GPLindsey

My wife and I just had our third child. I'm an atheist and pro-choice, but I do believe that there comes a point during pregnancy when a woman no longer has a right to an abortion because of the advanced development of the fetus/child. A woman should have a right to choose, but I don't think she should have 9 months to make that choice. I'm very comfortable prohibiting abortion during the third trimester, because in my opinion the choice has been made.

But I don't really want to argue about abortion--I want to focus on other laws that are lacking for those situations where the mother is carrying the baby to term. Specifically:

1) I really think that it should be illegal for pregnant women to drink alcohol or for bars/restaurants to serve pregnant women alcohol, for obvious health reasons for the baby. A warning label isn't enough.

2) Likewise, there should also be legal prohibitions against pregnant women smoking. I suspect many people in this forum favor laws prohibiting smoking on airplanes, in restaurants, in offices, etc. We make that illegal, but it is OK to watch a woman who is 8 or 9 months along go through a pack of cigarettes? Why shouldn't society prohibit that sort of irresponsible behavior?

2) I think it should be illegal for pregnant women to elect childbirth methods--such as at home with a mid-wife--that puts the newborn at greater risk during labor and delivery. People in the Internet Infidels discussion forums routinely blast religious zealots who use "prayer" to save their kids from easily treatable diseases, only to watch them die. Why should society allow a pregnant woman the "lifestyle" choice to use some higher risk birthing method, if it could lead to the death of a newborn--as a result of some complication that real doctors/nurses at a hospital could have overcome?

I know there is a slippery slope here--if we go too far with laws like this, soon women could become "incubators" for the State, with all their lifestyle decisions made for them based on government-determined risk factors. However, I think some serious discussion is due in these areas, and I favor more laws to prohibit obviously irresponsible behavior.

Dr Rick

What sanctions or penalties would you impose on those that broke these laws?

Rick

Glory

How do you intend to enforce these laws?

Should women who break these laws be put in jail? How is that good for either mother or child?

What about women who do not yet know they are pregnant? I shudder to think that I could have been leaglly sanctioned for having had a cigarette the day before I decided to go for a pragnancy test.

The problem with your proposition is that it puts the baby's presumed wellfare ahead of the mother's rights. I can understand the temptation to do that but it doesn't work in practice. The slippery slope you mentioned is very real. Why stop at alcohol and cigarettes? A fetus could be harmed in a car accident. Should women be legally barred from riding in cars while pregnant? A fetus could be harmed by stress on the mother. Perhaps pregnant women should not work.

Women must be free to do to and with their bodies what they wish. I would do alot to keep women from using drugs, cigarttes and alcohol while pregnat but I won't trample their rights.

BTW, second hand smoke is bad for the baby too. Dads shouldn't smoke around pregnant women either. Neither should strangers of either gender. How do we acheive a smoke free zone around all pregnant women where ever they go? Look out smokers. Get within twenty feet of a prgenant woman with a lit cigarette and you get arrested. That's clearly not practical so we should barr women from leaving their smoke free homes until they deliver.

I am sure you getting the idea, here.

Glory

DMB

A pregnant woman is an autonomous person, with full human rights. She isn't simply a foetus container.

Harumi

Fascinating way to spell fetus. Where are you from?

kctan

Main Entry: foetus
chiefly British variant of FETUS

(From Merriam-Webster)

GeoTheo

I agree the enforcement thing is very problematic, and I'm pro-choice.
The only penalty I can think of is forced sterilization after a women has two fetal alcahol syndrome children or after drug arrests after the birth. Sounds like a pretty ghastly situation though. I say second child not because people should get a brain damaged child as a freebie, but because I think people can learn from their mistakes in some cases. To most a child with birth defects would be punishment enough.
I think the mid-wife thing is unfounded though. A nurse-midwife is a trained proffessional. What do you think just because it is not in a hospital, they do it on a dirt floor or a "birthing cloth" from the middle ages?

The Other Michael

Hi GPLindsey,

You've stopped too soon. The parents have control of the child for roughly 18 years in which they can do grievous harm to the child.

Shouldn't they be required to qualify themselves to be parents before the state allows the impregnation?

After all, you don't have to look very far to find any number of people who are doing a wretched job as parents, and inflicting serious psychological damage and often significant physical damage to the child.

If the child's welfare is important enough that you'd institute the rules during the pregnancy, shouldn't you have rules both before and after the pregnancy too?

cheers,
Michael

ebolamonger

Well, I know none of us are fans of the "personal testimonial", but here goes....I was birthed by a midwife in an apartment and I've turned out just fine. Course, if I don't have my glasses on, I'm liable to take down large pieces of furniture, but that's just the result of some screwball genetics.

and now for the more relevant information: I did a little research at <a href="http://www.webmd.com" target="_blank">www.webmd.com</a> and found this section of an article:

so, midwives can be decent as long as they're licensed. perhaps even if they are unlicensed, too, but that's a risk i wouldn't take.

