Criminalizing Things for Pregnant Women

[anriana]

Inspired by Boozy's post.

Do you support making it illegal for pregnant women to smoke/drink/be addicted to crack/exercise/eat fish/change cat litter (pick as many as you'd like.)


I don't. It would lead to fertile women being treated as "pre-pregnant" by the law.

[BlaqueKatt]

Do you support making it illegal for pregnant women to

Going to cover these one at a time-

smoke

-from the march of dimes-"if a woman stops smoking even by the end of her second trimester of pregnancy, she is no more likely to have a low-birthweight baby than a woman who never smoked"(but may still have other issues)

drink

-also from the march of dimes-Studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggest that between 1,000 and 6,000 babies in the United States are born yearly with FAS

be addicted to crack

-already illegal-moot point

exercise

generally exercise during pregnancy is encouraged

eat fish

from Mercury facts.org-a developing fetus has more mercury in his/her blood than a pregnant mother, the estimate of "at risk" births should be doubled. She was right that there could be a difference between fetal and maternal mercury levels, but this difference had already been factored into the EPA's ten-fold "Uncertainty Factor" when its very conservative Reference Dose was calculated.

change cat litter

-from the humane society of the united states(PETA group and I hate to use them but the info is accurate-sooooo)-"Because it's difficult for cats to transmit toxoplasmosis directly to their caregivers, a pregnant woman is generally unlikely to contract the disease from her pet cat.

Several factors keep the chance of such transmission low. First of all, only cats who ingest tissue cysts get infected. Within the feline population, this would be limited to outdoor cats who hunt and eat rodents, as well as cats who are fed raw meat by their owners. In addition, only after a cat is first exposed to T. gondii does he typically excrete oocysts, and he does so for only two weeks. An outdoor hunting cat is often exposed to the disease as a kitten and is, therefore, less likely to transmit the infection as he ages.

Secondly, because oocysts become infective only after one to five days, exposure to the disease is unlikely as long as the cat's litter box is changed daily.

Finally, since oocysts are transmitted by ingestion, in order to contract toxoplasmosis, a woman would have to make contact with contaminated feces in the litter box and then, without washing her hands, touch her mouth or otherwise transmit the contaminated fecal matter to her digestive system."

I don't. It would lead to fertile women being treated as "pre-pregnant" by the law.

that would depend on how the law was written-most states do have a "viability limit" on abortion-meaning no elective abortions allowed(health reasons of the mother are a different matter, and not considered elective) after the fetus reaches viability(usually somewhere around the start of the third trimester-normally calculated by the survival rate percentage of babies born at that gestational age)-so if the law was written, that it was only illegal "after viability" you are no longer "pre-pregnant", as a zygote, or a two or three month gestated fetus is not viable. And along with the law passed making the harmful things illegal "post-viability" have it worded so that those who partake in such activities that are shown to cause harm(smoking, drinking, drug abuse) are offered assistance to quit, either before viability, or after being charged(within reason kind of like people charged with certain traffic violations/criminal acts can get the charges dropped/reduced for attending certain classes/providing community service)

[Sylvia727]

I'm not sure about the "pre-pregnant" bit. Our society is a few steps away from the "all women are living incubators" stage. Women have fought and are still fighting for the right to be recognized as more than wombs on legs, and to be valued for their minds, not their bodies. But this does raise the question of who has custody of minor children, their mothers, their parents or the state, and the question of do embryoes and fetuses have rights.

In most cases, the parents automatically have joint custody of their children. However, the state provides for the welfare of minor children in many ways, including the reserving the right to remove children who are being neglected or abused. So, in a sense, the community has collective responsibility for all children. However, if both parents have custody, can't the father sue to prevent the mother from drinking or riding motorcycles? If he can, doesn't that violate the mother's rights; if he can't, doesn't mean that the mother has greater custody than the father? The mother can choose whether or not to expose the fetus to risks of death, injury, and retardation when the father cannot make that choice. She has greater power over the baby than he does.

Take a chronic alcoholic who falls off the bandwagon in her third trimester. It's too late to abort the fetus, and it's not too late for the fetus to develop Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Does the woman have the right to expose another person to that danger? Obviously, fetuses can't be granted the same rights as infants, because that would infringe too far upon the rights of the birth mother. But how far can their rights go? How much do women give up when they agree to become mothers? And in western society, with access to sex ed, contraceptives, and abortion, a woman who remains pregnant is consciously choosing to become a mother.

