Why are women allowed to smoke while pregnant?

volchitsa

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

What? No, it's just criticism of a behaviour.

People who are male, female, pregnant, not pregnant, young, old, whatever... get criticised for certain behaviours. We judge - all the time. Even people who think they don't, do.

What special rules are being applied or are wished to be applied to pregnant women? "It's horrible when pregnant women smoke heavily" - is it not? There's no control, nothing to do with the 8th amendment - just an opinion. Why is this uncalled for because she's pregnant? There can be such a cognitive dissonance about the unborn - smoking when pregnant is potentially harmful to the baby's health, but it's unreasonable to say this? Just no. There's no logic to it.

A more extreme example, but still, how the baby's health is affected: a drug addicted newborn, one of the most heart breaking things imaginable. Foetal alcohol syndrome - a life of health problems... but criticism of the mother is not anything other than wanting to control pregnant women? Rather than concern for the health of the baby. It's bizarre.

And I already mentioned Boom Bap in that very post you quoted. If he smoked around his pregnant partner or his child, I absolutely would be highly critical of him. Of anyone who smokes around non smokers, especially children. But there's no indication that he did.

There's no indication this woman smoked during her pregnancy either. She may have given up through the whole pregnancy, and then after being pumped full of anaesthetic gas and air or being going to have a c-section, ie morphine or equivalent, may have decided that in the circumstances a cigarette wasn't going to make any difference.

But there's an assumption that she's doing something wrong, whereas the default assumption is that Boom Bap wasn't. We're also posting in a thread by a poster who thinks women shouldn't be allowed breast feed in public, so TBH there's a context there too. It's all about controlling women's behaviour.

bingbong500

joe swanson wrote: »

Why are they allowed murder their unborn babies also?

You can only murder people. You get only attain personhood at birth. These are legal definitions. Ergo, no murder involved.


So, another pointless thread. OP wonders why pregnant women are "allowed" to smoke. Doesn't provide any insight in what not "allowing" them would look like.
Come on now, be specific....test all pregnant women daily for nicotene and imprison those who test positive in new smoke free jails? Then what do we do when the baby is born, in prison?
Or what? It's a lot of bluster with no actual plan.

bingbong500

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

What? No, it's just criticism of a behaviour.

People who are male, female, pregnant, not pregnant, young, old, whatever... get criticised for certain behaviours. We judge - all the time. Even people who think they don't, do.

What special rules are being applied or are wished to be applied to pregnant women? "It's horrible when pregnant women smoke heavily" - is it not? There's no control, nothing to do with the 8th amendment - just an opinion. Why is this uncalled for because she's pregnant? There can be such a cognitive dissonance about the unborn - smoking when pregnant is potentially harmful to the baby's health, but it's unreasonable to say this? Just no. There's no logic to it.

A more extreme example, but still, how the baby's health is affected: a drug addicted newborn, one of the most heart breaking things imaginable. Foetal alcohol syndrome - a life of health problems... but criticism of the mother is not anything other than wanting to control pregnant women? Rather than concern for the health of the baby. It's bizarre.

And I already mentioned Boom Bap in that very post you quoted. If he smoked around his pregnant partner or his child, I absolutely would be highly critical of him. Of anyone who smokes around non smokers, especially children. But there's no indication that he did.

If you can't tell the difference between "I think smoking when pregnant is a bad thing" and "I think women should not be allowed to smoke while pregnant" then no-one here can help you. But don't use words like cognitive dissonance when you don't understand them.

To be clear, thinking that smoking while pregnant is bad/appalling/abusive etc is perfectly normal. The majority of people agree. Where we do no agree is that somebody else should have any control over the women who do choose to smoke.

volchitsa

Redsky121 wrote: »

Are you actually struggling to understand why someone would think abuse should be illegal?

What - abuse in general? Of whom? Abuse of born, ie living children? Or a pregnant woman falling short of perfection in her lifestyle, as many people do all their lives, only of course when pregnant she may potentially be causing harm to her unborn baby?

