Page 16 | Women should be prevented from drug taking in pregnancy

Caterpillarsleftfoot · 2023-08-29T12:51:55+00:00

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?

Onelifeonly · 30/08/2023 08:35

bladebladebla1 · 30/08/2023 07:08

Women who take drugs knowingly when pregnant are selfish arseholes! Anyone on here saying otherwise is quite frankly just as bad!

I lost babies and knowing some of these cretins took such awful care of theirs and I had no choice to have mine die inside me disgusts me!

You have no comprehension of how other people might live and why. There are many complex factors as to why this happens and simply saying they are "selfish" is absurd.

Notgoodatpoetrybutgreatatlit · 30/08/2023 09:45

Interesting that you didn't pick up on my actual point that we as a society are being damaged by alcohol. Men's consumption as well as women's . Dont accept my other point if you don't want to, I'm not trying to prove that alcohol harms children. I don't have to.

ConsuelaHammock · 30/08/2023 09:49

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

bladebladebla1 · 30/08/2023 09:50

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Lilolilibet · 30/08/2023 10:02

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

The tone of your post is appalling.

scoobysnaxx · 30/08/2023 10:05

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Disgusting thing to say

Whatt · 30/08/2023 10:12

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Hobnobswantshernameback · 30/08/2023 10:17

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

notlucreziaborgia · 30/08/2023 10:26

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Tbh you have no idea what onelife may or may not have been through. Rarely are two people ever the same, even if they’ve been through the same experiences.

It is of course possible to have compassion for both, and not place them in opposition to one another.

BasicBinaryBitch · 30/08/2023 10:55

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

None of us are happy with babies being permanently harmed - it's horrible what these babies go through, they don't deserve any of it. But how are you calling vulnerable women druggies? The fact that they take drugs doesn't mean they don't live their children. It's an addiction and worrying is highly difficult and going cold Turkey is really dangerous.

Having experienced loss is traffic but don't give a license to lack commission yourself

CaptainMyCaptain · 30/08/2023 12:35

In 30 years of teaching I have knowingly taught one child with FAS. There may well have been others but I wouldn't have known about them.

WhereYouLeftIt · 30/08/2023 13:35

CaptainMyCaptain · 29/08/2023 20:00

That is the advice now and I won't argue with medical science BUT my mother had me in a time when there were no restrictions on drinking or smoking while pregnant (she was advised by her doctor to have a Guinness a day for the iron) so its surprising there weren't more people born in the 1950s and earlier with FAS. When I was pregnant in 1979 I think pregnant women were warned about smoking, I didn't smoke but when I gave birth there was a smoking room on the ward where the nicotine addicted new mothers went to smoke. There was no warning about alcohol although I wasn't a drinker beforehand and could barely keep anything down anyway. A midwife at ante natal told us if we had an occasional sherry while breast feeding it would help the baby sleep.

As I say, medical advances have been made and my own daughter was rightly careful not to drink at all even while trying to conceive. but 'one drink' has to be scaremongering or there would have been much more FAS than there is.

Show quote history

Many years ago, I looked up the oldest paper I could find on FAS which seemed to me to be at the root of all the finger-wagging absolute abstention dogma. (I had actually been researching all the 'don't touch cats hysteria' but I do tend to go down rabbit holes once I've got my teeth into something).

IIRC, this study was of a small sample, less than 10 women, two of who were hospitalised with delerium tremens ("the DTs") during the study, so pretty damned addicted. Yet still, not every child born to this cohort had FAS.

Or, we have https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/12/e022578 - Systematic literature review on which maternal alcohol behaviours are related to fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD).

Which states:

"However, the literature remains inconclusive about which maternal drinking behaviours are related to alterations of the fetal development. Despite this conflicting and inconclusive evidence of the negative effects on the developing fetus, public health recommendations are made nonetheless. These recommendations share one common principle, namely that complete abstinence of alcohol use during pregnancy is the safest approach to prevent any possible risks to the unborn child."

"public health recommendations are made nonetheless". To paraphrase, we don't know how much, when in the pregnancy or even if your drinking affects the foetus, but we're going to scold you anyway and tell you it's all your fault anyway. Just like the OP to this thread.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/12/e022578

Original poster

Caterpillarsleftfoot · 30/08/2023 13:48

To answer the question about enforcement - the same way all child protection is enforced. Those that say women won't access healthcare. Many drug users are not accessing ante natal care anyway. Many many women who have children removed are known drug and alcohol users having multiple babies. Every adoption report states "known exposure to drugs" so sometimes services do know about the women.

