Crime to have kid while on drugs? IT SHOULD BE!

[jpalamar]

Pennsylvania lawmakers and child advocates are debating a proposal to expand the definition of child abuse.

Doctors are required by law to report child abuse. But right now, when an infant is born with illicit drugs in their system, it's not clear whether that exposure rises to the level of abuse.

Cumberland County State Senator Pat Vance authored a bill that would hold moms responsible if a newborn tests positive for a controlled substance, unless the mother was prescribed the drug lawfully.

Crawford County District Attorney Francis Schultz, who leads the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, says the proposal is laudable, but lawmakers and law enforcement are still weighing its consequences.

"We want to make sure that it's not going to be a piece of legislation that's going to maybe have a negative impact on pregnant women," he said. "We would never want a situation where mothers are not seeking the proper prenatal care because they've taken some drugs, and they are afraid of what's going to happen to them."

Jenna Mehnert leads the Pennsylvania Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers. She says the issue is complicated because social workers are concerned both with the safety of children and about helping adults manage substance abuse problems.

Mehnert says the Commonwealth has a higher standard, compared to other states, when it comes to proving child abuse.

"There are cases that you or I, the average person, would look at and say, 'That's child abuse.' And, in fact, in many other states it would be considered child abuse in Pennsylvania," she said.

Schultz and Mehnert are testifying Friday, Aug. 26 during a Pennsylvania senate committee hearing on the issue.
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/h...in-pa&Itemid=1



Discuss.

[SovXietday]

This isn't already a law? Coke in the newborns system? Guilty, bitch.

IMO of course.

[FocusDude]

I thought this was already a law? Pittsburgh maybe?

Stay out of my family. Bull**** law. Many productive members of society are illicit drug users, you'd take away half the parents kids in America. Do I feel you should be shooting up while pregnant, NO? Your kid, Your body. If were letting bitches pull half born kids out the womb, then who gives a F if Sally taking care of it her own way.

If the states flipping the bill, all funding is cut. And I guess, because we're so compassionate, we send her to rehab or whatever-

[jen.]

Originally Posted by FocusDude

Stay out of my family. Bull**** law. Many productive members of society are illicit drug users, you'd take away half the parents kids in America. Do I feel you should be shooting up while pregnant, NO? Your kid, Your body.

I disagree with this. The analogy you provided isn't quite fitting because those members of society who are illicit drug users aren't giving those drugs to their children. This nuance is what lawmakers are challenging. The article was about whether or not taking drugs while pregnant (and thus passing those drugs and/or addiction on to your child) can be legislated as an action within the confines of child abuse. The article was NOT about whether, as a parent, it is illegal to take drugs.

Also, I disagree with the arguments "stay out of my family" and "your kid, your body." Just because a child is "yours" or part of your family unit does not make it morally acceptable to do with your child (whether it be sexual, physical, mental abuse, etc.) whatever you want (I'm not saying that this is what you said, but your argument leads to this slippery slope). Laws that protect children exist because, tragically, there are parents out there who, instead of caring for their children, abuse them in a variety of ways.

[Slevin]

i swear to god if i was president i would make anyone trying to have a kid take an intelligence test.

[AWD GS]

Originally Posted by Slevin

i swear to god if i was president i would make anyone trying to have a kid take an intelligence test.

exactly! there needs to be a test prior to becoming a parent. if you cant take care of yourself, you have no business having a kid.

[DaBombDiggidy]

to the last 2 posts

to China

while i think there should be a law by moral standards, it just doesnt make sense. So the woman has been taking drugs while birthing a child... First, who would take that baby from her while shes locked up? (foster care is already overburdoned) Second, if she gets a fine penalty shell have less money to care for the child. Third, it's simply too late by the time the baby is born to repremand a parent for taking drugs while the child is in the womb.

so yes i would love to stop this from happening, but laws cant correct morals.

[jpalamar]

Maybe they should just drown the baby in front of the mom for being dumb. It wouldn't take too many 'examples' before people would start being responsible... then garnish their wages to pay for the medical care.

Problem solved.

