Pregnant drunks avoid prenatal care; Vox blames society

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535399/p ... ms-mothers

Let's recap. Years ago, when it vaguely looked like the law might be on the side of those who drink while pregnant, consensus among those defending them was "well if the fetus is part of her body as per abortion rights, it's part of her body while she's drinking." They deliberately made themselves look like assholes citing a loophole in the law to avoid doing anything that would deter drinking while pregnant.

Now that the law no longer looks like it's on the side of those who drink while pregnant, they've backpedalled to a new talking point; "but those who drink while pregnant will avoid getting prenatal care."

Whatever happened to "you have nothing to fear if nothing to hide?"

Imagine this kind of attitude toward any other form of child abuse. "Oh, if we enact this law, parents who beat the shit out of their children but end up regretting it will be reluctant to take them to the hospital for fear of their child abuse being discovered! Don't you want parents who regret beating the shit out of their children to take them to the hospital?"

Here's a better idea; if you're not ready for children, don't have them. If you do, and the birth defects are proven to be a result of drinking while pregnant, you go straight to jail, you do not pass go, you do not collect $200.

Enough people put away, and either others will get the message, or everyone prone to this will no longer be in a position to get pregnant.

[Costa Fierro]

Vox always has the hottest of takes.

[Kaystein]

Society is partially to blame. One really good example I can think of is why can't we make our schools teach teenagers about this stuff? Oh wait, we're too busy appropriating half the national budget on "defense" to fund education correctly. We barely have enough money going to public schools to cover common core studies, damn it all.

Another example, what about parental responsibility? Oh wait, parents are too busy staring at their smartphones to care about teaching their children anything.

Society and the families fail to instill good senses in these people, and some blame needs to fall on those shoulders appropriately when these people drink while pregnant.

[Kowani]

Society is partially to blame. One really good example I can think of is why can't we make our schools teach teenagers about this stuff? Oh wait, we're too busy appropriating half the national budget on "defense" to fund education correctly. We barely have enough money going to public schools to cover common core studies, damn it all.

Another example, what about parental responsibility? Oh wait, parents are too busy staring at their smartphones to care about teaching their children anything.

Society and the families fail to instill good senses in these people, and some blame needs to fall on those shoulders appropriately when these people drink while pregnant.

Don’t forget that certain people still shriek with outrage about teaching the kids anything remotely related to sex.

[Kaystein]

Society is partially to blame. One really good example I can think of is why can't we make our schools teach teenagers about this stuff? Oh wait, we're too busy appropriating half the national budget on "defense" to fund education correctly. We barely have enough money going to public schools to cover common core studies, damn it all.

Another example, what about parental responsibility? Oh wait, parents are too busy staring at their smartphones to care about teaching their children anything.

Society and the families fail to instill good senses in these people, and some blame needs to fall on those shoulders appropriately when these people drink while pregnant.

Don’t forget that certain people still shriek with outrage about teaching the kids anything remotely related to sex.

They need to have gag-balls locked around their mouths whenever they decide to yap like that. Ironically punish them while educating them about something at the same time. Burst their little bubble worlds.

[Kowani]

Don’t forget that certain people still shriek with outrage about teaching the kids anything remotely related to sex.

They need to have gag-balls locked around their mouths whenever they decide to yap like that. Ironically punish them while educating them about something at the same time. Burst their little bubble worlds.

Hey, I’m not gonna argue with you.

[Thepeopl]

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535399/pregnancy-drinking-during-alcohol-drugs-moms-mothers

Let's recap. Years ago, when it vaguely looked like the law might be on the side of those who drink while pregnant, consensus among those defending them was "well if the fetus is part of her body as per abortion rights, it's part of her body while she's drinking." They deliberately made themselves look like assholes citing a loophole in the law to avoid doing anything that would deter drinking while pregnant.

Now that the law no longer looks like it's on the side of those who drink while pregnant, they've backpedalled to a new talking point; "but those who drink while pregnant will avoid getting prenatal care."

Whatever happened to "you have nothing to fear if nothing to hide?"

