Do pregnant women have the right to smoke / drink?

Original post by TolerantBeing

Oh okay, so if Huskaris had it right he would have it so:

1) If the mother doesn't want the child but the father does, the father should be allowed to control the woman's body and force her to carry and give birth to a child she does not want.

2) If the father doesn't want the child or changes his mind at some point (during the pregnancy or after the birth), he should be allowed to completely opt out of parenthood and refuse to accept any responsibility for his actions. It's not forcing you to support a child, it's your child.

I sincerely hope your gay, because judging by your posts you'd be a horrible partner to a woman, and a horrible father to a daughter.

You're* and sorry to disappoint you babes, but I'm straight :wink:

Reply 23

TolerantBeing

2

Original post by ArtGoblin

Yes. To ban them from doing so would make them second-class citizens; unable to do something that every other citizen of the same age is allowed to do. We should provide women with education and support during their pregnancy but criminalising it will achieve nothing.

Original post by PythianLegume

They have the right to do whatever they want with their own body. They're completely wrong to smoke and drink dangerous amounts while pregnant, but they have the right to.

But we do have limits to our 'rights'. We have the right to do anything, as long as it doesn't involve harm to others. Our rights end there.

It's not just her own body, it's her babies she's poisoning as well.

Reply 24

TolerantBeing

2

Original post by Huskaris

You're* and sorry to disappoint you babes, but I'm straight :wink:

Well hopefully you'll grow up by the time you're sexually active :tongue:

Reply 25

Huskaris

tumblr_mam5rgPbCS1rdns3wo1_400.gif511.3KB

Original post by TolerantBeing

Well hopefully you'll grow up by the time you're sexually active :tongue:

Reply 26

joker12345

19

Original post by TolerantBeing

I'm a feminist and I think it's an utter disgrace to see a pregnant woman smoking. It should be considered abuse. What would happen if a mother was caught forcing cigarettes into her baby's mouth? How is this any different?

It's foul, and should be considered neglective parenting.

Because in the first instance she's putting something into her body, which gives her pleasure. In the second instance she's putting something into someone else's body.
It can't really be considered neglectful parenting as she's not a parent, it's not a child, it's a foetus.

Reply 27

trustmeimlying1

20

Original post by TheBBQ

They shouldn't. They're endangering another person's life.

Nobody has the right to do that.

meh idk its a toughie

I certainly dont mind people judging people for something like that

you have the right to sell drugs if yeh like but you pay the consequences

in this case you do too with people nagging yeh and the baby ended up with god knows what...

personally id say..ugh..its her choice..but she should really get her act together fecking hell pretty ridiculous!

Reply 28

ArtGoblin

Original post by TolerantBeing

But we do have limits to our 'rights'. We have the right to do anything, as long as it doesn't involve harm to others. Our rights end there.

It's not just her own body, it's her babies she's poisoning as well.

The baby isn't a person. If we don't allow women to smoke or drink because of she is carrying a foetus, what does this mean for abortion? After all, smoking and drinking mostly affect development in the early stages when abortion is legal. Besides, what would a ban actually achieve? People who are going to smoke and drink during pregnancy are going to do so regardless of whether it is legal or not. We need to be helping those women, not criminalising them.

Reply 29

vee_wuvshugs

13

At the end of the day, if they choose to smoke, drink or even take drugs, they are idiots. They don't deserve to be mothers (as harsh as it sounds)

Reply 30

Everglow

OP

19

Original post by R+G are dead

I think it's irresponsible but wouldn't criminalise it-that would just lead to way more problems and wouldn't stop it happening (like prostitution being illegal). Also if we were to criminalise smoking for pregnant women, you'd also have to criminalise smoking in the household the pregnant woman/baby lives in (passive smoking)-how could that be effectively enforced?

I'm more of a feminist than not, but don't understand how wanting to criminalise pregnant women smoking would make you a misogynist? :erm:

People wouldn't say that because they're feminists, (well they would if they're radical feminists).

Original post by brownsugar-xx

Yeah it wouldn't be enforced well. But isn't smoking/drinking much much more dangerous while they're in the womb?

I also agree with your last point, i don't see how it would be misogynistic :dontknow:

I never suggested criminalising this. I am discussing this from a moral standpoint, not legal.

Some might perceive it as misogynistic because this is an attack only on women, not men. And some will say this is me trying to limit women and control them as their superior. That's why I think some could claim I'm being misognynistic, even though I'm not.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 31

joker12345

19

Original post by TolerantBeing

Oh okay, so if Huskaris had it right he would have it so:

1) If the mother doesn't want the child but the father does, the father should be allowed to control the woman's body and force her to carry and give birth to a child she does not want.

2) If the father doesn't want the child or changes his mind at some point (during the pregnancy or after the birth), he should be allowed to completely opt out of parenthood and refuse to accept any responsibility for his actions. It's not forcing you to support a child, it's your child.

