Welcome to Gaia! ::

What. The. ********. They're HAPPY that they got away with KILLING THEIR SON?? I don't often type in caps. This is just so ******** up and so totally wrong.

Sickening. I hope the cries of her child haunt her sleep. twisted evil

You take what I say out of context (ignoring the parts that actually demonstrate my point) and push it to the extreme in your favor.

If we permit women to do what they want then they may: smoke, do drugs, and abuse alcohol the entire pregnancy and endanger the fetus. Therefore we should ban these activities while a woman is pregnant. This is what you argue, no?

You argue one extreme: a woman who abuses drugs, alcohol, etc... and I ask: if we ban these because they endanger the fetus, why won't the other, opposite extreme happen?

Women are not permitted to eat specific foods that might hurt a fetus, she is forced to take pills and hormones and such to ensure a perfect pregnancy, she is not allowed to drive because stress from driving might induce miscarriage or cause fetal harm, she is not allowed to work or do any sort of sports or activities that might cause harm to the fetus. If she has a headache she must deal with it because asprin/tylenol could potentially harm the fetus. The woman becomes so regulated when pregnant that she has no control left over her life.

I want to know only this: What do we ban? At what point do we stop and say, "no, this is rediculous, we can't regulate beyond this point everything else a woman does for 9 months for the sake of the fetus." And why would we stop there? Why stop at cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol?

If you think I SUPPORT women who do these things you're direly mistaken. I think they are horrible excuses for human beings that they would do such things when they intend to stay pregnant and give birth. But I respect the fact that they are still human beings and that they have a right to drink alcohol and smoke if they want to (drugs being illegal they obviously don't have a legal right to smoke them though personally I don't see much of a point in banning, say, pot when alcohol does nearly the same exact thing and alcohol is ok).

Which I agree with to a certain extent.

I believe that any woman who does not want to be pregnant should be permitted to remove the fetus be it by abortion or, in the late term, through induced pre-mature birth. I assert this because abortion that late requires the killing of the fetus prior to removal when it could have otherwise survived out of the womb, and that just seems inexcuseable to me. Abortions beforehand are ok because premature birth would lead to death almost indubitably and it seems pointless to make a woman undergo a more dangerous procedure when the end results will be the same because of the different method by which it is done (hence why induced birth is not required in the 12th week, where as it would be in the 25th-end with a sketchy area between 20 and 25 weeks).

But abortion and late term abortions really aren't the issue with this particular argument - it's whether a woman has the right to make decisions about what she will and will not consume while pregnant and whether the child's protection is more important then her own personal choices. If the protection of the soon-to-be child is more important, where do we stop protecting it? And why do we stop at that point?

Like I said... I don't like that women will smoke and drink their entire pregnancy... and that they will do things that will ruin the lives of their children to be... but even though I may think it is horrible, I can't bring myself to rationalise regulating her life to any extent unless a solid boundary as to what is regulated is defined (ie the "why we stop at alcohol and not at foods").

A question - I've heard that if one's alcohol consumption is going to hurt a pregnancy the risk is greatest in the first month (I recall this because I remember thinking how unfortunate it was because most women don't even know their pregnant then)... do you know if this is true or if I'm remembering incorrectly?

I ask because it would be a valid reason to ban alcohol at all times of a pregnancy, not just the last three months.

I'm also curious why you'd want regulation only in the last three months and not the first 6... wouldn't most damage to a fetus be done early on anyway? I've always heard that the first few weeks are the most critical where drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes would do the most harm.

As for your last question... I'm not sure of what you mean... how can she induce labor without medical intervention? Oo Or do you mean why not just induce labor rather than abort?

Hmm a big issue seems to be whether she took the drugs with the intention of killing the fetus (who at this point would survive out of the uterus if given the chance), or is she used them because she wanted to use drugs... the distinction doesn't truly matter since the action led to the same ends - the fetus was killed, however her intentions could clear it up. The drugs still aren't legal (at this time anyway, but since I've already asserted I think things such as pot are pointlessly prohibitted it's obvious I'll still need to account for drug use as if it were legal).

It's a tough question... I'm not sure how to answer it. It definately puts me in a state of cognative dissonance, and I'll have to think it through. In one case the fetus at this point deserves to be born whole and given a shot at surviving if the mother does not want to be pregnant because by this point it is able to sustain its own existence. However I still feel that regulating a woman's choice to consume certain goods should be protected. Perhaps a ban only on goods that we are certain will induce miscarriage or greatly damage the fetus until an induced birth can be had? And that is where the line would be drawn, at products that cause serious damage or death to the fetus, but not on lesser products like tylenol or food items?

I'm really not sure where I stand on this at the moment... and it'll take some thought to figure it out.


I agree with you, especially on the bolded sentance. Like I said, this is a tricky question and I'm not sure where I stand at the moment. Perhaps if it were limited to only items that would endanger the life of the fetus while this late in the pregnancy since at this point in time the woman owes it to the fetus to let it be born alive (if pre-mature). I assume she "owes it to the fetus" and has taken on an obligation to the child within her because she had chosen to remain pregnant this long when other options were available, and by choosing to remain pregnant this long she has, apparently, assumed a responsibility to the fetus to at least let it be removed alive if removal is requested. The obligation is assumed by her refusal to abort earlier when the option was available (I suppose exceptions could be made for those who don't find out until very late, but that's a whole different can of worms).

Ok, so you think that was wrong, but still respect that they are human and can take drugs The way you worded it sounded like women should not be regulated and controlled like that, or do you actually beleive that? I do not want to mistake you again. You said don't know. I support this sort of legislation for obvious reasons... but also because of this:

Should a woman who drinks heavily during pregnancy be sent to jail for causing fetal alcohol syndrom?

Should a woman who smokes be sent to jail for harming her fetus?

How about a woman who merely eats unhealthily and gives birth to a sickly fetus?

Where do we stop and say "no this is rediculous, we can't regulate everything a woman does for 9 months for the sake of the fetus" otherwise you truly would be turning her into nothing more than a walking talking incubator, someone who's worth is based solely on the contents of her uterus.
Which makes it sound like what I just said

I think the line would be drawn at things that would be illegal to give a child. Resting, eating, sleeping isn't regulated by the state really. It's illegal to do drugs in the first place, much less give it to minors. Giving a certain amount of alcohol is illegal too, I think, and giving anyone under a certain age a cigarette is illegal. Giving a child candy and not having him or her eat a certain amount of greens, however, is perfectly legal. It's also legal to take your child to work with you if your employer allows you to, and parental courses aren't mandatory for all parents to take, so pregnancy classes wouldn't really be either.