Proper order

My.testicals

After seeing the carnage that drug abuse causes to a newborn baby while the mother is taking hard drugs, do you think a law like this should be brought in to this country.

Would you support it, in my opinion a jail sentence is not enough, sterilization would still be not enough of a punishment.

http://www.newstalk.ie/Jonathan-deBurca-Butler-looks-at-a-controversial-law-that-criminalizes-drug-use-during-pregnancy

Arthur Beesley

You could be into something.

whupdedo

Some will say your talking balls

My.testicals

whupdedo wrote: »

Some will say your talking balls

Suck em







Baby

FairytaleGirl

Wile idea but maybe set up a residential facility where women can get clean and be supported throughout their pregnancy . . ?

Criminalizing it would only lead to women not availing of pre natal services and abandoned babies.

It's a no from me, there are far more productive options

FairytaleGirl

Wile idea but maybe set up a residential facility where women can get clean and be supported throughout their pregnancy . . ?

Criminalizing it would only lead to women not availing of pre natal services and abandoned babies.

It's a no from me, there are far more productive options

P_1

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

Wile idea but maybe set up a residential facility where women can get clean and be supported throughout their pregnancy . . ?

Criminalizing it would only lead to women not availing of pre natal services and abandoned babies.

It's a no from me, there are far more productive options

You'd need to be very careful to avoid a Mother & Babies Home Mk II situation there but it certainly has merit as an idea.

My.testicals

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

Wile idea but maybe set up a residential facility where women can get clean and be supported throughout their pregnancy . . ?

Criminalizing it would only lead to women not availing of pre natal services and abandoned babies.

It's a no from me, there are far more productive options

This is a good post, but something has to be done i have seen far too many kids with all sorts of problems.

1 child was born with 1 ear much smaller than the other one and that same child is about 10 now and cannot control her saliva at all she STILL has to wear a bib because she dribbles all the time, but for me the worst part are the screams, hearing a brand new baby screaming for a fix of crack is definitely the most haunting sound I have ever herd in all my life.

The mother of said child has done this 5 times, she should have been shot after the first one.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7N0LIEoOLc

My.testicals

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7N0LIEoOLc

I bet you have been waiting to post that for ages, Haven't you:D

Sulla Felix

Hate to break up the urban myth circle jerk but a 25 year study, tracking children from birth to mid-20s, that finished last year was resounding in its finding that there were little or no long term side effects.
Compare that to foetal alchohol syndrome and you can see why hysteria of the masses, while great for selling newspapers, is terrible when it comes to deciding medical policy.

My.testicals

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Hate to break up the urban myth circle jerk but a 25 year study, tracking children from birth to mid-20s, that finished last year was resounding in its finding that there were little or no long term side effects.
Compare that to foetal alchohol syndrome and you can see why hysteria of the masses, while great for selling newspapers, is terrible when it comes to deciding medical policy.

Well I reckon my niece would say that the study was wrong.

Sulla Felix

My.testicals wrote: »

Well I reckon my niece would say that the study was wrong.

Crap, yea, I completely forgot that what your niece says totally trumps a multi-million dollar quarter century study by one of Americas largest maternity hospitals.
I'll let them know right away.

Fr_Dougal

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Hate to break up the urban myth circle jerk but a 25 year study, tracking children from birth to mid-20s, that finished last year was resounding in its finding that there were little or no long term side effects.
Compare that to foetal alchohol syndrome and you can see why hysteria of the masses, while great for selling newspapers, is terrible when it comes to deciding medical policy.

I believe that study was on crack babies. I don't think a similar study has been carried out on the likes of meth.

In severe cases babies are isolated and go through a detox period where they are given morphine to ease them off their drug addiction. If the mother is addicted to certain drugs it would kill the unborn baby if she were to quit mid-pregnancy.

fleet_admiral

Wonder what the feminazis will say about it

My.testicals

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Crap, yea, I completely forgot that what your niece says totally trumps a multi-million dollar quarter century study by one of Americas largest maternity hospitals.
I'll let them know right away.

