Pregnancy, Abortion, a Woman's Rights vs. Yet-To-Be Child's Rights

[DIKB]

Ok, time to take a deep breath and don my flame-retardant suit.

The abortion issue is extremely nuanced to those of us who are politically Pro-choice, yet would never personally have an abortion. I support a woman's right to choose, too many situations are too personal with no one fit to be the final judge except the woman herself. I find myself slightly confused. I would not be upset with any of my friends if they decided to get an abortion. However a friend of mine is newly pregnant, and is going to keep her child.

The problem is that she smokes, and she chooses to KEEP smoking during the pregnancy. Now, I take a very Secular-Humanist approach to life, "This might be the only life we live, so let's make the best of it for everybody." Similar to treating others as you'd like to be treated. This makes me utterly disgusted with my friend, because of the harm she is putting on her child-to-be. There are all kinds of complications that come from smoking while pregnant such as low-birth weights, increased chance of still-birth or SIDS (crib-death), asthma, etc. She uses all kinds of excuses to keep smoking and it upsets me. It seems I care more for the welfare of her future child than she.

In my mind I'm trying to balance the situation, and I keep comparing it to the abortion issue, because of obvious similarities. I utterly hate the arrogant pro-birth crowd, who tell us that we are "pro-death." Has one of my greatest fears come true, have I become like them? I don't think I'm forcing my views on her, she was the one who decided to have her child, and I believe that she should do everything she can to give that future child a fair chance.

I find it so odd that I wouldn't have made any judgements at all if she chose to get an abortion, yet the moment she chose to have her child, I became as I am now.

The idea of seeing women as breeding stock is disgusting to me, yet a neglectful/abusive parent fills me with a red-rimmed-vision rage.

Where is the appropriate balance?

Should there be laws for a child's welfare prior to birth? (With obvious exceptions)

At what point does a woman become responsible for her child's welfare?

If a pregnant woman drinks, smokes, does drugs, or in any way causes serious irreparable harm to her future-child, are we unable to say anything because we've taken a Pro-choice stance?

Am I overthinking this, and if so how do I let it go?

Any comments, advice, or opinions would help.

[NMDemDist2]

1. no laws

and mind your own business other than helping with the baby shower

women in the 50s and 60s smoked plenty while pregnant and most of the babies came out fine

in fact women today smoke and the babies are fine

unless she has other health factors to consider her smoking is not your business so (If I may be so bold) STFU already

[DIKB]

2. Well

I see your point, but what of the children that didn't come out fine? The still-births, the crib-deaths, the one's in intensive care because of premature birth, the one's with asthma/respiratory disorder?

You single out only the survivors and say "most came out fine," while many didn't survive. I'm the middle-child of 3 surviving children. 3 didn't live, I'd like to save my friend that pain.

Would you suggest I "stfu" while a friend seriously physically abuses their child? I know that's not her intention, but the results are similar.

[Warpy]

21. You beat me to it

Her body, her choice. The fetus has no rights until the last of the last trimester when an "abortion" means a premature birth.

[Crandor]

23. It's not going to be a fetus forever, so how about the child's rights? nt

[Warpy]

27. It'll have rights when it's born

and not before.

Check out the ninth amendment if you don't believe it.

[Crandor]

29. Exactly. And her actions now, are violating said rights in the future. nt

[Warpy]

39. If you want a theocracy, move to Iran

You can't control women, no matter how much you want to.

The truth is that pregnancy and childbirth are now voluntary states. The truth is now that there are no fetal rights independent of the mother's rights, and that the mother has the right to engage in LEGAL ACTIVITIES you don't approve of.

Tough luck.

[Crandor]

41. "fetal rights" are completely irrelevant.

Mom wants to kill the fetus? Fine with me. I don't give a crap about fetuses. I care about the rights of the child, which she is violating if she screws it up but still carries it to term. How is it "theocratic" to acknowledge that with the choice to have a child, there are a few responsibilities involved?

