Pregnant drunks avoid prenatal care; Vox blames society

[Rojava Free State]

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.

We spend hella money on a social security system that won't survive till we're old and grey anyhow. Why not cut that too and appropriate funding toward our schools ?

[Rojava Free State]

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.

We need to teach teens safe sex, because guess what happens when you yell "DON'T HAVE SEX!" repeatedly? They just do it anyways cause that's what teens do

[The Free Joy 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

There is a difference -- as crude as it sounds -- those people at the intersection were people. The foetus (while in utero) isn't.

You give personhood to a foetus, and use it to tell pregnant people what they must do or not do "or else", and pregnant women can have a lot of their rights subjugated and be stripped of an awful lot of liberty (as my earlier post highlighted).

Of course, pregnant women shouldn't drink and should be given help to stop.

But holding pregnant women criminally liable for their acts against beings not legally regarded as people (or making those beings people just for the sake of prosecution) opens dark doors, and is incompatible with putting the woman first in her pregnancy.

Tennessee once tried charging women with "foetal assault". They prosecuted women who used heroin or opiates during pregnancy. The result? Women were more afraid to seek healthcare, more babies were born drug addicted, women preferred abortion to admitting their disease, doctors argued that their patients were too fearful to admit their addiction, and the law was struck down after two years.

These punitive laws not only invite invasion against women, they are actively counterproductive and harm the "poor little babies" they are supposed to be designed to help.

[Galloism]

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

There is a difference -- as crude as it sounds -- those people at the intersection were people. The foetus (while in utero) isn't.

You give personhood to a foetus, and use it to tell pregnant people what they must do or not do "or else", and pregnant women can have a lot of their rights subjugated and be stripped of an awful lot of liberty (as my earlier post highlighted).

Of course, pregnant women shouldn't drink and should be given help to stop.

But holding pregnant women criminally liable for their acts against beings not legally regarded as people (or making those beings people just for the sake of prosecution) opens dark doors, and is incompatible with putting the woman first in her pregnancy.

Tennessee once tried charging women with "foetal assault". They prosecuted women who used heroin or opiates during pregnancy. The result? Women were more afraid to seek healthcare, more babies were born drug addicted, women preferred abortion to admitting their disease, doctors argued that their patients were too fearful to admit their addiction, and the law was struck down after two years.

These punitive laws not only invite invasion against women, they are actively counterproductive and harm the "poor little babies" they are supposed to be designed to help.

It's also worth note that a number of states have murder laws that apply to the fetus, either from conception, or at some stage of the pregnancy.

It's also worth note the the public is generally in favor of those laws - even a liberal state like Maryland has 62% in favor of expanding fetal homicide laws.

Unfortunately, we can't have this both ways. Either the fetus is a person and can be murdered but liability arises for things done to it in utero, or it's not a person and the only crime in killing a fetus would be assault against the mother (and/or possibly destruction of property) but there's no liability for things done in utero.

[Luminesa]

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)

I hate to break it to you, but just because her child didn’t get it doesn’t mean that fetal alcohol syndrome does not exist. It is oftentimes a fatal illness, and if the child lives it can harm a child’s health significantly. This is why the Surgeon General tells moms DO NOT DRINK WHILE PREGNANT. It is criminal because it can kill the child, and has killed many children. And God forbid the mother smokes or does drugs while pregnant, that will harm the child as well.

[The Free Joy State]

There is a difference -- as crude as it sounds -- those people at the intersection were people. The foetus (while in utero) isn't.

You give personhood to a foetus, and use it to tell pregnant people what they must do or not do "or else", and pregnant women can have a lot of their rights subjugated and be stripped of an awful lot of liberty (as my earlier post highlighted).

Of course, pregnant women shouldn't drink and should be given help to stop.

But holding pregnant women criminally liable for their acts against beings not legally regarded as people (or making those beings people just for the sake of prosecution) opens dark doors, and is incompatible with putting the woman first in her pregnancy.

Tennessee once tried charging women with "foetal assault". They prosecuted women who used heroin or opiates during pregnancy. The result? Women were more afraid to seek healthcare, more babies were born drug addicted, women preferred abortion to admitting their disease, doctors argued that their patients were too fearful to admit their addiction, and the law was struck down after two years.

