The key word in that sentence is CAN. It's not always going to happen. My lab partner in one of my class had 2 children ( she was a middle aged woman) and she had smoked all through her pregnancy. Her kids are maturing at a normal rate and they are physically and mentally healthy.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condoning the use of drugs and alcohol during pregnancy. The mother is running a huge risk by doing that. If you're going to carry the fetus start taking some respnsibility.

But by the same token, this child might very well be a happy, healthy (both mentally and physically) baby.

what?

the article measured the baby's BAC, johnny pro-life, not the mother's - and, if you want 'baby's rights' then you'll have to apply the law to the babies as well, so the legal limit is still .10 (or .08 if you live in a quaker state like illinios or cali).

here's where the hypocrisy kicks in: if the mother died during delivery, under the logic we're seing, shouldn't the baby be convicted of manslaughter?

Valkyrie is completely correct, in my mind, in the way she's broken the situation down. Are you going to start putting mothers in jail for not getting enough folic acid? it's a simple extension of the principle being stated already, and the consequences are nearly as bad.

I agree with Valkyrie here.

Also, ksigRC made a great point. We don't know what the mothers blood alcohol level was. In fact its curious that isn't mentioned.

I don't know enough about the science behind how alcohol might cross over the placenta into the child to speculate on how much she had to drink.

For all we know, 2 glasses of wine may do that to a fetus.

Why was the baby even tested? Is that standard for a new born?

My suspicion is that the mother was showing obvious signs of intoxication and the baby had some observable problems after birth.

While I'm not a doctor, I would expect that a blood test would be standard operating procedure on a newborn that showed signs of distress, and with the mother visibly drunk, the doctors would want to see what the baby's alcohol level was, so they would know if the alcohol was the reason for its problems or if there was something else wrong.

Actually, no. There are two types of manslaughter under the law, neither of which apply here:

1. Voluntary manslaughter. The defendant had the intent to kill, but due to circumstances surrounding the crime, the higher offense of murder is not appropriate. Usually this means that the defendant acted in the "heat of passion," i.e., husband walked in on his wife getting it on with another guy and freaks out and shoots them both.

Here, there's no way we can conceive of a newborn having the intent to kill the mother. Regardless, usually young children are not viewed as capable of forming criminal intent anyway. (Example: a 2 year old picks up a gun that someone carelessly left within reach and somehow fires it, killing his older brother. The 2 year old is not going to be sent to jail for murder.)

2. Involuntary manslaughter. The defendant acted in a way that was "reckless," resulting in the accidental death of another person. Generally this means that there was a very substantial risk of serious bodily harm or death, and the defendant was aware of this risk but still committed the act.

Under some jurisdictions, there is also a lesser crime of "negligent homicide," where the risk was there and the defendant "should have been" aware of it.

Regarding the baby, there's no way that its conduct can be viewed as either reckless or negligent. All the baby did was get born. (It seems to me that the baby doesn't really do much - isn't the work all done by the mother?)

Here's an example: Bob is driving his car down the road, obeying all laws and safety rules, and in the bike lane to Bob's right, Joe is riding a bicycle, also obeying all the rules. Joe hits a rock or hole that he didn't notice, and the impact knocks him suddenly off his bike and into the road. Bob has no time to react and hits Joe, killing him. While Bob caused Joe's death, he clearly didn't have the intent to do so, nor was he acting negligently or recklessly.

From my understanding the deal with folic acid is that it helps prevent birth defects that while serious, would not occur in the majority of births. It's also a matter of degree, where ideally pregnant women would eat all their veggies and take vitamins to hit the target level, but pretty much everyone gets at least some folic acid in the average diet. Also, I was under the impression that the most important time for folic acid is actually right before you get pregnant - not when you're pregnant.

But here's the real issue: No, we are NOT going to put mothers in jail for not getting enough folic acid. As you put it, that's an "extension" of the principle. One of the points of criminal laws is to draw a line - what conduct does our society want to prohibit, and what will we allow, or in other words, how far do we want to "extend" the reach of the law?

I would think that most people could see a difference between not always following a perfect diet and a pregnant woman drinking alcohol, especially so late in pregnancy (i.e., in the 8th or 9th month, when the child could be born at any time and be healthy), and especially so severely as this article suggested.

And you've exceeded, by far, the literal level I was seeking - but the legalese is interesting, as you're obviously far more familiar with it.

However, here you've exactly hit my point - I was utilizing hyperbole to intimate that the reach of law has a sneaky way of continually extending itself, and that this case may be one where the extension is unjustified.

Here, the reason is that there's no real way to determine when the fetus becomes deserving of the rights, priviledges, and responsibilities afforded to everyone under our legal system - and, I happen to agree with Valkyrie when she says that she would be more comfortable keeping that legislative reach outside of a woman's body.

actually mr. obnoxious, i am the most pro-choice person you could ever meet. so how about you leave out the sarcastic remarks and i'll do the same. thanks.

i completely don't get you're statement on the baby being convicted of manslaughter. that is just ridiculous.

we're not talking about folic acid. i don't know where you come up with these examples. if you are 9 months pregnant you should not be drinking alcohol or smoking. at all. you'd have to be a pretty selfish person to chance harming your baby because you had to have the gratification of alcohol or nicotine. wait until the baby is born and then do what you want.

have you ever known a pregnant lady or held an infant? how could anyone in their right mind want to harm a child because they are selfish? if you choose to have a baby, there are certain things you should not do. it's as simple as that. if you choose to do them then you have serious problems.