Another form of child abuse: smoking while pregnant.

[MoonRiver]

Disclosure, my mom smoked during both her pregnancies. My sister was born with a serious deformity, which took years and years of surgeries and therapy to remedy, although she was never completely right. My mom was given the heads up by her doctor at the time to smoke, so I do not fault her or other moms back in the day who knew no better, and were addicted to nicotine. No, a sample of one is not enough to make the case, but now we know better, or we should. Here are some medical facts about the effects of smoking on a fetus.

If your health isn't enough to make you quit smoking, then the health of your baby should be. Smoking during pregnancy affects you and your baby's health before, during, and after your baby is born. The nicotine (the addictive substance in cigarettes), carbon monoxide, and numerous other poisons you inhale from a cigarette are carried through your bloodstream and go directly to your baby. Smoking while pregnant will:

Lower the amount of oxygen available to you and your growing baby.
Increase your baby's heart rate.
Increase the chances of miscarriage and stillbirth.
Increase the risk that your baby is born prematurely and/or born with low birth weight.
Increase your baby's risk of developing respiratory (lung) problems.
Increases risks of birth defects.
Increases risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

http://www.webmd.com/baby/smoking-during-pregnancy

[Logical]

1. No, there is DUer who disagrees with you. Smoking while pregnant causes no issues.....

Read this list of posts, it will amaze you!

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5532134

[MoonRiver]

2. ...

[Logical]

3. Really a clueless poster. No facts, just what they believe. nt

[MoonRiver]

5. Wonder if s/he is a smoker?

I know my mother felt very guilty about my sister after the facts came out, or were allowed to come out, regarding the effects of smoking. My sister's problem could have been a genetic birth defect, but we will never really know.

[Mojorabbit]

117. Not to pry

But was it a commonly passed genetic disorder?

[MoonRiver]

124. Not to our knowledge.

Had to do with skeletal issues. No one in the family had such a problem before her. I'm not saying it wasn't something other than smoking. My point is why take such a big chance if you want a healthy child. My mother didn't know any better, but women today do.

For the thought police here, I had two abortions before giving birth to my two wanted children. I do not regret those abortions. Just wasn't the right time in my life to have kids. Why this thread has been conflated into an anti-choice OP is completely beyond my comprehension.

[uppityperson]

134. Calling a fetus a child in the OP has a lot to do with that.

Comparing what a woman does while pregnant with child abuse contributes.
Also saying something CAN harm is not the same as saying it DOES harm.

[yeoman6987]

8. I think that smoking during pregnancy is not a smart thing to do

But it is a slippery slope on a woman's choice on what to do with her own body. Obviously it is her choice and nobody else's. It does make me cringe when I see a woman smoking while pregnant, but what next? No greezy food? No ice cream? Give women the information and let them decide. I would not want the police or courts involved in such a thing.

[treestar]

11. Society in general has come to believe this

about smoking, and it hasn't led to anything else unreasonable.

Most pregnant women want to maximize their health. They also generally give up alcohol in this society.

But those two things are known not to be good for your health whether or not you are pregnant.

If a study showed greasy food had a bad effect, then most pregnant women would not eat any while pregnant. It's their choice because they want to maximize the baby's health. That's how most pregnant women see things.

[yeoman6987]

15. Absolutely

It just makes me nervous when OP's in general (not just specifically this one) discuss anything pregnant. If we want women to have choice then we have to accept irresponsible choice of a few.

[MoonRiver]

32. I completely accept a woman's right to choose to smoke during pregnancy.

Not ONCE in my OP did I state that smoking while pregnant is, or should be, a crime.

[yeoman6987]

33. I hope you don't think I was calling you out at all

I apologize if it appeared that way.

[MoonRiver]

49. I didn't think that yeoman.

Thank you for explaining.

[NutmegYankee]

68. You did so implicitly right in your title.

Child abuse is a crime. A woman smoking during pregnancy is NOT committing child abuse.

[MoonRiver]

69. I agree to disagree with you. Smoking while pregnant is NOT a crime.

It does harm, i.e. abuse, the child/fetus, however you choose to define it.

[JTFrog]

70. "however you choose to define it"

Is this the heart of the matter here? Do you believe a fetus is a child? Is that how you choose to define it?

[MoonRiver]

75. My OP was NEVER about abortion.

It is truly bizarre that some interpret it that way. No, a fetus is not a child. But the fetus who becomes a child IS impacted by it's mother smoking. I am 100% AOK with the mother aborting the fetus before it becomes a child. However, if she chooses to continue the pregnancy, it is in the best interest of her (future) child to stop smoking. But if she doesn't, she is NOT committing a crime. Don't know how much more I can spell out my opinion, but I'm sure it is not enough for some.

[JTFrog]

77. Then you should never have used the wording you did in your OP.

You have no idea who is going to carry a fetus to term or not. To call women who smoke while pregnant child abusers is so incredibly offensive and that you won't stop to consider that for a moment doesn't help your "arguments".

[MoonRiver]

81. Did I ever say those women should or shouldn't carry a child to term?

I simply pointed out a medical fact that children born of smokers can have problems. I then discussed a personal example of that reality.

[PeaceNikki]

78. Words mean things.

[MoonRiver]

79. Was the word abortion in my OP?

[PeaceNikki]

82. .

"You called it child abuse, which is a crime. Also, by calling it "child" abuse, you are calling a fetus a child. That is the position and terminology of those who are anti-choice."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5534294

Also, you said "another" and, other than Adrian Peterson, there are no "other" discussions on child abuse in GD.