So how exactly would you make "abuse" illegal for the pregnant woman, and why would you limit it to her, when other people may be acting on her in ways which may harm the baby too?

bingbong500

Redsky121 wrote: »

Are you actually struggling to understand why someone would think abuse should be illegal?

Abuse? Of who? It's legal to smoke. A foetus is not a person. There is no-one to abuse in this scenario.
What do you think should be illegal? You're the one struggling here, not least to articulate your point. What do you think should happen that does not happen?

lainey_d_123

Well it's moronic but how can you stop them? I suppose you could introduce severe penalties, but how would they really be enforced?

volchitsa

Redsky121 wrote: »

Who said I'd limit it to the Mother? Smoking in a household with a child or pregnant woman should also be illegal in my view.

That's something of a minority view it seems going by this thread - there were as many posts complaining about women going to the shops in their pyjamas as there were pointing out that fathers smoking is dangerous too.

But also, why stop at smoking? You know air pollution in cities is as bad as smoking for the fetus? Air pollution as bad as smoking in increasing risk of miscarriage

Would you have parents fined or even jailed for smoking when the damage from dirty air continues unabated? What would be achieved by that?

jay1988

I used to laugh at people who claimed that there was a certain section of society that want to police what women do with their own bodies, especially around the time of the abortion debate, I always thought it was blown way out of proportion.

**** me this thread has been an eye opener on that front anyway.

eviltwin

Redsky121 wrote: »

How can you stop a person punching someone in the face? If they want to do it they'll do it, that doesn't mean it should be legal.

What sanctions would you impose on a pregnant woman who smoked?

jay1988

Redsky121 wrote: »

Has it crossed your mind that some people consider the harm that's caused to the unborn?

If a woman wants to throw herself off a bridge that's her business, she's harming no one else. When the actions of an individual cause damage to another person then it becomes the business of society.

its not another person, its a fetus, thats been done to death, either way its irrelevant as its none of your or anyone else's business what any woman does with her own body, pregnant or not, it might be a **** thing to do but its the womans choice, end of story.

Bobblehats

When I popped out of my ould wan I wasn’t gasping for air I was gasping for a smoke

volchitsa

Redsky121 wrote: »

Similar to what's achieved by making it illegal to punch people in the face.

It's not similar at all. For one thing, it's an addiction, and one that makes some people (but not the pregnant woman) very, very rich - so she is to some extent a victim of tobacco companies and possibly of her own parents, so where does the buck stop?

Secondly, it's not just "illegal to punch people in the face", there's a law that defines the details and the punishments you may expect to get for breaking the law. So what punishment do you think would be adequate for a pregnant wo,an who smokes? Would it be automatic or would it depend on the actual harm caused? (Which might be zero, of course - so would those lucky women get off Scot free? Meanwhile those whose babies are damaged would get a double punishment, a sick baby and a prison sentence?)

And thirdly, you've ignored the point that other forms of harm may be just as bad. Would non smoking women like me be entitled to extra compensation for a child with bronchitis possibly caused by air pollution when I was pregnant, while my neighbour who smoked gets nothing because their kid's bronchitis was her own fault?

jay1988

Redsky121 wrote: »

So if someone punches you in the face is that ok, can they do whatever they want with their body?

A foetus often becomes a person, why should it be legal to take unnecessary actions which are known to cause harm to that person? The foetus had no choice, the mother in most cases had a choice so she should take some responsibility for her choices.

No of course not because they've done something to my body not their own, how hard is it to comprehend?

One eyed Jack

jay1988 wrote: »

its not another person, its a fetus, thats been done to death, either way its irrelevant as its none of your or anyone else's business what any woman does with her own body, pregnant or not, it might be a **** thing to do but its the womans choice, end of story.

It is y’know, and there are numerous laws regarding what people can and can’t do with their own bodies in Irish legislation, so suggesting that it’s none of anyone else’s business what any woman does with her own body? You’re very much mistaken.

That being said, absolutely of course it’s a woman’s choice if she chooses to smoke during her pregnancy, but that doesn’t preclude the possibility that legislation could be introduced that would make it unlawful for a pregnant woman to do so, nor as I suggested earlier would it even have to be actively policed (we have many restrictive laws regarding the limitations placed on what people can and can’t do with their own bodies which aren’t actively policed).