Exactly the same with any other child protection - a referral would be made if someone suspects harm. It would be looked into. The woman would be given support and opportunities to change with monitoring. If there is no engagement then proceeding could start for moving into a protective care for withdrawal management

Sadly lots of emotional, physical, neglect of children goes under the radar. It doesn't mean we say that it's not worth trying. You catch what you can.

It's interesting that there is a perception that most of these women still have children in their care, have jobs and nice lives and just happen to take cannabis/ opiates/ alcohol on the side and will actually be wonderful mother's with no social care involvement after birth. Im really thinking more of the women that time and again do this to subsequent babies, everyone knows it's happening but it's just allowed to continue.

OP posts:

CaptainMyCaptain · 30/08/2023 13:59

Interesting @WhereYouLeftIt thank you.

notlucreziaborgia · 30/08/2023 14:26

Caterpillarsleftfoot · 30/08/2023 13:48

To answer the question about enforcement - the same way all child protection is enforced. Those that say women won't access healthcare. Many drug users are not accessing ante natal care anyway. Many many women who have children removed are known drug and alcohol users having multiple babies. Every adoption report states "known exposure to drugs" so sometimes services do know about the women.

Exactly the same with any other child protection - a referral would be made if someone suspects harm. It would be looked into. The woman would be given support and opportunities to change with monitoring. If there is no engagement then proceeding could start for moving into a protective care for withdrawal management

Sadly lots of emotional, physical, neglect of children goes under the radar. It doesn't mean we say that it's not worth trying. You catch what you can.

It's interesting that there is a perception that most of these women still have children in their care, have jobs and nice lives and just happen to take cannabis/ opiates/ alcohol on the side and will actually be wonderful mother's with no social care involvement after birth. Im really thinking more of the women that time and again do this to subsequent babies, everyone knows it's happening but it's just allowed to continue.

So outside of the ‘taking them into custody’ proposal, essentially what happens now?

Again, you can’t simply take women into custody, denying them basic liberty, because they’re pregnant and abusing substances.

SouthLondonMum22 · 30/08/2023 15:00

Caterpillarsleftfoot · 30/08/2023 13:48

To answer the question about enforcement - the same way all child protection is enforced. Those that say women won't access healthcare. Many drug users are not accessing ante natal care anyway. Many many women who have children removed are known drug and alcohol users having multiple babies. Every adoption report states "known exposure to drugs" so sometimes services do know about the women.

Exactly the same with any other child protection - a referral would be made if someone suspects harm. It would be looked into. The woman would be given support and opportunities to change with monitoring. If there is no engagement then proceeding could start for moving into a protective care for withdrawal management

Sadly lots of emotional, physical, neglect of children goes under the radar. It doesn't mean we say that it's not worth trying. You catch what you can.

It's interesting that there is a perception that most of these women still have children in their care, have jobs and nice lives and just happen to take cannabis/ opiates/ alcohol on the side and will actually be wonderful mother's with no social care involvement after birth. Im really thinking more of the women that time and again do this to subsequent babies, everyone knows it's happening but it's just allowed to continue.

Again though, how do you do that when a foetus has no rights but a born child does?

You could not enforce it until 24+ weeks but that would mean that any damage would be done already because the damage happens during the first trimester where a foetus can be legally aborted.

How would it be possible to enforce without giving foetus' human rights? This would mean that a foetus can't be harmed at all, including abortion.

cheeseandcrackers89 · 30/08/2023 20:51

labamba007 · 30/08/2023 07:25

Woman's body woman's choice is technically correct but

Drinking or doing drugs will do physical and mental harm a future person.

Abortion does not harm a future person.

There's a grey area here I think, although how you enforce it I don't know.

This. Women have the right to end a pregnancy if they choose to do so. However, if a women makes the decision to continue with a pregnancy then they are well aware that the end result of this pregnancy is going to be the birth of a baby. Therefore, they have a responsibility to not act in a way that is extremely detrimental to that baby. Continuing to take drugs or to drink alcohol in pregnancy is going to harm the body and have a massive impact on the life of that future person. As others have said, addicts are often extremely vulnerable, often abused people. No one wakes up in the morning and thinks "I'll ruin my life by becoming an addict today." The answer, in my opinion, is to offer medical programmes that help a woman to overcome her addiction if she wishes to continue with her pregnancy and to support her to hopefully get the support she needs to turn her life around.

