Okla. Woman Said to Give Birth While Drunk

[Irvine511]

Alcoholism is not a choice. It's in your blood, it's genetic, it's physiological.
Why don't you read the book "Under The Influence".
Do some studying to back up your illogical views on a disease, that yes, people are born with as a result of nothing the victim ever did.

Let me repeat: Alcoholism is a disease that people are born with. Some recover, some don't. This is not a choice.
Cancer is a disease that some people are born with are or vulnerable because of genetics. Some recover, some don't. This is not a choice.
There is no difference.

gosh, it's so hard to sit in self-righteous, feel-good condemnation when confronted with facts.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I don't doubt your father up and quit one day, but if that's the case I don't think he was an alcoholic. I know that sounds presumptuous

Believe me, after some of the things I've been accused of, that doesn't sound presumptious to me at all. But yes, my father was an alcoholic, and yes, he did quit. But my father was a man of unfailing faith. He asked God to take the cravings away, and God did. When my dad stopped drinking, he never had another drink or craving. It was nothing short of a miracle, especially since I know that most people have a very difficult time of it.

Do you believe in alcoholism as a disease, or a choice? It all comes down to that really, and I think you would find it much easier to feel compassion for the woman if you felt it was, in her current state, outside of her control.

I feel it is a disease brought about by choices people make (except in the cases of fetal alcohol syndrome), and as such, people can kick the habit. But first they must choose to so.
I do not believe that it was beyond her control. I believe it may have been extremely difficult, but I do not believe she had no control whatsoever. As I said, when she found out she was pregnant she should have done every thing in her power to get help.

However, I know that my anger at her actions does not have to let it turn into hatred of her as a person. And, because she is deceived by the great tempter named Alcohol, that can be a basis upon which I can start to try to feel compassion for her.

 

[dandy]

ah, the pure, innocent, helpless victim stereotype rears its ugly head once again.

 

[80sU2isBest]

ah, the pure, innocent, helpless victim stereotype rears its ugly head once again.

I don't understand.

 

[VertigoGal]

Believe me, after some of the things I've been accused of, that doesn't sound presumptious to me at all. But yes, my father was an alcoholic, and yes, he did quit. But my father was a man of unfailing faith. He asked God to take the cravings away, and God did. When my dad stopped drinking, he never had another drink or craving. It was nothing short of a miracle, especially since I know that most people have a very difficult time of it.

Did your dad seek any outside help immediately following his decision to quit? I'm still having trouble believing he suffered no physical withdrawal symptoms if he was chemically dependant. I won't doubt faith is a key factor in AA, but if you're trying to tell me that God took away his withdrawal symptoms too, I'm going to have to say I don't believe you.

Frankly, I don't think you believe alcoholism is truly a disease, or that you understand the fundamental aspects of it. It's NOT something that is within the control of the person, accepting lack of control is a key principle in the AA program. It's not something that is very difficult but within the power of the person. An alcoholic, someone who is chemically dependant on alcohol (and as financeguy said, this does not apply to everyone with a drinking problem) cannot quit on their own. Period.

 

[xtal]

Just wondering:

Am I the only alcoholic that has been through rehab in this thread?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Did your dad seek any outside help immediately following his decision to quit? I'm still having trouble believing he suffered no physical withdrawal symptoms if he was chemically dependant. I won't doubt faith is a key factor in AA, but if you're trying to tell me that God took away his withdrawal symptoms too, I'm going to have to say I don't believe you.

Frankly, I don't think you believe alcoholism is truly a disease, or that you understand the fundamental aspects of it. It's NOT something that is within the control of the person, accepting lack of control is a key principle in the AA program. It's not something that is very difficult but within the power of the person. An alcoholic, someone who is chemically dependant on alcohol (and as financeguy said, this does not apply to everyone with a drinking problem) cannot quit on their own. Period.

Then I truly don't understand. Does alcoholism mean that a person is addicted to alcohol, or is it more than that? My father was addicted to alcohol. But he did indeed give it up, through God's power.

I come from the belief that God can heal anyone. He doesn't always do so, but he can and I have seen it done. That's why it doesn't seem all that wild an idea to me that God could cure someone of alcoholism.

 

[financeguy]

Well I like to drink a fair amount of beer, but can give up for a month or so without any great difficulty so hopefully I am not an alcoholic.

 

[VertigoGal]

Just wondering:

Am I the only alcoholic that has been through rehab in this thread?

