Pregnant Woman Told To Leave Pub

[stinkymonkey]

the nanny state continues

I can understand where the landlord is coming from, though I don't agree with what she did.

Just to clarfy I have no idea on the health risks to do with drinking during pregnancy, my thing is more that it is the landlords legal right to choose if and what he serves people.

having said that tho common sense says to me that drinking full stop isnt great not least because of all the accidents one can have when under the influence (direct and relevant experience of this particular hazard )

get the drinks in then!!

But really none of that is important, there is no law afaik that tell the landlord exactly on what grounds he can choose to or not to serve someone so there is no issue, if there are guidelines tho and he has put his moral reasoning over and above them then there is an issue.

Thankfully my local does a fantastic snakebite and serves it with a straw too! and the sticky toffee pud is heaven!

Landlords are not in a position to monitor the health of pregnant women. They have NO right to make moral judgments about their customers.

Equally, they do NOT have the right to discriminate.

They can refuse service but NOT if that is discriminatory.

Refusing to serve a drunk is quite different from refusing to serve a pregnant woman.

For those that think the pub made the correct decision to allow the woman a pint but not a pint and a half, I have a question.

Can you not see that it is an acceptance of this PRINCIPLE which is offensive and undermining for women in general?

If this pub decided that a pint and a half was too much, the landlord next door might think - oh yes, actually as it's my job to make a judgement I think a PINT is too much for a pregnant woman, so I'll only serve her a half. And the landlady in the next pub might decide that it's best just not to risk serving pregnant women alcohol AT ALL.

Then the landlord of the rough pub down the road might think, well as it's my job to protect pregnant ladies and their unborn children, I don't think my pub is a suitable place for them to be hanging out, so I won't let anyone who is pregnant through the door.

All of the above might be legal, but can you not see how profoundly undermining it is to a woman's freedom of choice and place in society?

Pubs are privately owned establishments. The law landlords to control who enter them.

For example

Pub A might be having an over 50s night.
Pub B might be having a gay night.
Pub C might insist on a certain dress code.

Men might feel aggrieved being excluded from certain events. Its not just a women's issue.

How much freedom of choice should landlords be allowed on running their own business. At the moment they have a fair bit of freedom which gives an interesting variety of pubs.

Thank goodness for some sane voices who can see beyond the fetus in utero (and its supposedly precarious existence) to the implications for women (and men, as it happens). We really have reached the edges of reason in our credulity of 'scientific evidence'. Witness the convos here where people think a waft of cigarette smoke in open parkland is going to damage their toddler, or the stale smell of smoke on grandad's cardigan is going to bring about future cancer for the pfb, or some parents' fears about germs from kindly elderly ladies. Since when was health the meaning of life - what about socializing with other human beings? This deeply intolerant culture contributes to social breakdown far more than any drunken teenagers (or pregnant ladies for that matter) hanging around having a laugh.

Reallytired - I'm not questioning a publican's right to have theme nights.

This is a much more profound principle - ie whether a pregnant woman has the right to set her own limits of consumption or whether society at large (and that includes landlords) should decide FOR her.

I personally think the landlord should not have intervened in her decision to quaff beer. Obviously she has a right to make these choices for herself. I still however marvel at her lack of self control / poor choices in not being able to can the drinking (no pun intended) for a few months. It's not a major sacrifice.

Yes the evidence with regards to alcohol consumption and safe limits vis a vis F.A.S may not be proven, but whilst there is an element of doubt - wouldn't it be judicious, and morally right (sorry have been doing some philosphy this morning in my OU assignment)to abstain?

HMC: bullshit. Because on those grounds pregnant women should lock themselves indoors and stay in bed for nine months just in case they are exposed to something that might be a potential risk to their foetuses.
WHat has to be repeated again and again is that pregnant women matter more than foetuses; pregnant women are people and it is up to THEM what they do during their pregnancies.

If you are noticeably pregnant and decide to drink or smoke in public, prepare to be judged by others! The person looking at you has no idea if you're having half a pint or 12 pints, one crafty fag once a week or 60 a day, and will draw their own conclusions...

Poppetpie, while self-righteous twats are entitled to form their own opinions of other people's behaviour, they have no right to attempt to control it. SO if you went and tried to take a drink or cigarette off a PG woman and she kicked you in the shins, the law would be on her side not yours. Because you are not her boss or her owner.

PoppetPie - the fact that they have no idea is all the MORE reason why they should not presume to judge, surely?

SGB - your example of mistaken pregnancy did bring to mind images of shuffling embarrassed bar staff despatched over to interrogate any woman on her second pint with a questionably large gut (including me, for example!) as to whether or not she is pregnant. But maybe I shouldn't joke about it - sounds like this scenario might be just around the corner...

wow 400 plus posts about a tiny page 3 article in the evening argus

Solidgold - your counter argument is facile. Can't be bother to engage further as I grow impatient with people who frame their arguments with 'bullshit' and similar

'self righteous twats' is not a particularly inspired form of debate either (yawn...back to ou forum where the discussions are better)

Wow, I thought this was a chewy issue but I didn't think it would run on so much.

the pub has now apologised

I saw the woman on the news last night, she was getting very self righteous about being denied a half and didn't mention the previous pint.

In the days before we knew you weren't supposed to eat stuff like brie etc, my aunty was pregnant and brie was her no. 1 craving. Her DD was stillborn .

I do understand that the risks are small with most of the stuff - runny eggs, etc etc. However, why would you take a small risk when it is so easily avoided? A slip up on the rules, OK, but disregarding them? I think just disregarding rules set by the department of health is silly. I stuck to the rules whilst pregnant with my DCs. I had lots of complications and my DCs were both at risk of stillbirth anyway. I was worried out of my mind and I feel quite angry when I see people with trouble free pregnancies just disregarding the rules because they are uncool or don't fit in with what they want. I think I have more sympathy for people who smoke in pg because it is an addiction. People who just disregard rules for no good reason upset me because for DS, every single day for 20 days before he was born (borderline prem), I had to be attached to the CTG heart monitor for sometimes quite a few hours to check that he wasn't about to have his heart stop beating. Same for my DD. Was horrible.

oops, wrong thread!

Hey Crokky when I saw your post there I was going to post the link and say come on my thread about whether pregnant women have a duty to follow dietary advice - here it is anyway

Good, am glad the pub has apologised.

vociferously arguing a woman's "rights" to potentially harm her foetus -madness

a pg woman is carrying a child and one would hope she would endeavour to be healthy.follow advice and refrain from toxins inc alcohol

i will march for women's rights equal pay,employment,access to education,childcare etc.any valid access to rights.however arguing one has complete freedom of volition and actions over there unborn child without any apparent moral disapproval is barmy

i don't consider it a right to assert one's' autonomy by ingesting alcohol when pg. so argue this any quasi-feminist/post feminist post modern schmodern social science discursive babbling way you want.But a pg woman does not have the right to potentially cause harm to her baby without somecomment

SM: Yes she does. Because she has the right not to continue that PG at any point (up to 24 weeks legally and TBH up to birth, ethically). So what she does with her body is her business. People can comment all they like, but they cannot be allowed to interfere.