Should pregnant women be allowed total control over their bodies? Where do the unborn child's rights come into it?

[Bumperliouzzzzzz]

Just wondering. I've never read anything theoretical on the matter and am not completely sure where I stand. However I was talking to a colleague today (am 18 weeks pg) and was mentioning wine (I've actually only had 2 glasses so far this pg) and she said 'Oh I thought you weren't allowed to drink when pg?' and I started on a rant (well actually we had a discussion) about woman's rights during pregnancy. I was saying that it is my body and I can do what I like with it, though obviously I don't.

What say should/does a father have in the matter? If I do drink when pg DH gets a bit twitchy, and he won't let me dig in our allotment. Now I am happy to have the excuse not to really but I resent being told what to do. I take heed of my DH because I care about him and believe that he should have some say and he is just worried, but I don't want to be nagged about what I should/shouldn't be doing.

Should the unborn child's rights come first or is it a case of my body, my choice? I think I am mostly resentful of the fact that it is a bunch of men (usually) politicians, DP's who tell us what to do when they have no idea of the effects of being pregnant.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for the link justgetonwithit.

Last time a colleague told me off for swearing when pg!

I also get comments when I wear high heels.

I let DH get away with it to a point (not the above, but other things) but mainly because I know it's because he cares and parenting is a partnership and I respect him (plus because it is usually getting out of stuff I wouldn't want to do anyway). But I do make it clear to him that it is my body, my choice, he still disagrees with me though.

Ah but you are forgetting about foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, a range of disorders which may or may not be related to drinking unspecified but possibly minimal amounts of alcohol whne pregnant.

On this basis women should not drink any alcohol at all while pregnant, just in case. And if she does, and then her child has any difficulties, of any sort, to any extent, and at any point in their life, then it is probably her fault.

"Allowed"???

Just looking at that link and they talk of the 'preconception movement' in America, which is a bit like what I was trying to remember earlier. Seems fairly benign, mostly about improving woman's health to aid fertility and to decrease the problems caused by not being healthy enough in early (unknown) pregnancy. But it is a small step away from legislating the behaviour of preconception' women.

Are you berating me for using the word allowed in my thread title? It's not a fair reflection of what I think, but I think it is a fair reflection of what many people think so a reasonable question to pose.

Re: Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

"The babies born to
women who regularly binge drink (drink five or more drinks
at one time) may experience alcohol-related
neurodevelopmental disorders."

Link
Again, rather different to a glass or two.
The truth is that nobody knows so scaremongering seems to be the percieved way to go.

Of course I am "berating" you for talking about "allowing pregnant women total control over their bodies". In the feminism section, of all places

"Unborn" people have no rights. Born people, like pregnant women, do have rights. One of these rights is to do whatever the hell they want as long as it is legal - like drink, smoke, run marathons, or jump off a plane with a parachute.

I fail to see how thread title poses a "reasonable question".

Well, I disagree. I think there are some reasonable arguments to be had on the other side - I don't necessarily agree with them but I think some of them aren't unreasonable. I don't think the argument is cut and dried at all.

And if this is a question that many people think is valid (and clearly they do) why shouldn't it be posed as a question up for debate in this section?

I don't want to not post in this section for fear of not saying the right thing in the right way and having my feminist credentials questioned, but sometimes I do wish I hadn't bothered. Can't this be a place where we think through and try and articulate arguments, especially for those of us who are new to the theoretical side of feminism? Or do we have to be radical feminists before we even post?

Ah, 'pre-pregnant', that was it, I knew I had read about it somewhere years ago, that was probably the article.

Can you specify what exactly you "disagree" with?

... That unborn people don't have rights?
... That born people do have rights?
... That pregnant women are (born) people?
... That one of these rights is that pregnant women can do whatever the hell they want as long as it is legal for everyone else?