[RandySF]

156. So a 7-9 month old fetus is still a lump of cells?

[PeaceNikki]

159. I haven't used that term once. You're the only one who has in this thread.

A fetus which has developed to 7-9 months is a fetus.

As I said in the post which replied, words mean things.

[NutmegYankee]

74. I will never agree to call smoking while pregnant child abuse.

It is a hallmark of anti-choice language to compare a fetus to a child. This mentality is corrosive to women's rights and has already led to states jailing woman who were drug addicts and many being refused service if others felt they made "bad choices".

[PeaceNikki]

76. Thank you.

I don't why this op refuses to that words mean things.

[uppityperson]

135. +++++++++++++++++

[elehhhhna]

110. slip meets slope: might I add that a fetus is not a child.

[NutmegYankee]

116. See post 74.

I went right for the heart of the matter.

[merrily]

4. SMH

What is about the difference between increased risk of serious problems and 100% certainty of serious problems that is so difficult to understand?

But, it's like getting pregnant to begin with. There may be only a 2% chance of getting pregnant using a given method of birth control, but, if you're in that 2%, you get 100% pregnant, not 2% pregnant.

Why would anyone advocate for ignoring the risk of giving birth to an infant that is anything but healthy?

[brewens]

179. Even though I'd guess at least half or more of the kids I grew up with had mothers that smoked

and it sure doesn't seem to me that it could be all that devastating, I don't discount the research. I was only growing up with the kids that turned out healthy for the most part. You didn't ever know about miscarriages or see, for the most part, many of the kids that had serious defects caused by smoking.

My mom smoked, and there is one thing I always wondered about. When I learned to smoke cigarettes at much too Young of an age, I took to it right away. I choked a little right at first but immediately liked the buzz it gave me and wanted to keep smoking. I quickly got used to it and became addicted.

I wonder if having had regular doses of nicotine as a fetus and as I was developing, had me born already addicted to nicotine? Then of course I went cold turkey as a baby and got off the stuff. But after 14 years or so, just like someone having quit as an adult for some number of years, I took that first few drags and reintroduced nicotine into my system. It wasn't like I consciously realized, "oh yeah, that's what I've been missing!" I do wonder if my brain reacted positively to it? Maybe that's part of why kids with parents that smoke are more likely to get started themselves? It's not just that they are following their example, they in effect have been smokers before if their mother smoked while pregnant.

[PeaceNikki]

6. So, are you proposing they be criminally charged?

What about pregnant women who eat poorly? Or don't their vitamins? How you feel about a woman's to terminate pregnancy, is that "murder" to you? It's a child, it's a fetus. Very slippery slope...

[Logical]

9. No, eating bad is not like smoking. Simple. nt

[PeaceNikki]

10. Answer the other questions, please.

[jen63]

12. I agree with you.

I've read stories in the paper of pregnant women being kicked out of restaurants, or having the police called because they are having a glass of wine. It seems that the scientific evidence has turned in regard to MODERATE alcohol consumption during pregnancy. It may actually be beneficial. I'm not saying that this is the case with tobacco, no way. But your slippery slope comment is a good one.

[MoonRiver]

16. Of course I don't propose that.

But a pregnant woman who smokes is damaging her fetus. At the very least, fetuses who ingest smoke tend to be smaller weight. Why you would jump to the conclusion that I don't support a woman's right to choose because I posted medical facts that smoking is damaging to fetuses? That's a stretch to say the least.

BTW, I have supported a woman's right to choose since I was a young woman. Sheesh.

[PeaceNikki]

19. you called it "child abuse". that is crime.

[MoonRiver]

35. Many kinds of destructive behavior toward oneself and others are not crimes.

I'm not understanding the hysteria over calling smoking destructive, and yes abusive, to a fetus. Way too much sensitivity.

I have worked and supported a woman's right to choose my entire adult life. I'm just talking about a medical issue that is proven to be harmful. But it is NOT a crime.

[PeaceNikki]

38. mmm hmm

"Hysteria" nice choice words.

You're a real wordsmith today.

[MoonRiver]

52. Back at ya dear.

[LisaLynne]

80. But you weren't just calling it destructive in your OP.

You called it child abuse, which is a crime. Also, by calling it "child" abuse, you are calling a fetus a child. That is the position and terminology of those who are anti-choice.

[MoonRiver]

83. A fetus carried to term is a child.

There are potential damages to the future child, which can occur due to a smoking mother. As in my sister's case, these damages may have long term repercussions. It is not a crime for a mother to smoke, and possibly damage her future child. But the fact remains that such behavior can permanently harm the born, breathing and living child.

[JTFrog]

84. You also said this about your sister's case:

My sister's problem could have been a genetic birth defect, but we will never really know.

I'm not saying that smoking is a good idea if you plan on having a baby. I'm saying that your OP declares pregnant women child abusers for smoking while pregnant. You have no way to distinguish between those who plan to carry a fetus to term and those who don't. I really wish you would reconsider your OP. But I'm done asking.

[LisaLynne]

85. You were asking why there was so much ...

resistance to your OP. I offered you my explanation -- that it was because it's using terminology that is generally used by the RW abortion opponents. Can you not see why some feel this entire argument plays into the anti-choice stance?

[PeaceNikki]

86. Child abuse is a legal term. And you're desperately grasping it rather than look through eyes

of women whose rights are being trampled all over the country.

