Should pregnant women be allowed total control over their bodies? Where do the unborn child's rights come into it?

Well, I had amniocenteses during both pregnancies with the full intention to abort if it turned out the fetus had any of the genetic problems it could detect, not only Down's Syndrome.

I don't see a problem with this, because (need I say this?) a fetus is not a baby. It will develop into a baby if pregnancy continues. It won't if it doesn't.

Strangely, I live in a Catholic country where abortion is illegal but blood tests are routinely offered and hospital had no problem performing the amnios. If results came back positive, I suppose they would have sent me to Nice for the abortion, about a 20 min drive away.

When I was pg for the 1st time a few years ago my GP ENCOURAGED me to have an occasional glass of wine to reduce stress.

IMO stress harms babies more than alcohol.

Most women who dont 'look after themselves' when pg do so out of ignorance and not because they are TRYING to harm their babies . Education is what is needed not punishment.

"only reason people take the test is so they can get an abortion if it has it"

Like foxytocin and blackcurrants I don't think so, I always took it because I think it is important to know. Then you can plan for the day when your baby arrives with the help and information you may need.

I must say you're view though is not bizarre. It's something I've heard said many times. Even family members. I have had family members not take any tests at all or have any scans throughout their entire pregnancy as they are convinced the only reason you are given them is in order to convince you to have an abortion if the test comes back unexpected.

Ryoko: I'm a bit amazed you'd think people only get the DS test because they'd abort a child with DS.

Medical care is very, very expensive where we live. People go bankrupt because of medical bills all the time.

We took the test because if we were likely to have a child with Down's Syndrome we'd have a 6 month headstart on moving our child back to the UK, so we could use the NHS, where my cousin with a disabled child loves the care she gets. I've no beef with anyone who decides to abort for any reason, but really, your assumption is a bit much.

Ryoko, I took the DS test to find out so that if I was carrying a baby with DS, I could inform myself about the disorder and make plans for our family accordingly.

how small minded of you to express that there is only one reason to take the test.

(We have a ludicrous abortion law in the UK which is a typical british fudge but it seems to work okay for most people - in effect it's abortion on demand up to I think 28 weeks although two doctors are supposed to say you'll be mentallly if you dont' abort but in practice it means on demand but doesn't so which is the first ridiculous part; the second silly bit for many is if the child is disabled suddenly it's right to life changes from 28 weeks to up to 40 week and I suppose 41 weeks if you're still pregnant then which presumably is our society's utilitarian view of children with disabilities).

Speaking of abortion I don't like the down syndrome test, they gave me funny looks when I refused the test.

only reason people take the test is so they can get an abortion if it has it, but why would you want to?.

theres nothing awful about downs syndrome, alot of them hold down jobs perfectly fine, I live near a centre for them and often see them out on trips.

"And English law anyway allows an abortion at 39 weeks for disabilities so it's hardly as if we respect unborn children (unless they're perfect of course)"

omg is that really true? I think I'm a bit mortified at that. I'm not particularly anti-abortionist (I don't think they're nice and wouldn't want to go through one myself) but my dd was born at 38 weeks and she was massive. I can only imagine something severe would have to be wrong for a mother to feel the need to do that.

Back to the topic, I haven't read every single post but I do agree with the seeming majority that it's your body you shouldn't be told what to do. I would just hope the mother to be did what was best for baby as well. I did stop drinking at the point I found out I was pregnant with ds but it was more an overall lifestyle change, up until then I'd been clubbing and living a rather hectic lifestyle.

This argument always brings to mind however those occasions where there is a problem with pregnancy and it's a case of the baby's life or the mother's. I hope never ever to be in this position but when discussing it with a few friends a while ago we came to the conclusion that the mother would always say "save the baby" wheras most fathers would say "save my wife/partner". Not sure how statistically true this is however. But it was always at the back of my mind when I was pregnant (too much tv tbh )

And English law anyway allows an abortion at 39 weeks for disabilities so it's hardly as if we respect unborn children (unless they're perfect of course)

IMO it's my body and until it comes out it has about as much right to anything as a man's sperm.

Plus I am pro abortion as well I notice most anti-abortionists are men who no doubt have killed thousands of there sperm down the years and don't think twice about shouting "murder" at women going into abortion clinics when they have no idea what the reason is behind the decision.

Risk is a personal choice, I'm 39 weeks gone and have been avoiding all risk factors but then I avoid the latest cancer causing food and went vegan during BSE, because thats the way I am.

I wouldn't tell anyone else what to do with there own body or be critical of them, god knows they get enough info about risks of this that and the other, if a mother wants to drink excessively (I'm sure one or two does no harm) or smoke it's there choice and the last thing they need is anyone moaning I told you so if something bad happens be it due to what they where doing or not, they will still be beating themselves up over it.

