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?

Yes, that’s life. You can’t legislate for every unfortunate eventuality, and nor should you.

Nobody has thought of a practical answer to that question so far.

How can you impose those laws without also having to change the law giving a foetus more rights than they currently have?

Which would open up a huge can of worms.

Also, how would all of this be funded?
Where would all these extra doctors and midwives who aren't already overworked and overwhelmed come from so they have the time to support these women properly?

Not one of the Hanwell wringers has given me one suggestion yet of how this would work.
Come on
step by step
How would you do it?

The alternative is living in a society where pregnant women are nothing but incubators and a foetus has more rights than them.

Have you any idea about the likely outcomes for looked after children - or the lack of capacity within the fostering system?

Where are all the children of drinkers, smokers and fat people going to go in your ideal world?

In just 200 odd messages, this thread has gone from advocating the locking up of pregnant women who take drugs or drink alcohol, to you now suggesting that anyone not meeting some 'ideal standard of good parenting having to 'prove' themselves to the state - an interesting approach of that slippery slope others have already mentioned.

Still waiting for just one of the flying monkeys or the OP to come up with a coherent plan
Or is this just all goady bollocks?

Nobody has a practical answer. But what I hate is all the posters who jump in waving the flag of bodily autonomy, jumping to big conclusions about how apparently the OP wants to bring the Handmaid's tale to life whilst completely ignoring the people living with lifelong disabilities. I wander how many of you would be willing to take on a role caring for these people who will need care for the rest of their life? I have. But I suspect most of you would prefer to sit back comfortably in your middle class homes, wearing your bodily autonomy t-shirt and thinking you are making a difference in life by doing so. You are helping no one.

So you admit
There is no way of doing what the op is suggesting

@coffeeandcake00 I have a lifelong disability. A hereditary disorder. What do you think about my DM who chose to have me, knowing that I'd spend my life in pain.

So is your view that no one with inheritable genetic conditions should have children either? That’s also risking bringing children with lifelong disabilities into the world, after all.

Or if a disability is discovered, should pregnant women be forced to have abortions?

As everyone has said - slippery slope.

Yet the OP has already said she is fine with parents choosing to risk their children having disabilities in some cases. It's just in the cases where mothers take drugs that they should be locked up and have their rights completely taken away.

People like OP often say things like this completely from an emotional viewpoint with little to no logic of how it would work practically or what other consequences could potentially happen as a cause of this if it was to be carried out.

Which is why it is rightly pointed out that it would never, ever work.

I agree with you in theory op, but can't see it being enforceable.

In a society where it's mostly ok to kill your foetus, why would you expect people to worry about giving it drugs or alcohol?

I am mostly against abortion fwiw.

Let's lock all women and girls of child-bearing age up in supervised accommodations.

Or maybe put all women on enforced long-term contraception and they have to pass a raft of physical and psychological tests before they're allowed to try to conceive? Obviously have to maintain high levels of scrutiny even once those tests are passed.

Maybe we'll consider men having to do the same since their booze-addled sperm can be damaging too. But probably not, because you know, men.

At least your consistent.

Older men can have sperm more likely to have certain issues, so no woman should be pregnant with an older man.

There is some evidence that foetuses can be impacted by trauma/ domestic violence, so women should be removed from them (I mean they probably should anyway... but you know what I mean).

Women know not to drink/ take drugs/ smoke in pregnancy, but they do anyway. The ingesting of the substances themselves goes much deeper than that. But as a teacher, you will already know all this.

WTF, rape?! How is rape bodily autonomy? It’s the exact opposite.

Your suspicions don’t equal fact therefore your opinion of others is based on precisely fuck all and has equal merit.

I don't understand those stupid and reckless enough to take drugs through pregnancy, because I've worked with the results - but I'm not sure how you could stop them.

Selfish people are what they are. 🙂

I don't think anyone has said that they're happy with babies being born with lifelong disabilities, but as with many things there is no perfect answer and society chooses the lesser of two evils. We weigh up the implications of preventing babies being born with preventable issues with the likely results of ensuring that happens.

If you can tell me of a time when you have cared for a person who developed a lifelong disability as a result of someone abusing drugs during pregnancy then I will accept your statement. Or do you just resort to using swear words when someone disagrees with you?

It's not relevant whether people have direct experience of looking after people with disabilities caused in this way. Poor outcomes for the children affected still don't make it OK to remove rights and bodily autonomy from pregnant women, to dehumanise them or deprive them of their liberty.

@notlucreziaborgia that's what I've been saying. Some people have a very limited understanding of what laws are for, could be for, and should be for.

Hint: law and ethics are not the same thing.

I’m not resorting to shit @coffeeandcake00, I just like swearing. Enhances the tone.

Until you’ve worked with women routinely abused (which is what incarcerating a pregnant woman would be), managing an addiction etc I don’t really think your opinion is unbiased or rounded enough to fully take into consideration all the consequences. You may see one element of the suffering and destruction caused but you’re completely dismissing other elements.

And then making huge assumptions about strangers on the internet to try and illustrate that your opinion is the only worthy one.

so I stand by what I posted.

I’m sure in the U.S. there was a study that suggested that fetal outcomes were better when women who had known substance abuse issues were incarcerated during pregnancy in comparison to other women with abuse issues who were not incarcerated during pregnancy. It was interesting as bucked the trend of prison dangerous for pregnant women studies.

I really don’t think you can just lock up women though despite their issues. I think long term birth control should be strongly
encouraged for women who abuse drugs/ drink.