Your terms have criminal connotations and reek of anti-choice rhetoric.

Why fuck is that hard to understand?

Nobody is saying smoking pregnant is not harmful and bad. Several are pointing out inflammatory language but you just keep grasping onto it.

[MoonRiver]

89. Child abuse is a term, used in many contexts.

I am not a lawyer and am not using the term in a legal manner. I do not think smoking while pregnant is a crime, but it does abuse a future child.

[PeaceNikki]

91. You're a man, aren't ya?

[MoonRiver]

93. No, I am a woman.

[uppityperson]

139. Again with "it does" vs "it can".

[moriah]

167. Do you support initiatives like this one for tobacco?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/05/01/criminalizing-harmful-substance-abuse-during-pregnancy-is-there-a-problem-with-that/

Because yes, that's what you're suggesting when you call it "child abuse" -- that it should be criminal.

[surrealAmerican]

7. While it is certainly medically unsound ...

... it's not child abuse. A fetus is not a child, and a pregnant woman should not be legally punished for her health, even when it has a negative impact on the fetus.

[treestar]

14. society will end up paying the costs

But very few pregnant women these days would smoke throughout the pregnancy. That would demonstrate a level of ignorance that goes into other areas and makes the child disadvantaged on a lot more levels than the risk of low birth weight, etc.

[MoonRiver]

18. No one said the mother should be punished.

Smoking harms the fetus, plain and simple. Of course a mother can do it, if she chooses.

[surrealAmerican]

23. Calling it "child abuse" implies that it should be punished.

Child abuse is a crime, as it should be.

Non-optimal health in pregnancy is not a crime.

[MoonRiver]

37. That may be your take. It is not mine.

For the record, I do not think smoking, drinking or taking drugs while pregnant should be treated as criminal activities.

[PeaceNikki]

24. you should edit or delete your offensive title.

Child abuse is a crime that should be punished.

[MoonRiver]

39. Maybe you should just move along. Ignore is your friend, friend.

[PeaceNikki]

41. nope.

[MoonRiver]

44. Ok, then.

[uppityperson]

133. "Smoking harms the fetus" is wrong. It CAN, not it DOES.

[etherealtruth]

13. How is this child abuse?

I heartily agree cigarette smoking is deleterious to the developing fetus. I agree with all of the scientific evidence linking smoking to very negative outcomes.

I believe that any mother attempting to provide the best possible outcome for her pregnancy "should" seek aggressive treatment for her addiction .... however, this is no more "child abuse" than abortion is murder of a "child."

Designating any legal activity a woman engages in while pregnant as a crime (child abuse is a crime), does nothing to increase better outcomes ... and erodes women's rights.

[MoonRiver]

20. I NEVER said it was a crime.

[etherealtruth]

21. Child abuse is a crime

[PeaceNikki]

22. yes, you did. child abuse is a crime.

[MoonRiver]

25. People can do many things to each other without those acts being considered crimes.

Putting a child in day care 12 hours a day, then ignoring him/her the rest of the day is abusive, imo, but certainly carries no criminal penalties. And yes, I have known of people who do this. Quite a few in fact.

[PeaceNikki]

27. your thread title is disgusting

Especially context of the Adrian Peterson discussions.

Awful.

[MoonRiver]

40. Once again, ignore is your friend, my overly sensitive friend.

[PeaceNikki]

42. back atcha

[MoonRiver]

47. Whatever

[JTFrog]

51. Why post it if you are going to ask people to ignore it?

Seems there are quite a few more than the one poster you are jumping on here asking you to reconsider this OP. And your use of "hysteria" to describe the reaction to your OP is also incredibly insensitive.

[MoonRiver]

54. Why read if you are so offended?

[JTFrog]

55. Because people don't let inappropriate and insensitive posts sit and fester around here.

It appears the only one who is going to do the ignoring here is you. That's a shame.

[MoonRiver]

56. I'm not ignoring you.

[JTFrog]

57. But you are.

And you are ignoring every other poster in this thread who has told you that your post is incredibly insensitive.

But that is your right. Obviously.

[MoonRiver]

59. I am arguing my points. That does not equate with ignoring.

Are we not allowed to argue and debate here anymore?

[JTFrog]

61. Well you are definitely in a lopsided debate.

I don't think you are going to sway a Democratic left wing leaning board to engage in a dishonest debate that starts out calling a fetus a child.

[MoonRiver]

88. OMG, you really think that is what I am trying to do???????????????

[ProfessorGAC]

171. You're Not Arguing Your Point

You're putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la la la, i can't hear you".

You're tone deaf in this thread. You equated something to a criminal act, and then say you don't mean it's criminal.

That's intellectually lazy. You use a clearly defined term and then get to decide what the definitions are so that they suit your position. That's what idiots like Limbaugh have been doing for more than 2 decades.

It's intellectually lazy when they do it and it's the same here at DU when a poster does the same thing.

Refusing to listen is not an argument.

[PeaceNikki]

58. Your title of "Another form child abuse.." in context the Peterson case needs to be addressed.

Harshly. It implies criminal activity on par with his.

Disgusting.

[MoonRiver]

62. I never said it had anything to do with the Peterson case. That would be because it doesn't.

And you've been doing a great job of addressing your (mis)perceived issues with my OP.

[Dorian Gray]

172. Why the heck

would you post a discussion and then tell people to ignore it when they post a differing opinion?

Geez, people are explaining to you why they thought it was offensive. And you have an overall consensus on that. And you're still refusing to consider. Why?