I had a very similar discussion to this with some guys at work. They were banging on about the rights of the (unborn) baby starting at the point where it could survive without the mother. It was perhaps a little unreasonable of me to argue the point that as my 18 month old was still pretty much incapable of surviving without me ensuring he did so and therefore presumably still had no rights but I was pissed off. I do stand by my final point that it will be a cold day in hell before I conceed that any woman should at any point be forced to moderate her behaviour because of the impact it might have on her own body, even if she is pregnant (or breastfeeding).

On the subject of fathers' rights, presmably this is for individual negoiation between partners and based on a compromise. My DH and I struck a bargin that he would drastically cut his alcohol intake, stop his occasional social smoking, pay attention to his diet, take apropriate vits and exercise sensibly (rather than his usual "like a nutter" style) etc for 6 months before we started trying until I was pregnant for the sperm quality issues discussed (he is older and this does become a risk factor for problems) and I would then do all those things whilst pregnant. If he had not been willing to strike this deal I would certainly have told him where to stick any views on my behaiour whilst pregnant...

Pretty much feel same as many others

Nobody should rell em what to do with my body but one would hope a pregnant woman would make the decisions that offer the ebst chances

Not black and white- a glass of wine here and there and a bit of decorating ain't gonna kill anyone

But you can't enforce anything. neitehr should you eb able to.

Women should be able to take their decisions. I cycled home in labour frmo the tube station when 40 weeks pregnant. I was happy to do that - only mild contractions and exercise is good for you. I climbed a high volcano against the suppposed safety advice. I let my twins wait until they naturally felt they wanted to be born at 40 weeks when NHS over cautious care routinely induces them at 38 weeks. I am always happy to take my own risks,. I have similarly subjected my children to more risks than most parents might in terms of giong out alone, riding, skiing and the like. I am glad I live in an England where I am not a communist automatom and can be part of a broad spectrum of different ways of being without state interference.

Yet most of us within the risk range we choose to adopt do tend to care for our unborn and born children.

However the important point is to be ever vigilant if we see any chipping away of parents' rights in these areas.

The law does limit us to some extent. We can have a lawful abortion in the UK up to 40 weeks and beyond for disabilities and up to whatever the other limit is virtually by choice. So if I had a non disabled baby and I tried to abort it myself in the UK at say 38 weeks then I would commit an offence I think and that's probably right, whereas if I just did something very risky but without the intention to kill it in utero at 38 weeks I might be okay.

The state has no business telling us how to act (unless illegal of course) when we're not pregnant too though, but still has a "duty of care" through workplace rights, H&S, the NHS. Plenty of people engage in risky behaviour but still turn to NHS care for example - why should that be different for pregnant women?

is it that the duty of care is towards the mother?

cut myself off there, meant to continue by asking about how we can tie this in with the strong belief we all (myself included) have that state has no business telling me how i should act while pregnant.

It is interesting though as many of us (perhaps not Xenia ) feel that the state should have a duty of care towards the unborn child (protection in the workplace, ante-natal care etc).

Okay, I have to go and lie down in shock, I agree with Xenia here...the US is a religious fundemental society in many areas. They have religious groups who have more in common iwth the Saudis than Western Europe in terms of women's rights.

A Starbucks worker in New York refused to serve me my daily coffee at 8 months pregnant, insisting I'd have to have decaff instead.

I took my business elsewhere.

The US is a backward nation now. Pity we lost the war of independence. It was better when we ran it. It is one of the world leaders in capital punishment. It incarcerates people in G Bay without trial and Mr supposed God like Obama very recently sanctioned its policy to shoot to kill without trial people abroad. It is the land of not so very free these days, stuffed with fundmentalists who may indeed be worse than the supposed muslim thread. It has huge numbers who believe in creationism and backward views on abortion. they all like to strut around with guns too. I am glad the Special Relationship is shot to pieces. I certainly wouldnt' hold up the US as any kind of example. It i s clearly on these maters taking its lead from the Afghan whose new law I think said that women who are muslim are owned in effect.

We've had enough of the nanny state in the UK too which is why we need a change and to vote in a libertarian party like the Conservatives next month.

I don't think there is much point endlessly talking to women as though they may get preganant at some point while men act as though they will always have someone else to look after babies and it's nothing ot do with them.

Being preganant and teetotal is pretty pointless if your husband is beating 10 times of crap out of you.

It is also a human rights issue, they are saying that the state of pregnancy somehow makes you less than human and your body can be state controlled for the period of the pregnancy.