[Warpy]

46. So it's OK with you to destroy a woman's autonomy and?

right to engage in legal activities because it MIGHT affect a fetus? I hate to remind you, but Lincoln freed us all.

People make stupid choices all the time and they endanger people around them when they do it.

I'm afraid that's part of living and I'm afraid you're just going to have to lump it.

[uppityperson]

50. What is the difference of a week?

I have mixed feelings about womens rights vs fetal rights. Have worked much for women's rights but still acknowledge that I have no fast or simple answers.

That said, what is the difference of a week? A pregnant woman uses crack 1 week before giving birth and shares it with the in-utero fetus. A pregnant woman uses crack after giving birth and shares it with teh out of utero baby (either vis breast milk or directly). What is the difference? Stupid choices in both instances. No simple answers except I still champion the rights of the woman, but care for the baby after giving birth.

[Solo_in_MD]

61. I want to recall hearing about a medical ethicist who raised the

question of what makes the transition down the birth canal so special. He questioned whether birth was enough of a momentus event to change the status of a lump of tissue from fetuc to child/ not human to human. Interesting concept and slippery slope in several directions.

[uppityperson]

63. ah but it is not just birth being a momentus enough event, but the ability to survive

to live outside the uterus. And then we get into preemies and their need for incubators and intensive neonatal care. There are not easy answers because the defining point can be different depending on what one is talking about.

[pennylane100]

3. We should also do tests on the appropriate behavior of

sperm producing males. If they are going to have sex, should they first be tested to make sure that their sperm has not been subjected to alchohol, drugs, etc. Of course, it would be considered intrusive to test them before sex but we can write columns of information on how women should behave afterwards. That is, of course, after we have agreed to live in a "Big Brother Society"

[Crandor]

26. Yeah, keeping people from harming others is so Orwellian.

Remember http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2966322">this? All the guy did was rape a toddler, and now those darn nanny-state government goons won't leave the poor guy alone. Stupid freedom-hating statists! :sarcasm:

[MonkeyFunk]

28. Are you really equating

a pregnant woman smoking with a man raping a drugged toddler?

Really?

[Crandor]

30. No, I'm pointing how how flawed the anti-government ideology is. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

32. Has ANYBODY

suggested that the government has over-stepped its bounds by imprisoning the child-rapist?

Are you saying that because it's good that the Government imprison such people, that there should be no limits on the power of government?

I honestly don't see how the story of the child-rapist has any bearing on what's being discussed here.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

31. That was some majorly bizarre debate "logic". Very insightful into said poster's

point of view. MKJ

[uppityperson]

34. are you series? wtf does raping a 2 yr old have to do with a pg woman smoking?

WTF does the law saying raping a 2 yr old is illegal have to do with a woman smoking? Are you seriously saying that unless both are done neither should be?

[babylonsister]

4. I'm one of 5, and my mom smoked. Sure, it's not politically

correct now and it's been proven to be unhealthy, but at the time it was no big deal.
And I think you're being way too judgemental towards your friend.

OT, you're a male but would never personally have an abortion? Hmmm... It would be nice if everyone
could walk in another's shoes once in awhile.

[DIKB]

7. I am male,

and father of healthy boy. Though the mother and I aren't together, never did abortion become an option.

Though I do sometimes wonder how I would have felt if she had decided not to have him. Of course we can play "what if" with any situation.

It would be nice to understand how it was for her. Not just the difficulties of pregnancy and child-birth, also the joy, and the knowledge of having a life growing inside you. It made me feel so detatched that I was merely an observer.

[iamjoy]

5. I Share That Quandary

It is why I consider myself Pro-Choice, because the government shouldn't decide when it's appropriate for a woman to terminate her pregnancy. There are too many "what ifs"
I believe prior to viability there is no exact analogy for a fetus. It's more than a cluster of cells, but less than a life. Therefore, the woman's life (and I don't just mean that literally) must have priority.

