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?

Of course it's to do with abortion. Abortions can happen because a foetus has no human rights, take that away and how would you be able to justify protecting a foetus from alcohol and drugs but not actual existence?

@SouthLondonMum22 nope, nothing to do with abortion.

Interesting how you ignored my question.

So you want laws that protect foetuses from the harmful effects of drugs and alcohol, but at the same time make it legal to end the life of foetus. And you don’t see how that would be incoherent ?

People are being ridiculous saying that no woman aged 12-50 can ever buy wine again.

The only way you can make it legal to incarcerated pregnant women if they drink alcohol would be to make it illegal for pregnant women to drink alcohol

The would then get added to licensing laws and then you would have people in supermarkets trying to work out if they are allowed to sell you alcohol or not.

Given the most damage occurs before women are obviously pregnant ita a short step to not selling alcohol to women who could be pregnant.

Surely the same argument applies that no child should ever be removed from their birth parents care for neglect because who is to say where the line is between someone's house bring messier than yours and the children's diets being substandard and actual harm? Surely that's a slippery slope to only middle class families with maids and gardeners being able to keep their children?

There was a thread recently where people who were abused as children said that their abuse was ignored/unnoticed because they were middle class. It already happens. Now that's not social services fault specifically they are underfunded and understaffed, but if you add this extra massive burden to an underfunded understaffed group of people do you think they are likely to incarcerated the middle class pregnant woman having a glass of prosecco with her dinner? Or will she slip through the net?

So you want us to enforce something being illegal to women that isn't illegal to men?

Despite the research that shows, and has already been brought up on the thread, that men drinking alcohol can cause birth defects?

And you think it's because your thinking is subtle?

Sure sure.

Ultimately I don't think we should be creating laws that force one human being to use their body in a particular way in order to ensure the survival of another human being.

You're not actually allowed to take (most) drugs though, are you? I'm not saying pregnant women who use drugs should be prosecuted - I imagine that would be very counter-productive - but it's not as simple as bodily autonomy if you're taking something illegal.

I want details on how you propose to enforce this.

Will a woman be drug/alcohol tested throughout pregnancy as standard? What happens if she refuses? What happens if she tests positive?

Every woman, even nice looking/sounding ones like you? Or just the sketchy ones? Which drugs? What levels?

What will happen if a woman doesn't access antenatal care? Will she be punished? Is drug testing a requirement? How will she be punished?

The devil is in the details. Come on. I don't have any answers to the problem, but clearly you have thought this through and do.

So what is the plan?

But first time possession of drugs, for example, would rarely if ever result in an incarceration of months and your baby being born in prison- so harsher sentences for pregnant women

Even frequent drug use wouldn't necessarily result in that - so harsher sentences for pregnant women

Plus a lot of the focus on the OPs posts are around FAS and alchol which is currently not illegal - so making it illegal for pregnant women

So if you want to live in a society where pregnant women are second class citizens with less rights then sure

But it's not that long ago a baby died in prison after the mothers pleas for medical treatment were ignored, so it's not like the babies safety can be assured in prison either

Maybe if a child is born with damage which will have a permanent effect on their life as a result of something the mother purposefully did, knowing it could harm the child, she could be charged with causing grievous bodily harm?

I understand where you are coming from OP and sympathise but can’t see how it would be policed.

I don’t like abortion either but am glad we live in a society where it can be legally carried out in a medical setting rather than at home with a knitting needle or by an unqualified person using filthy implements.

How do you prove she knowingly did it

Surely it would just stop women seeking medical care pre birth on the off chance that a birth defect would have them criminalised?

there is research that shows that men drinking alcohol can damage sperm in a way that can cause birth defects. You are talking about criminalising women for men's behaviour as well as their own

And that would absolutely open women up to murder charges for abortion.

Strange comments. Sure women can do what they want but brining a baby, who turns into a child and then who becomes an adult into this world with health problems that could have been avoided at birth is cruel.

Im sure OP isn’t talking about medicine and drugs for treatment. But hardcore drugs and even alcohol that can sometimes cause irreversible damage.

As someone that has carried a child, I spent the 9 months doing my best to look after me for the sake of delivering a healthy citizen (why do people forget that babies become adults!)

I don’t think anything should be enforced. After all no one enforces good parenting. Sadly so many people are screwed over by their parents but there should be a system in place that allows a pregnant woman on drugs to go to rehab or get treatment. The question is - who will fund it. I agree with you OP I would love to see if there are any countries that invest in this

The answer of course is to pump enough money into support for girls/women to mean that drug and alcohol addiction are rare.

