.
    Class b drugs are classed that way because they're not tested or proven to cause harm and are usualy safe to take in pregnancy. I'm pretty sure most prescriptions are class b and very little drugs are class a. Class c would be ones that should be looked at more closely and would be reviewed by your dr more closely and ofcourse class d which is what this discusion is about.

    I get it's subjective, but there will always be people at the extreme ends of the fence and then there will be the law.

  4. #133
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,839
    Thanks
    6,199
    Thanked
    16,883
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by the girls mum View Post
    Can you elaborate a bit? (not being a smart ***, want to knwo what you mean)
    Well this will be used as a guide in subsequent circumstances of women that appear to put their kids at risk. Med pros will say, this woman is really obese and her GD is thru the roof, she isn't losing weight. Since women can be forced into rehab for the baby we ask that she be admitted against her will to a feeding clinic to lose weight before the birth.

    So this will be used as a reason to excuse further removal of rights bc it's been passed by law therefore that makes it ok...

  5. #134
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    747
    Thanks
    132
    Thanked
    395
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    I'm not being convinced cause all I heard was free weight loss clinic I wouldn't complain.

  6. #135
    headoverfeet's Avatar
    headoverfeet is offline The truth will set you free, but first it will **** you off. -Gloria Steinem
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    18,954
    Thanks
    3,142
    Thanked
    4,892
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Sorry I have only read to page 2 so far.
    Quote Originally Posted by BlissedOut View Post
    I do believe in unborn babies having rights, especially once they are at a gestation where their lives are viable outside of the womb. By this stage a woman has chosen to proceed with the pregnancy and with that choice there should be some obligations to the child they are carrying, just as there is to any children we have in our care.

    I don't think it'd be unreasonable to have a facility where mothers can receive treatment and support during their pregnancies, full time, working with the goal to a) produce a healthy child, b) improve the mother's life, c) possibly create a situation where that mother can care for her child effectively once born.

    I too think enforcing it is a slippery slope.
    But women in QLD don't have the choice, they have no rights to abortion as I have said before.

  7. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,839
    Thanks
    6,199
    Thanked
    16,883
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by headoverfeet View Post
    Sorry I have only read to page 2 so far.

    But women in QLD don't have the choice, they have no rights to abortion as I have said before.
    My understanding is the dr just makes a judgment that keeping the baby will effect her mental health and this is how non medically required abortion happens in QLD. Women still have access to termination in QLD they just need a dr to approve it on medical/psychological grounds which they are quite open ended with. But I don't live in QLD so I'm only speculating...

  8. #137
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,706
    Thanks
    9,557
    Thanked
    12,687
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week

    Default Lock up risk-taking mothers

    Quote Originally Posted by the girls mum View Post
    The law is not going to add every. little. thing.
    I agree, I think people are being over dramatic about the snowball affect. The law (in my mind) would only cover those specific things that 99% if society agree are unacceptable behavior towards an unborn.

    It won't prevent women from doing half the stuff mentioned here and it will only affect women who deserve to have their 'rights' stripped from them.

    Laws are made every day that affect us (child abuse, assault, burglary, negligence causing harm etc). Politicians manage to draw a line in the sand with these issues without too much trouble.

    This would be such a highly controversial and publicized law. With all the feminists out there ... Julia and Tony at war etc... I highly doubt that contentious clauses would be included let alone passed by both Houses of Parliament.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to VicPark For This Useful Post:

    ~ElectricPink~  (08-02-2013)

  10. #138
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    10,495
    Thanks
    1,430
    Thanked
    9,003
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Sorry the lawyer in me had to jump in and point out that reasonableness issues are objective, not subjective.

    As you were.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Sonja For This Useful Post:

    NancyBlackett  (08-02-2013)

  12. #139
    headoverfeet's Avatar
    headoverfeet is offline The truth will set you free, but first it will **** you off. -Gloria Steinem
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    18,954
    Thanks
    3,142
    Thanked
    4,892
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by SassyMummy View Post
    To suggest that a baby doesn't deserve rights until it's no longer inside a woman's body, doesn't mean that you agree with women doing anything stupid and almost certainly harmful to their unborn baby... it just means that there is no other way to deal with it, other than to understand that to give that unborn baby rights mean you're taking away the rights of a person who is only having those rights stripped of them BECAUSE of that baby.