These punitive laws not only invite invasion against women, they are actively counterproductive and harm the "poor little babies" they are supposed to be designed to help.

It's also worth note that a number of states have murder laws that apply to the fetus, either from conception, or at some stage of the pregnancy.

It's also worth note the the public is generally in favor of those laws - even a liberal state like Maryland has 62% in favor of expanding fetal homicide laws.

Unfortunately, we can't have this both ways. Either the fetus is a person and can be murdered but liability arises for things done to it in utero, or it's not a person and the only crime in killing a fetus would be assault against the mother (and/or possibly destruction of property) but there's no liability for things done in utero.

Myself, I feel a bit funny about foetal homicide laws. Expanding foetal homicide laws can too often be a pre-text for infringing on abortion rights, no matter how often its claimed to not be the case.

England and Wales has "Child Destruction", instead -- the deliberate killing of a viable foetus, capable of being born alive -- which is better, I think (it can't be murder, because the child hasn't breathed, doesn't rely on personhood and is completely distinct to the Abortion Act 1967). For instance, assaulting the mother so that the foetus dies -- that would be Child Destruction.

I'm not sure what sentence it carries.

[-Ocelot-]

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 hate to break it to you, but just because her child didn’t get it doesn’t mean that fetal alcohol syndrome does not exist. It is oftentimes a fatal illness, and if the child lives it can harm a child’s health significantly. This is why the Surgeon General tells moms DO NOT DRINK WHILE PREGNANT. It is criminal because it can kill the child, and has killed many children. And God forbid the mother smokes or does drugs while pregnant, that will harm the child as well.

A fetus is not a child, no matter how many times you say "child" instead of fetus.

[The South Falls]

I think we can come to a compromise. Women can drink while pregnant, just they must raise the child without any assistance in dealing with any issues that the drinking may cause.

[Rojava Free State]

There is a difference -- as crude as it sounds -- those people at the intersection were people. The foetus (while in utero) isn't.

You give personhood to a foetus, and use it to tell pregnant people what they must do or not do "or else", and pregnant women can have a lot of their rights subjugated and be stripped of an awful lot of liberty (as my earlier post highlighted).

Of course, pregnant women shouldn't drink and should be given help to stop.

But holding pregnant women criminally liable for their acts against beings not legally regarded as people (or making those beings people just for the sake of prosecution) opens dark doors, and is incompatible with putting the woman first in her pregnancy.

Tennessee once tried charging women with "foetal assault". They prosecuted women who used heroin or opiates during pregnancy. The result? Women were more afraid to seek healthcare, more babies were born drug addicted, women preferred abortion to admitting their disease, doctors argued that their patients were too fearful to admit their addiction, and the law was struck down after two years.

These punitive laws not only invite invasion against women, they are actively counterproductive and harm the "poor little babies" they are supposed to be designed to help.

It's also worth note that a number of states have murder laws that apply to the fetus, either from conception, or at some stage of the pregnancy.

It's also worth note the the public is generally in favor of those laws - even a liberal state like Maryland has 62% in favor of expanding fetal homicide laws.

Unfortunately, we can't have this both ways. Either the fetus is a person and can be murdered but liability arises for things done to it in utero, or it's not a person and the only crime in killing a fetus would be assault against the mother (and/or possibly destruction of property) but there's no liability for things done in utero.

A fetus is a person when it looks like a person. Once it has organs, it's a human as far as I'm concerned, and killing it is comparable to taking people out at an intersection

[Rojava Free State]

I hate to break it to you, but just because her child didn’t get it doesn’t mean that fetal alcohol syndrome does not exist. It is oftentimes a fatal illness, and if the child lives it can harm a child’s health significantly. This is why the Surgeon General tells moms DO NOT DRINK WHILE PREGNANT. It is criminal because it can kill the child, and has killed many children. And God forbid the mother smokes or does drugs while pregnant, that will harm the child as well.

A fetus is not a child, no matter how many times you say "child" instead of fetus.

If it has organs and looks like a person, it's a child

[-Ocelot-]

A fetus is not a child, no matter how many times you say "child" instead of fetus.

If it has organs and looks like a person, it's a child

The fetus of a pig is indistinguishable from a human one. Are pigs humans, too?