I sincerely hope your gay, because judging by your posts you'd be a horrible partner to a woman, and a horrible father to a daughter.

1) Is a sticky subject due to the possible complications of childbirth. Bar that though, carrying a child is 9 months, having a child is a lifetime. The current situation is that a woman can kill man's child, which would cause him great mental anguish and distress if he is pro-life, and will deny him of that chance to be a father simply because she doesn't want to carry it 9 months. I still agree that she should be allowed to abort, I just think that the idea that it's her body so just her choice and the father should suck it up and support her is ridiculous, he's allowed to voice his opinion.
2) I agree that if the father doesn't want a child he should be able to opt out of parenthood - just like the mother can, actually, She gets to refuse to accept responsibility for her actions, he should get an out too. Now obviously he can't prevent the birth of the child like the mother, but at least he can cut ties. This should be a legal document signed in a certain time window though, early in pregnancy.
That post in itself indicated nothing about him being a horrible partner or parent, just a person who want equal rights.

Reply 32

Original post by ArtGoblin

The baby isn't a person. If we don't allow women to smoke or drink because of she is carrying a foetus, what does this mean for abortion? After all, smoking and drinking mostly affect development in the early stages when abortion is legal. Besides, what would a ban actually achieve? People who are going to smoke and drink during pregnancy are going to do so regardless of whether it is legal or not. We need to be helping those women, not criminalising them.

Abortion will mean this foetus will never be born. There are arguments it'll be cruel to let the mother be forced to bear this child and cruel for this child to be born unloved and possibly neglected, cruel to put this child through the care system and that's why some people support abortion.

But smoking and drinking while intending to give birth means you are condemning this child to possibly live it's life deformed and disabled - that's also cruelty.

You can easily support abortion but condemn women who knowingly are putting their children at risk.

Reply 33

Zorgotron

6

Original post by TolerantBeing

I'm a feminist and I think it's an utter disgrace to see a pregnant woman smoking. It should be considered abuse. What would happen if a mother was caught forcing cigarettes into her baby's mouth? How is this any different?

It's foul, and should be considered neglective parenting.

But, as a feminist, you believe abortion should be allowed, right? Correct me, if I'm wrong, but I assume you are pro-choice in this regard. If so, then I can't possibly see, how you can take a principled stance against a pregnant woman smoking.

If the fetus doesn't have a right to life, it clearly doesn't have the right to not be harmed. Therefore, it's acceptable for the mother to damage the fetus whenever she feels like smoking, doing drugs or whatever.

Anyone, who is pro choice, couldn't possibly have a problem with pregnant women damaging their fetuses.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 34

Original post by Reluire

I never suggested criminalising this. I am discussing this from a moral standpoint, not legal.

Some might perceive it as misogynistic because this is an attack only on women, not men. And some will say this is me trying to limit women and control them as their superior. That's why I think some could claim I'm vein misognynistic, even though I'm not.

Well morally it's ****ed up.

I have feminist values but I think anyone who calls this misogynistic isn't thinking straight.

Reply 35

Zorgotron

6

Original post by brownsugar-xx

Abortion will mean this foetus will never be born. There are arguments it'll be cruel to let the mother be forced to bear this child and cruel for this child to be born unloved and possibly neglected, cruel to put this child through the care system and that's why some people support abortion.

But smoking and drinking while intending to give birth means you are condemning this child to possibly live it's life deformed and disabled - that's also cruelty.

You can easily support abortion but condemn women who knowingly are putting their children at risk.

Abortion means that you'll just end up with a dead baby, not no baby at all. If abortion leads to a dead baby, wouldn't that mean that abortion is essentially murder? After all, a fetus is a baby that's still in the mothers womb - google Gosnell and dead fetuses.

There is no principled distinction between smoking while pregnant and abortion - if the fetus has no right to life, then clearly it has no right to not be damaged.

Reply 36

ArtGoblin

Original post by brownsugar-xx

Abortion will mean this foetus will never be born. There are arguments it'll be cruel to let the mother be forced to bear this child and cruel for this child to be born unloved and possibly neglected, cruel to put this child through the care system and that's why some people support abortion.

But smoking and drinking while intending to give birth means you are condemning this child to possibly live it's life deformed and disabled - that's also cruelty.

You can easily support abortion but condemn women who knowingly are putting their children at risk.

What do you think will happen to the children of mothers who were put in prison (potentially) for smoking when pregnant? Or if she is fined?

As someone else has already said, should women over 40 be banned from having children? How about people with genetic diseases?

Reply 37

Original post by ArtGoblin

What do you think will happen to the children of mothers who were put in prison (potentially) for smoking when pregnant? Or if she is fined?

As someone else has already said, should women over 40 be banned from having children? How about people with genetic diseases?

Well I didn't really mean it should be illegal, more thinking i don't think it's right that they do it.

I don't see that the same as willfully damaging your child just so you can indulge in your cravings :dontknow:

Reply 38