To have had such a reaction to this?

[Flowersinyourhair]

I was out yesterday with two women. One is a friend and the other is a friend of hers so an acquaintance of mine. The acquaintance is pregnant (around 5.5 months). All was great until just after we'd eaten lunch when the acquaintance says that she's going outside for a fag.

I'm sure my face told a thousand tales. I felt a wave of anger that this woman could be so blasé about it. Earlier in the conversation she had refered to how she has given up drinking due to the pregnancy so I couldn't understand why giving up smoking hadn't occurred to her.

AIBU to think that in 2016 with so much awareness about the damage that smoking can do to unborn babies it is madness that this woman, and so many more like her, are still puffing away.

In the interest of presenting the full facts here, my friend told me that the smoking mum to be hadn't made any effort to reduce her cigarettes and actually, when challenged, spoke of her right to smoke and the health of her previous child...

Effic: It's not an argument, it's a fact. In extreme cases Social Services can take action that pre-empts their involvement after the birth, eg they can begin proceedings before the birth to protect the born child, but the foetus itself has no rights. The mother's actions in and of themselves can't be constrained.

I should add, other than actions that constitute foetal destruction, which is legislated for.

Trifleorbust: I'm not asking you about the law. I was asking for your opinions as you are clearly someone who advocates the mantra that a woman's autonomy trumps all else. And I'm struggling to comprehend that argument and thought you might explain your me clearly more developed thoughts- that's all. Smoking, drinking or taking other drugs clearly means that a woman is putting their child at risk. That risk hasn't been assumed by the child and the child and society has no say it the child will have to face the consequences not the mother. I find that hard to reconcile.

*There is a random 'me' in there for some reason!

Of course it is difficult to reconcile. You cannot have both the autonomy of the woman and the rights of the foetus. It is impossible to reconcile the two so the law has to prioritise one above the other. If the law prioritises the 'rights' of the child, it removes the rights of the woman. This is a situation I would personally find intolerable, as it strips the woman of her innate rights to bodily autonomy in order to protect those of another individual. We would not accept that in a situation where that other individual was outside the woman, so I don't see why we should accept it when the individual is inside the woman.

When a drugs company produced a drug that meant that in-utero damage was done to the foetus; the outcry (eventually!) was enormous and the company forced to pay millions in compensation for the damage that their drug did. But mothers can significantly risk their future child health but we as a society should accept that as less important than the woman's right to bodily autonomy. It's a bloody tricky one

Effic: Because drug companies don't have the same rights over my body that I do. It's not complicated, so much as just difficult for you to accept.

I wonder if you stopped to think about how harshly the womanly have been judging herself. No smoker ever "had" to smoke but I don't know one single smoker when asked , that wouldn't say they wished they'd never started and would give anything to be free of it. An addiction stops becoming a choice, when it becomes an addiction .

Because the individual 'inside' her body is unique to mothers and foetus. There is no other parallel. And that foetus has to live with the consequences of the woman's actions. In any other circumstances if a person damages another and causes life long injury then there are consequences for those actions. I understand hat you are saying I really do but I'm struggling with which I find more intolerable tbh.

I smoked but the moment we started trying for a baby we both gave up. It was tough but nothing would have made me do anything which might risk my baby. To be honest, I wouldn't have wanted to smoke as I felt so sick. I can't help feeling judgmental about people who smoke when they are pregnant but I try not to let it show because I am sure they have been told the dangers. That doesn't mean I understand why they carry on but I know if somebody kept on at me not to do something, it would just make me want to do it more.

Effic "When a drugs company produced a drug that meant that in-utero damage was done to the foetus; the outcry (eventually!) was enormous and the company forced to pay millions in compensation for the damage that their drug did."

Um no - in the case of thalidomide after decades of fighting eventually the company paid money into a fund to provide basic needs for victims and that fund is now plainly inadequate as it was based on assumptions of shortened life expectancy. Many died along the way though and had painful lives until that point, their families suffered financially due to the cost of the care they were trying to fund themselves. In many other countries compensation has been minimal if at all (esp 3rd world where they couldn't organise). This for a drug which women were routinely coerced into taking.

There is a fantastic amount of arse talked about what is and isn't safe in pregnancy and mostly I see it being used to police women's behaviour and bodies. There is no evidence that the occasional drink is harmful (in other countries its encouraged as it used to be here in the UK). Its not uncommon for women struggling with smoking to be told to try and taper rather than go cold turkey or to keep a small number of cigarettes because the stress of trying to give up is having a more negative effect.

Then when you consider the ever growing list of activities, foods, drugs pregnant women 'must avoid' and are routinely condemned for with no consideration for individual risk circumstances - this is at least as much about controlling women as caring for the foetus.

I am a bit surprised about all the comments about the harm of nicotine on the unborn baby, as my mother smoked like a chimney before anyone even thought that it might be wrong for a pregnant woman to smoke and the three of us are exceedingly healthy old age pensioners.

I must admit I'm always a bit shocked if I see a pregnant woman smoking. I gave up as soon as I discovered I was pregnant,but it was no hardship as I had very bad all-day sickness from 4 weeks to 3 months so the last thing I felt like doing was smoking. After that,I had lost the craving for it,although I did start again after my DD was born. But although it puzzles me as to why a woman would risk her unborn baby's health by smoking,I would never judge her for it. I think a woman should have autonomy over her body,and if we start policing pregnant women for smoking,it is the beginning of the 'thin edge of the wedge'. Before we know it,there would be 'pregnancy police' on patrol,making sure that pregnant women weren't drinking,smoking,eating soft cheese,soft-boiled eggs or pate,taking part in any dangerous activities or not attending ante- natal check-ups.