OTOH, I think once a woman has chosen to continue the pregnancy, she has recognized the fetus as a life, as a baby. Therefore, she should do everything within her power to have a healthy baby.

You're not overthinking it, although I'm sure the crowd that calls itself Pro-Life sees us as hypocritical. Anyway, just because you find something morally repugnant doesn't mean there should be a law against it, that's the "problem" with the right wing fundamentalists. But, you can consider that your friend is being immoral without supporting laws against her action.

And maybe, you can have just a twinge of empathy for some of the "Pro-Lifers" - they're not all wanting women to be breeding stock. Some of them have internal conflicts, too.

[DIKB]

8. thank you

it feels good when someone else understands. The "law" idea was merely conjecture.

[rodeodance]

6. Tell her once how you feel then drop it-She will get hit by the medical

people to no end.

be there for her as a friend --for support.

[AnnieBW]

10. I agree

I would gently suggest to her that she might want to give up the butts while she's pregnant. If only because she's going to be carrying a lot more weight than she's used to, and she won't be as out of breath. If she chooses not to, that's her choice.

Personally, I'm not sure about a lot of the precautions that are being imposed on pregnant women these days, for the "health of the baby." FYI, my Mom and Dad both smoked until I was in elementary school. My Dad has asthma, and is having mucho respiratory problems now that he's older. Of course, a lot of it could have been caused by the pollution in Pittsburgh during the 1940's and 50's, but most of it was cigarettes. I have allergies and asthma, which is possibly hereditary and possibly because they smoked when I was a kid. No way of telling for sure.

Good luck!

[Tansy_Gold]

9. There are a lot of people who shouldn't be parents

based on other people's opinions.

My mother smoked when she was pregnant with me. I turned out healthy.

I smoked when I was pregnant with both of my children. They turned out healthy -- and neither of them has ever smoked.

I quit smoking in 1979; though I begged and pleaded with him, my husband didn't quit smoking and died of lung cancer in 2005.

You can't run other people's lives for them. You can talk to them, you can proselytize, but in the end, they have to make their own decisions. Most parents learn this through the process of parenting: eventually, no matter what you do, your kids will grow up and live their own lives and you won't have control over them. They'll marry or just hook up with someone with or without your approval and consent. They'll get jobs, go places, buy houses, have kids, have lives.

If it's impossible to completely direct our own children's lives, what power and/or authority do we have to tell other people -- like, friends -- what to do? We don't.

Tell your friend how you feel, and then, as another poster said, drop it.


Tansy Gold

[LeftyMom]

11. Tell your friend I will pay for her abortion.

For real. I will paypal you the money.

If she can't put her own desires aside for the benefit of her children, she has no business having any. If she's willing to play russian roulette with her unborn child's health, risking years of future suffering, a childhood with no mother and who knows what else, she isn't ready to be a parent.

She either needs to get used to the idea that from now on her child comes first, or she needs to realize that she's too selfish to breed and act on that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. WIth All Due Respect, This Is Where An Abortion Argument Gets To Me A Bit.

I don't mean this to come out as harshly as it may, but basically what I read in your post was:

"If the child can't be perfect and come first all the time, might as well just kill it now".

I see all sorts of problems with that logic. A low-birth weight baby, some potential yet not definitive health risks, or a parent who might not have the best judgment, is still far better off in those circumstances than simply being dead. I just can't grasp a concept of "if the baby can't have everything be perfect, than you should just kill the baby now."

[LeftyMom]

15. She has no right to sentance her child to a life of poor health.

But more than that, she shouldn't be a mother if she's not ready. Either she's ready to become a parent and put her child first, or she's not. If she's not, the best thing she can do for herself and her future child is to get herself down to the clinic, and make sure she won't get pregnant again.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. So Sentence Her Child To DEATH Instead? That Makes Sense To You Somehow?

Doesn't to me.