Imagine this kind of attitude toward any other form of child abuse. "Oh, if we enact this law, parents who beat the shit out of their children but end up regretting it will be reluctant to take them to the hospital for fear of their child abuse being discovered! Don't you want parents who regret beating the shit out of their children to take them to the hospital?"

Here's a better idea; if you're not ready for children, don't have them. If you do, and the birth defects are proven to be a result of drinking while pregnant, you go straight to jail, you do not pass go, you do not collect $200.

Enough people put away, and either others will get the message, or everyone prone to this will no longer be in a position to get pregnant.

Ok, according to you the Dutch queen should have been imprisoned and never have had more children after her pregnancy of her first.
She was photographed drinking alcohol while pregnant.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathari ... _of_Orange
As you see, the queen has harmed the baby greatly with the use of alcohol, the princess is in a public school getting good grades.

Most people who abuse children, will absolutely not take the risk to bring the abused child to health care.

In the Netherlands we don't criminalise the use of alcohol. We try to explain how the use is bad, and explain that stopping now is always better than keeping the fetus drunk.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/stu ... 1309106667
https://www.netinnederland.nl/en/artike ... cohol.html

All expectant mothers in the Netherlands are welcome in the pre natal care. You go to the midwife as soon as you tested positive for pregnancy and she/ he will see you (in the first trimester) every 4 weeks, refer you to a sonogram, do blood tests etc.
Than the visits to the midwife increase, 3,2 1 week, depending on how anxious you/ the midwife is.
If you are considered to be a high risk pregnancy ( high blood pressure, multiple babies, breech position, abnormal growth of baby) you are referred to an obstetrician.

You make a birth plan, prepare for the baby ( your bed needs to be high enough for the natal help to clean the bed and do your health checks 7 days after birth , yes we get a 7 day nurse in our house) you have the birthing suitcase ready 4 weeks before the safe birthing period just incase the birth starts prematurely, ( safe birthing period is 3 weeks prior and 2 weeks after the expected delivery date).

Which is why about 1 in 500 pregnancies the baby is born without ever having seen a midwife. Those women did not know they where pregnant. (Crypto pregnancy, no obvious pregnancy signs develop during pregnancy)

[The Free Joy State]

Ok, according to you the Dutch queen should have been imprisoned and never have had more children after her pregnancy of her first.
She was photographed drinking alcohol while pregnant.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathari ... _of_Orange
As you see, the queen has harmed the baby greatly with the use of alcohol, the princess is in a public school getting good grades.

Most people who abuse children, will absolutely not take the risk to bring the abused child to health care.

In the Netherlands we don't criminalise the use of alcohol. We try to explain how the use is bad, and explain that stopping now is always better than keeping the fetus drunk.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/stu ... 1309106667
https://www.netinnederland.nl/en/artike ... cohol.html

All expectant mothers in the Netherlands are welcome in the pre natal care. You go to the midwife as soon as you tested positive for pregnancy and she/ he will see you (in the first trimester) every 4 weeks, refer you to a sonogram, do blood tests etc.
Than the visits to the midwife increase, 3,2 1 week, depending on how anxious you/ the midwife is.
If you are considered to be a high risk pregnancy ( high blood pressure, multiple babies, breech position, abnormal growth of baby) you are referred to an obstetrician.

You make a birth plan, prepare for the baby ( your bed needs to be high enough for the natal help to clean the bed and do your health checks 7 days after birth , yes we get a 7 day nurse in our house) you have the birthing suitcase ready 4 weeks before the safe birthing period just incase the birth starts prematurely, ( safe birthing period is 3 weeks prior and 2 weeks after the expected delivery date).

Which is why about 1 in 500 pregnancies the baby is born without ever having seen a midwife. Those women did not know they where pregnant. (Crypto pregnancy, no obvious pregnancy signs develop during pregnancy)

I agree with all this.

If pregnant women are criminalised, they are less likely to seek care. If women using drugs or alcohol feel their midwife may report them, they may avoid medical care (54.4% in the linked study), leading to negative outcomes for the resulting offspring and the mother.

Yes, the risks of drinking (and up to 30% of women do have a drink during pregnancy) should be explained in clear language; detoxing should be freely offered to drug addicts and alcoholics.