    As for being shipped off to some sort of facility, I think that a drug-addicted pregnant woman or a severely mentally ill pregnant woman should be treated the same way she would be if she wasn't pregnant. I believe that under the mental health act, people who are at risk to themselves can be held against their will, but whether or not a woman is pregnant should not come into it. If she is at risk of harming herself, she should be detained. If she happens to be pregnant, then fine, I suppose holding her will mean that her unborn child is less likely to suffer as a result of decisions made while in a state of terrible mental health.

    A woman going out for a bender is risky, but it is not something that you can be arrested for (unless you do something stupid while under the influence, of course), and it should remain that way for pregnant women also. Yes, it's a bad thing for her to do. Yes, it's not ideal for the foetus she is carrying. However, when we strip her of the rights all her fellow humans have, we are reducing her to nothing more than a vessel, an incubator, and no woman should ever be reduced to lesser because of that. No woman should ever feel if she falls pregnant, her body is no longer her own and that the state owns it more than she.

    That's not a good place for any woman to be, and we've fought to get out of that kind of place. I don't think it would be good for ANY woman to return to the days when a woman's body was never her own - it was her fathers, her husbands, and used pretty much exclusively for baby-making.

    I want much more for my daughter than to choose between being childless and full of rights, or a mother, and stripped of any rights the minute a pregnancy is confirmed.
    Well said
    Quote Originally Posted by the girls mum View Post
    Why does one have to trump the other - why cant there be a middle ground?

    You dont harm your baby knowingly and repeatedly - you have all your rights.

    You do harm your baby knowingly and repeatedly - well maybe you dont get all your rights until that baby is safely out of your womb - then by all means you can then have the right to do as you please to yourself?
    Define doing baby harm?
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    That is a big assumption though. I'll go back to my example on HB with a breech baby. A highly questionable study, the term breech trial has effectively stopped 90% of natural breech births now. bc the study 'proved' it was dangerous. I should add there have been found to be big flaws in methodology. But the medical establishment deems the trial valid. So now a mum, who has a full term breech decides to birth at home bc she doesn't want a c/s. Now with new laws in place where govt/police/medical can intervene, she is taken against her will, placed in a facility then made to birth by c/s. Infact by that vein all HB could result in the same treatment bc most drs will say there is 'proof' HB is dangerous. When in fact that simply isn't true in a vast majority of cases.

    See the grey area? once we open the flood gates, more and more examples are going to be added where women have their rights taken bc an activity is deemed dangerous. The overweight pg woman is told she will be incarcerated of sorts until she loses weight. Bc obesity is a 'choice' to overeat and causes lots of issues with pg and birth. Therefore an overweight pg woman is actively choosing to harm her child.

    Hell just driving a car pg is dangerous. And before you say stop being silly, think about it. In a serious accident the chances of the baby dying are pretty high. it was a choice for her to drive. Therefore, being realistic, every single pg woman that sits in a moving car is exposing their child to potential death....
    Say they make breech HB illegal (god forbid) what happens to the woman who didn't know her baby was breech?

    And yes, if you become PM Vic Park I am moving country too

  13. #140
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,706
    Thanks
    9,557
    Thanked
    12,687
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week

    Default Lock up risk-taking mothers

    Quote Originally Posted by headoverfeet View Post
    And yes, if you become PM Vic Park I am moving country too
    Oh man, now I'm offended


  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VicPark For This Useful Post:

    delirium  (08-02-2013)


 

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 30-09-2012, 23:17
  2. Nurses. Risk with taking pts to xray
    By Kazza78 in forum Pregnancy & Birth General Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 22-06-2012, 22:17

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Springfree Trampoline
Give the Ultimate Christmas Gift Springfree Trampoline
The World's Safest Trampoline™ is now also the world's first Smart Trampoline™. Sensors on the mat detect your every move and your jumps control fun, educational and active games on tablet. Secure the Ultimate Christmas Gift today!
sales & new stuffsee all
Bub Hub Sales Listing
HAVING A SALE? Let parents know about it with a Bub Hub Sales listing. Listings are featured on our well trafficked Sales Page + selected randomly to appear on EVERY page
featured supporter
Cots on Bubhub
Looking to buy a cot or bassinet? :: Cot safety checklist :: Local or online nursery shops
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!