[etherealtruth]

36. Child abuse is a crime

the title of your OP clearly states "child abuse" .... which is a crime in all of the US.

[MoonRiver]

53. Do you think feeding a child candy all day is a crime?

Probably not, but I bet you would think it is abusive though.

[etherealtruth]

60. You know you have used a term that indicates it is a crime

.... you have been asked repeatedly to simply edit your title to one indicating smoking while pregnant is bad .... deleterious to the health and development of a fetus. Yet you cling to this ....?

No one has offered the opinion smoking while pregnant is "OK" ... simply that it is not child abuse (which is crime).

Additionally, malnourishing a child (candy all day and excluding nutritious foods causes nutrient deficient malnourishment , it is child abuse and it is a crime)

[MoonRiver]

63. It's not a crime. I never said that.

I cannot control how others decide to react.

[etherealtruth]

64. the term "child abuse" indicates it is a crime

just as the term murder indicates that what occurred is a crime.

you have chosen to cling to this .... for whatever reason .... you can continue to go with it ... or, if you do not believe it is a crime (as you claim throughout your posts) you could edit your OP title, as many have politely asked.

I don't know what your motivation in persisting is .... and I don't need to know the thought process behind it. I have nothing more to discuss on this subject

[MoonRiver]

66. Your choice to interpret the phrase that way, in context of my OP.

I do not think smoking while pregnant is a crime. It does harm the child though, so I consider it child abuse.

[JTFrog]

67. A fetus is not a child.

End of.

Have another argument you want to make?

[MoonRiver]

71. A fetus is not a child.

However, the child that is born of a smoker will have issues, some minor, some, like my sister's, major.

[JTFrog]

72. Then obviously your OP title is wrong and insensitive.

And so far in this thread you are the only person who seems to think otherwise.

Do you think folks are just being mean to you? Or do you think perhaps they are a bit offended?

[PeaceNikki]

73. Exactly. Words mean things.

[uppityperson]

138. Wrong again. They "MAY" have issues. Not "WILL" have issues.

I thought you said you didn't know if your sister's problems "My sister's problem could have been a genetic birth defect, but we will never really know." And "
Had to do with skeletal issues. No one in the family had such a problem before her. I'm not saying it wasn't something other than smoking. "


Yet you continue to say it WAS caused by smoking. Odd.

[Dorian Gray]

173. And the poster

also makes no mention of health issues she/he has suffered bc of smoking mom. Which would lead me to believe that there are none. Which would lead me to believe "MAY" should be the obvious usage.

[uppityperson]

137. child in daycare while you work or go to school, then not paying enough attention is child abuse?

Seriously?

[LuvNewcastle]

28. I agree.

It isn't child abuse. There's no child there to abuse. A woman is free to do as she wants during a pregnancy, even things that might harm the fetus. It's no one else's business, either.

[PeaceNikki]

17. what about caffeine intake? hair dye? changing litter box?

High impact exercise ?

Maybe we should just keep pregnant women in a bubble.

[MoonRiver]

26. If those things are shown to be dangerous to the fetus,

a pregnant woman should avoid them. But it's not a crime if she does not.

[PeaceNikki]

30. hint: they are

[MoonRiver]

43. Smoking while pregnant is considered a crime?

Proof please.

[PeaceNikki]

45. those other activities i asked about are detrimental fetal development

[MoonRiver]

48. I asked you if they are crimes.

[PeaceNikki]

50. no, you didn't

[KittyWampus]

29. Part of me wants to alert the OP or beg them to change the thread title.

A fetus is not a child.

[PeaceNikki]

31. it's disgusting

[yeoman6987]

34. Request the author do it first

I don't think their was malice in the OP.

[PeaceNikki]

46. I have.

[Dorian Gray]

174. No in the OP

But OP is digging in her heels and holding her fingers in her ear screaming, "I DON'T HEAR YOU!!!!"

[NutmegYankee]

65. It's the continuing effort to make the fetus into a "child" in law.

No doubt so the authoritarians out there can now start jailing pregnant woman for their lulz. There is already a state that charges drug addicted woman with crimes.

[B2G]

95. Jury results:

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

A fetus is NOT A CHILD. The wording the title absolutely falls in line with anti-choice and anti-women rhetoric. OP'er has been give ample opportunity to simply change the wording the thread title.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Sep 14, 2014, 10:32 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: this might just win the award for dumbest alert ever
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster was making a point about smoking while pregnant, it was not an anti-choice OP. The post doesn't meet the criteria for hiding it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter needs a new hobby.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Your opinion vs the OP's opinion does not warrant a hide.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[MoonRiver]

96. nuff said?

[B2G]

97. Plenty. Lol.

[Union Scribe]

166. +1 to every single one of those votes. nt

[Inkfreak]

87. I dunno about child abuse.

But it certainly is harmful and simply stupid, IMO. Which seems to be the crux of your OP. But that is dismissed and the thread has devolved into an argument about your choice words in title. Thus providing an outstanding example of why posting here can be a frustrating experience.

[MoonRiver]

90. Yep.

Thanks for being a small light of rationality in this thread.

[KittyWampus]

92. No, sorry. You don't get to play victim here. Your thread title is inflammatory in the extreme

and plays very heavily into far-right anti-choice and anti-women rhetoric.

you made a mistake, have no ground to stand on and REFUSE to change the OP title.

[MoonRiver]

94. I won't change it because it has NOTHING to do with anti-choice or women's issues.

The idea that it does is simply delusional.