-nikki-

brighid

I think your intentions are good, but the implications from such reasoning are worse then the crimes you are attempting to avert! In a time not too long ago when abortion was illegal women who miscarried had the police invade their homes, taken them down to the station and interrogate them in an effort to determine if they aborted their fetus. Imagine if every time a woman lost a pregnancy (which naturally happens as much or more then abortion) the police determined if she did something to terminate that pregnancy.

1) I really think that it should be illegal for pregnant women to drink alcohol or for bars/restaurants to serve pregnant women alcohol, for obvious health reasons for the baby. A warning label isn't enough.

Where do we draw the line here? Does one glass of wine with dinner harm the fetus? How about one glass a month? How about a glass of beer? How should the state monitor the amount of alcohol a woman drinks during pregnancy? Should she have to submit to daily, weekly or monthly monitoring? Does EVERY pregnant woman have to submit to this invasive violation of her body simply because she was born with the ability to conceive? Or will only the poor and indigent women be subjected to this because they have less ability to protect themselves?

2) Likewise, there should also be legal prohibitions against pregnant women smoking. I suspect many people in this forum favor laws prohibiting smoking on airplanes, in restaurants, in offices, etc. We make that illegal, but it is OK to watch a woman who is 8 or 9 months along go through a pack of cigarettes? Why shouldn't society prohibit that sort of irresponsible behavior?

Again, how do we monitor this? What should the penalties be? What about those parents who continue to smoke AFTER the child is born subjecting them to increased risk of asthma, upper respiratory infections, ear infections … Or like so many families – stop smoking while the woman is pregnant but start up after the child is born? What do you do about visiting grandma and grandpa if they smoke? What about inviting a friend or relative into your home that smokes? Will there be a penalty for the pregnant woman who is exposed to second hand smoke or will there be a penalty for the person actually smoking in presence of the pregnant woman.

3) I think it should be illegal for pregnant women to elect childbirth methods--such as at home with a mid-wife--that puts the newborn at greater risk during labor and delivery. People in the Internet Infidels discussion forums routinely blast religious zealots who use "prayer" to save their kids from easily treatable diseases, only to watch them die. Why should society allow a pregnant woman the "lifestyle" choice to use some higher risk birthing method, if it could lead to the death of a newborn--as a result of some complication that real doctors/nurses at a hospital could have overcome?

A certified nurse mid-wife/OB GYN team provides the best of both worlds for the mother and her baby. The common practice of episiotomies has been long proven harmful for a woman (including increased risk of perennial tearing and recto-vaginal fistulas) but are still commonly used in hospitals. Women and their partners are not informed of the possible side-effects or potential long-term damage done the child with the use of labor inducing drugs. C-sections are performed 20% more often in hospitals then deliveries with a mid-wife. European countries use mid-wifery as the common method of delivery and often in their homes and most European countries have lower maternal and infant mortality rates related to delivery then the US does … your logic doesn’t seem to actually coincide with the facts. Doctors are not necessarily better at handling delivery of a baby and a certified nurse mid-wife is no worse, except for high risk pregnancies or complications but a CNMW works closely with the hospital and doctors and should be prepared to hand things over.

I empathize with your desire to bring forth the healthiest babies under the best circumstances, but good intentions are not enough. I agree that it is horrible that some women abuse drugs and alcohol and smoke during their pregnancy. I don’t think it’s fair to the baby they will have, but I don’t believe what you proposed will do anything to help women and babies. If anything it will worsen matters. The women who are at risk won’t seek proper pre-natal care if they risk being imprisoned … many don’t now… and I sure as the hell don’t want to have to check in with the police to make sure I haven’t inadvertently exposed my fetus or unborn child to something that MAY or may NOT harm it. Stress harms the development of the baby as well and I can think of few things more stressful then being incarcerated and having to give birth to a child in a prison hospital. Talk about a nightmare!
There are solutions to these problems that should be implemented LONG before a woman might find herself pregnant. Equal education for all, especially the poor who are at a higher risk for such lifestyles, free or reduced medical, pre and postnatal care for all women (such as provided at Planned Parenthood – support your local PP), easy access to birth control such as the Pill, IUD, condoms, etc. Effective sex education, addressing domestic violence issues … teaching ALL girls that they have a future, are worthy and protecting our children so they don’t grow up to find themselves in a crisis situation – such as being pregnant while addicted to drugs, or alcohol. And if you are really interested in reducing children harmed by smoking then you need to address those concerns to the tobacco industry and work to put effective measures in place to prevent future generations from becoming addicted to nicotine.

Brighid

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>