Congratulations

My mom went through rehab (that's where I'm getting most of my info), but that's obviously one hell of a lot different than going through it myself. If it's not too personal, I'd love to hear your story.

 

[xtal]

Does anyone know what PAWS is?

You may not know that is a serious underlying withdrawal symptom. Many think of alcoholics as going thru DT's (delirium tremens) is a severe case. But when you're young, like me, and you're trying to quit, you display and suffer some non-serious and often not noticeable withdrawal symptoms. Mostly psychological.
I pick a fight with my mother after weeks of not drinking, and it's when I unconsciously want to drink!
I cry, and argue, and I lose my temper. It's like PMS, but it doesn't go away until I get a drink.
PAWS. Psychological acute withdrawal symptoms.

 

[xtal]

I've been through rehab twice now.
My family has just about given up on me.
This is not easy, and it's certainly not a fucking choice.

 

[VertigoGal]

Does anyone know what PAWS is?

You may not know that is a serious underlying withdrawal symptom. Many think of alcoholics as going thru DT's (delirium tremens) is a severe case. But when you're young, like me, and you're trying to quit, you display and suffer some non-serious and often not noticeable withdrawal symptoms. Mostly psychological.
I pick a fight with my mother after weeks of not drinking, and it's when I unconsciously want to drink!
I cry, and argue, and I lose my temper. It's like PMS, but it doesn't go away until I get a drink.
PAWS. Psychological acute withdrawal symptoms.

yeah, exactly. most people think the alcoholic would be hardest to be around when they're drunk, but I found she was most terrifying when she couldn't get anything, a "dry drunk" you might say.

 

[Rono]

Then I truly don't understand. Does alcoholism mean that a person is addicted to alcohol, or is it more than that? My father was addicted to alcohol. But he did indeed give it up, through God's power.

I come from the belief that God can heal anyone. He doesn't always do so, but he can and I have seen it done. That's why it doesn't seem all that wild an idea to me that God could cure someone of alcoholism.

I don`t believe it was only god`s power but also a strong family connection.

maybe this woman has a awfull history, not everone is so lucky to have caring friends and family around to help.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I don`t believe it was only god`s power but also a strong family connection.

maybe this woman has a awfull history, not everone is so lucky to have caring friends and family around to help.

Good point.

I'm starting to take all these things into consideration.

 

[xtal]

I take it I'm the only alcoholic in here.
I have done a 28 day stay in a rehab where all they do is teach you what it is, who it affects, what causes it and so on. We are forced to read books on this sickness, books by doctors and scientists, some with proven facts, some defying other myths.
So Irvine, I don't quite understand your comment that it's so hard to sit in self-righteous, feel-good condemnation when confronted with facts.
I know the facts because I've done studies on alcoholism, I've read just about every single book on alcoholism out there- not by choice- it was a requirement by my rehab program.
I also am an alcoholic myself.
And I'm not trying to attack anyone that is not alcoholic, but some people don't have a fucken clue what people like me have to go through.
That is SO not being self-righteous!

 

[joyfulgirl]

Does anyone know what PAWS is?

I cry, and argue, and I lose my temper. It's like PMS, but it doesn't go away until I get a drink.
PAWS. Psychological acute withdrawal symptoms.

I wonder if that's part of why a friend is so mad at me right now. He hasn't had a drink in awhile.

I've been through rehab twice now.
My family has just about given up on me.

Someone (the above mentioned friend) who is like a brother to me is an alcoholic/addict and was in rehab earlier this year. I and his friends and family have been dealing with it for years. We've come close to losing him a few times. We love him so much and we will never ever give up on him.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Was it disclosed if this woman was an alcoholic, or just incredibly stupid?

 

[joyfulgirl]

Was it disclosed if this woman was an alcoholic, or just incredibly stupid?

Fair question. It seems that all of us are making a lot of assumptions--the people who lack an understanding of alcoholism assume she was just stupid, and those of us with experience with alcoholism either directly or indirectly are assuming she's an alcoholic. She could very well just be stupid and abusing alcohol which is very different than being dependent on it. But the fact that she drank enough throughout her pregnancy to cause fetal alcohol syndrome leads me to think she has a serious problem with alcohol. Either way, it is tragic.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Then I truly don't understand. Does alcoholism mean that a person is addicted to alcohol, or is it more than that? My father was addicted to alcohol. But he did indeed give it up, through God's power.