[JTFrog]

98. +1 n/t

[MoonRiver]

99. A jury of your peers voted 0-7 to leave my OP alone.

What does that tell you?

[JTFrog]

100. That the jury system is flawed.

I told you I was done asking you to reconsider your OP.

No amount of "rubbing it in my face" is going to make me think any higher of it.

[PeaceNikki]

102. Amen. And that the OP takes "obstinate" to a new level.

That wasn't my alert, I know full well that the general populace is no friend of women and women's rights.

And now s/he feel 'vindicated' that the rest of us are 'hysterical'.

[JTFrog]

112. Indeed.

Not my alert either. My experiences in the last couple weeks have seriously emphasized the futility of the jury system. A real jury usually has to take into account some definition of a law. Here, where the "system" does not take any "rules" into account, it is strictly general populace rules. That may bode well for certain minorities, but you are correct in that it's been proven time and again that it does not bode well for women.

[KittyWampus]

107. The jury system is flawed. That you refuse to make a very simple amendment says volumes

about you as well.

Calling a FETUS A CHILD is a primary anti-choice tactic. PRIMARY. It's ongoing and constant.

And criminalizing the behavior of pregnant women is also a PRIMARY tactic.

Your OP's title manages to do both. BOTH.

[MoonRiver]

118. Color me guilty

of not bowing down to pressure from you and others. I stand by my post, as apparently did a jury of our peers.

[Maedhros]

106. Not only stupid, but also selfish and cruel.

Yes, it's a fetus NOW, while the mother is smoking or drinking. After it is born it's a child with preventable birth defects that the mother could have prevented but didn't.

[kiva]

101. As several people have said above,

words matter. A fetus is not a child, child abuse is a crime. What you want to talk about is the possible damage done to a fetus by a pregnant woman who chooses to smoke. Put that way, there is still the question of whether or not government or society has a right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do while pregnant.

Was your sister's medical issue caused by your mother's smoking? If not, then it is no more relevant that my telling you that my mother smoked through all three of her pregnancies and delivered three healthy infants who ranged in size from 8lbs. to 10lbs.

You say you don't want to make it illegal for pregnant women to smoke, so what exactly is the point of your OP? To scold pregnant women who smoke? To equate a fetus with a child? To say that things are better now?

[B2G]

103. So if a man kills a pregnant woman

Why can he be charged with 2 counts of murder?

[kiva]

104. Because some state have chosen to play with

the definition of personhood, often in an attempt to make abortion illegal.

[B2G]

108. But if a woman is 7-9 months pregnant,

very badly wants the baby and the baby is killed when she is murdered, is that not murder as well? If the baby is viable outside of the womb at the time?

This scenario has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, btw.

[kiva]

144. And if tests reveal that a 7 to 9 month fetus

has congenital defects that will insure it will live a short and painful life, are the parents murderers if they choose an abortion? If a woman's life is at risk is a doctor who performs an abortion a murderer? Yes, the attempt to grant personhood to a fetus is very much an attack on abortion, whether you choose to recognize it or not.

[B2G]

113. Only 12 states don't have such laws on the books.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

[NutmegYankee]

120. That is a direct effect of the effort to gives fetuses personhood to eventually criminalize abortion

No one on DU should support such laws. How soon will they be used to investigate every miscarriage as a potential crime?

[B2G]

122. I am firmly pro choice, but

if a viable, wanted baby is killed in the comission of a crime, that criminal should pay for it.

But thanks for telling me what I should/shouldn't think in order to participate here.

[NutmegYankee]

127. This is a Democratic board filled with pro-choice members.

Some like myself have actually escorted women past the filth that protests abortion. Fetal personhood is a key movement of the anti-choice movement. If a wanted baby is killed by harming the mother, the criminal should be charged with harming the mother (make loss of baby felony wounding). But to treat the fetus as a separate person is to inevitably cause the mother to lose her rights as a person.

These types of laws have a proven history in other countries of being used to force woman to undergo police investigations into miscarriages. They start by claiming they won't go after the mother, but laws change and always result in their prosecution.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24532694

El Salvador has one of the toughest anti-abortion laws in the world. A side-effect is that women who suffer miscarriages or stillbirths are sometimes suspected of inducing an abortion - and can even be jailed for murder.

Glenda Xiomara Cruz was crippled by abdominal pain and heavy bleeding in the early hours of 30 October 2012. The 19-year-old from Puerto El Triunfo, eastern El Salvador, went to the nearest public hospital where doctors said she had lost her baby.

It was the first she knew about the pregnancy as her menstrual cycle was unbroken, her weight practically unchanged, and a pregnancy test in May 2012 had been negative.

Four days later she was charged with aggravated murder - intentionally murdering the 38-to-42 week foetus - at a court hearing she was too sick to attend. The hospital had reported her to the police for a suspected abortion.

[PeaceNikki]

111. That abusers are not just men?

[kiva]

146. Sorry, were you responding to me?

[PeaceNikki]

147. Yes, I was speculating with you on the purpose the inflammatory op title.

Your last paragraph.

[kiva]

157. Ah, got it.

Sorry, I'm a bit slow today.

