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?

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.

Because the context in which fetus versus mother is most commonly discussed is abortion.

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).

Exactly - a fetus is not a legal person, whereas a newborn is. Also in the UK today, we don't like to talk about it (or death in general) but that's actually quite a modern and first world view as we don't have to confront infant/child mortality on the scale others did and still do.

Exactly.

It absolutely wouldn't end there. It never does.

Let’s not.

It’s ok. You don’t have to have an abortion if you don’t want one.

But let’s not take away safe healthcare from other women.

A perfect example.

Exactly

And those disabled babies they are supposedly advocating for will be one of the first in the queue to be othered once othering is considered acceptable

Disabled people are already vilified by the media etc, it's a small step to removing various rights

Woman with lower IQ gets pregnant - quick lock her up for the duration of her pregnancy because she can't possibly be trusted to look after her body correctly

And those apparently advocating for these people won't care then, because they will only care about the next foetus, not the woman carrying the foetus

My second child has disabilities of unknown cause. I did nothing wrong. Would I have to go up against an inquisition who quiz me about every day, examine my calendar and ask all my friends and colleagues to vouch for my abstinence? If not, why not? It's not really different to what you're suggesting.

Start doing what, exactly?

That's where it leads, for sure.

With my 1st I was asked about drinking and smoking at my booking appointment. I was honest about it and how since I found out I hadn't touched a drink etc. But because of the amount of units I had drank pre pregnancy at the weekend I was referred to all manners of services and notes written on my mat notes when in labour and special cots brought in when I was in labour etc. Even though I hadn't touched a drop in 8 months.

It meant with my 2nd I lied about my alcohol intake when asked. And I am no means an alcoholic or drink enough to cause FAS.

I felt awful all the way through my 1st pregnancy as I was continually asked how much I was drinking etc (0) and I'm sure they took more blood than usual, probably to check.

Of course it's ludicrous - if you're saying a potential child must not be harmed, then abortion is harming a potential child

No. Aborted fetuses will never be born. I don't understand how you don't get this?

Fair enough to believe in women's autonomy but there is a clear difference between a fetus that is aborted. And a fetus that is born and becomes a baby. Just saying.

Right, because such measures wouldn’t set precedent that could easily be used by anti abortions activists.

See: ‘unintended consequences’.

Don't be daft. All the ragers on here are too busy screaming about body autonomy (and some eejits have even seen fit to comment on the poor spelling of the OP) to give a shit about the babies born addicted to whatever crap their "mother" has drank/injected whilst pregnant.

So, if I initially decide I'm having an abortion, and drink and take drugs and eat a ton of tuna while waiting for an appointment, then I have second thoughts and change my mind and decide I want to continue the pregnancy - am I to be forced to have an abortion or imprisoned?

Lol. I’m pretty sure we’re not the ones raging.

I think the difficulty is enforcing anything (whether that is desirable or possible). But it's undeniable that an aborted fetus is dead. A fetus that is carried to term will be born, hence why some people feel that it shouldn't be damaged by alcohol or drugs to the point where they're born potentially mentally impaired or disabled.

The solutuon is to force them into long-term contraception. Cue the bleeding hearts.....

So, if I initially decide I'm having an abortion, and drink and take drugs and eat a ton of tuna while waiting for an appointment, then I have second thoughts and change my mind and decide I want to continue the pregnancy - am I to be forced to have an abortion or imprisoned?

That's not the point is was making, so I don't know how to reply to this, sorry.

By all means write a strongly worded letter to your local MP, I’m sure they’ll overhaul established legal precedent exactly to your liking.

🤡

Isn't it?

You think that the wanted foetus must be protected from harm, but the unwanted foetus shouldn't. So what happens if the woman changes her mind and the foetus goes from unwanted to wanted, but the harm's possibly been done? What should the consequences be for changing her mind?

You are advocating for eugenics then?

A forced inability of an "undesirable" section of society to have children

That paves the way for more eugenics. Autism is considered potentially genetic, let's force people with autism on to long term contraceptives so they won't have children with autism

It's wierd how you call people standing up for rights that protect disabled people "bleeding hearts" whilst pretending you are advocating for disabled people

Why about these glasses of wine you had before you realised you were pregnant?
Shall we clap you in chains for that?

And while we are at it maybe chemically castrate any men who might get someone pregnant who takes drugs or alcohol

Or anyone who smokes they should also be punished.

Oh and we did a DNA test and Bert carries a gene which means his child could be SEN...

You see how this goes... it's called eugenics.

And no I don't like what they are doing but they sadly have a right to do it, and in your scenario most those people would end up terminating rather than complying

I'm not trying to argue with you @category12. I'm barely even expressing any opinion at all, so maybe someone else can come along and answer all these questions.

Of course, and that results in knee jerk populism.

The consequences of any proposed measures, intended and unintended, have to be considered as part of the wider context. They have to stand up to legal scrutiny for a start, they have to be costed, the potential benefits have to be weighed against the drawbacks (the road to hell and all that…), and there needs to be evidence that they would actually be effective.