Foetal alcohol syndrome

[DotCommunist]

crack/smack babies do happen but the moral panic surrounding them magnified the crack-baby 'epidemic' into yet another stick to beat poor black US women with. Why we have to follow this women hating bullshit line at all is beyond me. Rich white men at the very highest level have been using care homes as their own private kiddy sex rooms but no- the person who has a fag and a toot while preggers is deffo worse. Much worse. Her poverty and bad choices make it fair game to have the kid in care. Where the kid can also experience the cycle of marginalisation, abuse and lack of care that makes the pipe and the bottle seem welcome to them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

all i can tell you is what my mum says she was told but her doctors etc. she was a young mum with no qualifications or professional training at that point (ten years later she trained to be a social worker), and yet still she says that by 1970 at least, she knew she was supposed to give up smoking during pregnancy - because that's the only time she managed it until she was much older. perhaps your wife's doctor didn't tell her about it, but that doesn't mean he didn't know and that it wasn't common medical advice given to women by the mid seventies, when she was pregnant.

By the mid '70s, most school science labs had "health warning" posters in them. Nothing as memorable as the "preganant bloke" one, though.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't think there's anything special about alcohol damage that shouldn't apply to other harmful drugs.

If they didn't know they were pregnant, then they haven't done anything wrong obviously.

So, how do you establish when the risky behaviour took place?

 

[ViolentPanda]

How is drinking heavily comparable to having an accident?

If both have a detrimental effect on the foetus, then surely any possible harmful behaviour, even walking, should be curtailed?
That's not my logic, but what is being proposed could actually see such ridiculous proposals, especially from the usual "control freak" suspects.

 

[Thora]

It's the sanctimonious double standards that I'm not into though. I'm live and let, me. And that includes not sanctimoniously judging some daft kid who's met her end on the end of a pin. If Peaches was preg and had a dig, would that be cool according to the wallopers on this thread?

I don't think it's cool. I don't think drinking/smoking/drug taking/mountain climbing wile pregnant are all really great ideas. I think that it is a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her own body, regardless of whether she is pregnant or not, even if that includes making what I would consider really stupid decisions.

When making stupid decisions involves putting children at risk of harm, then it is the business of the wider community/society.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How about I wilfully eat some brie and pate while pregnant, and my baby get meningitis and is permanently disabled?

Just as long as you don't eat them both at the same sitting.
That way lies tummy-ache.

 

[toggle]

Late term abortion has a specific meaning in the medical world. How do I post a picture with a blocker? I do not want to post without it, as there would be howls of outrage, nor do I want to describe the process for the same reason.

i've already told you that i've had experience of being offered a third trimester abortion and you still think that I don't know what one is?

ffs.

Yes, one after 24 weeks. Which is done following medical diagnosis which is either incompatible with life or life endangering/shortening. It cannot be done just because.

The termination cut off is 24 weeks to enable decisions to be made following the anomaly scan at 20 weeks which picks up a number of life threatening conditions. But where a termination is for medical reasons there actually isn't a cut off. But the baby is terminated prior to delivery.

Also as the others have said. Posting a pic would show you to be a total arsehole tbh. And I have no reason to think you do actually have a fucking clue what you're on about.

I've been in the position of being at risk for one of those conditions for which the 24 week cut off doesn't apply, my consultant said that it was unfortunate that it didn't cause miscarriage, because most problems that bad do. I know what information was given to me so I could make my decision. They didn't sugar coat it. And I found pictures and descriptions all on my own.

Absolutely no need to post a picture or describe the procedure, and to do so when one poster has already detailed some of their personal experience in this area would be incredibly insensitive at best, if not potentially traumatic. Please have some empathy and refrain from posting either.

i'ts not that, ti's the assumption that he has some kind of superior insight that if he shares it, will make everyone change their mind. Women aren't making the decision to abort out of ignorance. They know what they are doing and they are making their own decisions.




I've discussed this openly a few times before. I assessed the risk and decided to continue the pregnancy. it was only after I made that decision that the consultant said to me that was the decision he would have advised, if he had felt it was his place to do so.

I was lucky. and my daughter is fine (at least as far as not having that condition is concerned, she has other issues, but they are the same as my son's, and fairly minor so I know they are unrelated). but I continue to get really, really annoyed at people who assume that it's only them that knows what abortion actually is and if they share, then they will magically change everyone's mind. it's the same argument that many anti abortion campaigners use, when they claim that no one who has their own children could ever support abortion, ignoring the fact that a significant proportion of women who abort already have at least one child.

nothing in my experience has made me consider changing my mind about my support for abortion rights. and it has taught me that these decisions are made by the woman herself, from a position of understanding exactly what she is doing.

 

[Ole]

If both have a detrimental effect on the foetus, then surely any possible harmful behaviour, even walking, should be curtailed?
That's not my logic, but what is being proposed could actually see such ridiculous proposals, especially from the usual "control freak" suspects.

That's pathetic logic. Walking is not analogous in risk to heavy drinking. If you're arguing against this, stop using these laughable analogies, it weakens your position. Thora has already persuaded me from my original position with sensible reasoning just 5 or 6 posts before yours. Too late.

 

[8ball]

Those little signs that have appeared on beer bottles with the silhouette of the pregnant woman annoy me. It's not like there are similar little icons for driving, trampolining, mountain climbing and preparing blowfish sushi.