[Nova Cyberia]

Vox is gynocentric trash. This is nothing new.

[-Ocelot-]

Vox is gynocentric trash. This is nothing new.

it's not gynocentric nor is gynocentrism bad, as your comment implies. What's wrong with women existing?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Personally, I'm all for eugenics,

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

Doesn't make it any less disingenuous for those who side with drinking pregnant women to invoke male drinking's effect on genetics, and then object to the only thing that can be done about even worse genetics.

[Nova Cyberia]

Vox is gynocentric trash. This is nothing new.

it's not gynocentric nor is gynocentrism bad, as your comment implies. What's wrong with women existing?

Women can exist. I just think gynocentrism is rather shitty.

[Ostroeuropa]

Just criminalize deliberate and malicious usage of drugs and alcohol.

(Same as we might ban gender-selective abortion while broadly accepting abortion as a right, accepting drinking/smoking/drug use as the mothers business can end if they openly confess to doing it in order to harm their child. Same as "I'm aborting it because it's a girl." would be banned in many contexts and mean they can't get an abortion anymore.).

"You know drinking while pregnant can fuck up your kid, right?"
"I don't care."
"Okay. I guess we can't force you to care. It would be far too restrictive on women to force them to abide by what is optimal for their child during pregnancy."
v
"You know drinking while pregnant can fuck up your kid, right?"
"That's the point, jackass."
"...Okay, time to call the police. It is not too restrictive to prohibit women from deliberate and malicious choices rather than apathetic ones.".

The functional difference is that the woman is allowed to do what she likes and base her choices around herself.
When she bases her choices around the child however, and then nonetheless chooses to act this way, that is different in character.

[The Serbian Empire]

Vox is like the Fox News of the Left. Just be glad they don't have a TV channel yet.

[Agarntrop]

To be honest, I think it should be illegal to sell pregnant women alcohol or buy alcohol on behalf of pregnant women.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

To be honest, I think it should be illegal to sell pregnant women alcohol or buy alcohol on behalf of pregnant women.

What if she's mistaken for pregnant? Won't you get sued for "discriminating against her because she's a woman"?

No. If it was her decision to consume alcohol, she is the one who should be punished for it.

[The South Falls]

Vox is like the Fox News of the Left. Just be glad they don't have a TV channel yet.

They're working on it, it seems.

[Thepeopl]

Does that include the father?

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

The human body is one of habit. If the body passes your favourite pub, it will start preparing for alcohol.
So if the woman is used to drink together with the man, him drinking will start processes in her body

[Agarntrop]

To be honest, I think it should be illegal to sell pregnant women alcohol or buy alcohol on behalf of pregnant women.

What if she's mistaken for pregnant? Won't you get sued for "discriminating against her because she's a woman"?

There's a difference between a fat person and a pregnant person. Anyone with logic can determine that.

No. If it was her decision to consume alcohol, she is the one who should be punished for it.

You can't have cameras spying on pregnant women. You cannot simply have a law that bans taking of alcohol for pregnant women as that would be unenforceable without Orwellian methods. You have to deal with the source of that alchohol.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I'm an anti-Voxxer. The site causes hot-takeism and degenerative brainlet syndrome.

[Thepeopl]

If it has organs and looks like a person, it's a child

Ah, about twelve years old you say?
Maybe when they are physical adult. At 18.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

The human body is one of habit. If the body passes your favourite pub, it will start preparing for alcohol.
So if the woman is used to drink together with the man, him drinking will start processes in her body

That's not what YOU said. YOU were referring to the father drinking at ALL.

Not every woman who gets pregnant was dating, or intended to date, or continues to date, the man who was impregnated her. There's a little something called "casual sex," and it allows women to have sex with the alpha male who is attractive but neither intended nor pretended to intend to be faithful to her.

Even in the context of dating, not every couple drinks as a couple. If anything, this could go either way... it could tempt her to drink, or seeing what it does to him could make her NOT want to drink in the first place.

Also, don't people normally start drinking in their teen years? You know, before women typically meet the man who impregnated her, regardless of whether she's her boyfriend or not? (Again, we don't really know how many pregnancies have a boyfriend as the father, and how many have a casual sex partner as the father.)