Women should be prevented from drug taking in pregnancy

[Caterpillarsleftfoot]

I have just come back from a holiday with my nephew's who were exposed to drugs in utero (adopted). I'm also a school teacher who has taught drug and alcohol exposed children.

Seeing the challenges they face made me think why on earth it is allowed.

If you hurt your child every day when they are 6 months, 2 years, 5 years old then they are removed from your care. Why are you allowed to hurt an unborn baby? If a woman is known to take drugs or daily alcohol, then why is she not taken into a protective custody in a hospital/ secure unit for the remainder of the pregnancy to prevent her harming the child?

A pregnant woman shooting heroin into her veins doesn’t have less rights than one that isn’t pregnant.

@Leah5678 who said thats a right? The right is not to be locked up against your will for it because you are carrying a fetus who apparently has more rights than you now.
People don't get locked up for shooting heroin. For dealing yes. So yes if you did that you'd be removing someones rights as you'd be legally treating them differently.
Obviously we cannot do that. A woman needs agency over her own body and unfortunately that means the fetus is secondary. Theres no way around that that isnt absolutely dystopian

Shooting heroin in your veins is illegal, pregnant or not.

For the 30000th time, it's about the bigger picture and how it comes down to simply women either having bodily autonomy or not.

It's a slippery slope if a foetus is granted rights during pregnancy for many reasons including where does it end?

A pp earlier was happy to throw in obese pregnant women and women who drink alcohol during pregnancy.

It would also likely end the legal right for women to access safe abortions.

No one wants or is advocating for pregnant women shooting heroin in their veins

But how do you police it this? That's when the stripping of human rights comes in. Bearing in mind the idea includes the forced imprisonment of women who have a drink during pregnancy

Do you want to provide a negative pregnancy test before you buy alcohol from the age of 18 to at least 50?

@notlucreziaborgia exactly.

@notlucreziaborgia exactly.

@notlucreziaborgia "It’s in the first trimester that the vast majority of the damage is done, when a lot of women don’t even know they’re pregnant. When they do find out, knowing that they risk being detained ‘for the good of the baby’, it’s highly likely that they’ll avoid accessing any prenatal care throughout the pregnancy. Which means putting the very babies some posters are seeking to protect at even greater risk, let alone the women. What happens then?"

A) I'm not suggesting a woman who doesn't know she's pregnant should face any kind of punishment/intervention as long as she rectifies the behaviour once she has knowledge of the pregnancy;
B) I'm not suggesting any woman should be detained during pregnancy; and
C) any woman avoiding antenatal care as a result of their drug/alcohol abuse will be referred to SS once the birth is discovered (which it will be eventually) and will be investigated/supported/removed from caring for the child if necessary.

I don't really buy into the idea that these drug/drink addicted women who are willing to harm their unborn babies will suddenly be salt of the earth parents who go on to never be discovered, at which time the child can be protected and in this hypothetical scenario, if there was sufficient medical evidence to prove that the child's issues were caused by drink/drug abuse in utero, they could be prosecuted then.

@Brightandshining "because you are carrying a fetus who apparently has more rights than you now."

Hmm the foetus wouldn't have more rights. It would have the same right as you i.e not to have harm inflicted upon them by another.

The issue is it would conflict with the mothers wish to pump herself with drink/drugs 🤷🏻‍♀️

who said thats a right? The right is not to be locked up against your will for it because you are carrying a fetus who apparently has more rights than you now.

Don't we lock up pregnant women who have severe mental health illnesses? If a woman was trying to harm her fetus using violence, we'd have the power to section her. It's not really out of the question to be involved with women who are addicted to drugs.

FWIW I don't think these women are all horrible. Addiction is very difficult. I've never dealt with it but it doesn't mean she's evil.

Shock horro I've also had a drink when pregnant. But if it's to the point where it will cause harm to a soon-to-be-born baby - not a fetus that is going to be terminated - then there is absolutely an argument to be had for stronger intervention.

Some of the comments on this thread are utterly terrifying - even more so that it is some women calling for the actual detention and forced medical treatment of other vulnerable women in such an alarmingly casual tone, setting a precedent for some very dark times indeed if history is anything to go by. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas.

I used to wonder how on earth the Nazis got so many people on board with their abhorrent policies on this type of thing. Well, I can not only see the seeds of that type of thinking in some people's responses here - outright prejudice and utter lack of compassion for these mothers, very many of whom have been victims themselves - but also the actual application of it by suggesting you restrain a pregnant woman in this way which goes so far beyond our laws and human decency. I don't even know where to begin so I urge you to properly educate yourself about the forced sterilisation of anyone they deemed genetically problematic (including alcoholics) and how these things escalate.