 

[purenarcotic]

It would be far more productive to spend the costs involved in criminalising this on not cutting support services for those with substance misuse problems.

Eta: I think criminalising would be a dreadful idea

 

[Mr Smin]

Those little signs that have appeared on beer bottles with the silhouette of the pregnant woman annoy me. It's not like there are similar little icons for driving, trampolining, mountain climbing and preparing blowfish sushi.

The equivalent for driving are the various anti-drink-drive advertising campaigns. Your other 3 examples mostly put just the drinker at risk. I do wonder if the pregnant woman icon has an effect on anyone's drinking habits though.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

<late evening pondering>
Everyone agrees that drinking heavily whilst pregnant is a bad idea and should be avoided.

The question is how can you prevent it? If you outlaw it then you could fine the mother and perscribe some form of drink awareness course. Then again when that doesn't work or they ignore it you can just arrest the mother and put her in prison, which will no doubt do lots of good for the mother and baby. Or perhaps sectioning in a mental ward or some form of padded cell could be used.

Then once the mother has given birth you can consider whether she's going to be a fit mother, given her recent criminal/psychiatric record, and go straight into adoption processes.

Of course you'll have to add in other factors that risk a future persons life that affect them in the womb, smokers, people who don't control their high blood pressure, diabetics, obesity or low bodyweight. It'll probably be simpler to build holding cells at maternity units to streamline the process.
</late evening pondering>

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's pathetic logic. Walking is not analogous in risk to heavy drinking. If you're arguing against this, stop using these laughable analogies, it weakens your position. Thora has already persuaded me from my original position with sensible reasoning just 5 or 6 posts before yours. Too late.

What part of "that's not my logic" did you have a problem understanding?

 

[8ball]

The equivalent for driving are the various anti-drink-drive advertising campaigns. Your other 3 examples mostly put just the drinker at risk. I do wonder if the pregnant woman icon has an effect on anyone's drinking habits though.

Well, none are really equivalent strictly speaking. What annoys me more than anything is that it plays into this superstitious almost Calvinistic-esque* idea that pregnancy is meant to be this saintly, ascetic state and while things may still go wrong with the pregnancy if you are super-vigilant, if you do something bad and something turns out to be wrong with the baby you will never know if it was your fault and it will be your duty to mentally torture yourself over this for ever.

* - yeah, I made up a word

 

[Frances Lengel]

Those little signs that have appeared on beer bottles with the silhouette of the pregnant woman annoy me. It's not like there are similar little icons for driving, trampolining, mountain climbing and preparing blowfish sushi.

Coz it's a silhouette there's nothing to say even what's in the glass. And it's meaning quite ambiguous anyway - The first thing you notice isn't the glass in her hand, the first thing you (or I anyway) notice is a picture of a pregnant woman crossed out. It's a needlessly unpleasant image.

 

[laptop]

View attachment 58659

Does it mean "None of your bizarre cravings - turnip and herring cocktails are not served here"?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I think that it is a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her own body, regardless of whether she is pregnant or not

Why?

 

[Thora]

Why?

Why wouldn't it be?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Why wouldn't it be?

Because of the consequences for the child. It's not only her body at that point.It's the body of another person too.

 

[Thora]

Because of the consequences for the child. It's not only her body at that point.It's the body of another person too.

A foetus isn't a person. A woman is. At what point would you like to start making decisions about a woman's body and her foetus for her?

 

[8115]

A foetus isn't a person. A woman is. At what point would you like to start making decisions about a woman's body and her foetus for her?

Would you say that a woman had a right to use Thalidomide (say) (hypothetically), if she had a full intention to complete the pregnancy?

eta, I mean a right, as in, people have a right to a private life, they don't have a right to punch other people in the face.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

A foetus isn't a person. A woman is. At what point would you like to start making decisions about a woman's body and her foetus for her?

Why is a foetus not a person, in your opinion?

 

[Thora]

Would you say that a woman had a right to use Thalidomide (say) (hypothetically), if she had a full intention to complete the pregnancy?

eta, I mean a right, as in, people have a right to a private life, they don't have a right to punch other people in the face.

I'd say a woman has as much right to do whatever she wants as anyone else.

 

[8115]

I'd say a woman has as much right to do whatever she wants as anyone else.

A pregnant woman who intends to complete her pregnancy?

I think there are some things she doesn't have a right to do, because her rights affect the rights of her future child.

 

[Thora]

Why is a foetus not a person, in your opinion?

Because it's unborn, existing as part of someone else. It cannot possibly have equal rights with a living, born person.

 

[Thora]

A pregnant woman who intends to complete her pregnancy?

I think there are some things she doesn't have a right to do, because her rights affect the rights of her future child.

So at what point would you like to control the actions of a woman then?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I'd say a woman has as much right to do whatever she wants as anyone else.

You're not comparing like with like though. If men could have babies then would you think it OK for the man to knowingly cause damage the child inside him?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Because it's unborn, existing as part of someone else. It cannot possibly have equal rights with a living, born person.

Why does being unborn and existing part of someone else rob a foetus of its personhood?

 

[killer b]

No-ones saying it's ok. just that the bodily autonomy of the woman takes priority. Because the other option is fucked.

 

[8115]

So at what point would you like to control the actions of a woman then?

I don't think people have a right to drink drive. This is seeking to control the acts of people including women. I think it's ok to say that people don't have the right to do something (to control them, in your words) when they are hurting someone else. Rights are messy. They very often impinge on each other.