It would simply serve as a deterrent, as many of our laws regarding what people can or can’t do with their own bodies do, and any possible prosecutions would be at the discretion of the DPP. You’re acting like this would be incredibly difficult to implement, when the reality is it exists in other contexts already. This idea that it’s unfair that a law should only apply to pregnant women ignores the fact that there are many laws which apply to pregnant women specifically already, namely of course laws restricting their reproductive choices and what options are legally available to them at any particular point in their pregnancy.

A law which would prohibit pregnant women from smoking? It’s not actually as far out there as you might think. There’s just no political will to introduce such a law into Irish legislation.

volchitsa

Redsky121 wrote: »

I'd suggest community service should be a punishment for pregnant mothers who smoke.

So she likely has other kids: do you think there is any chance that her children will suffer more from their mother being unavailable to spend time with them because she then has to go out and do this community service? What if she says she can't, she has no childminder or can't afford to pay one - prison?
Who loses there?

Amd what if the baby is actually perfectly healthy?

And why only punish the parents? What about air pollution? That causes harm. Should it be made illegal?

Gimme A Pound

What's this disingenuous stuff about pollution? You have to go outside - you don't have to smoke.

volchitsa wrote: »

There's no indication this woman smoked during her pregnancy either. She may have given up through the whole pregnancy, and then after being pumped full of anaesthetic gas and air or being going to have a c-section, ie morphine or equivalent, may have decided that in the circumstances a cigarette wasn't going to make any difference.

But there's an assumption that she's doing something wrong, whereas the default assumption is that Boom Bap wasn't.

She was smoking when pregnant/in labour.
That's all that Boom Bap referred to, and that is doing something wrong. If Boom Bap was blowing smoke into her face, then yes, he was doing something wrong. That's all that I referred to. It's horrible - and that's merely expressing a point of view, nothing more (and what's the point in "maybe this, maybe that" - none of us have a clue, except for knowing that she was smoking when in labour; maybe she did give up for ages, and maybe she smoked heavily). She can smoke away while pregnant. I'm not stopping her and it's not something that could ever be enforced. But please explain to me what is wrong with just being critical of the behaviour, otherwise it absolutely looks like viewing pregnant women as above criticism.

bingbong500 wrote: »

If you can't tell the difference between "I think smoking when pregnant is a bad thing" and "I think women should not be allowed to smoke while pregnant" then no-one here can help you. But don't use words like cognitive dissonance when you don't understand them.

Where did I indicate not understanding what "cognitive dissonance" means?
Don't be patronising. There absolutely are people objecting to mere criticism of women smoking heavily when pregnant, and trying to come up with all sorts of ways to make excuses/downplay it (and huge fans of the "judgemental" word, as if they've never judged anyone). And don't mind the OP, who's just on a wind-up. "They shouldn't be allowed" just means it's awful. People know it can't be policed. Although I've heard of measures against parents smoking in the car with children. No prob myself. If it's a pregnant mother though, suddenly it's misogyny. Although I cannot see how smoking in the car can be policed either.

And nonsense like "it's only a foetus" - after a certain point, no it isn't. And "it's her body" - after a certain point, no it's not just her body. I voted in favour of the 8th amendment because I believe early stage abortion should be available but I don't get why these things are denied.

A rare cigarette or drink I completely understand, but heavy smoking/drinking with no attempt to quit or cut down is just sh1tty.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Because as disgusting and selfish as it may be, a woman’s body is her own.

volchitsa

Redsky121 wrote: »

I think the poster you are replying to subscribes to the ideology that women are always the victims, so they are beyond criticism, it's always someone else's fault, be it the tobacco company, pollution or the patriarchy.

Ah I love the smell of ad hominem in the morning.

HappyAsLarE

Fcuk that legalising abortion and then pretending to give s fcuk about unborn children.

Gimme A Pound

Adriel Yummy Sorrow wrote: »

Because as disgusting and selfish as it may be, a woman’s body is her own.

Why do people think this line is a good argument? After a certain point, no it isn't just her body.

...Ghost...