Effic: And when it comes to your body, that is your call to make. When it comes to mine, it isn't.

I dislike seeing pregnant women smoke but not as much as I dislike the thought of my daughter growing up into a world where pregnant women are criminalised for anything that 'society' sees as not acceptable, which is a direction that I really fear we seem to be heading in.

My mother remarked to me once that I had to endure an awful lot of 'rules' for pregnancy that were unheard of in her day and that it must make pregnancy an even more stressful experience than it used to be. She is a lifelong tee total non smoker, and a Christian to whom the concept of bodily autonomy doesn't really exist and even she was horrified by the way pregnant women are policed these days.

By which I mean that she is about as far away as you can imagine from the 'oh we all smoked like chimneys in my day and drank gin by the bottle and we were all fine' point of view as you can get, yet is still shocked by the way pregnant women are infantilised.

YADNBU OP. I was about to write basically exactly what thesemangos wrote. Selfish and shameless.

To the "it's her body/it's her baby" brigade , would you say that if she was blowing smoke into its face and its mouth?! Your bubba ur rulz hun, carry on poisoning your baby smoking it is your body. Jesus fucking wept.

To the "it's her body/it's her baby" brigade , would you say that if she was blowing smoke into its face and its mouth?! Your bubba ur rulz hun, carry on poisoning your baby smoking it is your body. Jesus fucking wept.

Jesus wept indeed. I don't think you are understanding the argument here. When the baby is inside the mother, her rights have to come first because otherwise you would be placing the rights of the foetus above the rights of the mother. As she is a legal person who cannot be allowed her rights separately to those of the child, that is unacceptable. When the baby is born, it is a legal person separate from the mother. It has its own rights and the actions you describe would obviously be unacceptable.

No, it is not a comfortable thought that a child in the womb has no rights, but what is the alternative? Criminalising pregnant women when they do something that is in their own interests rather than those of the child?

youhadmeatcake where would you draw the line? For example, are you OK with refusing medical treatment to a pregnant woman in case it has a detrimental effect on the foetus? Because whilst you might say 'that's totally different' the reality is that it's a very slippery slope.

I dislike seeing pregnant women smoke but not as much as I dislike the thought of my daughter growing up into a world where pregnant women are criminalised for anything that 'society' sees as not acceptable, which is a direction that I really fear we seem to be heading in.

Totally agree with this. Do we really want to see a world where it's criminal behaviour for a pregnant woman to do anything that might harm the foetus?
Because it's not just illegal drugs, alcohol and cigarettes that can harm a foetus, is it?

There's warnings about not consuming too much caffeine, certain soft cheeses, pate, red meat served still pink in the middle, soft boiled eggs, cured meats, certain fish and shellfish. And that's before you get onto things like women who are obese or severely underweight, women who haven't been vaccinated against diseases like rubella that can harm a foetus, women who work in an environment potentially harmful to a foetus (e.g. near x-rays or certain chemicals), women who own cats, women who don't take folic acid or miss antenatal appointments, women who take part in contact sports.....

Where would it stop? With women who have miscarriages or babies with birth defects facing prison time if they've not complied with every rule and regulation? All women of childbearing age being obliged to comply with all this too, just in case they get pregnant accidentally and harm their foetus with their lifestyle choices before they even know it exists?

It's a slippery slope that I don't think we should even get started on.

JosephineMaynard: This.

We may as well return to the days of confinements, roping labouring women to the bed and cutting the woman open without anaesthetic if labour fails to progress. After all, it's the life of a child we're talking about

And not to mention stress....

I mentioned the woman who I knew who had been advised to cut down but not dramatically stop because she had been smoking for over 20 years and it would have caused stress. Stress is harmful to a foetus.

So, it is true that some people are ignorant and selfish but you don't know if that is the case here. You just don't know.

I was a social smoker so gave up without a problem. However I was also a terrible eater before becoming pregnant and I started to eat uber healthily once pregnant and developed gestational diabetes as a result - the body was not used to carbs it seems...

I do think more information to be given to pregnant women as standard though, to make it less likely that people think that smoking is a viable way of ensuring that they have a small baby/less painful birth etc.

There's warnings about not consuming too much caffeine, certain soft cheeses, pate, red meat served still pink in the middle, soft boiled eggs, cured meats, certain fish and shellfish. And that's before you get onto things like women who are obese or severely underweight, women who haven't been vaccinated against diseases like rubella that can harm a foetus, women who work in an environment potentially harmful to a foetus (e.g. near x-rays or certain chemicals), women who own cats, women who don't take folic acid or miss antenatal appointments, women who take part in contact sports

There's also evidence to suggest that air pollution has a detrimental effect on foetuses. All the women here who claim that they would never do anything to harm their unborn child - Did any of them live in a large city during pregnancy? Did any of them walk or cycle to work along a busy road? Sit in traffic jams twice a day? Surely they should have been wearing a mask, or changing their shift patterns, or moving to the countryside for 9 months?

I gave up smoking years ago (long before I became a parent) and it was bloody hard. I like to think that had I still been smoking when I became pregnant I would have stopped but who knows. I enjoyed smoking and add that to the fact that my 'unborn baby' didn't even begin to feel like a reality until at least 20 weeks, I can't say for sure.

Also, I think that saying 'I'm sure giving up smoking is hard but not as hard as having a miscarriage or living with the lifelong effects' is crass and naive.

I'm a smoker but 100% would (and have) judge a pregnant woman smoking. I don't agree with it.