I also don't think it's up to you to so quickly from an anecdotal story on a website judge her and determine her to be unfit to be a parent, and should kill her child because of it.

[LeftyMom]

17. Wait a minute.

She's barely pregnant. The kid's not properly alive yet. It's a clump of largely undifferentiated cells. But those cells are dividing rapidly and as vulnerable as they will ever be. She either needs to put her child's health first or realize that she's not ready for motherhood.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. Doesn't Matter. It Is The Same Thing.

Since she wants the child, then for all intents and purposes there is no reason to believe that 8 or so months from now (or whenever) that she won't have a child. A real, live, covered in flesh breathing child. Pushing for her to not carry it to term but abort it instead then kills that child from existence. Even you have referred already to that "clump of largely undifferentiated cells" as a child. Know why? Cause you know in the blink of an eye it will be a child. You know the ultimate outcome of the pregnancy is for that child to exist. You are already even feigning care for that child by acting concerned about the life it will have. So even you recognize it as life, even if you think it has not yet begun. Well we can agree to disagree on the concept of whether it is alive or not, but I still hold onto my interpretation of your comment as being 'Don't sentence the child to poor health, sentence it to death instead by way of taking away its ability to have ever existed'. What bothers me is that you so easily can sweep that child away based on some petty message board anecdotal judgment.

[PassingFair]

18. There are those who would say the same about a child...

without a father.

Just saying.

You are QUITE judgmental.

[Zhade]

58. You know, I got a LOT of heat from a handful of animal-rights posters...

...the other day for asking if they ever put humans first.

The poster you're replying to was one of the harsh critics. And on some regards, she made good points.

But this seems very contradictory to a "don't kill animals" philosophy, doesn't it?

[uppityperson]

20. It is her choice whether to continue her pregnancy or not.

Or should people be made to do what "is best for the unborn child's health"?

[MonkeyFunk]

24. oh good gravy..

:rofl:

[bicentennial_baby]

54. Wow....

Methinks you need to check yourself re: your judgmental-ness here...Yeah, killing it is soooooo much better than smoking butts. Jesus Christ on a cracker...It's not like she's drinking a fifth of Jack and smoking crack... :eyes:

ps: "desire" does not equal addiction...

and frankly, who are you or anyone else to judge who else is ready to be a parent? How presumptuous of you.

[Zhade]

57. That's quite the contrast to your "don't kill animals" philosophy.

NT!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. You Are 100% In The Right To Feel Those Ways.

I can understand completely why you would feel that way.

I agree with you almost completely.

I guess the only difference is, that as a smoker I know how debilitatingly addictive they can be. I do feel certain levels of disgust as well with mothers who smoke while pregnant, but I also can understand that some simply may not have the mental capability to quit. So it may not be fair to say that you care more about the child than they do, they just might not have the strength to quit or are too ignorant to the true dangers of what it can do to the baby to take it seriously enough. If you've never been severely addicted to cigs, than you'll never know how almost impossible it can be to quit sometimes; pregnant or not.

However, if it is not the addiction that is the issue, but is rather just a selfish mother who hasn't even tried to quit while pregnant or taken any steps to cut-down, seek help, or give a sincere effort even if that effort fails, then I do look at the person with far more disgust than otherwise, because the risk to the child is done intentionally out of selfishness and stupidity rather than uncontrollable addiction.

[The Straight Story]

36. It is one of those catch-22's to some degree IMHO

Life to me does begin at conception, biologically speaking anyway.

The definition of what something is through it's genesis as it plods along from points A to Z is a different story.

Group 1 wants no interference with the decision of whether or not point Z is reached, that is left to the carrier.

Group 2 wants to interfere if the carrier makes a pre-determined choice that point Z will be reached. Then the carrier is, to them, making the determination that a human life is the outcome desired, and so must now treat it as the end product during it's stages.

At that point the carrier becomes a de facto parent which some want to subject to the same laws as a parent when the child is out of the womb - ie, child abuse, et al rules apply.

