[Dracophoenix]

This is similar to a legal conundrum I once thought of: As a matter of rational jurisprudence, could a woman be prosecuted for drinking while pregnant? Or, at the very least, could either the state or the eventual child sue the mother for medical damages?

[mikkergp]

The research for pregnancy is also not great in general so it really leaves a wide scope of attack. For example, there are arguments that alcohol in moderation is not bad for the fetus. For alcohol to be bad you have to exceed the mothers ability to process it. One night of heavy drinking can cause severe harm, but one glass of wine a day may be able to be processed without issue(I am not a doctor, do not use this comment as a justification to drink while pregnant ;-)

[Dracophoenix]

I'm aware that medicine hasn't discovered a bright line between what's healthy and what would likely cause fetal alcohol syndrome or premature infant death. While any lawyer worth his salt would attack the lack of substantive medical literature, judges and legislators have now and in the past invented bright line tests that, while not wholly accurate, are "good enough" to account for a general decision (although I don't agree with that kind of reasoning myself).

In my example, I could have also used tobacco in place of alcohol, but the point I wished to address is whether the health of an imminent child trumps the rights of a mother or vice versa. If one accepts the affirmative position, then a woman does not have a right to her own body. If we accept the negative position, then the child will become a long-term burden on the medical system at the expense of others.