You see she never really says alot. she has problems with her speech and well lets just say i have been "Studying" her for the last 8 years since i became her legal guardian, so as far as I am concerned I believe what is in front of my own eyes and not what a study says.

Poor girl is 10 years of age and my 4 year old daughter is MUCH taller than her. She is in and out of hospital all the time, She will never ever be able to have as a single drink because she will be addicted.

She was having headaches all the time and I couldt figure out why until one of the Doctors figured she was actually addicted to MIWADI.

But the yanks said different so I must be lying

Pumpkinseeds

I'd like to see a better child services system in place. One that provides a safe environment for children who come from backgrounds where the parent/carer is an alcoholic or drug addict. Every now and again I come across a story in the paper where the parent has used the fact that they are an alcoholic/drug addict who commited a crime to support their addiction and they use the fact that they are the sole guardian or earner for their children.

A serial offending alcoholic/drug addict parent is not the right person to have custody of a child, that's no environment for a child to grow up in. We need a system where the child and parent are supported and where the parent needs to get sober/clean and prove that they can provide a safe home for their kids.

Fate Amenable To Change

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Hate to break up the urban myth circle jerk but a 25 year study, tracking children from birth to mid-20s, that finished last year was resounding in its finding that there were little or no long term side effects.
Compare that to foetal alchohol syndrome and you can see why hysteria of the masses, while great for selling newspapers, is terrible when it comes to deciding medical policy.

I can't believe that having an addiction to being born addicted to a drug causes no harm in such a key development stage. The withdrawal symptoms alone would cause serious problems, no?

Do you have a link to this study so I can make up my own mind on it?

My own opinion is that the user should be sentenced and the dealer should face a harsher sentence than normal also if it is obvious the customer is pregnant.

My.testicals

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'd like to see a better child services system in place. One that provides a safe environment for children who come from backgrounds where the parent/carer is an alcoholic or drug addict. Every now and again I come across a story in the paper where the parent has used the fact that they are an alcoholic/drug addict who commited a crime to support their addiction and they use the fact that they are the sole guardian or earner for their children.

A serial offending alcoholic/drug addict parent is not the right person to have custody of a child, that's no environment for a child to grow up in. We need a system where the child and parent are supported and where the parent needs to get sober/clean and prove that they can provide a safe home for their kids.

But you will be told the best place for a child is with the mother

Sulla Felix

TheZohan wrote: »

I believe that study was on crack babies. I don't think a similar study has been carried out on the likes of meth.

In severe cases babies are isolated and go through a detox period where they are given morphine to ease them off their drug addiction. If the mother is addicted to certain drugs it would kill the unborn baby if she were to quit mid-pregnancy.

Crack was the drug referenced, I should have included a quote of the post I meant to answer.

GCU FATC wrote:

I can't believe that having an addiction to being born addicted to a drug causes no harm in such a key development stage. The withdrawal symptoms alone would cause serious problems, no?

Not off the top of my head, principle was Dr Hallam Hurt in Philadelphia Einstein Medical Centre though. Basically the "crack babies" outcomes were no worse overall than other children from similarly disenfranchised upbringings.

JupiterKid

The best option is for intervention to help drug/drink addicted mothers, not criminalisation. Criminalisation will only serve to isolate them and could make things worse. Obviously social services have their part to play as well. If a mother refuses intervention/treatment, she forfeits the right to keep her baby.

But I'd wager that most addicted mothers would prefer treatment/help rather than be thrown into jail.

Where does this end? Refusing to serve expectant women alcohol or cigarettes? Education is the key, not criminalisation.

Pumpkinseeds

My.testicals wrote: »

But you will be told the best place for a child is with the mother

We all know that the reality is sadly different and it's becoming more common to see men being the alcoholic/drug addict sole guardian.

pablo128

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Crack was the drug referenced, I should have included a quote of the post I meant to answer.

Not off the top of my head, principle was Dr Hallam Hurt in Philadelphia Einstein Medical Centre though. Basically the "crack babies" outcomes were no worse overall than other children from similarly disenfranchised upbringings.

