controlling women during pregnancy

[Rollon2012]

I've heard a few comments over the years about the hole teetotal during pregnancy thing is not about healthy babies but used to control women.

I wondered straight away , do feminists share this view?
im on the fence generally , although I went cold turkey smoking wise (threw my fags in the bin on the way out of the surgery after getting results) never smoked since and didn't drink at all.

Or is it an excuse the pg women who dont have the willpower to abstain for drinking for 9 months to make themselves feel better??

just wondering what your views on this, (I appreciate it may be a sensitive subject)

an interesting parallel - drink driving sets a 'safe' limit on the amount of booze you can have in your blood. the public is trusted to understand this. they don't need to be told 'no booze at all' due to lack of understanding.

yet apparently the same isn't true about women in pregnancy...

TMDV the father in that case was also a student, and i'll hazard...also getting pretty wrecked at the time conception occurred.

brewers droop is not a reliable contraceptive.

Is the public trusted to understand this? I don't think so - and if you have a look here the information advises caution whilst drinking too - "even small amounts of alcohol can affect your ability to drive so the only safe advice is to avoid any alcohol if you are driving" about a third of the way down the page.

I don't think there is a blanket ban on drinking when pregnant. Different agencies advise different things. Of course there are other things which are risky too. I have a career but would not have chosen to take the risk of having children later on but then I've seen first hand the less than happy results when risks have been taken. If I remember correctly one child in every hundred is born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. The financial costs to the NHS, social services etc of looking after these children is a consideration too.

I'm not risk adverse but I weigh up the pros and cons and forgoing the pleasure of drinking or smoking to give children the best start in life is a small sacrifice.

or you could have wiki'd it "In the United States and Europe, the FAS prevalence rate is estimated to be between 0.2-1.5 in every 1000 live births."

so not 1 in 100. though quite a range there....

Nobody is arguing with a person weighing up the pros and cons and making a decision, just as you describe STIDW. that's what I did - I decided to have a one or two units every few weeks after weighing up the pros and cons. this is the WRONG decision, apparently, selfish, lacking will power, etc.

"Are they refused some drinks or food because others know best and have decided for them what is and isn't ok?"

You, when on Warfarin, are advised not to eat to many green vegatables like cabbages, you are told not to eat or drink grapefruit, just like you are advised during pregnancy as it could harm another human being.

The analogy has been made about men who drink heavily, if a man drinks heavily and does something that impacts on another person, he is chargable; drunk and disorderly, indecent behaviour etc. If a pregnant woman behaves in a way that makes her unborn child disabled, she is not accountable, so the analogy doesn't work.

Women are mearly being advised, like obese people are, by doctors, they are not in the UK being commanded to behave or abstain from anything.

Grumpy - where do see that as being the WRONG decision? All the Govt advice is that it's probably not harmful after the first 3 months. No-one official is telling you have it's selfish, lacking in will power etc.

Like it or not, unless it has been proven that an action will have no effect on your unborn bay, it is a selfish act and putting your wants, not needs, no-one needs to drink, first. Putting your wants before your babies needs, is selfish.

But i have never heared of a MW say this to a pregnant woman, they only give advice.

If it was a case of true patriarchy then the father of the unborn would have the right to have the woman imprisoned or section to protect his child, but we don't allow men that control. The maternity and child system never benefited WC men. Class came first not gender.

Birds you're hardly upset that maternity systems don't benefit wc men! why the hell should they You are just plain wrong by saying unless a negative is proven you are being selfish. Nobody says don't eat one carrot, because eating truckloads of carrots is harmful.

Maisie, I don't see it as wrong, plainly, or else I wouldn't have done it.

I will give you a case senario.

A woman whoo is an addict has 3 children, all disabled to some degree because of her actions during or after pregnancy, they are removed.

She gets pregnant again some years later, to a man who doesn't know her past. He is willing to parent the child, he cannot do anything and neither can the law to make sure this women behaves in a way that will give this child a chance to be born healthy, or even survive.

How is this treating the woman badly? because she has been handed a leaflet during her pregnancy with advice on it? Why shouldn't she be?

Who in this senario is being helped by this idea that patriachy is controlling pregnant women?

But most pregnant women are NOT addicts and well able to drink one glass of wine/eat one lump of soft cheese/whatever and as such should be given THE FACTS.

If someone IS an addict they should be given help and support applicable to THEIR situation.

Most pregnant women are not addicts, neither are they being controlled and have a lot more control than the father of the child does.

The idea that women were responsible for children hasn't done WC men anyt good. Mostly the men are pushed to one side and not given equal status in the parenting stakes.

OK, my mistake. The figure 100 actually related to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder.

"The National Organisation on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome - UK (NOFAS - UK) reports that much of the research for western countries estimates that:
? 1 in 500 children are born with FAS
? 1 in 100 children are born with alcohol-related disorders from the spectrum (Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder - FASD)
Combining these estimates with the ONS' reports of 700,000 live births in Britain each year, there are likely to be 6-7,000 babies born with FASDs of varying severity."

www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentServer?siteID=1937&categoryID=945

Someone mentioned sperm but my understanding is that it is alcohol crossing the placenta during the first three months of pregnancy when the central nervous system (in particular the brian ) is developing has the main effect.

of course women have more control in pg matters than a man. wc or not. why on earth wouldn't they?

If a man is a problem drinker or a smack head or snorts coke everyday and impregnants 100 women with his damaged sperm - there are NO sanctions.

He can do what he likes to who he likes and he will not be arrested or even handed a leaflet by the mw or HV.

If a woman becomes pg by said charmer and her baby is born with issues related to drug and drink she will be the one who gets the entire blame.

I do not condone drinking or drug taking in pg. I have a little boy who has suffered the consquences of binge drinking and recreational drug abuse.

That may be the case but it may not be (re crossing placenta). We have no real idea how much a child is damaged if they are conceived with damaged sperm.

Look at the children of chernobal and those affected by agent orange and other atrocieties.

My DD got luekemia. Her dad was in Gulf War one. She was born less than a year after he got back from a place where the air was poisoned by burning oil and god knows what else. The cancer rates in that part of the world are very high.

It is entirely possible that her very agressive form of cancer (which didnt respond to treatment) had something to do with it. I know he feels guilt about it. We will never know.

But an addict is an addict is an addict whether or not she is pregnant.

You do not turn into an irresponsibly, incapable, irrational infant when you carry a foetus. I am quite capable of weighing up risks for myself. And the 'recommendations' given to every pregnant woman is not a presentation of the actual research which will allow her to make an informed decision. It is a blanket recommendation to avoid all alcohol despite there being no evidence of harm in women who drink in moderation during pregnancy.

For all the goodwill in the world, guilt-tripping a normal woman into avoiding all risks during pregnancy is not going to stop an addict from abusing alcohol (or drugs).

The question was are pregnant women being controlled by patriachy by being given information on healthy living, well no they are not, they are being advised to act in the best interests of their unborn child.

"of course women have more control in pg matters than a man. wc or not. why on earth wouldn't they"

because their actions affect that mans child and by not taking that on board as a society, somewhat, we are doing either gender , no favours. Woman are being put in the postion of being the expected primary carer and men are discounted.

If women don't need any advice they also should be able to take responsibility, it cannot be both ways.

I personally think that the system works as well as it can, at present.

Really ? Works well?

You have just said that you work with 'the fall out', is there any evidence of decreased incidence of FAS since the recomemdations have become tighter?