[2slowvw]

so nice to hear non parents opinions. Being a father of 3 I'd have to agree that a drug using parent should be punished in some way. I'm not talking pot smokers. I'm talking pill, coke and glass heads. making it happen would be a complicated task. Hopeful;ly a family member who;'s a decent member of society would be able to take the kid away from the POS

[DaBombDiggidy]

Originally Posted by 2slowvw

so nice to hear non parents opinions. Being a father of 3 I'd have to agree that a drug using parent should be punished in some way. I'm not talking pot smokers. I'm talking pill, coke and glass heads. making it happen would be a complicated task. Hopeful;ly a family member who;'s a decent member of society would be able to take the kid away from the POS

really? because smoking pot while pregnant is cool. why would you disregard drugs in general, but not pot? why not booze? hell throw them in jail for eating shrimp! that messes with the fetus production as well.

Smoking marijuana during pregnancy may affect your baby's growth and the development of his nervous system. Studies have shown that children who were exposed to marijuana during pregnancy sometimes have problems focusing their attention and solving problems.

Children of heavy pot users may also have problems with short-term memory, concentration, and judgment.

[2slowvw]

Originally Posted by DaBombDiggidy

really? because smoking pot while pregnant is cool. why would you disregard drugs in general, but not pot? why not booze? hell throw them in jail for eating shrimp! that messes with the fetus production as well.

I'd say pot before alcohol and I'd also say pot before tobbacco. I'm a smoker (cigs) and drinker and so is my girl, but she stopped the 2 times she was prego. Coke Heroin, Oxys is a whole other stage4 in my view though. Some scumbags just shouldn't reproduce, ain't the kids fault, the parents are to blame. The mother for putting it intoi the baby and the father for allowing it to happen.

[DaBombDiggidy]

amen. im just speaking "law wise" the problem with instituting a law such as this is that there are so many factors against it or factors that would broaden it beyond control. its like every day coming home from philly i see people on the train hitting their kids and ****, its crazy because they literally have a stroller and a kid. you go anywhere else you see a parent, a kid, and a utility bag that batman is jealous of.

[SovXietday]

Originally Posted by DaBombDiggidy

while i think there should be a law by moral standards, it just doesnt make sense. So the woman has been taking drugs while birthing a child... First, who would take that baby from her while shes locked up? (foster care is already overburdoned) Second, if she gets a fine penalty shell have less money to care for the child. Third, it's simply too late by the time the baby is born to repremand a parent for taking drugs while the child is in the womb.

so yes i would love to stop this from happening, but laws cant correct morals.

If the mother is taking coke while she's pregnant, what makes you think she's going to be taking care of the child when it's born?

[jen.]

Originally Posted by DaBombDiggidy

to the last 2 posts

to China

while i think there should be a law by moral standards, it just doesnt make sense. So the woman has been taking drugs while birthing a child... First, who would take that baby from her while shes locked up? (foster care is already overburdoned) Second, if she gets a fine penalty shell have less money to care for the child. Third, it's simply too late by the time the baby is born to repremand a parent for taking drugs while the child is in the womb.

so yes i would love to stop this from happening, but laws cant correct morals.

I'm not sure what about it doesn't make sense. First of all, there are MANY families looking yo adopt children who are unable to be cared for by their biological parent(s). So many, in fact, that there are waiting lists. Moreover, just because the alternative of foster care isn't enticing, does not mean that it is a better or more morally sound option for a child to remain under the care of a parent who is unable to care for a child or whose actions have abused/caused injury to that child. Second, I feel that if you are being slammed with child abuse charges, the least of your worries is being fined. Additionally, you seem to be arguing this point by masking it in rhetoric about what's good for the child (having parents who are financially able to care for the child) but it is important to acknowledge that by having already done harm to the child, there must be some sort of repercussions for those actions. It seems counter intuitive to disregard a serious offense in order ro provide financial help to a person who has already proven incapable of taking care of herself, let alone another human being.

