2007-10-26 23:18:48 · 18 answers · asked by andianaplus3 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
prob not unless there damaged
2007-10-26 23:20:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Difficult to decide. Those who smoke or consume alcohol while pregnant do a lot of damage to the unborn baby (so much so that a case could be made for forced abortions) and that damage is damage that could be avoided rather easily.
OTOH by the time they could sue decades will have passed at which point it might not even be all that relevant. A better idea would be to get those who smoke or drink too much alcohol to not get pregnant in the first place.
2007-10-26 23:35:33 · answer #2 · answered by bestonnet_00 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting question. It should certainly be condemned, but I don't think lawsuit is the answer. Suing only leads to monetary compensation, which won't repair the irreversible brain damage. It will also not be a good deterrent because from the time the 'crime' is committed to the time when the child can potentially sue is years. That is much too long for the deterrent to be effective.
2007-10-26 23:25:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
charge is an idiot. being deaf or short is out of your control. smoking is not. it is widely known that smoking is likely to cause birth defects. while the moms at it why doesnt she just down a 2'6. i think they should be able to sue. i also think it should be illegal to smoke in a house or a car with a child in it. they are defensless against this child abuse and something should be done. enough about the parents rights, what about the childs rights
2007-10-26 23:26:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, unless some thing happened to them where they can prove that was a direct result from the mother smoking. My guess would be that it would be very difficult thing to prove.
2007-10-27 00:40:45 · answer #5 · answered by Cindy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Eerr...I don't really think so. Because smoking is not banned and I don't think it would ever be banned because the government just can't give up taxes. And even if they did, the child would always lose because, even graffiti scandals and gangsters ruining shops can get away from jail. Why can't the mum?
2007-10-26 23:29:29 · answer #6 · answered by straight lines 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They already are able to sue them, you can sue anybody for anything, just find an attorney willing to go along.
Is it a good idea to encourage such a thing, no.....and why?,,,what possible good can come of it?
2007-10-26 23:40:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sue her for what? Money? Put her in jail? What are you after? I don't know how old you are, but there was a time that the public did not know smoking caused harm.
2007-10-26 23:25:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
don't be radiculous, so also if mum pass any other illness to kids they should be able to sue her. Or maybe even if the kid is ugly the mum should be pay for it right? I hope the law will not get that far
2007-10-26 23:24:49 · answer #9 · answered by Lost In Space 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
YES, I smoked prior to considering pregnancy, but quit once we made the decision to try for kids. Once I wanted to have kids (2 adult sons now) I quit smoking, drinking and ate properly and excercised so that I could give them the best start in life.
2007-10-26 23:23:42 · answer #10 · answered by jojammum48 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Definitely not-
what about other examples - like deaf people having deaf kids, or midgets having midgets do you think they should sue?
Not being discriminative but those above are just examples
2007-10-26 23:23:12 · answer #11 · answered by charge 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