Killing the cells before they become their final product is acceptable up to birth in some cases (legally speaking), harming it when the outcome is to have the child form and be born could be seen as a pseudo contract.

I don't know all the answers, but I can see the issue as being a rather sticky one.

I guess it is kind of writing a check. You can choose to tear it up or you can hand it over, and once you make that decision you best make sure the funds are there - cause even though it is your check you made a decision to make it 'live' by not destroying it.

Yeah, I know, kind of a lame analogy :)

[nosmokes]

13. here's the thing -

how much does she smoke? is it a couple or three nails a day? then let it slide. far, far better to have a caalm mom to be than one that's all stressed out to the nines trying to kick the smoking habit. if on the other hand, she's doing 3 packs a day, then it's time for someone, maybe you, to have a serious no shit lay it on the line conversation with her. even at the risk of your friendship.

[Crandor]

22. Despicable, and nothing at all like abortion

Abortion is just preventing a new person from being created. It's not morally wrong, since it's the same as just not having sex in the first place. If you do something to harm a fetus but plan to carry it to term anyway, then that means that said action will be harmful to a real person (just not yet), and is definitely a form of child abuse.

So no, it's consistent to be pro-choice with abortion and still condemn this.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. "it's the same as just not having sex in the first place."

Totally, 100% disagree with that statement.

There is a HUGE difference in the two.

If you didn't have sex, 9 months later would be an insignificant date for the most part.

However, if one is pregnant, than without any further intervention there is an in all likelihood chance that 9 months later there would be a new beautiful child.

To say there is no difference between a fetus and an unfertilized egg is one of the most mind blowing misguided statements I've ever seen.

[uppityperson]

33. true, here are illustrations. However, embryo vs fetus is different also

an unfertilized egg looks like this:
a fertilized egg looks like this:

Definition of a fetus is "the young of a viviparous animal, esp. of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month" ie first trimester abortion.

Definition of an embryo is "the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation."

both definitions from dictionary.com

So, true, there is a difference between a fetus and an unferitlized egg. However, what previous poster said was "Abortion is just preventing a new person from being created. It's not morally wrong, since it's the same as just not having sex in the first place." You are saying something different.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. Still Completely Disagree.

Embryo or not, saying it is equal to an unfertilized egg is ridiculous.

I also think that equating the decision to abort as overall being as simplistic and meaningless as just simply not having had sex is deplorable and utterly misguided.

As a really simple analogy that is not nearly of as serious consequence, I explain it as someone who really takes cooking seriously and are baking a cake. They've mixed all the eggs, flour, water, sugar, chocolate and all the other ingredients and have blended them together into a perfect cake batter. The cake is put in the oven. Without any further intervention after setting it to bake, the cook has every reason to expect that to turn out to be a cake in a short amount of time. Sure, one could say it's just batter and not really a cake, but I say same difference. For example, say after you put it in the oven and it was beginning to bake, you opened the door to check it and decided to move it a little on the rack. In doing so you fumbled a bit and WHOOPS! knocked the cake flat over and all the batter spilled onto the bottom of the oven, completely ruining the cake. Say you got a phonecall that very moment. You answered with a obviously frustrated tone in your voice. When asked "what's wrong? You sound frustrated", wouldn't most reply with "I'm just pissed cause I just ruined the cake I was baking"? Might not have been done yet, but it was still expected to be a cake.

Now the point of that above is to illustrate a comparison. If you hadn't mixed the eggs, milk, sugar, flour, chocolate, or anything; and in fact hadn't even considered baking a cake at all; but upon going into the fridge to get a drink inadvertently dropped an egg to the floor and broke it; though you still might be frustrated would you declare "Shit, I just ruined part of a potential cake I could've baked someday"? Of course not. That would be utterly insane. All you did was break a damn egg.