I don't know all of the answers. I don't know the proper balance of respect for opposing rights. We hope for the best, in which the mother chooses to do the right thing by her child. When that fails, when a woman chooses to endanger her unborn/future child (obviously this wouldn't apply if she chose to abort), then whose rights outweigh the other's? Ordinarily, I favor personal responsibility over the nanny state. However, my cousin and my half-sister both have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and I have seen firsthand the damage that could easily have been prevented if their mothers had just controlled themselves. My cousin is in high school and still doesn't understand the concept of money. She may never be able to live on her own. Who will provide for her when her father passes away? And why should women be allowed to ruin someone else's entire life just for their own selfish pleasure? When you choose to become a mother, you choose to give up something of yourself for another human being. That should include giving up unnecessary risks such as smoking and drinking. Whether the state should enforce that, I don't know.

[kiwi]

Pregnant women in Japan have eaten raw fish for many years
French woman continue to drink moderate amounts, and eat soft cheeses while pregnant
I dont like that pregnant woman are made to feel like criminals if they have a bloody slice of cheese while pregnant.

I even knew a woman once who hadnt had a single piece of sushi in 3 years because she was pregnant then breastfeed. Sushi was her favourite food, she looked at me as if I was a monster when I told her to have a freaking piece of sushi!

One of my friends is also a heavy smoker who got pregnant by accident, her doctor told her the stress she would go through quitting would be worse for the baby than the benefit of not smoking. He told her to not worry about it and try to cut down as she could. She was so terrified of hurting her baby and yet instead of being supportive some of her friends wiped her because she dared keep smoking.

My brothers fiancee would hardly eat ANYTHING when she was pregnant, it had to be so hot it was steaming, it couldnt be older than 24 from the supermarket (she literally shopped every second day the entire pregnancy) she didnt have a single sip of wine, no soft cheese, no sushi, no seafood at all including fish, no fast food, no resturant eating, no yogurt. She told me she was "terrified of hurting her baby"

Im sure the stress of that was much worse for her and her baby than a stinking piece of cheese would be.

If I ever had children (thats very far far off for me) I am not going to stress myself out over some prawn pasta or a half glass of wine every once in a while and although Im not planning on doing vodka shots in a skeasy bar then shooting up in the bathroom. Im not going to go out of my way to break any of these supposed pregnany rules but im not going to freak out over them anyway.

If you think that makes me a monster, then so be it. I dont dissapear as a person just because Im going to have a kid!

[Boozy]

You're definitely right about one thing, kiwi: It's the fact that some pregnant women work themselves into a frenzy of stress that's worse than anything. (With the exception of perhaps smoking; that shit's just really awful in so many ways.)

Regulating what legal substances women can and can't put into their bodies while pregnant makes no sense as long as abortion is legal. Personally, I don't want to see the state taking control of a woman's body because she's pregnant.

[Sylvia727]

Drinking half a glass of wine does not make a woman a bad mother. Crawling home too drunk to walk five nights of the week does. Pregnant women should live their lives just as they ordinarily do, just as they will go on doing after the baby is born. Motherhood is a huge responsibility, but it does not subsume one's personhood. I wish more mothers would start living up to that responsibility during pregnancy. When I'm pregnant, I fully intend to eat cheese and change the cat litter, and it will never cross my mind to feel guilty about it. If I lived in a plastic rat ball, then my child might be born marginally more healthy, but I'm not endangering my child just by living my life.

If the state took control of women's lives, they would just screw everything up. Each pregnancy is different, which is women go to doctors instead of just consulting the manual.

[DesignFox]

And do we all forget that women have done many of these so called "horrible" things and eaten some of these so-called "forbidden" foods for centuries?

The human population certainly doesn't seemed to have suffered...



I don't plan to have kids, and I can't claim to know jack squat other than what the people I know who have children have told me. But I don't recall anyone being paranoid about the occasional sip of wine. I don't know a single mother who freaked out about eating fish or cheese. And I certainly haven't heard of anyone being paranoid about changing their cat's litter box.

Shit, I know mothers who still rode their horses well into their pregnancies.

Their kids are healthy, well adjusted, and...normal.

This sounds like a bunch of paranoid BS to me. I mean, common sense tells us that a pregnant mother shouldn't be crawling home drunk everynight and smoking 2 packs a day. However, as unfortunate a situation as either those scenarios are for the child- I don't think the government has a right to step in.

What's next? Nutritional check-ups for moms to be? Ankle bracelets to track their movements? A body gaurd who follows her night and day...makes sure she doesn't lift anything, pees at all the right times, forces vitamins down her throat, throws out her cigs, smashes all the bottle of liquor in the house, enforces all her doctor visits?

Where does it stop?

Sorry. I think the woman's rights come before the unborn's. It is very unfortunate that some children will have to suffer for their mother's selfishness, but that's part of life. Until it is a breathing baby out of the womb, there isn't much that can be done that doesn't trample on the rights of the rest of humanity.

[Evandril]

And do we all forget that women have done many of these so called "horrible" things and eaten some of these so-called "forbidden" foods for centuries?

The human population certainly doesn't seemed to have suffered...

