Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

113 replies

Bumperliouzzzzzz · 21/04/2010 20:03

Just wondering. I've never read anything theoretical on the matter and am not completely sure where I stand. However I was talking to a colleague today (am 18 weeks pg) and was mentioning wine (I've actually only had 2 glasses so far this pg) and she said 'Oh I thought you weren't allowed to drink when pg?' and I started on a rant (well actually we had a discussion) about woman's rights during pregnancy. I was saying that it is my body and I can do what I like with it, though obviously I don't.

What say should/does a father have in the matter? If I do drink when pg DH gets a bit twitchy, and he won't let me dig in our allotment. Now I am happy to have the excuse not to really but I resent being told what to do. I take heed of my DH because I care about him and believe that he should have some say and he is just worried, but I don't want to be nagged about what I should/shouldn't be doing.

Should the unborn child's rights come first or is it a case of my body, my choice? I think I am mostly resentful of the fact that it is a bunch of men (usually) politicians, DP's who tell us what to do when they have no idea of the effects of being pregnant.

What are your thoughts?

OP posts:
CoteDAzur · 21/04/2010 21:59

Can you specify what exactly you "disagree" with?

... That unborn people don't have rights?
... That born people do have rights?
... That pregnant women are (born) people?
... That one of these rights is that pregnant women can do whatever the hell they want as long as it is legal for everyone else?

These are facts and as such, I'd certainly hope you don't feel you are at a liberty to "disagree" with them, but please do explain

dittany · 21/04/2010 21:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Bumperliouzzzzzz · 21/04/2010 21:55

Ah, 'pre-pregnant', that was it, I knew I had read about it somewhere years ago, that was probably the article.

OP posts:
Original poster
Bumperliouzzzzzz · 21/04/2010 21:50

Well, I disagree. I think there are some reasonable arguments to be had on the other side - I don't necessarily agree with them but I think some of them aren't unreasonable. I don't think the argument is cut and dried at all.

And if this is a question that many people think is valid (and clearly they do) why shouldn't it be posed as a question up for debate in this section?

I don't want to not post in this section for fear of not saying the right thing in the right way and having my feminist credentials questioned, but sometimes I do wish I hadn't bothered. Can't this be a place where we think through and try and articulate arguments, especially for those of us who are new to the theoretical side of feminism? Or do we have to be radical feminists before we even post?

OP posts:
threelittlepebbles · 21/04/2010 21:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

CoteDAzur · 21/04/2010 21:28

Of course I am "berating" you for talking about "allowing pregnant women total control over their bodies". In the feminism section, of all places

"Unborn" people have no rights. Born people, like pregnant women, do have rights. One of these rights is to do whatever the hell they want as long as it is legal - like drink, smoke, run marathons, or jump off a plane with a parachute.

I fail to see how thread title poses a "reasonable question".

msrisotto · 21/04/2010 21:26

Re: Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

"The babies born to
women who regularly binge drink (drink five or more drinks
at one time) may experience alcohol-related
neurodevelopmental disorders."

Link
Again, rather different to a glass or two.
The truth is that nobody knows so scaremongering seems to be the percieved way to go.

Original poster
Bumperliouzzzzzz · 21/04/2010 21:19

Are you berating me for using the word allowed in my thread title? It's not a fair reflection of what I think, but I think it is a fair reflection of what many people think so a reasonable question to pose.

OP posts:
dittany · 21/04/2010 21:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Bumperliouzzzzzz · 21/04/2010 21:12

Just looking at that link and they talk of the 'preconception movement' in America, which is a bit like what I was trying to remember earlier. Seems fairly benign, mostly about improving woman's health to aid fertility and to decrease the problems caused by not being healthy enough in early (unknown) pregnancy. But it is a small step away from legislating the behaviour of preconception' women.

OP posts:
CoteDAzur · 21/04/2010 21:07

"Allowed"???

ImSoNotTelling · 21/04/2010 21:06

Ah but you are forgetting about foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, a range of disorders which may or may not be related to drinking unspecified but possibly minimal amounts of alcohol whne pregnant.

On this basis women should not drink any alcohol at all while pregnant, just in case. And if she does, and then her child has any difficulties, of any sort, to any extent, and at any point in their life, then it is probably her fault.

Original poster
Bumperliouzzzzzz · 21/04/2010 21:05

Thanks for the link justgetonwithit.

Last time a colleague told me off for swearing when pg!

I also get comments when I wear high heels.