But prosecution not only lowers the quality of care pregnant women -- and, consequently, their foetus -- receive (important, should the foetus be born), it also violates the rights of the woman over her own body, subjugating her to the foetus (something that must never be allowed), makes medical professionals into an arm of the police (which violates their ethical duty to put their patients first -- their patient is the woman, not the foetus), and risks criminalising women in more than alcohol and drugs.

And, before I'm accused of using a slippery slope argument:

Certainly not. Proven history.

Using the guise of foetal personhood, pregnant women's freedoms have already been restricted and women have already been charged with crimes:

Sixty- eight cases involved women who experienced miscarriage, stillbirth, or infant death. In all but six cases, prosecutors attributed the loss entirely to actions or inactions that occurred during the woman’s pregnancy. In forty- eight of those cases, women were charged under ,variations of the state’s homicide laws, including such crimes as feticide. manslaughter, reckless homicide, homicide by child abuse, and first-degree murder. In four cases in which a woman’s actions were described as inducing a self-abortion, she was also charged under murder or manslaughter statutes.

Of women who were forcibly hospitalised:

These include a pregnant woman who had been in a location while pregnant that exposed her unborn child to dangerous “fumes that permeate in the air,” and another case in which the woman did not follow her doctor’s medical advice to rest during her pregnancy and did not get to the hospital quickly enough on the day of delivery.
[...]
Sixteen percent of the cases (n = 65) involved no allegation that the woman had used an illegal, criminalized drug. These include cases in which women were deprived of their liberty based on claims that they had not obtained prenatal care, had mental illness, or had gestational diabetes, or because they had suffered a pregnancy loss. In fifteen of these cases alcohol was the only drug mentioned. Thirty of these cases involved efforts to force women to submit without consent to medical interventions. These forced interventions included pregnant women who had diabetes or sought to have a vaginal birth and refused to undergo cesarean surgery or other surgical intervention, those who refused to submit to a blood transfusion, and one who refused to allow a public health nurse who had been appointed as a guardian ad litem for the fetus to monitor the pregnancy, “check on the welfare of the unborn child,” and provide any medical services that the nurse deemed necessary (Sealey 2001). In eight cases pregnant women were alleged to have self- induced an abortion46 that the state claimed violated the state’s abortion laws. In two cases state action was used to detain women who expressed an intention to have an abortion, and in one of those the woman’s incarceration prevented her from having an abortion.

So, yes.

People shouldn't drink while pregnant. Society also shouldn't criminalise those that do, and -- if it does -- shouldn't be surprised when even people with nothing to hide are deterred from seeking medical care.

[Page]

Whatever happened to "you have nothing to fear if nothing to hide?"

That's bullshit in every context.

[Bluelight-R006]

People who drink while being pregnant shouldn’t be taking care of children. Settle that issue down first before you are actually ready to have children.

[The Free Joy State]

People who drink while being pregnant shouldn’t be taking care of children. Settle that issue down first before you are actually ready to have children.

Yes, that one glass of champagne at a friend's wedding proves a person totally unsuitable to be taking care of children

Even the NHS' guidelines state 1-2 units a week are alright (though it's best not to drink at all, and pregnant women should never get drunk)

[Thepeopl]

People who drink while being pregnant shouldn’t be taking care of children. Settle that issue down first before you are actually ready to have children.

Does that include the father?

[Bluelight-R006]

People who drink while being pregnant shouldn’t be taking care of children. Settle that issue down first before you are actually ready to have children.

Yes, that one glass of champagne at a friend's wedding proves a person totally unsuitable to be taking care of children

Even the NHS' guidelines state 1-2 units a week are alright (though it's best not to drink at all, and pregnant women should never get drunk)

One glass of champagne is obviously acceptable. Though constant, regular daily drinking would have a negative impact on the child. You could get addicted, and it’s best as a precaution to avoid it mostly.

[Forsher]

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535399/pregnancy-drinking-during-alcohol-drugs-moms-mothers

Let's recap. Years ago, when it vaguely looked like the law might be on the side of those who drink while pregnant, consensus among those defending them was "well if the fetus is part of her body as per abortion rights, it's part of her body while she's drinking." They deliberately made themselves look like assholes citing a loophole in the law to avoid doing anything that would deter drinking while pregnant.

