Page 3 | 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?

Mummy08m · 29/08/2023 14:22

Drugs are already illegal. I assume you mean the cocaine kind. And I can't even get hayfever meds easily while pg, if you mean that kind.

(Sorry if this has been said, I've only skim read the thread)

I'm very sorry fir your nephews but it sounds like their mum has already been punished? Her sons have been removed from her care

AngeloMysterioso · 29/08/2023 14:24

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

Plenty of humans are harmed by passively inhaling the fumes from cigarettes being smoked by people around them. Would you propose a blanket ban on smoking as well?

Original poster

Caterpillarsleftfoot · 29/08/2023 14:25

Hufflepods · 29/08/2023 14:18

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.

So you can cause as much life long damage as you like then give birth to a very damaged baby and we can all worry about it's wellbeing then?

I am so astounded at these responses.

I'm a woman and mother of three, for those questioning it. I'm pro abortion below 12 weeks and until 24 weeks in the case of a child having a severely diminished way of life if something is detected.

I believe a woman does not have the right to do what she likes when pregnant or after birth of it hurts her child. I believe the good enough SS threshold is too high and we allow too much harm to children.

OP posts:

Mummy08m · 29/08/2023 14:26

DelurkingLawyer · 29/08/2023 14:22

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?

My god I remember this story.

WHO, have you thought about the high numbers of men who domestically abuse their wives/gfs when they're pregnant? Surely much more harmful to the baby in both the long and short term than a glass of wine.

My goodness it makes me so angry sometimes

Anywherebuthere · 29/08/2023 14:26

I agree drug taking during pregnancy shouldnt happen.

But I disagree on women being imprisoned and controlled. As a pp said, it would be going towards the Handmaids tale route. Where would it stop?

Also some legal medicinal prescribed drugs can also have side effects. Do we make women suffer and maybe even die without those drugs just in case? Where do we draw the line?

Why not go after the growers/makers/suppliers of drugs instead? And its usually men.

That way everyone, not just unborn babies would be safe.

melj1213 · 29/08/2023 14:26

Caterpillarsleftfoot · 29/08/2023 14:18

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.

I used a deliberately exaggerated example to ask the question, which you didn't actually answer, to show how illogical and impossible your plan is but any amount of alcohol during pregnancy can cause fetal alcohol syndrome. There's no safe amount that can be consumed, so are you planning to lock up every woman who has any alcohol from the second they conceive until the day they give birth?

if I have a child and have a couple of glasses a wine when I'm pregnant then I am at risk of FAS, so are you going to take my child away, take me from my job, home and life to lock me up over that? A couple of glasses of wine a week aren't enough for a CPO to have my existing child away but according to you the second I am pregnant it would be enough to have my child taken into state care and me locked up ...

CaptainMyCaptain · 29/08/2023 14:27

Megifer · 29/08/2023 14:05

I'm surprised a teacher can't work out why this is a very very silly and dangerous idea.

As a former teacher myself I have never heard anyone describe themselves as a 'school teacher' the school part is usually implied. Just saying.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 29/08/2023 14:27

I would strongly suspect that being locked up in a secure unit away from friends, family, older children, work would have such a deleterious effect on the mother that the ultimate impact on her unborn baby would be far worse.

For instance: it will likely vastly increase her chances of post natal depression. It could lead to her losing her job and ultimately ending up in poverty, which is in itself associated with worse outcomes for children. It will lead to increased maternal stress and likely increase the chances of miscarriage. And if the mother commits suicide as a result of the trauma of incarceration the foetus will die anyway.

Moreover what about the needs of any older children? Any benefit to the unborn child would need to be set against the harm to existing children from being separated from their mothers. Incalculable damage could be done to the family unit as a result of this hideous dehumanising idea.

Lilolilibet · 29/08/2023 14:28

We don't have a mental health service where we restrain people for long periods of time, if at all (and this would be harmful to baby if you can imagine the struggle) so detaining them against their will would probably involve sedation - more drugs.

I understand your pain but your position is also morally untenable for other reasons. However it is also impractical to begin with.

Tandora · 29/08/2023 14:28

Caterpillarsleftfoot · 29/08/2023 14:25

So you can cause as much life long damage as you like then give birth to a very damaged baby and we can all worry about it's wellbeing then?

I am so astounded at these responses.

I'm a woman and mother of three, for those questioning it. I'm pro abortion below 12 weeks and until 24 weeks in the case of a child having a severely diminished way of life if something is detected.

I believe a woman does not have the right to do what she likes when pregnant or after birth of it hurts her child. I believe the good enough SS threshold is too high and we allow too much harm to children.

Edited

Show quote history

Off you trot to Gillead.

category12 · 29/08/2023 14:28

Caterpillarsleftfoot · 29/08/2023 14:25

So you can cause as much life long damage as you like then give birth to a very damaged baby and we can all worry about it's wellbeing then?

I am so astounded at these responses.

I'm a woman and mother of three, for those questioning it. I'm pro abortion below 12 weeks and until 24 weeks in the case of a child having a severely diminished way of life if something is detected.

I believe a woman does not have the right to do what she likes when pregnant or after birth of it hurts her child. I believe the good enough SS threshold is too high and we allow too much harm to children.

Edited

Show quote history

You're astounded that women would like to continue to have rights over their own bodies?

SouthLondonMum22 · 29/08/2023 14:28

Caterpillarsleftfoot · 29/08/2023 14:25

So you can cause as much life long damage as you like then give birth to a very damaged baby and we can all worry about it's wellbeing then?

I am so astounded at these responses.

I'm a woman and mother of three, for those questioning it. I'm pro abortion below 12 weeks and until 24 weeks in the case of a child having a severely diminished way of life if something is detected.

