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?

No idea how you can possibly twist your brain so much that you can claim to be pro-choice and argue this at the same time. You make no sense.

A baby born at 30 weeks has rights because it is born and becomes its own separate person.

It would only be possible to do this if a foetus is given the same rights as a born baby. This would mean also making abortions illegal because they cause harm to foetus'.

How is it different though?

Say I'm an alcoholic. I continue to drink my 1/2 bottle of vodka a day. Let's assume there is a 50% possibility that my unborn child could be left disabled by the effects of the alcohol.

Now, let's say I have a genetic condition with a 50% chance that my baby could be left disabled by the effects of the genetic condition.

In line with your thinking, in both of these scenarios should I not be locked up for the duration of the pregnancy because I'm making a choice that will affect the quality of my child's life? Actually, in both scenarios shouldn't you be forcing me to have an abortion, because I'm playing the lottery with my child's future?

@Caterpillarsleftfoot - are you going to come back and answer the questions being posed here?

I understand your impassioned sentiment - but was this just an emotional outburst from you, or do you have any thoughts on some of the questions raised?

What are the cutoffs for you - presumably you're not going to lock up every woman who has any alcohol at all? Plenty of pregnant women enjoy the occasional glass of wine (I abstained completely so I'm not defending myself here). Standard blood tests only show what has been drunk in the last 12 hours. How would you monitor it?

Similar questions for drugs. Cannabis has similar risks to smoking for the unborn foetus - so would you extend your policy to include any woman who smokes during pregnancy too?

And would you be concerned that this policy of holding women would deter some from seeking medical help during pregnancy, potentially putting the most vulnerable foetuses at even greater risk (not to mention the woman too!)?

I understand the reasons why you feel the way you do - but having raised the subject, it would be really good if you came back and answered some of the questions so we can have a proper debate about differing opinions on where the line for autonomy vs foetal safety lies.

Has anyone here actually seen a newborn baby going through heroine withdrawal? Go and see the pain that they are suffering and then shout about bodily autonomy.

and those who go outside where there are traffic fumes that can be breathed in, and those who sunbath who can get skin cancer, and those who get in cars which can crash...

bastard pregnant women - they just dont care

The insane pro choice twisters have turned up. No, pro choice never meant it's OK to do wha5ever you want up to birth, or to be ok with abortion up to birth, that is clearly ridiculous.
Mainstream pro choice is exactly as op, science based. Any reason to 12 weeks, more serious to 24 and possibly beyond if not found out until then.
Anyone arguing for beyond 24 weeks for any reason other than life ending disability just sounds like a science denier. Of course there are limits.

in the 24 case, what about issues that dont show til later?

OP this isn't about women having the right to take drugs over their child. No one LIKES that idea or is okay with it.

The problem is that there is no way to enforce it! It is a very slippery slope and heading towards dystopian.

Unless there is a practical ways to enforce it, there is nothing we can do?

This is a very complex ethical and practical issue. You sound rather naive OP in that all you see is a 'evil' mothers who care not a jot for their unborn children and a faceless authority that doesn't care or isn't allowed to do anything about it. It makes you sound like an idealistic teen or someone who has very little to do with the world a lot of people live in. Not to mention no knowledge of the nuances of ethics. (PS I'm a primary school teacher too and my adopted children had these kinds experiences you are talking about in utero).

Are you being disingenuous or do you really not understand the concept of bodily autonomy?

No one here is OK with the harm done to a foetus by a mother taking drugs or drinking when pregnant but you don't seem to recognise the slippery slope of taking away a woman's right to bodily autonomy to protect a foetus. Referring to the foetus as a baby, as many people understandably do, does not change the fact that it is not a baby until it is born, when it then acquires all the same rights as the rest of us.

Women drinking and taking drugs during pregnancy are rarely making a "choice", as so many here seem to believe; addiction is a compulsion, not a choice and if you don't understand that then be grateful.

Just curious, should men who take drugs and then ejaculate into a woman also face criminal charges too? https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/feb/19/health.drugsandalcohol

Terrifying to think that an educator of children believes that the state removing our rights over our own bodies would be a good thing.