[deathrind]

105. This trend of criminalizing

Bad behaviors during pregnancy is getting out of hand. A woman's body is hers to do with as wants. If she gets pregnant and wants an abortion that is her legal right to do so. But because the religious right has not been able to get roe v wade overturned they have pivoted their focus to behaviors during pregnancy. There are already several case of pregnant women being charged with so "child abuse or endangerment" for doing drugs while pregnant. Now we can add smoking to that. This is getting ridiculous before you know it a zealous DA will bring charges against a pregnant woman who was driving and had a wreck causing a miscarriage because she did not see the light change.

[KittyWampus]

109. Did you read the story a few weeks ago about a school that was swarmed by police because a girl

had an apparent miscarriage in the public restroom?

All part of the same mindset.

I find it troubling how easily it carries over into liberal rhetoric.

[deathrind]

114. Yes- I saw that story.

I find the trend of these "cross over" issues disturbing as well.

[LittleBlue]

115. DU is surreal sometimes

I just came from a thread where any form of physical punishment is labeled "child abuse". That includes washing a child's mouth with soap. Another thread mentioned tickling "without consent" as something people should keep in mind.

Walk into this thread, and I'm seeing a defense of pregnant women smoking and drinking. Apparently we need to be careful about not calling this "abuse".

Reality, or a South Park parody? You decide

[NutmegYankee]

119. You have to look at the history of a woman's right to choose.

The anti-choice side has very deliberately changed the common terminology to justify further and further intrusions onto the right to choose. Conflating a fetus with a child is one of the most common methods. If a fetus is a child, and that child must be protected, then laws can be passed to restrict the actions of woman such that they are slave incubators without the choice of how to live their lives. This isn't surreal - it's the gritty nasty battlefield of the war to defend freedom.

[PeaceNikki]

121. Thank you for your participation in this thread. For real.

[NutmegYankee]

125. You're welcome.

[etherealtruth]

126. + infinity

[LittleBlue]

141. Can we respect a woman's right to choose

while not pretending that some of these fetuses don't become children? Because that's kind of where I'm at.

You choose to bring a child into the world, and you choose to drink excessively or smoke, and your child ends up with defects, yeah you abused that child in a horrific way. You can't really disassociate the fact that some fetuses do become children, and that all children were once fetuses.

We on the pro-choice side are in the right. We don't need to concoct these logic pretzels to rationalize our correct position.

[etherealtruth]

142. We can have that conversation ....

.... but a productive conversation will not be had when using the rhetoric of the "anti-choicers" (whether intentionally or through ignorance).

I would have much preferred a thread that discussed what options "we' should / could be presenting pregnant women regarding addiction.

It would have been a far better conversation if we talked about providing services for addiction / substance abuse .... be it to cigarettes, alcohol, narcotics ... The OP had a choice to change the tone of the discussion from the use of a right-wing/ anti-choice rhetorical tool to one that spoke to the public health crisis of addiction in pregnant women.

Had I inadvertently or ignorantly used a rhetorical tool of the right/ anti-choice crowd ... (or a word or phrase that was very loaded and offensive to many) I definitely would have edited it (probably apologized) and attempted to have the conversation i claim I wanted to have. The OP chose not to do that .... so I am left to assume this is the conversation they had wanted ....?

Noting NO ONE said it was a fine thing for women to smoke while pregnant

[Puzzledtraveller]

123. I come to expect this anymore

We have to be outraged about something after all. Oh yeah, ignoring something you object to is out of the question, you have to insist the person delete or change their message, on a opinion and discussion forum.

[KittyWampus]

129. are you saying we shouldn't be outraged by calling a fetus a child & casting preganant women's

behavior as illegal?

[Puzzledtraveller]

145. Yes, ignore poster, put on ignore and move on.

[PeaceNikki]

149. Or, seeing how this a "discussion board", we can voice our opinions as much as we'd like.

[Puzzledtraveller]

151. By all means

Wanting someone to delete a thread or change a title and not necessarily this one, but in general is not "discussing". It would actually be better to let the originals stand so they can be challenged and discussed exactly how theyt were presented. I think it would be more effective in promoting discussion. IMO.

[PeaceNikki]

152. of course it's discussing.

She can call it child abuse and I can tell her why I think it's disgusting anti-choice language and advise that change it. It's discussing.

[distantearlywarning]

140. DU jumped the shark a while ago

It's not enough to merely disagree with someone anymore. Instead, it is necessary to muster all of one's friends and allies and attempt to MAKE the person feel/think/express something that is more compatible with the group's viewpoint du jour. I don't even care about the arguments in this thread (or in most of the threads that end this way), but the insistence on opinion conformity is disturbing.

I suspect this is one of the major things that is driving a lot of long-term DUers away recently.

[Puzzledtraveller]

148. Indeed, it's not liberal at all IMO.

I know many long time liberals disturbed by the authoritarianism and intolerance emerging on the left. Even bringing it up gets you labelled as being a fake, or some other variant tyring to infiltrate.

[PeaceNikki]

153. Nope. Anti-choice rhetoric isn't liberal all.

[KittyWampus]

128. No one is defending a pregnant woman smoking and drinking NO ONE. You mischaracterize

the point we made.

[gollygee]

136. The issue is that it's called "child abuse"

So it's not the use of the word "abuse," which one it's own doesn't have a legal meaning. Child abuse, however, means something specific, and something that people can be arrested for. There is a fetus involved in this issue, not a child, and pregnant women shouldn't be arrested over how well they are or aren't taking care of themselves when pregnant. This is a major reproductive choice issue right now, because anti-choice people are using this exact issue as a way to create fetal rights, where fetuses are given the rights of children, and limit or end abortion options.

THAT is why people are complaining. It isn't the word "abuse."