It's a logically coherent point.

I mean, if what you're really saying is that having principles and respecting them makes one an "asshole" I think we've found the problem with modern politics.

Now that the law no longer looks like it's on the side of those who drink while pregnant, they've backpedalled to a new talking point; "but those who drink while pregnant will avoid getting prenatal care."

Yes... this is called what you're supposed to do.

New data, new opinion.

Or are you actually trying to say that people should ignore... evidence?

Whatever happened to "you have nothing to fear if nothing to hide?"

A controversial statement. People have never widely accepted this logic.

Imagine this kind of attitude toward any other form of child abuse. "Oh, if we enact this law, parents who beat the shit out of their children but end up regretting it will be reluctant to take them to the hospital for fear of their child abuse being discovered! Don't you want parents who regret beating the shit out of their children to take them to the hospital?"

Well... what's your real interest here? Better outcomes for the children or punishing the parents? Because the logic of the article you quoted is "we tried to be dicks to bad people to make the kiddies better, but the kiddies got worse".

Won't anyone think of the children!?

[Estanglia]

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535399/pregnancy-drinking-during-alcohol-drugs-moms-mothers

Let's recap. Years ago, when it vaguely looked like the law might be on the side of those who drink while pregnant, consensus among those defending them was "well if the fetus is part of her body as per abortion rights, it's part of her body while she's drinking." They deliberately made themselves look like assholes citing a loophole in the law to avoid doing anything that would deter drinking while pregnant.

Assholes, maybe, but it's not a loophole in the law if the whole point of the law is that women get to control their body, and the argument used is that women get to control their body.

Whatever happened to "you have nothing to fear if nothing to hide?"

An absolutely shit argument.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

People who drink while being pregnant shouldn’t be taking care of children. Settle that issue down first before you are actually ready to have children.

Does that include the father?

False equivalence. Alcohol in his system doesn't flow through the fetus.

You know, maybe if we made laws protecting women who seek pre-natal care and made it prosecutable to give birth to a child with fetal alcohol syndrome whether the woman did or didn't seek pre-natal care with the sentences higher for women who didn't, that might be a better deterrent.

Still, seems odd we're more lenient on this than anything else. In what other crimes do we give a shit about criminals' "motives," at least to the point of making something unprosecutable?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Yes... this is called what you're supposed to do.

New data, new opinion.

Or are you actually trying to say that people should ignore... evidence?

No, I'm saying that voicing the same opinion, yet changing their "reasons" for their opinion, raises questions about the sincerity of their opinions.

[Forsher]

Yes... this is called what you're supposed to do.

New data, new opinion.

Or are you actually trying to say that people should ignore... evidence?

No, I'm saying that voicing the same opinion, yet changing their "reasons" for their opinion, raises questions about the sincerity of their opinions.

No, you're not. (What you intend and what your text means are two different things.)

And if you think you are saying that then you haven't understood your source correctly.

[Liriena]

An individual's actions are their individual responsibility, but we are not just isolated individuals. Our actions are conditioned historically, socially, culturally and economically, and that's worth talking about. It's worth analysing collective phenomena like this one to find their underlying causes and deal with them.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Society is partially to blame. One really good example I can think of is why can't we make our schools teach teenagers about this stuff? Oh wait, we're too busy appropriating half the national budget on "defense" to fund education correctly. We barely have enough money going to public schools to cover common core studies, damn it all.

Another example, what about parental responsibility? Oh wait, parents are too busy staring at their smartphones to care about teaching their children anything.

Society and the families fail to instill good senses in these people, and some blame needs to fall on those shoulders appropriately when these people drink while pregnant.

Don’t forget that certain people still shriek with outrage about teaching the kids anything remotely related to sex.

This sort of thing is not limited to places with abstinence-only sex ed. Some people just don't care.

[Aclion]

Society is partially to blame. One really good example I can think of is why can't we make our schools teach teenagers about this stuff? Oh wait, we're too busy appropriating half the national budget on "defense" to fund education correctly. We barely have enough money going to public schools to cover common core studies, damn it all.