That needs to start from childhood so all girls get a really good start in life - loads of children's centres, lots of parenting courses, advice and support for their parents, really good nursery provision, schools really well staffed with lots of TA's working with anyone that struggles, lots of school nurses to give advice, excellent SENCO with lots of support available for children with SEN and their parents. Quick and as early as possible diagnosis for conditions like ASD, ADHD, dyslexia etc. Really good well being provision and teaching and excellent pastoral care. It means lots of well run cheap/free activities like youth clubs in the evenings for children and teens with access to mental health professionals. It means enough money for really good children and adult mental health services that really look after people and put in place all the support they need. Affordable housing and plenty of social housing, excellent maternity services that really support women from beginning to end, HV that have time to really listen and help rather than tick a few boxes and are never seen again. It means girls in care being really closely monitored and supported and for that support to continue well into adulthood. It means enough social workers so that they can actually do the job they are supposed to, and to a really high level.

But a lot of these things are being eroded more and more over time - 1300 children's centre's closed, 11400 TA jobs lost between 2011 and 2020 in secondary schools, 1 in 20 children's social workers quit in 2020/2021, school teachers on their knees, ASD taking years to be assessed and now only those with really extreme problems are going to get the chance to even be assessed in many areas. Mental health services in crisis, social housing still being sold off under the right to buy scheme, funding of youth services in LA's having a real terms decline of 70% in funding since 2010/11. It just goes on and on.

OK, now how are you going to prove that beyond reasonable doubt?

How will you deal with conditions that can have a genetic factor which could be made worse by substances, but which may have just been luck of the draw?

And what is the punishment going to be?

Actually on that note, what about women who have genetic conditions which they know will be passed on and will result in suffering for any children?

Isn't that the same thing really? The end result is the same, an innocent person suffering due to the choices of a woman.

Should all women undergo genetic testing before getting pregnant? Just to be sure? What if they don't?

Exactly what I was going to ask.

OP, do you also think women should be refused chemotherapy while pregnant?

Where abortion is legal a woman can’t be charged with murder so that’s a moot point.

The issues mentioned - damage from drug taking and alcoholism during pregnancy are common knowledge in this society. There are constant media campaigns getting the message out there.

Obviously if the cause of the damage to the child is ambiguous there would be no legal consequences.

While I support people having rights, there are responsibilities as well.

Pfft, society supporting women and girls. Looking after its mothers to ensure the health and well being of its current and future citizens.

Why do that, when you can jump straight to control, enforcement, and punishment?

I mean, your suggestion is more likely to work, sure, but where is the woman hating and the blame eh? If we adopted your proposal we might have admit that maybe our current societies are a bit fucked up in the way the treat women and girls, especially those and the bottom of the socio-economic heap, and who wants to do THAT?

Having a baby later in life conveys a greater risk of chromosomal abnormalities and ASD which have similar life outcomes to FAS (if not worse), are we going to legislate against women over 40 getting pregnant and force contraception on them?

Where does this all end?

I know where I think it stops, and that is with full bodily autonomy for women.

Men have sperm is their balls constantly and any one of them could be half the genetic material creating a new life - surely their drug use should be restricted too?
I bet millions of coke addled sperm are creating babies every year.

There’s a difference between pointing out a slippery slope (in this case, establishing precedents that will be used to make further inroads into the rights of women), and employing a slippery slope fallacy.

Besides, when you’ve started with ‘lock up pregnant drug users!’ you’re already at the extreme end.

I agree with you.

Women have the right to have a baby or abort - they shouldn't have the right to abuse a baby in uterus with life changing consequences for months on end.

Abortion is always a choice.

I think it's interesting that there is full support for a mother to actually harm her baby in utero under the guise of "rights to her body" as it has strong parallels with the opposite arguement:

Anti-abortion campaigners go on about how every child is a gift and should be born, saying that loads of mums would be desperate to adopt the baby (when it's clear that that is idealistic and they haven't really thought about the reality for the child being born into the care system)

This arguement is the opposite - a woman should have the right to abuse what will become an actual living baby until birth. Really think about that. Could you look that baby in the eyes and say that the woman's right to be an alcoholic and a druggie is something you would stand up and defend to your friends and family?

Pregnancy shouldn't be a special status to absolve a woman of humanity.

People with mental health conditions who are a danger to themselves or others are locked away all the time. What OP proposes wild be an extension of that.