[Demit]

130. Your thread title is wrong. It is not "child abuse."

You can't have it both ways, which is what you are trying to do. If you are a pro-choice woman, you know the right terminology is "fetus." But you want to use the term "child abuse" to heighten the drama of your message.

Which is flawed anyway, because not every child born of a woman who smokes during pregnancy suffers guaranteed ill health effects. There are increased risks of ill effects, as there are for smokers in general, but they are by no means 100% guaranteed outcomes.

I don't mind your message, the message is positive, but the hyperbole isn't necessary. And your casual misuse of a loaded term like "child abuse" is obscuring & weakening your message.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

131. If we criminalize women smoking

that incentivizes women who smoke to abort.

[uppityperson]

132. No, it is not. It may not be the best thing to do and MAY impact the fetus, but a fetus is NOT

a child.

Child abuse is a crime. Smoking while pregnant is not child abuse and not a crime.

Not taking vitamins while pregnant can affect the fetus, proven medical fact. But it is not child abuse either.

[KT2000]

143. my siblings and I were born in the 50s

at that time they had ashtrays in the labor room!
Also during this time our environment was increasingly treated with pesticides - especially the miracle DDT. A result of WWII was the explosion in chemicals and their use.

At the present time we are facing increases in childhood cancers and near epidemic of neurological conditions in children. These are most likely caused in fetal development. The chemicals that have been linked with these incidents are not those found in cigarettes. They are found in pesticides, plastics, and anti-flammable chemicals.

Of course smoking is not good but the research dollars spent on smoking far outweigh what is spent on toxic chemicals that we are all exposed to - some 24/7. That not only leaves other exposure consequences unexamined but also directs attention away from products that are profitable for chemical companies but harmful to humans.

Endocrine disrupting chemicals are especially dangerous for the fetus - with the first 8 weeks being the most critical. They are found in the products I mentioned.

[DrDan]

150. not sure about "child" abuse - definitely fetus abuse, however

the child abuse starts after birth should one smoke in their presence

[LisaL]

164. But fetus will become a child.

Potentially negatively affected by what was done to him/her for the rest of his/her life.

[justiceischeap]

175. Ah, the word "potentially"

Let's criminalize everything that could "potentially" harm a fetus. That'd be fun. May as well put women in gestation crates.



There are many of us alive and well today born from mothers that did things many think egregious now.

My mother smoked and drank (the horror--I know you take exception with this). I was born with no developmental issues. I actually have been tested and have a higher than average IQ. My bad, bad mother's drinking may have potentially caused me from reaching genius level IQ. I showed no behavioral issues as a child--I was actually a good, quiet child.

But you want to criminalize (or so it seems) things that could "potentially" harm a fetus. So, whose the first to go to jail? Poor mothers who don't take vitamins? That could potentially harm a fetus.

How about women who gain too much weight or not enough? That could potentially be harmful to a fetus.

Woman drivers--let's criminalize driving (or riding in) a car because a woman could potentially get in an accident and potentially harm the fetus.

Where does this insanity start and stop?

[DrDan]

188. I did not argue against the "abuse" part - just the fetus vs child part

I completely agree with the potentially negative impact

[La Lioness Priyanka]

154. no, its not. a fetus is not a child and therefore it is not child abuse. nt

[RandySF]

155. These discussions are enlightening

Whenever there's an implication that a fetus is more than a lump of cells at some point, people perceive a threat to reproductive rights and attack the post. So, while we're at it, let's just do nothing about those who use heroine and cocaine throughout the pregnancy.

[uppityperson]

158. What do you think should be done about coke and heroine users who are pregnant?

[NutmegYankee]

160. Addiction should be considered a disease, not a crime.

Someone who used heroine or cocaine during pregnancy is just as much a victim.

[Number23]

162. I agree.

[Union Scribe]

168. I would say more disquieting than enlightening.

If a woman is planning on carrying a pregnancy to term, it is morally reprehensible to do things that we know can ruin that child's health.

[gollygee]

185. Coke and heroine are illegal

Cigarettes are not. It is illegal to use coke and heroine when pregnant already, but only because it is illegal to use them at any time, pregnant or not. It should not be illegal to do something when pregnant that it is not illegal to do when not pregnant.

[justiceischeap]

161. My mom smoked throughout her pregnancy with me (and I assume my older sisters)

She also, apparently, craved beer while carrying me, so would have a glass a night (my mom is not a drinker and neither am I).

The closest thing I had as a birth defect was a folded over ear because I (apparently) lay on it the entire time in the womb -- they taped it to my head the first few months of life and you can only notice it if you're really looking closely.
My birth weight was 8lbs 0oz and I was almost a month late. I have no lung issues (other than I'm a current smoker), I had no learning disabilities, I obviously didn't suffer from SIDS.

I'm not saying that smoking can't be bad for your child but there could be other reasons your sister was born with a serious deformity (aside from smoking). I also think that smoking back in the 50s, 60s & 70s was a whole different beast than it is now. There were way less chemicals in cigarettes compared to today. I mean, I had a great grandfather that smoked hand-rolled cigarettes until he was in his mid-90s but my grandfather who never smoked died from pancreatic cancer in his early 60s.

It's pretty much all in the genes. That's not to say that things can't have adverse effects on people but I think genes play a larger part in what we're effected by. I've been smoking since I was 11 or 12, so a major portion of my life, and I recently had a stress test and lung x-rays--no (apparent) disease present in either--do I think I'm going to continue to be that lucky? Nope, 'cause I'm a realist and know I need to quit at some point but I've also been vegetarian since I was 16 and I think my eating habits have a lot to do with my good health.