These are facts and as such, I'd certainly hope you don't feel you are at a liberty to "disagree" with them, but please do explain

Bumperliouzzz, I agree that you shouldn't have to feel like you have come up with the perfect formulation at the start of a debate, definitely. I didn't mean my comment about the "unborn child/baby" to be taken as biting your head off- I just thought it was worth raising because it has slipped into just common (and unthinking) usage. We definitely need to be able to think and discuss without being afraid we've got it "wrong".

Agree with dittany - it's the word allow that pisses me off.

Was at kiddy farm with heavily pg friend lately and told "you're not allowed to go near the sheep and lambs". "Not advised" I said, advised.

(Bumperliouzzz don't mean that I object to you using it, think was great debate.)

I'm not saying what you suggest is reasonable. But I think it is reasonable to suggest that a viable foetus, where a mother a has decided to follow through with a pregnancy, deserves to be looked after in a way that won't cause it to have problems that may be detrimental to it when born and potentially for the rest of it's life. I'm not saying that should be legislated, nor agreeing that those rights outweigh the mother's. But I don't think it is an unreasonable suggestion to make, even if I don't agree with it. And therefore I stand by my OP posing that question because unlike you dittany I don't have all the answers to hand and can't always articulate how I feel, and am not always even clear about how I feel, which I why posed the question and enjoy discussing it here. I agree with a lot of what you say dittany, but the way you put things sometimes, (and Cote in this case) puts me off wanting to get involved

I'm off to bed anyway. I'm not running off. I am pregnant and haven't slept properly in 4 months, so very tired and losing coherence even as I type.

I nearly rammed a can of coke up a colleagues arse when he commented "should you really be drinking that" when I was 8 months pregnant.

My body, my choice.

Oh FGS Cote, no need for the face or patronising tone is there? T

hose maybe facts within law, but doesn't mean they shouldn't or can't be challenged where appropriate. And I'm not even on that bloody side so I don't know why you are rounding on me! I just think it is a reasonable debate to be had, as clearly there are many people who don't think that women should have control over their bodies, and that is not theoretical. There are laws in the States deeming this so. Surely a debate is important to understand why woman's rights should be protected.

Right, I really am going to bed now.

Wow! That guardian article is so scary. I'm glad I don't live there!

Interesting debate.

Ultimately women have to have total control over their bodies. once a foetus develops rights, the woman's rights over her body will start to be eroded. Very very dangerous. A foetus is not a person. A woman is.

However, the sight of heavily pregnant women smoking and getting drunk thoroughly depresses me. As does the thought of babies who are born addicted.

If a woman has decided to go ahead with a pregnancy one would hope that she would have the best interests of her baby at heart. Sadly this is not the case, but I think the only way to improve matters is by tackling the root causes such as poverty, deprivation, lack of education etc rather than laying down laws as to what a woman can or can't do

My last comment for tonight. I didn't mean the 'unlike you dittany' petulantly (as it probably sounded), I meant it literally, you are very articulate and post reasoned responses whereas I tend to post as I am thinking. But your vehemence can be off putting, and make it very hard to disagree with you as I can't match your reasoning and obvious theoretical knowledge. Sometimes I just don't agree because I don't agree, it's just my opinion.

That Guardian article made my jaw drop, cannot believe that they are actual federal guidelines. Scary stuff, just seems to me to be another way of trying to control women and our every move.

Whilst most of us would try to live as healthily as possible whilst pregnant, I passionately believe that women should retain autonomy over their bodies. In law the foetus has no rights, and I believe this shouldn't change.

At uni we had a big debate when looking at some cases that deal with these issues, such as whether forcing a competant woman to have a caesarean against her will constitutes a battery against her (the courts said it did) and one particularly pro life woman was adamant that a foetus should have rights as a separate being. I had chilling visions of women being corralled into prisons as soon as they are pregnant, so we can be scrutinised and watched so that we do not do anything that could possibly harm the foetus, reucing us to nothing more than incubators that doctors could do whatever they liked to if they deemed it to be in the interests of the foetus.