Deleted User wrote: »

Their bodies. Their choice.

I find those words to be the equivalent of foot stomping and saying "because".

If you saw a man sitting on a bench with his son, blowing cigarette smoke into his face after every drag.....would you hold the view that it's his body and his choice?

It's perfectly legal to smoke in public around children.

bingbong500

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

Why do people think this line is a good argument? After a certain point, no it isn't just her body.

It's the only argument, and it is ALWAYS her body, her choice. NOTHING changes that.

It's a fact, in LAW. Your opinion is irrelevant. Thank ****!!

bingbong500

...Ghost... wrote: »

I find those words to be the equivalent of foot stomping and saying "because".

If you saw a man sitting on a bench with his son, blowing cigarette smoke into his face after every drag.....would you hold the view that it's his body and his choice?

It's perfectly legal to smoke in public around children.

Yup, you got really confused there didn't you? The mans body is his body, the boys body is his. There are two born human people there with personhood and legal rights.
With a pregnant woman: one person, one body, one legal human.

You see? 1 is not the same as 2. Is that simple enough for you?

riclad

How would it be stopped, some women are overweight , they might look pregnant .
The gardai have enough things to do apart from looking for people smoking cigarettes .
It may be a matter of if its legal to buy a product you cant really arrest an adult for buying it .it would be a restriction on personal freedom of choice and human rights .
remember in the 70s an adult could not even buy condoms or the pill
in ireland .

bingbong500

Redsky121 wrote: »

Do you think it's perfectly ok for a mother to knowingly take actions that are likely to deform her child?

No. Personally I don't. But since its her body and not mine, my opinion is, like yours, irrelavant.


Why can you not understand that you can dislike the things people do while still asserting they have every right to do it?

AryaStark

xzanti wrote: »

Personally it turns my stomach to see it.

I've heard it said however that the stress of not smoking for the mother could be just as hazardous for the baby as actually smoking.

Who knows.

This is not true... the harm of smoking on the baby is huge.

It is hard to stop smoking... some mums are lucky to feel so sick from the smell of smoke and have to stop. I guess their body is protecting the baby. It is a very selfish thing to do.

bingbong500

Redsky121 wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned people can do what they want so long as don't harm other people, they can jump off a cliff if they want because they're only harming themselves. But a pregnant woman has the potential to also harm another person. The unborn child grows into an adult, that adult can be harmed through the actions of the pregnant Mother.

At the time she is pregnant, it is not another person. You need to grasp the fundamental fact.

Also, you haven't explained how you think women should be stopped from smoking while pregnant. Please tell us all your plan.

bingbong500

Redsky121 wrote: »

The unborn child becomes a person, are you able to grasp that fact? Are you able to grasp the fact that smoking, taking drugs or alcohol could potentially cause serious harm to a human being?

Since when is it ok to knowingly take actions that could seriously harm another person?

Is it ok to put poison on the swing in an empty playground, after all the swing isn't a person? Obviously it's not ok because it has the potential to cause serious harm to a human being.

At the time of the action the future possible person is not a person. Do you understand that?

Still waiting for your plan.....all talk and no action, right?

bingbong500

Redsky121 wrote: »

At the time of action the poison is only put on a swing, not a person, therefore it's perfectly fine.

I already explained it should be illegal.

And how would that work, it being illegal? How do you know who is pregnant, and how do you know who is smoking? And what do you do with them once caught, what is the punishment?


"it should be illegal" is the kind of answer I expect from my 6 year old. Details, dude....

ceadaoin.

Redsky121 wrote: »

The unborn child becomes a person, are you able to grasp that fact? Are you able to grasp the fact that smoking, taking drugs or alcohol could potentially cause serious harm to a human being?

Since when is it ok to knowingly take actions that could seriously harm another person?

Traffic accidents cause more foetal deaths and injuries than any of those things. Should women be banned from using vehicles also? I mean, where do you draw the line on how many restrictions should be placed on pregnant women? No one seems to be able to answer this.

How would it be policed? Any woman who looks like they might be pregnant and is seen smoking being investigated? Maybe any woman of childbearing age, just in case like?