First off, I am *very* much against forcing a pregnant woman to have to behave differently than anyone else. That being said...Look at the stats of infant mortality in the past centuries...and now. You'll find *quite* a difference, as you will in the amount of mothers surviving the birthing. I have no problem, and would encourage, a pregnant woman to be more careful with what she does, but, as with most things, don't take it to extremes. indulging every so often is fine, but being more careful will still increase the odds everything will work out the way you'd prefer.

[DesignFox]

My only point is that plenty of women did these things. Plenty of babies survived. I'm not an advocate of giving birth out the in fields, then picking up your scyche and getting back to work.

I'm just pointing out that as long as a woman isn't being extreme in her actions, she shouldn't have to change her lifestyle all that much. And no one should force her to.

[PepperElf]

I don't think it will work.

Granted I'd like to see all pregnant woman be as healthy as possible and avoid doing stupid stuff that would harm the baby... the problem would be... how the hell do you enforce that? There's no way.

Sure you could try banning them from buying smokes but... I can just see it now...
Clerk: I'm sorry ma'am but I can't sell you these smokes because you're pregnant.
Lady: *glare* I. AM. NOT. PREGNANT! <insert rant>
Clerk: :embarrassed:

and ... well you get the point.


Other items to be mentioned...

Exercise - yeah, that's good... I mean I wouldn't recommend cage-fighting or stuff like that, but... well the doc can usually give the woman a list of baby-friendly choices etc.

Kitty Litter - That's what the baby's father is there for!

Fish - um, just be sure to eat fish that are less likely to contain mercury (salmon is good if i remember) and make sure you cook it properly.

[AFPheonix]

Obviously stuff like that shouldn't be criminalized, but it's most prudent for a pregnant woman to be smart and avoid things that we now now to be potentially harmful for her devoloping child. It's for less than a year, and then she can go back to having wine and eating stinky cheese and sushi and whatnot.

The best way is to do what doctors and other health professionals do now: strongly encourage mothers to behave in a certain way and back up their assertions with the many studies that have been done. We in the pharmacy also run into that sort of thing, and we always recommend that pregnant patients consult with their physician before taking anything, with the exception of tylenol. There have been many times, however, that we've had to contact doctors because they wrote for something that would have been pretty harmful for the baby, so it's important for the patient herself to be aware of the risks involved.

[Seshat]

Rather than criminalising things, I'd go for increasing the support society provides for people who are trying to get off the bad things and onto the good things.

Perhaps in addition to programs like WIC, add a program where low-income pregnant women can get subsidised guided (inexpensive!) exercise programs - pregnancy-appropriate yoga, low-impact water exercise, that sort of thing.

DEFINITELY have state-subsidised programs for getting people off harmful drugs (all sorts - including alcohol, smoking, and misused prescription drugs).

For those people who need it, life skills training would be a big plus. (IE: everything from money management to cooking nutritious inexpensive meals from raw ingredients.)

Yeah, I'm a bleeding-heart. I think its likely to be better for society as a whole to provide people with the resources to become contributing members of society, than to lock them up.

(Of course, there will always be some who are just plain criminal in mindset, and no amount of life skills training or other support will get them to stop. Those, I don't have a better solution for than to separate them from the main society.)

[Boozy]

Yeah, I'm a bleeding-heart. I think its likely to be better for society as a whole to provide people with the resources to become contributing members of society, than to lock them up.

I'm a bleeding heart too, but I'm also a bit jaded. People don't use the resources already available to them.

My city offers free and heavily-advertised nicotine cessation programs and support groups. They're supposed to be offered once a month, but when I called expressing interest, they were shocked. We haven't had anyone call in months, they said. We'll call you back when there's at least 3 people interested, because we have to pay a counsellor.

They called me 9 months later, 8 months after I had already quit on my own.

The moral of this story: People do what they want, whether there are resources available or not. Sometimes government assistance is necessary. Other times, it's pointless.

I'd lump most government-provided pregnancy education classes into the "pointless" category. It's not hard to find information these days. Good mothers will find the will and a way. Bad mothers won't bother showing up for the classes.

[Sylvia727]

On my way to the grocery store, I pass through a certain business district. One of these buildings has a sign in front that reads "<City Name> Parenting Classes". I have never been in myself, but several times I have seen pregnant women enter or leave, indicating to me that either these women are hyper-prepared or that the business offers help for pregnant women. Considering the inexpensive quality of the customers' clothing, the low-rent district that it's in, the <City Name> in the title, and that fact that <City> funds a number of clinics for the impoverished, I'm willing to bet that it's at least partially state-funded. Which is excellent, in my mind. Even if it's just care for children, they should at least have brochures on healthy pregnancies. There was a brochure at my women's clinic on what to do if you're pregnant. So there are resources available, at least in certain cities.