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 woman’s body remains her own regardless of whether she’s pregnant or not. That isn’t ‘special status’.

Depriving someone of their liberty is a very serious course of action, and a last resort usually reserved for those in psychosis. As it stands, drug users aren’t routinely sectioned because they’re a danger to themselves.

Right, but how will this actually work in practice?

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

You say obviously as if its easy. How would you distinguish between a woman who has been drinking during pregnancy and says she hasn't and a woman who hasn't been drinking during pregnancy and says she hasn't

I have a condition called unicornuate uterus. This condition come with multiple miscarriages, women can have 10+ before having a live baby. I had several miscarriages and a still birth. In some counties I would probably be in prison.

I also have PCOS, which means my periods can be up to 12 weeks apart. I could easily drink during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy without a clue I was pregnant. Are you sure you would believe me if I had a baby with FAS and said I didn't know I was pregnant. I'm mixed race, do you think that make me more or less likely to be believed by a jury?

And despite it being pointed out several times that men drinking causes birth defects too, no one is talking about locking them in and prosecuting them. Just women.

100% agree with you on this. The consequences on the child has been completely unaddressed by the posters on this thread.

No, they haven’t. Not treating it as the most important consideration isn’t the same thing as being ignorant to the damage that can be caused, or failing to acknowledge it.

I think it's interesting that there is full support for a mother to actually harm her baby in utero

what are you on about?

They really haven't.

The consequences on a born child are obviously terrible.
The consequences and potential consequences regarding what OP has suggested are worse.

It's easy to support bodily autonomy when you agree with the person's choice but it has to be there even when you disagree too, especially women who have a long history of others controlling their bodies.

@SouthLondonMum22 As I said to you before, it's been done in Singapore.

Do you have any links as to how it works over there? I haven't been able to find anything about it.

I really wouldn’t be following Singapore’s lead on what to do with people taking drugs

But some prescription drugs are given and they are actually more harmful than illegal ones. And for all you know you may have ingested something that has been very harmful to your DC. Where do you draw the line? The law isn't always correct. What if you eat something that DC turns out to be deathly allergic to in the womb? How would you know. You literally don't know what causes the challenges so mind your own

Exactly. Lock up women who ingest a bit more caffeine and the Japanese women who eat sushi while pregnant. Different countries have different laws how do you police that if the law is what you choose as your guiding light.

@ToastyCrumpets I'm from Singapore and can tell you it's a much better system.

Maybe all pregnant women should be locked up just in case? That’s where this train of thought leads to.

So maybe let's have these children continue to suffer then?

Absolutely nuts how this thread has been twisted to a discussion on abortion.

I'm bowing out of this thread. Maybe do some research on how other countries safeguard children. There's a bigger world outside of the UK.

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

Not entirely. Some pregnant women already visibly struggle to buy wine/other alcohol in pubs or supermarkets. Ok there's no law, but there are judgey bar staff and retail staff.

Not really, the vast majority of people don't suffer with addiction and their fetuses/future children aren't affected by their lifestyle

Not saying we should intervene that way, domt quite see the logical leap here however.

Yeah, I’d rather have a legal system that doesn’t sentence people to corporal or capital punishment but whatever.

Because when we start putting the rights of a foetus over the rights of a living breathing sentient adult woman then women die. Being pregnant is a medical condition and it is no-ones business other than that woman and her midwife over how she chooses to live during that pregnancy. Plus where would it end? Women who can't quit smoking? Women who eat deli meat? Women who are in abusive relationships where there's a continued high cortisol level? Women with stressful jobs or caring responsibilities? You're getting into very dangerous territory there.

Also on a side note, as someone who works with children in care, many of whom have parents who misuse substances- judging their biological parents is very isolating and not in the child's best interest. They need you to understand that that parent is going through their own trauma and personal hell and be neutral so the child can process their own feelings about their parent.

You cannot give a foetus more rights and pretend abortion isn't a concern.

Some countries refuse to lock up pregnant women at all

I mean I'm not saying its better but its not like there's only one other way out there....

Capital punishment isn't inherently bad. Especially for crimes like murder and rape.

@ToastyCrumpets

I'm still astounded at how many people want to protect the rights of a woman to make bad choices over the harm of a child.

I still don't understand how you don't apply the "where would if end" theory to all areas of child protection. Why aren't people saying "but where will it end" if you propose permanent removal of children from drug using parents? Surely it's a slippery slope to have any child on a child protection plan as there is a line somewhere between "good enough" and unacceptable.