But the completely mixed and finished bowl of cake batter is a different story. All it had to do was just sit there for a while in the oven and would've been a mouth watering cake.

[uppityperson]

49. To me it is not simple.

I have questions about abortion, about women's rights, about fetal rights. At what point does fetal rights take precedence for the woman's choices of behavior? I don't have a fast or easy answer. Is it ok for a woman to do something harmful to the embryo/fetus if she is planning on bearing it? Is it ok if she is planning on having an abortion? What about miscarriages? If she is planning on bearing it, and does something harmful that causes harm, say a miscarriage, what responsibility is hers, what repercussions should she bear, etc.

For the record, I believe in total freedom to chose abortion or not for first part of pregnancy, until 20-24 weeks. After that time, when the fetus could survive outside the uterus with enough medical care, which may or may not be available and/or affordable which is another issue), I have mixed feelings.

However, first trimester abortions need to be readily affordably available with no repercussions.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. Absolutely Agree.

But that has nothing to do with any of the arguments I put forth, namely my awe at another poster's premise that aborting a baby is the same as simply never having had sex to begin with. I still find that premise to be a deplorable one.

But as far as now discussing something outside of that premise and dissatisfaction with it, I agree with your questions raised and concepts put forth completely. And yes, they should be readily affordable, safe and accessible.

[uppityperson]

52. I think the abortion=not having had sex works briefly

until embryo starts developing, then it is not the same. However, I also disagree that every abortion is "aborting a baby" since it is not viable outside the uterus, not a "baby" for quite some time.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

35. Another of your specious arguments. Smoking while pregnant equals child abuse..

Somehow, I don't believe you have ever done one thing in your life to prevent or intervene in child abuse cases involving living, breathing children.

If I'm wrong, I'll commend you for your willingness to protect children who are non-embryonic, and who actually live with all of us in the world outside the womb.

Please enlighten me on your efforts on behalf of the children of the world, who have actually been born and are alive today. MKJ

[Crandor]

40. You're talking about specious arguments, and then you come up with this...

Somehow, I don't believe you have ever done one thing in your life to prevent or intervene in child abuse cases involving living, breathing children.

So I'm not allowed to talk about this unless I quit my job and become a social worker instead?

...protect children who are non-embryonic, and who actually live with all of us in the world outside the womb.

Like the child that is going to be born. Just because no current person is being harmed doesn't make it OK. Is it acceptable, in your view, to plant a time bomb in a building? It doesn't harm anybody while you do it, after all.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

44. Just as I thought. You'll champion embryos and compare abortion to child molestion & bombing

buildings.

Once they arrive in the world, they receive nothing from you in any way or shape or form. MKJ

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

59. BTW, how do you determine "if they are going to become people" The mom decides,

the boyfriend/husband/mother/father decides, the courts decide and how is that decision communicated, verbally, in writing, with notarization, with a doctor/psychologist exam, and what if she decides one day she will have the baby and the next day that she won't, how is that documented or monitored?

MKJ

[gollygee]

47. There is no perfect pregnancy

Some women have to take medication for different reasons, and those medications are often riskier than smoking. Yet they still have to take the medication. Some women work in jobs that aren't ideal. We all breathe in pollutants and most people eat foods that include potentially dangerous additives and hormones, including pregnant women.

Smoking is a serious addiction, and pregnant women don't have some magical ability to overcome addictions more easily. They should be encouraged to try to cut back or quit, but I don't think it's fair to characterize them as intentionally harming a fetus.

[colinmom71]

38. Of course our voices are valid...

You asked - "If a pregnant woman drinks, smokes, does drugs, or in any way causes serious irreparable harm to her future-child, are we unable to say anything because we've taken a Pro-choice stance?"

