That is an interesting reply, because it has very little relevance to my post. Let me reiterate.



This was in response to your statement that you (paraphrasing) 'doubt second hand smoke causes birth defects'. And also to point out that the doctors who you think can determine what is best for a pregnant woman disagree amongst their ranks.




Do you see the words "alcohol" or "drank" or "FAS" in here?:


I wrote this in response to your comment that depression and mental instability are no excuse for harming your child. I'm trying to give you an example that shows that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances when you are dealing with mental illness. You cannot put lives or people into boxes.



This comment of yours was in reply to what I was talking about when I brought up someone suffering from schizophrenia?



Since I never said that, this comment is also irrelevant.

No, you've completely missed all of my points. I was trying to get you back on track. I can see it didn't work.

I am now anemic because you have taken all the irony out of my blood.

I read something and it made me think of you lol

I almost gave into positive thinking but sarcasm got the best of me lolol....

I have a question than what about people who want children but have to take medications? Would you really want someone with bipolar disorder off their meds?

someone who requires insulin, which can actually be harmful so what about gestational diabetes/diabetes etc?

Why should someone be denied treatment or the right to give birth based on genetics, dieseases or even health issues that require such things?

1 in 10 people have some sort of mental disorder(scary) but true and if that is the majority then you are saying only those with pure blood should.

If you HAVE to take a medication then don't you think that would be one of the exceptions to the rule?

Women are already being denied many medications and treatments that could be harmful to a fetus, whether one exists or not. Female health is being shoved to the back burner. Fetal protection policies keep women out of jobs that might put a fetus at risk, regardless of whether the women are pregnant or intend to bear children. It's becoming more popular to treat women less as people and more as wombs with legs.


http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/ful l/312/7038/1053

***********************


Keep women's job options limited

***********************


Do pregnant women have rights?

*********************


No fertile woman shall have a drink

*********************

People refuse to see the slippery slope yawning under their feet. If special rights and rules are assigned to women while pregnant, what's to stop these restrictions from carrying over into the rights of non-pregnant women? It's already happening, but it's subtle.

One day you'll wake up and you won't be able to buy a beer like your male friends because you're female and the waiter(ess) has chosen to deny you alcohol because you're female and you *might* be pregnant. Or you'll be unable to legally own a cat, or eat fish, or do ANYTHING that might harm a fetus, whether you've got one inside of you or not.

You're really only thinking of this from the perspective of someone who doesn't want a child. What if the hypothetical person was a woman who was trying to conceive, whether actively or passively? She might be devastated if she's given a medication that is potentially bad for the fetus and it comes out harmed or even dies. She might have CHOSEN to forgo the medication.

The point is that you need to give the woman the CHOICE if it's a medication needed to improve her quality of life but is harmful to the fetus.

Women need to be more open with doctors if they are TTC. I don't see alcohol being denied to women for any reason; and I don't want to deny pregnant women the right to drink. However, if they give birth to a child with FAS, that in itself is enough proof that they drank too much alcohol and should be punished.

I agree the woman should have a choice, and that's why I'm so troubled. "Fetal rights" are going too far and restricting women's choices. However good the intentions, women are not being treated with dignity and instead are treated as children that aren't capable of making the right decisions for themselves or their pregnancy. The treatment of pregnant women can't help but bleed over into the treatment of non-pregnant women, because people could practice discrimination under assumption, and they often do.

I firmly believe that a medicine that is harmful to the fetus should not be given to a woman without her consent unless she's unconscious and about to die.

You need to visit some psychiatric wards.

I fail to see how your comment relates to this discussion.

What other things would you not allow a pregnant woman to do?

Horseback riding? Parachuting? Bungee jumping? Race car driver?

What about damage she does to the egg before it is fertilized?

Who here has argued to the contrary?



What about the male that impregnated her? Drinking damages sperm and is just as likely to cause future birth defects and complications as drinking during pregnancy. Again I ask why you are so obsessed with regulating female behavior and restricting them or piling extra criminal charges on them for things that every male can do without punishment?

Example: A Woman who drinks regularly gets pregnant. By the time she finds out she's pregnant she's already had enough alcohol intake (according to paranoid "sources") to have caused FAS.

The man that impregnated her drinks and snorts cocaine. He carries on as usual without a care in the world, shooting his sperm into any female unlucky or foolish enough to let him.

The woman decides against abortion and carries to term. Though she quit drinking once she chose this, the baby is still born with defects. Since there was no way short of assigning a government babysitter to invade her house and monitor her through nine months of pregnancy, there is no way to prove that she is "at fault" for the "child abuse" of birth defect. However, since women are always held responsible for everything from the gender of the baby to any problems or defects it has, she's the one criminally charged and the man as usual suffers no risks, no health issues and no legal discrimination based on his choice to reproduce.

And once more, who do you think you are to regulate behavior based on gender and reproductive potential? If you outlaw it or press extra charges for women than you must do the same for men. Otherwise you are a flat-out bigot that stinks of garbage and refuge. Just admit what you are and save us the trouble.

You know, I should rush over to my husband and tell him that we can't have sex anyore because some random person following a religion we don't believe in said so. That will work out Fiiinnne.

Since so many more "babies" die than are born, sexual reproduction should be banned.

Less "babies" die in the IVF process compared to natural procreation, so IVF should be the only way we are allowed to reproduce.

Brutal but good point!


They should ban people who have genetics/mental dieseases or disorder from procreating as well then we dont have problems as I believe its 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 of the population have a mental disorder.

Thanks Chris it was a good read!

Can you imagine being banned from sex lol, if they prove that it is better 100% god knows what direction this is going to go in but it could sway either way but for the religious it means science has prevailed once again in the stages of evolution.