Of course I don't want babies to suffer - but, bluntly, the suggestion made would result in just as much suffering (if not more) and a higher number will die, as will some of their mothers.

It feels like yet another extension to the anti-abortion position of valuing the foetus (a parasitic organism that has the potential to become a person, without any actual guarantee of life) over and above not only the actual living person that is growing it, but also any actual living children (funny how they don't seem to take much action when it comes to the live ones suffering).

Also, the post-24 week foetus does not have rights under the law as it is not a legal person until it draws breath at birth. The UK's outdated abortion laws provide a limited exception to would be an offence against the pregnant woman herself - noting that there is still no right to an abortion in the UK, just an exception to the standard position that its an offence, provided you meet certain criteria.

How can a pregnant woman and a foetus both sharing her body have the same rights?

It's impossible. One will always have more rights than the other and rightly so, it is the woman who has human rights which a foetus doesn't get currently until birth.

People are too stupid to realise that what starts with one type of woman they are quite content to "other" will all too quickly encompass another "other" and then another and so on until everyone needs monitoring/policing/forcibly treating.
Easy to other until you are one of the transgressors and your behaviour is sanctioned

It feels like yet another extension to the anti-abortion position of valuing the foetus (a parasitic organism that has the potential to become a person, without any actual guarantee of life) over and above not only the actual living person that is growing it, but also any actual living children (funny how they don't seem to take much action when it comes to the live ones suffering).

I'm confused as to how abortion relates to this, really. In an abortion, the fetus dies. It doesn't really matter if the mother drinks because it will never be born.

A mother drinking during pregnancy produces a born child. They will live to experience a lifelong condition if they're unlucky.

We don't usually look at newborns and say there's no guarantee that they'll make it past childhood, that's not a great way to look at people (or not quite legal people).

Abortion relates because it's a ludicrous position to say it's not OK to drink/take drugs if you intend to continue the pregnancy in case you harm the foetus and we will imprison you for it, but it's OK to harm the foetus by aborting it.

There's some interesting case law around mothers autonomy vs foetus surrounding instances in labour where a woman with a phobia of needles was refusing a needle (such refusal would result in a stillbirth) and her autonomy was overridden to ensure a healthy birth (I.e best interests of unborn child outweighed woman's autonomy). What do the staunch autonomy first women think of this?

If I remember rightly they used some kind of capacity argument to get round it - woman's phobia was irrational and caused her to temporarily lose capacity meaning she couldn't consent or refuse the intervention.

That is really frightening.

The only way I would find that even vaguely acceptable is if the woman gave explicit instructions in advance she had a phobia of needles so please ignore her if she refuses as she doesn’t really mean it.

You're being too kind OP, I think we should force women to abort their foetus as soon as it's found out they're drinking, taking drugs, not eating properly etc. That will ensure there are no children growing up harmed by the actions of selfish women.

Abortion relates because it's a ludicrous position to say it's not OK to drink/take drugs if you intend to continue the pregnancy in case you harm the foetus and we will imprison you for it, but it's OK to harm the foetus by aborting it.

I can't fathom how that's ludicrous to be honest. Is it enforceable? Not before 24 weeks, no.

Is it ludicrous? No.

There's a clear distinction between a fetus that will be born and one that will be terminated. The one intended to be born will become a person, a child.

it’s not in fact that easy to get someone sectioned. Being a pregnant drug user is no more grounds for denial of basic liberties than being one that isn’t pregnant.

it’s not in fact that easy to get someone sectioned.

If you're violent to yourself and clearly not well? I've had personal experience and I know that professionals don't take people who seem well seriously at times.

But we certainly do have the power to section very unwell women even when pregnant. Especially so if they are known to be harming themselves and their fetus with their violence, as an example. Absolutely no trouble being sectioned in that case, and no question that it's appropriate to intervene to prevent harm.

But surely in that case they’re being sectioned because they’re harming themselves?

Until the baby is born they have no legal rights.

Well no, I’m not claiming that they’ll go on to be fantastic parents either. I’m saying that such measures will be more likely to result in women actively avoiding prenatal care, lest they face the proposed penalties. This puts them and their babies at greater risk than the system we currently have in place.

Of course it's ludicrous - if you're saying a potential child must not be harmed, then abortion is harming a potential child. And there's no way such a rule wouldn't be used to take away women's reproductive rights.

it would heavily depend on the circumstances, and whether psychosis was present. Rightly, it takes a lot to deny someone their liberty. Drug users are actively harming themselves, yet they aren’t routinely sectioned.

A fetus does not have the rights of a person, and the right of a woman to drink, smoke, or partake in actions that can cause harm to a fetus, do indeed take precedence over any proposed rights of said fetus.