Insommmmnia · 30/08/2023 20:57

Caterpillarsleftfoot · 30/08/2023 13:48

To answer the question about enforcement - the same way all child protection is enforced. Those that say women won't access healthcare. Many drug users are not accessing ante natal care anyway. Many many women who have children removed are known drug and alcohol users having multiple babies. Every adoption report states "known exposure to drugs" so sometimes services do know about the women.

Exactly the same with any other child protection - a referral would be made if someone suspects harm. It would be looked into. The woman would be given support and opportunities to change with monitoring. If there is no engagement then proceeding could start for moving into a protective care for withdrawal management

Sadly lots of emotional, physical, neglect of children goes under the radar. It doesn't mean we say that it's not worth trying. You catch what you can.

It's interesting that there is a perception that most of these women still have children in their care, have jobs and nice lives and just happen to take cannabis/ opiates/ alcohol on the side and will actually be wonderful mother's with no social care involvement after birth. Im really thinking more of the women that time and again do this to subsequent babies, everyone knows it's happening but it's just allowed to continue.

So you want women to be incarcerated for drinking alcohol, something that's currently legal. But just women and just women of childbearing age?

And you don't think that's going to open a door to other laws where things become illegal but only for some people?

So this group of people over here can do X activity but this group of people over here can't?

Oh no I can't see where that has ever ended badly

It's interesting that there is a perception that most of these women still have children in their care, have jobs and nice lives and just happen to take cannabis/ opiates/ alcohol on the side and will actually be wonderful mother's with no social care involvement after birth

Lots of us don't think that. We are just more interested in rehabilitation than punishment and/or can forsee the real genuine issues with laws that involve the locking pregnant women up for non illegal things and removing their bodily autonomy in favour of the foetus having stronger rights than the mother

Onelifeonly · 30/08/2023 21:12

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

@bladebladebla1 How did you reach that illogical conclusion? I never made any comparison. One can feel compassion for both drug users AND for women who have lost babies. I won't give you my gynaecological history but loss was certainly part of it.

NannyOggsWhiskyStash · 30/08/2023 22:17

Reallybadidea · 29/08/2023 13:57

Can you explain the logistics of how this would be enforced? I imagine it would require compulsory blood tests involving restraint of any women who didn't consent.

Also, why stop at pregnancy? Perhaps we should prevent all women who aren't in optimal health from becoming pregnant as a number of conditions including diabetes, obesity etc can increase long term risks for unborn babies.

While we're at it, let's make sure that only those who have no family history of genetic diseases get pregnant.

See where this is heading?

This! And don't forget blind or mentally ill women, you have to be perfect

midgemadgemodge · 31/08/2023 08:54

But surely we need to be testing the fathers as well as once the baby is born fathers can do a lot of damage - I mean no child should grow up in a home with insufficient food or with a drunken violent dad or with a dad who is disabled and so means that mums time can't just be on the child ....

Insommmmnia · 31/08/2023 08:58

NannyOggsWhiskyStash · 30/08/2023 22:17

This! And don't forget blind or mentally ill women, you have to be perfect

Show quote history

Exactly

So those very children they are defending currently, the ones impacted with congenital abnormalities like myself, we will be first in the queue for any of these eugenics type decisions

It's very similar to the pro life conversations where the baby is only cared about when it's a foetus, when its born is when they often forget to keep caring

BasicBinaryBitch · 31/08/2023 09:09

Wanting to stop a child developing a preventable illness will never be eugenics however you frame it, though.

notlucreziaborgia · 31/08/2023 09:18

BasicBinaryBitch · 31/08/2023 09:09

Wanting to stop a child developing a preventable illness will never be eugenics however you frame it, though.

That is, by definition, eugenics. It’s wanting to control who is allowed to reproduce.

Insommmmnia · 31/08/2023 09:20

BasicBinaryBitch · 31/08/2023 09:09

Wanting to stop a child developing a preventable illness will never be eugenics however you frame it, though.

Eugenics is literally about stopping the "undesirable" sections of society from being able to have children

Alcoholics and drug addicts first opens the way to disabled women, poor women, women with mental health problems

Stopping a section of women from having babies through forced or coerced long term contraception or sterilisation as has been suggested by some on the thread is always eugenics regardless of the motives.

It doesn't stop being eugenics because you frame it differently