post the fortieth, 2013

there's a story in the news right now about a woman who gave birth to a child who had cocaine in his system. according to the woman, in 2007 a friend spilled cocaine on her two days before she gave birth. she also claims to have had marijuana in her system because she inhaled second-hand smoke from a cancer patient. the mother's argument is that laws against child abuse don't apply to fetuses (feti??) and that there's no abuse anyway since the child doesn't show any complications.

here's a kid who's milking the parent for all they're worth.
alternate caption: does "pull my finger" qualify as abuse?

but -- how can anyone say if the child is exhibiting complications or effects from having been exposed to drugs in the womb? sure, the baby could be of normal intelligence and pass his apgar with normal scores, BUT HOWEVER WHAT IF he were meant to be a genius with exceptional athletic ability? being normal or average does not indicate there was no harm done.

the new jersey supreme court heard the case. chief justice stuart rabner said in making the decision, the court had to weight the parent's right to "raise a child without undue interference by the state" against the state's "responsibility to protect the welfare of children". well, sure, that about sums it up, doesn't it now. i mean, those are the two sides of the case. interestingly, parents who favor corporal punishment would likely side with a crack mama in this case.

the real question: what would judge judy do?

the generic state is forever taking kids away from their parents for all sorts of poor parental choices. the difference in this case is they're taking into account that the baby (supposedly) wasn't harmed by the mother's choice. firstly, they don't really know if he was harmed or not harmed. secondly, looking at the consequences as a factor in culpability is looking at things backwards. exempli gratis: if we are going to look at the consequences as a factor in one's guilt, then if one were to rob a bank, but the bank had insurance and all the customer accounts were covered and no customers withdrew their money or thought less of the bank for its having been robbed... if all this were the case, then one could just be forgiven, right? there weren't any bad consequences, so there's no blame to place. right?