The issue of being pro-choice only regards whether one believes that the law should recognize that a pregnant woman is the sole person who has the right of consent to decide whether or not she will remain pregnant, and then whether she will choose to be the parent for the child(ren) if she remains pregnant and subsequently gives birth. In other words, pro-choicers refuse to see the law abused to deny a woman her right and responsibility to determine her pregnancy's fate. These are distinctly different issues to whether the law should then be used to compel women to comply to the conventional notions of what will optimize pre-natal health, for both the baby and the woman herself (who is the oft forgotten entity in such arguments).

Are you being irrational in feeling that your friend has a duty to act in a manner that will optimize her child's health? No. Actually, you sound more frustrated that she's playing the denial "it won't happen to me" game. But this doesn't invalidate your pro-choice stance....

To be fair, she isn't being a neglectful parent, at least not entirely yet. Odds are, she really just isn't consciously and concretely realizing the harm that she is risking. And that really is what it is... a hightened risk and not an absolute indicator of the baby's fate. There have been numerous women over the years who have smoked while pregnant and have delivered healthy, normal newborns. I don't condone the practice, but I've also watched close friends and family members try over and over again to quit the "smoking demon", and it's been a genuine struggle for them. I can't imagine how the struggle is compounded by the stress of an unplanned pregnancy.

The facts are that smoking and mild-to-moderate drinking while pregnant only increases the *risk* of delivering a low-birth weight or otherwise effected baby (relative to gestational age). I've known of doctors who prefer, upon finding out their pre-natal patients had been heavy smokers when the pregnancy was discovered, that the patient gradually cut down to few or no cigarettes a day, to reduce the intense craving gradually and to reduce the stress of nicotine withdrawl which can adversely impact the attempt to stop smoking. I've even read of accounts of doctors who prescribe an occasional glass of wine as a mild muscle relaxer for women with uterine irritability. The risk of behavioral correlation to certain fetal disorders does not equate that all women will have effected babies, especially where their pre-natal medical and nutritional care have otherwise been exlempary.

For example, I have a friend who went vegetarian shortly before she became pregnant with her first child. Her OB spent the entire 9 months trying to berating her with the notion that her diet was completely deficient for pre-natal care purposes, despite her daily intake of pre-natal vitamins and otherwise healthy pregnancy. Her son was born at the statistical average of 7.5 pounds, but her OB had been convinced she wasn't eating right... Had her doctor been considered a legal authority over her pregnancy experience, she would have been labeled a bad mother before the baby was even born, all based on one person's perspective concerning one aspect of her behavior during pregnancy...

You can't change your friend's mind for her. Talk with her once, with concern for her health (smoking also increases risks of blood clots, which could embolize during later pregnancy) and for the baby. And from there, simply encourage activities with her that you know will preclude her ability to smoke. Go out to restaurants and theaters that are non-smoking only. Encourage going out often with her and some friends for social support. She'll be unwilling to smoke in public as her middle begins to visibly expand. But odds are, she'll naturally curb down on the smoking on her own as the pregnancy advances, as she starts to feel more like the pregnancy is really happening... Likely she isn't really relating to the pregnancy as her new reality quite yet. Once this unexpected pregnancy becomes more real for her, I'm willing to bet her behavior will change...

On another board where I lurk, there's a mantra they use - It is easier to change one's philosophy and attitudes than it is to change one's behavior patterns... Gentle nudges and encouragement without recriminations and lectures will help her alter that smoking habit more than anything else possibly can. Set up a support system where she can call you and other friends to chat when she feels that smoking urge. Give her favorite snacks and crunchy foods to substitute for that cigarette craving. That's one of the joys of pregnancy - you're expected to eat! :D And encourage her to discuss the issue with her OB and help her follow their advice... That's really the best you can do to help her optimize her and her child's health...

[Quantess]

42. Before looking at anyone else's responses:

First: I just HAD to find out where you live, because I can sort of tell you aren't from around here. You are obviously from a heavily anti-choice place. Is AR Arkasas?

Second: Have you tried informing your "friend" about the dangers of pre natal smoking? I mean, pre natal smoking will not kill the baby, or make the baby any less viable, but studies have clearly shown that smoking causes low birth weight, and causes compications at birth.