First, We only spend 16% of the national budget on defense. That talking point you're using ignores 2/3rds of federal spending.
Second, we spend more per pupil then all other countries other then Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland and Austria.
We can talk about the problems with US education, but pretending that problem is military funding is simply a lie.

[Galloism]

Does that include the father?

False equivalence. Alcohol in his system doesn't flow through the fetus.

It's actually worth note that this is not clear cut as you would assume.

Have an interesting read:

https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20160517 ... y-health#1

Here’s how: Age and unhealthy habits cause changes to a man’s genes. Although scientists don’t yet fully understand how it happens, these changes are then passed on to his kids -- perhaps even his grandchildren. For example, a man’s obesity may affect his genes in a way that makes his children more likely to be obese. Or tobacco smoke may damage a man’s sperm, allowing it to pass on potentially harmful genes to his children.

Most of the studies were able to show only a link between the two and didn’t prove one causes the other. Absolute risks of birth defects and other issues remain low for any one child, and researchers still believe Mom’s health while pregnant has a much stronger effect on their children's health.

“These findings emphasize the fact that the interplay between nature and nurture -- genetics and the environment -- are far more complex than previously appreciated,” says Andrew Adesman, MD, chief of developmental and behavioral pediatrics at Cohen Children's Medical Center of New York. Adesman was not involved in the review.

....

Diet
Obese men are more likely to father children who face a higher risk for obesity. Their children are also more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes, an abnormal metabolism, and certain cancers. This may happen because obesity and poor nutrition cause changes in certain genes directly linked to these conditions.

On the other hand, Kitlinska says, men who had a lack of food as children often have kids -- even grandchildren -- who appear protected against both heart disease and diabetes.

Alcohol
As many as 3 out of 4 children diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders have alcoholic fathers. Children with these disorders may have low birth weight, impaired brain development, and learning disabilities.

“With alcohol and many other exposures, it’s been believed that it’s mainly mothers who influence the children directly,” says Kitlinska, whose review challenges that notion.

But, the review says, ongoing alcohol use by a father can affect a child’s genes even if the mother does not drink alcohol before or during pregnancy. Those changes, in turn, could result in a child being born with symptoms of a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

Too Much Stress
Fathers with high stress levels may have children who develop behavior problems as a result, animal studies suggest. In those studies, ongoing stress appeared to alter certain genes that were passed on to offspring in mice. Human studies need to be done to confirm and better understand the role of paternal stress.

Limited Research
The review notes there hasn’t been much research in this field, and there may be some limitations. For instance, many studies failed to take into account both paternal and maternal factors in influencing a child’s health.

“The combined effects of both parents may have varying degrees of influence,” researchers write, and the interplay needs to be studied. Also, the researchers say, the studies couldn’t pinpoint whether gene changes were the only cause of a certain characteristic or health problem.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

It's actually worth note that this is not clear cut as you would assume.

Have an interesting read:

https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20160517 ... y-health#1

So this is about the genes, in other words. Not about drinking while the woman you happened to impregnate is pregnant.

So it's less analogous to drinking while pregnant and more analogous to reproducing while having inferior genes. Whether you had inferior genes as a result of drinking or already had inferior genes before drinking, the result is still the same: you still have inferior genes. And yet people don't support prohibiting those with inferior genes from breeding either, as that's then considered "eugenics." Personally, I'm all for eugenics, but the point relevant to this topic is I don't speak for popular opinion, and it's popular opinion that will carry the day on what to do about drinking during pregnancy.

Anyway, if the man's obese, I'd be pushing for a paternity test anyway. I doubt the kid's all that likely to be his.

High stress levels, on the other hand, kind of come with the territory of having a job that pays well enough that one can afford one's child support bills.

[Galloism]

Personally, I'm all for eugenics,

It's so rare for people to admit this in public.

[Rojava Free State]

If you drink while pregnant after we all told you not to, if anything happens to the baby then it's your fault

It's like if I get behind the wheel while drunk after you begged me not to and I end up crashing into a propane trunk, detonating it and taking out an entire intersection full of people. It's my fault