Also, I'm confused as to why you're saying its too late to take legal action against the mother. If a child is born addicted to or with drugs in their body, and a law is enacted that considers that abuse, then how is it too late? A parent has caused unnecessary and needless harm to their own child. Are you speaking temporally, as in it would exceed a statute of limitations? Or are you saying "too late" as in "the damage has already been done"? Either way, I'm sure the law would stipulate exactly what time period is appropriate for a statute of limitations. Or if you meant the latter, then it would not make sense logically. People commit crimes all the time where "the damage has been done" and are still charged with the fullest extent of the law.

Just my two cents.

[jpalamar]

It is crazy how much $ it costs to adpot children and the hoops they make you jump though are crazy.

My aunt was hit by a drunk driver. She can't walk up/down steps so they sold their house and bought a rancher, all that good stuff. My uncle is a pharmacist making $300k+ a year. They had to fight tooth and nail to pass inspections, easily spent $25k in legal fees, ect...

I know they want the kids to go to a safe and good home, but the process doesn't work... yet a crackhead parent can have a kid with no consequence and get money from the state. Figure that.

[DaBombDiggidy]

I don't think many people will be getting in line to adopt drug addicted children imo. And too late for many reasons. But Jen if that's 2 pennies I owe u some change lol.

i dont want to add to this thread so my response to V is... the china reference was a gaf at population control thats really all. nothing to write a book about.

[Slevin]

I'm like china because I want to better the race of humanity? Makes perfect sense to me. I swear where at a stage right now where the majority of our humanity is pure bull****, and if we don't start to better ourselves were done for. Now i know that were "ultimately" done for, like all other things, but there's a lot we can do to help ourselves out. What's the point of preserving the species if they are just going to be worse then the unintelligent and moronic parents that birthed them. If the parent is doing drugs to the point where we need to make a law because the children's safety and mentality are at stake, then the kids are most likely going to be the same or worse. Now I know some will make it out and be ok, but the majority won't be. Do we want those type of kids to run this country and other counties when were gone? Doubt it

As to jen, if a person has an addiction, whether it be alcohol, pills, weed, or even internet or sex, the child has a 40-60% genetic disposition to have some sort of addiction. For example, take a mother addicted to coke. If she willed herself to not do coke throughout the term or pregnancy, but still have the urge to use after pregnancy, the child will still have a pretty good change to be addicted to something.

If we really want to help the children, we need to do something about addiction in general. Then again, that's a whole different story.

[FocusDude]

Apparently nobody like my analogy of giving birth to crackhead and straight aborting the kid?

If your gonna let someone destroy whats coming out of their body, then you gonna let them destroy it, whatever way they choose.

Originally Posted by 2slowvw

so nice to hear non parents opinions. Being a father of 3 I'd have to agree that a drug using parent should be punished in some way. I'm not talking pot smokers. I'm talking pill, coke and glass heads. making it happen would be a complicated task. Hopeful;ly a family member who;'s a decent member of society would be able to take the kid away from the POS

My opinion came from a parent of three, 2,3,4- So at least you all know where I'm coming from. Who gave who the right to say someone is unfit? Like someone else said, lets give intelligence tests if we are truly that concerned.

The government right now has failed at everything, EVERYTHING. They have already failed thousands of families, hell millions. They should not be given the chance to ruin many more. They are the last hypocrites I want telling my family what they can and can not do.

[jen.]

Originally Posted by jpalamar

It is crazy how much $ it costs to adpot children and the hoops they make you jump though are crazy.

My aunt was hit by a drunk driver. She can't walk up/down steps so they sold their house and bought a rancher, all that good stuff. My uncle is a pharmacist making $300k+ a year. They had to fight tooth and nail to pass inspections, easily spent $25k in legal fees, ect...

I know they want the kids to go to a safe and good home, but the process doesn't work... yet a crackhead parent can have a kid with no consequence and get money from the state. Figure that.

Sorry to hear about your family's difficulty with adoption, jpalamar. I've heard it is a totally crazy process.

Originally Posted by DaBombDiggidy

I don't think many people will be getting in line to adopt drug addicted children imo. And too late for many reasons. But Jen if that's 2 pennies I owe u some change lol.

i dont want to add to this thread so my response to V is... the china reference was a gaf at population control thats really all. nothing to write a book about.