Many people drink heavily to the point that it interferes with their lives without actually being chemically dependent on alcohol. This is alcohol abuse, not addiction, and those who abuse alcohol can often quit rather easily. It seems to me that George Bush falls into this category. Alcohol abuse can look like alcoholism but the difference is that it is more of a psychological addiction than an actual physical chemical addiction. Those with a physical chemical addiction to alcohol are never actually cured even if they stop drinking through treatment, and generally are unable to stop without outside treatment. That said, I also believe God can cure anyone but I believe even that is done using the tools available in the world--i.e., treatment.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I take it I'm the only alcoholic in here.
I have done a 28 day stay in a rehab where all they do is teach you what it is, who it affects, what causes it and so on. We are forced to read books on this sickness, books by doctors and scientists, some with proven facts, some defying other myths.
So Irvine, I don't quite understand your comment that it's so hard to sit in self-righteous, feel-good condemnation when confronted with facts.
I know the facts because I've done studies on alcoholism, I've read just about every single book on alcoholism out there- not by choice- it was a requirement by my rehab program.
I also am an alcoholic myself.
And I'm not trying to attack anyone that is not alcoholic, but some people don't have a fucken clue what people like me have to go through.
That is SO not being self-righteous!

I don't think that was directed at you.

 

[Sue DeNym]

When I was pregnant, I felt guilty when I had a Pepsi!

Another link to the story:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0715051tanner1.html

 

[joyfulgirl]

Another link to the story:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0715051tanner1.html

Ok, after seeing the picture and reading the story I think I can answer Angela's question now.

Was it disclosed if this woman was an alcoholic, or just incredibly stupid?

Both.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Thank you guys.

 

[U2MaNaIcWeIdO]

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

back into the chilly waters...

nb, i think brought up some interesting points that were immediately dismissed out of hand instead of actually taking the time to address the issues. it's easier to right off the intentions of the argument, then to address the argument itself, especially when the argument in question might cause you to reexamine your own positions.

now, in the first few posts, someone commented that she was irresponsible because she harmed a life that was growing inside her. no one has refuted this claim. most of the judgements passed on this woman are based on this claim. she deserved to be punnished because she harmed another life. however, in other threads (and as a seemingly generally accepted fact) however, their is no "other life" inside her body. the fetus is simply another part of the woman's body until after it is born, and ceases to be connected to the mother.

i skimmed through a lot of the middle pages, but to my knowledge, no one has made the claim that the simple act of consuming alcolhol is wrong, granted you are of age, and provided that you obey the law while drinking. correct me if i'm wrong, but i think it is fair to say that people are free to make the choice to consume alcolhol, even to their own detriment, because they have a right to make the choices which affect their own body.

now i know, that this still might be a huge jump in logic, with no logical connection between the two (though it seems that this accusation would be made no matter how air-tight the logic might have been [and i certainly don't claim mine to be air-tight]), but, if this fetus is simply an extension of the mother's body, with no life of its own, no rights of its own, and the mother has the right of choice regarding her body (including the legal consumption of alcolhol), then how can a judgement be passed on this woman?one could take pity on her, just as one takes pity on someone who drinks until their liver goes. but one cannot say that she acted outside of the accepted standards of responsiblity.

however, if we are to pass judgement on her, as most seem ready to do, it starts with the claim that the fetus growing inside of this woman had an intrinsic right to life itself, and also a certain quality of life (i.e. not suffering from handicaps stemming from the mother's drinking). if this is the claim to be made, it would seem only natural that the same standards would be applicable in other situations as well.

 

[pax]

Allow me to take a stab at this one.

Most people I know who are, at least politically speaking, pro-choice, are in favor of abortion within a limited window of time and circumstances. I don't know anyone who is actually okay with late-term or partial-birth abortion, unless absolutely medically necessary to save the life of the mother, but I and many others agree that abortion should be a legal option for a woman with a pregnancy she cannot handle, provided that option is explored during the early stages of development in which (as far as we can tell) the fetus has no central nervous system, limited or lack of capacity to feel pain, limited or no consciousness, etc.

Okay. So based on that, you could say that if this woman became pregnant and knew she (shall we say) enjoyed a drink from time to time, she had two choices: have a very early-term abortion, or quit drinking while pregnant. She did neither. Assuming that she knew of the risks of drinking heavily while pregnant but consciously chose to both carry the pregnancy to term and continue drinking, she can indeed be held responsible for her actions regardless of whether one approves of abortion or not, or whether one's government allows for legal early-term abortion or not.