I believe a woman does not have the right to do what she likes when pregnant or after birth of it hurts her child. I believe the good enough SS threshold is too high and we allow too much harm to children.

Edited

Show quote history

How hard is it to understand?

If you give a foetus the same rights as a born child, abortions wouldn't be allowed because it obviously harms the foetus.

Unless you are suggesting women can drink and take drugs to their hearts content as long as it is only during the first 12 weeks because that's when you believe abortions should be allowed?

Mummy08m · 29/08/2023 14:29

Caterpillarsleftfoot · 29/08/2023 14:25

So you can cause as much life long damage as you like then give birth to a very damaged baby and we can all worry about it's wellbeing then?

I am so astounded at these responses.

I'm a woman and mother of three, for those questioning it. I'm pro abortion below 12 weeks and until 24 weeks in the case of a child having a severely diminished way of life if something is detected.

I believe a woman does not have the right to do what she likes when pregnant or after birth of it hurts her child. I believe the good enough SS threshold is too high and we allow too much harm to children.

Edited

Show quote history

So you can cause as much life long damage as you like then give birth to a very damaged baby and we can all worry about it's wellbeing then?

Clearly not. Midwives etc would refer you to help services. Separately if you're in possession of illegal drugs then police might get involved.

All of the above is why it's thankfully rare (but still a tragedy for the few affected)

Original poster

Caterpillarsleftfoot · 29/08/2023 14:30

I grant you that. It should have said primary school teacher.

OP posts:

Megifer · 29/08/2023 14:30

No one is saying its ok. Don't be so dense.

Its not ok to suggest locking pregnant women up to prevent them from exercising bodily autonomy. What the fuck is wrong with you that you can't see thats a very slippery slope.

If you are a teacher i worry for the quality of your training. Was it a discounted course from Udemy 🤣🤣🤣

Gerrataere · 29/08/2023 14:30

@Caterpillarsleftfoot ill ask again, do you believe women like myself who are evidently have genetic factors resulting is children with moderate to severe disabilities should also be monitored or even stopped from reproducing?

Soubriquet · 29/08/2023 14:31

Caterpillarsleftfoot · 29/08/2023 14:10

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.

Under his eye.

You cannot police what women do with their bodies even if it’s detrimental to an unborn baby. It’s dystopian.

DelurkingLawyer · 29/08/2023 14:31

Mummy08m · 29/08/2023 14:26

My god I remember this story.

WHO, have you thought about the high numbers of men who domestically abuse their wives/gfs when they're pregnant? Surely much more harmful to the baby in both the long and short term than a glass of wine.

My goodness it makes me so angry sometimes

Show quote history

Yes and the back-pedalling lies they told when they were caught out.

The report said “appropriate attention should be given to prevention of [...] drinking among pregnant women and women of childbearing age” but according to WHO when they were rumbled that didn’t amount to them saying women of childbearing age should all abstain.

I have to say, giving attention to preventing women of childbearing age from drinking sounds pretty much like they wanted to stop it if they could.

FastBlueHedgehog · 29/08/2023 14:35

Google eugenics OP and see how well that all panned out. Why stop with drugs and alcohol, how about women who don't take folic acid, or women who aren't immunised against rubella. What about older mothers with increased risk of birth defects. How about moving on to obese mothers, or mothers with low IQs? For a teacher you are coming across quite thick yourself. Maybe you shouldn't be having children in case your lack of critical thinking is passed on to them?

Mummy08m · 29/08/2023 14:36

DelurkingLawyer · 29/08/2023 14:31

Yes and the back-pedalling lies they told when they were caught out.

The report said “appropriate attention should be given to prevention of [...] drinking among pregnant women and women of childbearing age” but according to WHO when they were rumbled that didn’t amount to them saying women of childbearing age should all abstain.

I have to say, giving attention to preventing women of childbearing age from drinking sounds pretty much like they wanted to stop it if they could.

Show quote history

How would they even go about it, public announcements/ads? It's chilling because I can imagine that actually working in some authoritarian countries like where my mum is from.

It's well known that domestic-abusing men are more likely to be violent when they've had a drink. Maybe all men with wives or girlfriends of childbearing age should abstain for that reason.

I'm glad they backtracked, anyway. The whole world isn't mad.

Original poster

Caterpillarsleftfoot · 29/08/2023 14:36

Gerrataere · 29/08/2023 14:30

@Caterpillarsleftfoot ill ask again, do you believe women like myself who are evidently have genetic factors resulting is children with moderate to severe disabilities should also be monitored or even stopped from reproducing?

I think that is a personal choice. As it goes, my brother carries a genetic condition that has a roughly 50/50 heritability and he was not prepared to take that risk which is why my niece and nephews are adopted.

I think it is very different from drug and alcohol use.

I clearly see this differently to others.

OP posts:

CaptainMyCaptain · 29/08/2023 14:36

Caterpillarsleftfoot · 29/08/2023 14:30

I grant you that. It should have said primary school teacher.

Fair enough.

Reallybadidea · 29/08/2023 14:37

You haven't engaged with any of us who have asked how you would enforce your proposal. So you were just having a rant then?

MadeleineMummy · 29/08/2023 14:37

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?

Sounds like a good idea. Maybe they need tests for intellect and good moral sense, examinations for deformity and genetic standing and physicals to ensure that only the best are allowed to breed. Then we need to ensure that undesirables are not a drain to society so they can be humanely euthanised.

i can’t recall whether anyone has tried this to improve humanity for the better?

readbooksdrinktea · 29/08/2023 14:38

A woman either has bodily autonomy or she doesn't, we can't pick and choose.

This is it.