I'll have to do some research and see if I can find the statistical numbers on it, but there are MANY families willing to open their homes to children born addicted to drugs. There are entire forums dedicated to parents who have adopted children born addicted to drugs. I still don't understand what you mean, though by "too late".

Originally Posted by Slevin

As to jen, if a person has an addiction, whether it be alcohol, pills, weed, or even internet or sex, the child has a 40-60% genetic disposition to have some sort of addiction. For example, take a mother addicted to coke. If she willed herself to not do coke throughout the term or pregnancy, but still have the urge to use after pregnancy, the child will still have a pretty good change to be addicted to something.

If we really want to help the children, we need to do something about addiction in general. Then again, that's a whole different story.

Sure, I totally agree with everything you have to say here. I am very familiar with familial predisposition to addiction. However, there is a huge difference between being genetically predisposed to addiction and actually providing drugs to your child. Although it is statistically probable for a child with familial addiction to become an addict, it does not follow that it is morally acceptable to abuse drugs during pregnancy and thus bear a child addicted to drugs just because it is likely that child will eventually struggle with addiction anyway. I feel the real issue at stake here is that pregnant biological mothers are giving their children access to drugs and are single handedly responsible for their own child's addiction to drugs. This responsibility does not come from a genetic predisposition but from actually giving the child drugs via their own body. I don't think you can necessarily hold a parent morally culpable for having a child just because there is a statistical chance that the child could possibly become addicted to drugs. On the other hand, I think we can absolutely assign moral culpability to a mother who provides her child with drugs and therefore addicts the child to drugs.

But I agree that drug addiction in and of itself is a massive problem that needs attention, but like you already said, that's an entirely different story.

Originally Posted by FocusDude

Apparently nobody like my analogy of giving birth to crackhead and straight aborting the kid?

If your gonna let someone destroy whats coming out of their body, then you gonna let them destroy it, whatever way they choose.

I'm going to try not to really touch on your analogy, because honestly, it can get a little complex depending on every single person's view on here on what abortion entails (death or destruction of a human person, a human being, a fetus, a child, etc.) It is a difficult analogy to really make because you would first have to establish a common ground for what is being "destroyed" (to use your own word) in the process of abortion. It's not to say that I agree or disagree, but that the topic of abortion is one I don't see many people agreeing on anytime soon, so you're better off sticking to a more solid analogy that people can relate to better.

In the case of children addicted to drugs, I think the case can absolutely be made that bringing a human life into this world addicted to something deadly that can cause permanent damage to the child is absolutely wrong. Just because you can "destroy" the life of a child by providing them with drugs, does not mean that anyone ought to, or that it is morally acceptable on any grounds. It does not logically follow that just because you can destroy that life, that you should be able to do so without any sort of repercussions.

[SovXietday]

Originally Posted by FocusDude

Apparently nobody like my analogy of giving birth to crackhead and straight aborting the kid?

Right, because a predisposition of addiction to coke means that the child is destined for complete failure. An addiction can be beaten.

Originally Posted by FocusDude

If your gonna let someone destroy whats coming out of their body, then you gonna let them destroy it, whatever way they choose.

Whaaaat? Just because the child is coming out of their body, doesn't make it theirs to destroy. You don't get to own a child's life. Is it ok to ram a bunch of coke up someone's nose forcefully? No, same principle for the child. Both people should be persecuted, the end.

Originally Posted by FocusDude

My opinion came from a parent of three, 2,3,4- So at least you all know where I'm coming from. Who gave who the right to say someone is unfit? Like someone else said, lets give intelligence tests if we are truly that concerned.

Doing coke while you are pregnant pretty much screams unfit to me?

Originally Posted by FocusDude

The government right now has failed at everything, EVERYTHING. They have already failed thousands of families, hell millions. They should not be given the chance to ruin many more. They are the last hypocrites I want telling my family what they can and can not do.

You're right. We shouldn't have any laws, the guvnment just f's up families.