I cannot stress this enough: Most pro-choice individuals do NOT believe that you can do "whatever you like" with your body, including a pregnant body. Rather, we believe that during the space of time in which a fetus is not viable to live outside the body and has minimal or no nervous system, abortion should be a legal option for women. Once the woman consciously and freely chooses to carry the pregnancy to term, and the fetus subsequently reaches viability, she can be held responsible for what happens to the fetus.

It's realistically and philosophically impossible to argue that a blastocyst is equivalent to a newborn.

 

[pax]

More on my last sentence:

Margaret Farley, a (gasp) Catholic ethicist who (gasp) serves on President Bush's bioethical advisory council, has even conceded that final point. Why? Because a shocking number of fertilized eggs never make it to implantation, and are passed in a woman's menses without her ever having the slightest inkling that she could have been pregnant. Farley's stance is that if these fertilized eggs were actually living beings, God would not choose to have up to 75 percent of them flushed out during menses.

 

[some girl]

a friend quoted by cops said that after the baby was born, she asked Tanner what the girl was going to be named. Tanner, the friend told deputies, replied, "Maybe Milwaukee's Best."

That woman should rot in jail.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

okay, even if i don't completely agree, i can still understand where you're coming from. also, i apparently am far less informed about the stances of pro-choicers than i imagined myself to be.

so, the issues are less black and white, and instead many shades of grey it appears.

which leads to a couple of questions that i have now

1. when does the fetus reach the age of viability medically speaking?

2. is the mother still responsible for welfare of the fetus before that point?

3. should the fetus who has not yet reached the age of viability have implicit rights due to the fact that if left to develop naturally and normally (though as you stated, the fetus can also cease to exist through natural causes) it will reach the age of viability?

4. would this woman have been at fault if she had consumed alcolhol and harmed the infant before it had reached the age of viability (but had not consumed any after the infant had reached that point)?

 

[pax]

so, the issues are less black and white, and instead many shades of grey it appears.

Such issues are rarely black and white.

1. when does the fetus reach the age of viability medically speaking?

I'm hoping anitram or someone better biologically informed than myself chimes in on this one, because I'm honestly not certain. Viability means that the fetus can survive outside the womb. Advanced medical intervention has kept preemies alive at ever-younger ages, five months being the youngest, I believe (like, born after five months in the womb).

2. is the mother still responsible for welfare of the fetus before that point?

That's a tricky question. Even today, couples often choose to wait until a pregnancy is a few months along to announce it to the world, because spontaneous idiopathic miscarriages are more likely in the first and early second trimesters. I would say that if she has chosen to carry on with the pregnancy, she should act as responsibly as possible, but a lot can go wrong in the early months of pregnancy, even with very conscientious mothers.

3. should the fetus who has not yet reached the age of viability have implicit rights due to the fact that if left to develop naturally and normally (though as you stated, the fetus can also cease to exist through natural causes) it will reach the age of viability?

Excellent question. It seems, on one hand, hard to say no. On the other, how can you confer rights to someone/something that has no nervous system, no ability to feel pain, etc.? At a very early point, your cat or dog has more of a nervous system than a developing fetus.

I suspect, then, that a developing fetus would, theoretically, have the right to be treated humanely and allowed to develop as normally as possible once it reaches a point at which it has substantial nervous development and ability to feel pain. Even then, though, there are no guarantees. As I mentioned, even pregnancies conscientiously cared for can go radically wrong for almost no reason.

4. would this woman have been at fault if she had consumed alcolhol and harmed the infant before it had reached the age of viability (but had not consumed any after the infant had reached that point)?

I think the woman would be at fault if she consumed substantial amounts of alcohol while knowing she was pregnant and knowing she would not have an abortion. There is some evidence that small amounts of alcohol early in a pregnancy are harmless (for example, if a woman who likes a glass of wine with dinner continues to drink before she discovers that she's pregnant). It's heavy drinking, perpetuated throughout all stages of fetal development, that will substantially damage the fetus.

I should add here, hoping that I've answered your questions, that with the guaranteed legal right to abortion does, to me, also carry some responsibilities. Meaning if you skip even one period and you're sexually active, take a pregnancy test--they're ten bucks at the drugstore. If you can't afford one, many, many agencies will perform pregnancy tests for free or on a sliding scale. Talk with your partner about what you would do if you faced an unplanned pregnancy BEFORE you become sexually active. Practice consistent and reliable birth control with a backup method each and every time you have sex. These steps, taken consistently by all women and their partners, would drastically reduce the number of abortions. As would comprehensive, honest, neutral sex education in public schools.