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?

foetus (noun)

1. an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.

No thanks. Foetus is accurate, even if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I am genuinely so shocked that people are so pro women and anti protection of a child. I absolutely cannot wrap my head around the idea that do many people are ok with knowing a woman is hurting a baby but allowing it to continue.

I don't think you do have a "right" to decide what goes in your body when it's harming another human.

Those who say you can't pick and choose body autonomy or where to draw the line. Of course you can. That would be like asking where the line for child protection/ removal of children/ adoption is. Uncomfortable as it is, there is a line that can be crossed.

Why stop there? Let's lock up pregnant women who eat rare steaks, runny eggs and decide to go on The Nemesis 🙄

So you disagree with abortion then? After all, that’s harming another human.

It's unfortunate that some women decide to do this but as a civilized society we can't actually imprison women during pregnancy. I mean how far would you take it? Women on class a drugs? How about a glass of wine or cigarettes? Women who eat unpasteurised brie?

Nephews
by the way
not nephew's
nephews is the plural
I'm sure with you being a teacher that it was just a typo of course

It's awful that people do it, and horrible for the children. I have nothing but sympathy and compassion for them and I wish that it didn't happen.

But this level of control over a woman's body would be a bit dystopian. And where would it stop? Lots of people have conditions that can be detrimental to perfect foetal health, should they be sterilised? People with mental health conditions? Should people below a certain income bracket also be restricted on having children because being poor can be difficult for a child?

There are individuals throughout history who've thought this level of selection and control is a good idea. I don't think you're going to find any of them on "Top 100 Amazing People" lists.

Should probably do the same for women who eat rare steak or pate during pregnancy. Or whichever the cheeses are you're supposed to avoid. Or women who knowingly get pregnant when they're older because there's a higher risk of health issues for the baby.

Aside from how ridiculous all of that would be - how would you know that a woman was taking drugs/alcohol daily? Unless there is some sort of compulsory test - and it would have to be very regular, so not just at midwife appointments... think about how impractical that is - not just from the point of view of enforcing it, but from the cost/resource side of things of having people to administer these regular tests.

How are we enforcing that?

How are we tracking what pregnant women are doing - if a pregnant woman buys more than one bottle of wine in the supermarket when doing the weekly shop, are retail staff supposed to call the police in case it's for her and not her husband/friends/a gift etc? What if she gets prescription drugs, which ones are OK to take and which ones will be rationed? What about OTC meds, will they only be doled out to pregnant women on a rationed daily basis because God forbid she has a whole bottle of night nurse (a commonly abused medicine) she might take too much of ... How are we identifying pregnant women who aren't showing yet, will they have to wear a badge or a sign saying they're pregnant?

If we do enforce it, how do you make them tell you they're pregnant in the first place? Are we just going to routinely pregnancy test every woman just in case she's pregnant and hasn't reported it to the authorities?

If we do enforce it and women hide their pregnancies for fear of judgement or being locked up, what happens when they have serious complications and/or their drug use increases and makes the situation worse?

What about if someone doesn't know they're pregnant, continues with risky behaviour but stops as soon as they find out? Would they still be locked up because they did drugs without knowing they had a fetus growing inside them? How would you differentiate between those who genuinely didn't know and those who lied to continue their behaviour?

What if the woman in question already has children but drinks heavily, she finds out she's pregnant and the baby is at risk of Fetal alcohol syndrome so she's locked up for the baby's safety ... What happens to her other children if no family are available to take them in at short notice for months? The care system is already stretched as it is dealing with children at genuine risk of harm

Clearly you haven't thought about this beyond the knee jerk judgement.

The line can't be crossed until birth because a foetus has little to no rights until then.

A foetus can't be compared to living children who have more rights unless you also want to make abortion illegal and give a foetus equal rights.

You'd also have to ban abortion if you did this as it's the only logical conclusion.

Legally when your pregnant there isn’t another person. The baby isn’t a separate human until they’re born. Removal by ss is different because the mother and child are two separate people at this point.

You can believe whatever you like but it doesn’t make it true or inline with the law.

The issue is why is there not more supportive services for pregnant women.

Secure unit? Are you a man?

Uncomfortable as it is, OP, what you are asking for is where Nazism and eugenics bloody starts.
It's not simple. But if you think it is you're a) not thinking hard enough b) not looked at history or c) don't actually care about anything other than making a point.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't be so sure. It's scary how many women would happily police other women's bodies.

Someone else on a different thread is saying that women who don't want to breastfeed should be forced and formula be available on prescription only for medical reasons.

What if the woman in question already has children but drinks heavily, she finds out she's pregnant and the baby is at risk of Fetal alcohol syndrome so she's locked up for the baby's safety ... What happens to her other children if no family are available to take them in at short notice for months? The care system is already stretched as it is dealing with children at genuine risk of harm

Well, I would be very sad to think anyone drinking enough to cause FAS would have any children still in their care.

It is enforceable, the same way that any child protection is enforceable.a lot of babies removed at birth it is because there is known drug and or alcohol use.

Those who say you can't pick and choose body autonomy or where to draw the line. Of course you can. That would be like asking where the line for child protection/ removal of children/ adoption is. Uncomfortable as it is, there is a line that can be crossed.

The line is very static, it isn't picking and choosing, it is birth. You can't remove an unborn child whether it is for drinking alcohol, taking drugs, not eating healthy etc.

The same can be said for men who take drugs and try and conceive a baby with someone. Even smoking weed damages sperm and can cause all sorts of issues such as adhd. In an ideal world every man and women would be healthy atleast 4 months leading up to conception. Unfortunately we only gain rights once we're born.

Thank you for that pearl of wisdom Aunt Lydia.

What if a pregnant woman wants to eat soft cheese, paté and tons of tuna? Should she be locked up and her diet restricted?

At birth because they become their own person with their own rights.

It isn't going to happen before then unless you want to make abortion illegal.

How are you going to police this OP? Pregnancy test for every women who buys a drink in a pub?

Of course you’re unreasonable op. We are not so much slipping but avalanching backwards with female autonomy as it is without starting to police pregnant women’s bodies, even with a minority making horrible choices with longterm consequences.

What about women like myself? It has become clear that there is a genetic factor for ASD and adhd and if I choose to have more children they could well be so disabled they will need lifelong care and support. Should I or women like me also be sterilised?

😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡

I remember a couple of years ago the WHO made the moronic suggestion that all women of childbearing age should not drink, and then had to backpedal mightily and pretend that wasn’t what they’d said.

As this article indicates, there are known risks to the foetus from paternal drinking in the 6 months or so before conception, but oddly the focus is always on women. Wonder why that is? https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1271690

It’s also worth noting that stipulations about what’s safe and not vary hugely between countries, and have varied over time. Where do you draw the line?