Anyway, back to your original point... smoking while pregnant may not be the wisest course of action with what we know today. However, referring to it as child abuse, a very specific legal term, does make it seem like you want to criminalize the mother for smoking while pregnant even though you've claimed otherwise in tons of comments. I might add that driving while pregnant can be dangerous...meaning, there is danger present in every aspect of life. We cannot keep a fetus safe from everything.

[LisaL]

163. Drinking while pregnant can cause Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Which will affect the child for the rest of his/her life.
If that is not child abuse, I don't know what is.

[justiceischeap]

170. In 1971, FAS wasn't even recognized

And I'd suggest reading more about FAS.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_syndrome

An analysis of seven medical research studies involving over 130,000 pregnancies found that consuming 2 to 14 drinks per week did not significantly increase the risk of giving birth to a child with either malformations or fetal alcohol syndrome.[39] Pregnant women who consume approximately 144 grams of pure alcohol per day have a 30–33% chance of having a baby with FAS.[38]

A number of studies have shown that light drinking (1–2 drinks/week) during pregnancy does not appear to pose a risk to the fetus.[40][41][42][43] A study of pregnancies in eight European countries found that consuming no more than one drink per day did not appear to have any effect on fetal growth.

A follow-up of children at 18 months of age found that those from women who drank during pregnancy, even two drinks per day, scored higher in several areas of development,[44] though in a different study, as little as one drink per day resulted in poorer spelling and reading abilities at age 6 and a linear dose-response relationship was seen between prenatal alcohol exposure and poorer arithmetic scores at the same age.[45]

[Romulox]

178. Sounds like you were born addicted to nicotine. I believe I was, as well (2nd hand, in my case.) nt

[justiceischeap]

180. If I wasn't born addicted, I became addicted due to 2nd hand.

Everyone in my family, aside from my grandfather, smoked. It could have also been a learned habit--I didn't start until I was 11 or 12 and that's because I was hanging out with older kids that smoked. I never had a desire to smoke until I actually started smoking.

[Romulox]

181. I have a similar background. Those great wafts of blue-grey smoke just became part

of the ambient environment from my first memories. If it can cause cancer (second hand smoke, that is,) then it can also addict. At least that's my guess.

But I don't judge. It truly was a different world back then--with regard to smoking, that is.

/ex-smoker for 12 years now

[moriah]

165. If you propose it to be criminal, then you're doing the same thing the Republicans are doing...

.... by charging women who had drug or alcohol addictions during pregnancy for damage to their children. I've heard a lot of people here argue against that policy. I know tobacco is the Evil Weed, but I've yet to see it cause severe mental retardation like alcohol can do during pregnancy.

This is coming from a person with very strong stances about what women should and should not do while pregnant -- my little brother and sister will never live independently as a result of their egg donor's prenatal substance abuse. If i ever met the woman, I would have a hard time restraining myself from at the very least cussing her up one side and down the other.

But calling it child abuse suggests it should be criminal, and I do not believe in criminalizing women for the outcomes of their pregnancy even if they are substance abusers. Even if I want to beat the shit out of them for being so fucking selfish.

[Union Scribe]

169. I guess no one told WebMD the permissible word is fetus

They...called it a baby!

Smoking during pregnancy affects you and your baby's health before, during, and after your baby is born.

*Faints*

[KittyWampus]

186. "AFTER YOUR BABY IS BORN". But I see throughout this thread you agree with rightwing anti-choice

rhetoric.

[DonCoquixote]

176. It's a funny thing

You can have people at DU who will attack anyone who eats meat, who drinks beer, or who so much as uses NutraSweet, but attack smoking, and all of a sudden you are a villain. Never mind that cigarettes have been so well proven to be fatal that even the teenagers know it. Teen smoking has actually GONE DOWN over the past 20 years, despite the best efforts of Hollywood to make sure every 20 something actress and pop star is shown lighting up. Never mind the fact that, even if Cigarettes were suddenly not harmful, we know that the ones who own that Industry are some of the biggest supporters of the Right Wing, making damned sure that Medical Marijuana is kept down for fear their cash crop may be hurt. Let's not even get into the fact that as far back as Slavery, Tobacco farming has been hard on the exploited farmhands, and still is to those Immigrants that are barely less helpless and exploited than the Antebellum Blacks were.

"Nah, don't ya dare touch my smokes! " And at that, the Right wing of North Carolina and Virginia thank ye, as they know they have their cash crop that will help keep them in power, despite the fact that their power base should have dried out a while back.

[PeaceNikki]

177. nobody. not one person did that in thread.

[kiva]

182. Where exactly are people defending smoking?

Why are you trying to turn the protests against the OP using anti-choice rhetoric into pro-slavery, anti-immigrant, pro-smoking arguments?

[DonCoquixote]

183. anti immigrant, pro salvery?

The only ones pro slavery and anti immigrant are the folks that run Philip Morris and RJ Rnolyds...They are the ones who take the money people given them and turn it into right wing POWER. But , of course, people overlook that.

[gollygee]

184. You think this is about defending smoking?

It's about defending a woman's bodily autonomy. How can you see it as a pro-smoking thing?

[KittyWampus]

187. WTF? This isn't about smoking or cigarettes. It's about calling a fetus a child and behavior while

pregnant criminal > "child ABUSE".