What sort of answer were you hoping for? I have a distinct feeling that you already know your stance on this particular issue.

[sandnsea]

43. If that's your only gripe

with your pregnant friend, I'd say things are going pretty well. There's worse things to do while you're pregnant than smoking. If she's not using, eating a healthy diet, exercising, seeing her doctor - then she's doing a lot of things a lot of non-smokers aren't. Look at the big picture and leave your friend alone.

[gollygee]

45. Smoking during pregnancy isn't *that* big a deal in the whole

scheme of things.

Drinking alcohol to excess is far worse. There are lots of things that will do more harm than smoking, actually.

(and no I don't smoke - never have)

You have to balance the risk vs. the outrage. This is not *that* big of a risk. Almost all children of smokers turn out ok. It is increasing risk a bit. It is selfish, but on the other hand smoking is a serious addiction and isn't a simple thing to give up, and being pregnant doesn't make a woman a saint who can instantly quit smoking more easily.

I had a friend who was pregnant and smoking, and she cried because she couldn't stop. I gently suggested maybe she could cut back a bit - anything would help. She did. Then between the birth of the first baby (who is fine by the way) and before the pregnancy of the second baby, she was able to quit successfully.

[seriousstan]

48. Fuck the fetus. Smoke, drink do frickin crack. It has rights when it is born

not a day before. It's all about the politics! Don't let being a human being interfere with the political agenda here.

[Blue Gardener]

53. Once you decide to have the baby

You should do EVERYTHING possible to make sure the pregnancy goes as smoothly as possible. You owe it to the baby to give it every chance to be healthy. My nephew died from birth defect at 3 days old, and it devastated my sister. She did everythng she was supposed to do, but the heart defect could not be repaired. Maybe your friend should visit a neo-natal intensive care unit to see the tiny babies born to mothers that don't take care of their health during their pregnancy.
I'll probably get flamed for this post, but the memory of that little baby in his casket with his little stuffed toy is something no mother should have to live with for the rest of her life, especially if she in any way contributed to it. The guilt would be very tough to live with.

[gollygee]

55. As you have seen though

sometimes babies don't make it even under the best possible circumstances. And usually babies of smokers are fine.

I wish smokers could easily stop smoking when they got pregnant, but if anything being pregnant probably makes it harder because you get moody and potentially a bit anxious. I just think compassion is the right angle - gently suggest they quit, let them know cutting back would even help, but to suggest they don't care at all or increase their anxiety by telling them their babies are going to die isn't IMO a good idea.

[cynatnite]

60. Here is how I handled a woman six months pregnant and drinking...

When I was in the Army my bf at the time invited me to a party some friends of his were giving. One of the wives there appeared about six months pregnant. I kid you not when I tell you that woman picked up a bottle of Jack Daniels and upended it swallowing several mouthfuls. I couldn't believe my eyes and not one single person there said a word. I wanted to, but didn't. I didn't know any of these people and even though I felt she was abusing that unborn child I knew if I had said anything I would have been pretty much shown the door at the very least.

IMO, you can tell your friend what you think and how you feel, but it's still on her to make the conscious choice whether to smoke, drink or whatever while she's pregnant. If you want to conserve your friendship, this may one of the things you'll have to tolerate.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

62. That's an awful situation. I'm just taking a wild guess that the husband was one

of the people who said nothing.

We can talk Mary Cheney, but the fact remains that most pregnant women have some sort of relationship, good, bad or awful, with the father of the child.

No one seems to acknowledge the father's responsibility, much. BTW, I'm not slamming men in general, because I know of many stellar guys who love their wives and kids, and suffer many slings and arrows to provide for them and protect them.

And, most pregnant women are at their most vulnerable around the fathers of their children. How the expectant dad handles the pregnancy is a huge driver for the course of the pregnancy. MKJ