It's an interesting question, but where do you draw the line - smoking and unhealthy eating also present risks to unborn children. Once a baby is born, should breast feeding be forced upon women who are able to do it but would choose not to? I am not being facetious, but it's hard to know where it should stop. I am sure there was a case about criminally prosecuting a pregnant woman for harming her unborn child through drugs or alcohol but it was decided it couldn't be a crime (I think more because technically the unborn child is not a person so there's no victim, rather than the decision being that the woman had bodily autonomy, but I could be wrong as to what the reasoning for the decision was). Even if this were to be made law, how would it work practically? A lot of alcoholics/drug users would go to ground and the outcomes for the children could be even worse. If we're going down that route of not burdening a child with lifelong effects of their (birth) mother's poor choices, wouldn't it make more sense to test all pregnant women for drug/alcohol use at 20 weeks pregnant and if they are found to be users/drinkers, then force abortion? But this would never be accepted. The damage is quite likely to have been done by the time you identify the drug/alcohol using expectant mothers so what good would forcing abstinence on them actually do if the unborn child has already been exposed? And what about the drug/alcohol use prior to the pregnancy being known about? Should those mother's be trusted not to do it again, who would decide if they are lying it was a one off? The current system is not perfect but when people are flawed and imperfect themselves I am not sure there is a better system out there. Maybe it should be a criminal offence and that might deter women from doing it, but if the addiction is stronger than their instinct to protect their unborn child then I'm not sure that the threat of a spell in prison is going to make any difference.

A friend of mine has just discovered she's pregnant at 20 weeks. She'd had the injection so should have been protected. She's keeping it, because the idea of killing and delivering a near-fully-formed baby doesn't appeal to her, but she went out drinking fairly frequently over the last few months and is very concerned about the effects on the child.

As much as I agree that people shouldn't drink or smoke or take illegal drugs while pregnant, unfortunately there's not some big light that comes on when you conceive and even with the best will in the world, these things can happen by accident.

There is no known safe level of alcohol to consume when pregnant

Whilst it tends to be larger amounts of alcohol that cause FASD, FAS as you are talking about could be smaller amounts

Taking all children into care because a women drunk a few glasses of wine, possibly before even knowing she was pregnant and unfortunately that caused FAS is a bit of an over reaction

Do you even know anything about foster care, speciation anxiety and attachment disorders when you are advocating for taking children away so easily?

Thank you! I am so glad someone has said this. I can not believe some of the awful comments on this thread. People seemed to have lost all sense of humanity.

Yet the current law disagrees with that.

It is legal for women to have abortions up to 24 weeks, not 12 weeks.
It is legal for women to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol during their pregnancies.

OP isn't just talking about morally, what she's talking about would ultimate change the current law because you can't give a foetus the same rights as a newborn and also keep abortion as a legal option.

You’re not wrong that it’s horrible but there’s no way any control over pregnant women should be the societal norm!!! Of course not.

Also many parents make shit decisions for their children. What about those who gamble? Those who don’t feed them properly? Those who allow them to suffer?? You can see how this is not enforceable in any way and that life is full of nuances- none of us are perfect and women have enough shit to deal with even in 2023 without losing control of their own bodies

Oh grow up. I take it you do not have a life long disability that was caused by your mother taking drugs when you were in the womb? How dare you be so dismissive of the children and adults who are living with the results of such behaviour.

i think the OP is getting exactly what they wanted out of this thread

Yes, I have seen a baby with NAS - and she was never in any pain.

Have you?

I think we all agree that it's horrific and ideally there would be a way to prevent this.

But PP aren't just shouting "my body, my rights" - there are also serious ethical questions about how this policy could ever be implemented and where the line would be drawn.

It would also require a very fundamental change in the law because at present, there is nothing which provides the foetus with individual rights. If that was changed, there could be very far-reaching effects which go way beyond just protecting unborn foetuses from harm. For example, at what point do you give the foetus rights - all the way through pregnancy? So no legal abortions then. What about if the mother was diagnosed with cancer and the only way for her to get life-saving treatment is to deliver the baby very early, and hope that it survives but delivering early is a huge risk - that would put the best interests of the foetus in direct conflict with the best interests of the woman, which takes precedence?

That's just a couple of things off the top of my head. We all know alcohol and substance abuse during pregnancy can have horrific consequences. It's just how it could possibly be implemented and where you would draw the line. And then once you establish that line, how do you prevent the precedent being implemented elsewhere - if women (typically) make a decision that's not in the best interests of others, if you lock them up when they're pregnant, you've already established they can be forced to comply against their wishes...how do you stop the same principle being used in other situations? It's not a good idea to give the state the right to decide what life choices you make - just look at what happens in the countries where this is reality now.

🙄

OP, I too am a primary teacher and have worked with several children impacted by in utero alcohol and substance misuse.

I absolutely share the helplessness and sadness you feel, and have found this a really tricky part of my job, working for a long time in a school where I am now teaching the children of some of my first pupils, whose lives have all effected by maternal alcoholism and drug use in two generations. It's so hard.

Of course it's a slippery slope and we cannot cherry pick concerning women's bodily autonomy. The answer has got to be more support, better services, easier access to early help ‐with housing, addiction, employment, mental health, domestic abuse, childcare, mentoring, respite, benefits‐ a massive package for mother and baby from the moment of conception, better still; for all vulnerable women and girls.