Your posts are highly insulting. I would like you to ask my niece, who was born with Hepatitis C due to her mothers drug use before and during pregnancy, if there are no long term effects.
Go and do some proper fcuking research before spouting that sh1te.

My.testicals

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

We all know that the reality is sadly different and it's becoming more common to see men being the alcoholic/drug addict sole guardian.

In the case of what I am talking bout this "woman" has 5 kids, 2 are with one grandparents 1 is with me and the other 2 are with their grandparents.

This Woman is approaching 50 and is still getting off her face on all types of sh!te, The 3 youngest kids have physical problems but the older 2 dont seem to but have emotional and psychological problems.

What gets to me is she was allowed to do it 5 times.

Sulla Felix

pablo128 wrote: »

Your posts are highly insulting. I would like you to ask my niece, who was born with Hepatitis C due to her mothers drug use before and during pregnancy, if there are no long term effects.
Go and do some proper fcuking research before spouting that sh1te.

Where did I say sharing needles with people who are infected with hepatitis C while pregnant wouldn't impact a foetus? Please, do point it out to me.
Crack has been shown to have neglible effects on the foetus, that's all I've maintained.
Try reading the posts, it always helps in this kind of discussion.

My.testicals

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Where did I say sharing needles with people who are infected with hepatitis C while pregnant wouldn't impact a foetus? Please, do point it out to me.
Crack has been shown to have neglible effects on the foetus, that's all I've maintained.
Try reading the posts, it always helps in this kind of discussion.

But you are spouting from a study whereas some people have 1st hand experience of it and you are saying that we are wrong

Fate Amenable To Change

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Crack was the drug referenced, I should have included a quote of the post I meant to answer.

Not off the top of my head, principle was Dr Hallam Hurt in Philadelphia Einstein Medical Centre though. Basically the "crack babies" outcomes were no worse overall than other children from similarly disenfranchised upbringings.

Well for starters they done it on an interview based assessment as to whether the mother had made use of drugs in the last two trimesters....

That alone would bring the validity of everything into question IMO. Sat down face to face with an interviewer and from a poor background it would be unlikely IMO that many of them would admit to taking drugs while pregnant. Theres also a difference between say for example one use in 9 months and someone who is using every day,.

Also there may have been an aim by the doctor in charge to put the blame at the feet of poverty especially considering almost half of the whole cohort was "lost". That could easily have altered the findings massively.

TBH there are very few actual findings in the report no graphing of outliers etc. What if there were 10 very outliers in the findings which would make it a 16% rate of serious damage... God forbid we be given this information

Maybe I'm completely wrong in my view that something like being addicted to crack when you're developing and for the earliest development stages has no effect.

Pumpkinseeds

My.testicals wrote: »

In the case of what I am talking bout this "woman" has 5 kids, 2 are with one grandparents 1 is with me and the other 2 are with their grandparents.

This Woman is approaching 50 and is still getting off her face on all types of sh!te, The 3 youngest kids have physical problems but the older 2 dont seem to but have emotional and psychological problems.

What gets to me is she was allowed to do it 5 times.

I think a lot of it comes down to the total neglect succesive governments have left the child welfare system in. There doesn't seem to be any such thing as emergency care and very few places for kids to go where they are safe. It's easier and cheaper to ignore the problem and leave the kids with parents who aren't equipped to care for them, or themselves.

It costs them nothing to leave children to starve and be neglected in their homes and for people to live homeless.

Sulla Felix

Alright, I concede defeat. Two peoples personal anecdotes and one other persons gut feeling obviously trumps medical science. I got it all wrong.

My.testicals

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Alright, I concede defeat. Two peoples personal anecdotes and one other persons gut feeling obviously trumps medical science. I got it all wrong.

Ha ha, is that you Katie hopkins

Fate Amenable To Change

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Alright, I concede defeat. Two peoples personal anecdotes and one other persons gut feeling obviously trumps medical science. I got it all wrong.

The single piece of research you quote has serious flaws in its setup and implementation but don't let that stop from believing you have a superior point of view just because its different from the mainstream.