Wrong Target in Thorp vs. Beam?

I have just finished reading "Alcohol on Trial" (by Joni Blackman, May 4). A more appropriate title would have been "Alcoholic on Trial." I have never in my life felt such anger toward a person I've never met. The Thorps claim that they never heard that alcohol could harm an unborn child. Candy Thorp has already had two children. How did she think those unborn infants got their food supply? Did she ever go to a doctor? A competent obstetrician will always tell an expectant woman what she should and should not eat or drink.

If she herself got stinking drunk on a half of a fifth of liquor, wouldn't common sense tell her what that much liquor would do to an unborn baby? Or her husband--66 years old and not once in all those years had he heard that alcohol consumption by a pregnant woman can hurt an unborn child? I find it impossible to believe that these two people were ignorant of that fact.

It is obvious that they are suing the James B. Beam Distillery because they do not want to own responsibility for what they did to their own son.

A person is responsible for her own behavior, drunk or not. She should be the one on trial and I pray that the courts have the good sense to take that poor little boy away from them for good. They have done enough damage to him.

JoANN JACKSON, Culver City

Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World