I let DH get away with it to a point (not the above, but other things) but mainly because I know it's because he cares and parenting is a partnership and I respect him (plus because it is usually getting out of stuff I wouldn't want to do anyway). But I do make it clear to him that it is my body, my choice, he still disagrees with me though.

OP posts:
msrisotto · 21/04/2010 21:02

The government for example, are not capable of legislating about what pregnant women are 'allowed' to do.

Most studies only found FAS to be increased in alcoholics, saying little to no alcohol should be drunk during pregnancy is completely unfounded but used as another moral stick to subjugate pregnant women with.

ImSoNotTelling · 21/04/2010 21:02

Yes the level of risk aversion that women are supposed to apply when they are pregnant is ridiculous.

Every single think you do has people raising their eyebrows "ooooh should you really be doing that?". i got clobbered at work once because i ate some prawns for lunch FFS.

Pregnancy is a natural state though and when things don't go well it is usually down to medical reasons, not because the woman had a glass of wine or a cigarette or went up a ladder or ate a small piece of soft cheese. Yet women are supposed to follow this absolutely draconian set of (often unfounded) rules in order to "be on teh safe side"...

(Actually this reminds me of the other thread I'm on at the moment where women also are supposed to follow unfounded draconian rules to be on the safe side.... I am seeing a theme deveoping here)

dittany · 21/04/2010 20:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JustGetOnWithIt · 21/04/2010 20:56

I am continually surprised when people talk about some kind of pregnancy or childrearing behaviour being 'against the rules'. I teach undergraduates and they really think there are 'rules' based on incontrovertible scientific proof. God knows how they will cope with the realities of parenting!!

You might find this site interesting. There is a conference coming up in June looking at the increasing regulation (formal and informal) of pregnancy.

www.parentingculturestudies.org/seminar-series/seminar5/index.html

BitOfFun · 21/04/2010 20:55

God, yes, BleachedWhale- I can envisage being hideously humiliated for having a pudgey stomach: how would they even know?

ImSoNotTelling · 21/04/2010 20:54

here

procuring drugs to unlawfully cause a miscarriage.

BleachedWhale · 21/04/2010 20:52

Most of us feel immense responsibility for the foetuses growing inside us but that is completely different to allowing an outside force - the state? male partners? who? - to have legal control over our bodies.

Unborn feotuses are part of the mother's body until birth. Asking the state and society to help support us in our sense of responsibility (by providing maternity leave, legislation about facilities for pg employees to sit down etc) is one thing, but shouldn't lead to the state taking ultimate control over our bodies.

Also, how on earth can it be policed? Mothers who take addictive drugs or drink to alcohollic excess are generally under the care of SS anyway, and may have babies taken into care. How can you police whether a woman drinks wine in her own home?

Finally it could lead to women deciding not to declare moderate / minimal drinking for fear of prosecution - with the risk of terrible medical mishap if a Dr has the wrong onformation.

Can you imagine the humiliation of being refused half a pint of shandy in a bar by some 19 yo bartender - as I believe happens in some U.S state?

ImSoNotTelling · 21/04/2010 20:52

There is a crime to do with unlawfully inciting an abortion or something.

There was a bloke who put drugs in his wifes tea (or something) to make her miscarry and they did him for it.

Will have a look see if I can find it.

Original poster
Bumperliouzzzzzz · 21/04/2010 20:51

Interesting point ISNT.

For me it is kind of distilled in the argument that having children is a choice. Forgive the reasoning here, I only really starting articulating this today, but I have had a former boss say 'well it's your choice to have children'. True maybe, but it is not my choice to be a woman who bears the children (and has their body ruined beyond repair and maybe even gets a lifelong illness in the process - that is a whole other conversation). And really it is only in the last 50 or so years (how long has the pill been around?) that we really have been able to choose to have children, until then for most women it wasn't really a case of 'choice', being pregnant was a consequence of having sex (something else not always been a choice for woman - still isn't for many).

OP posts:
Missus84 · 21/04/2010 20:50

"When I was having a discussion with my colleagues one pointed out that you could be prosecuted (male or female) for deliberately doing something that causes the foetus to die (presumably after a certain gestation), "

I'm not sure this is true, is it? If someone attacks a pregnant woman and she miscarries, the assualt is against the woman not the foetus.

ImSoNotTelling · 21/04/2010 20:48

That independent article is way scary.

It makes me realise how lucky we are here, it really does.

lal123 · 21/04/2010 20:47

for any woman blamed for a mc