Why are women allowed to smoke while pregnant?

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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.

“Wherever the electorate likes” is the answer to that one. Any idea so long as it has popular support can be imposed upon other people through legislation. It’s one of both the advantages and disadvantages of living in a representative democracy where you might be in a minority on one issue, or in a majority on another issue. Depending upon the issue, such as in this case introducing legislation to prohibit pregnant women from smoking, and impose penalties upon women if they choose to smoke while pregnant, it might be a runner for some, but it appears for far more people it’s just not a runner.

That doesn’t mean the Government couldn’t just introduce the restrictions in legislation anyway without asking the electorate what they think by way of a referendum on the issue.

Arguments over the health of the foetus need not even be considered as it’s a restriction being imposed upon women when they become pregnant. It doesn’t apply to women when they aren’t pregnant any more than other laws and legislation do or don’t apply to pregnant women already (or “pregnant persons” if a minority of idiot politicians had gotten their way in the drafting of recent legislation referring to pregnant women).

ceadaoin.

Redsky121 wrote: »

How is assault policed, how is public nudity policed, how is murder policed, how is theft policed?

Well usually the victim would report those things or in the case of murder then it's obvious that a crime has taken place due to there being a body. So how would we police whether pregnant women are smoking or not? Surely it would have to be based on people reporting them which really isn't reliable at all and would be a huge waste of time and resources

As it is now , women are offered support to stop and most do. Seems to work fine

Gimme A Pound

It is not just the woman's body - why are people denying that there is another body growing inside her? And that heavy smoking (or heavy drinking or using drugs or eating thousands of extra calories via sugar and other high-calorie/low nutrient foods) could affect the health of this other, developing body? It absolutely is cognitive dissonance. To view it not as a body in June but all of a sudden in July when born it's now a person? How can people seriously tell themselves and others that?

If a baby is two months premature, is it a foetus that's born? No, it's a premature baby.

No she can't be stopped from doing those things but "it's her body" is such a bullsh1t argument when it's not just her body, and if she's choosing to do such potentially harmful things, it's not just herself that she's doing it to. She can do what she likes but spare me the "it's her body" crap as if only she will be affected.

I can't do anything to stop her, I don't seek to stop her, but I can still express an opinion on it.

ceadaoin.

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

It is not just the woman's body - why are people denying that there is another body growing inside her? And that heavy smoking (or heavy drinking or using drugs or eating thousands of extra calories via sugar and other high-calorie/low nutrient foods) could affect the health of this other, developing body? It absolutely is cognitive dissonance. To view it not as a body in June but all of a sudden in July when born it's now a person? How can people seriously tell themselves and others that?

If a baby is two months premature, is it a foetus that's born? No, it's a premature baby.

No she can't be stopped from doing those things but "it's her body" is such a bullsh1t argument when it's not just her body, and if she's choosing to do such potentially harmful things, it's not just herself that she's doing it to. She can do what she likes but spare me the "it's her body" crap as if only she will be affected.

I can't do anything to stop her, I don't seek to stop her, but I can still express an opinion on it.

Yes but it is her body, first and foremost. She is not just an incubator . To pass laws dictating what a pregnant woman is legally allowed to do with her own body would be ridiculous. As it is, women are offered advice and support to make the best choices for their child. There's always going to be some who disregard that advice and criminalising them won't change a thing besides waste resources and further damage children.

joe40

"Why is breastfeeding in public acceptable"
"Why are women allowed to smoke while pregnant"

Both threads started by the same op.

Is there an agenda.

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes but it is her body, first and foremost. She is not just an incubator . To pass laws dictating what a pregnant woman is legally allowed to do with her own body would be ridiculous. As it is, women are offered advice and support to make the best choices for their child. There's always going to be some who disregard that advice and criminalising them won't change a thing besides waste resources and further damage children.

Laws dictating what a pregnant woman isn’t rather, allowed to do with her own body, already exist in Irish legislation. Limitations on her reproductive choices at any given time in her pregnancy for example.

yaguhu cloud

joe40 wrote: »

"Why is breastfeeding in public acceptable"
"Why are women allowed to smoke while pregnant"

Both threads started by the same op.

Is there an agenda.

i wouldn't call it 'an agenda'...

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

is_that_so wrote: »

Knew someone who was in the same boat and the doctor thought it best not to force her to stop. It's really not ideal but was a judgement call. Her kids turned out absolutely fine.

Anecdotes aren’t helpful. For public health, you need to look at things at a population level. Does smoking during pregnancy increase certain risks substantially? That’s the important information here.

mikhail

I'm always curious how many of the "it's her body" people are opposed to the legalisation of prostitution. It's all subtleties and nuance when they feel like it, but **** you for arguing the point if you disagree with them.

(I'm pro-choice, but I find some of the debating around it deeply ugly.)

decky1

all to do with it being a free country, .

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

“Wherever the electorate likes” is the answer to that one. Any idea so long as it has popular support can be imposed upon other people through legislation. It’s one of both the advantages and disadvantages of living in a representative democracy where you might be in a minority on one issue, or in a majority on another issue.

Not quite. There's a reason why western democracies have all signed up to various human rights agreements which set restrictions to what the electorate can do.

Depending upon the issue, such as in this case introducing legislation to prohibit pregnant women from smoking, and impose penalties upon women if they choose to smoke while pregnant, it might be a runner for some, but it appears for far more people it’s just not a runner.

That doesn’t mean the Government couldn’t just introduce the restrictions in legislation anyway without asking the electorate what they think by way of a referendum on the issue.

Arguments over the health of the foetus need not even be considered as it’s a restriction being imposed upon women when they become pregnant. It doesn’t apply to women when they aren’t pregnant any more than other laws and legislation do or don’t apply to pregnant women already (or “pregnant persons” if a minority of idiot politicians had gotten their way in the drafting of recent legislation referring to pregnant women).

Hobosan

volchitsa wrote: »

Not quite. There's a reason why western democracies have all signed up to various human rights agreements which set restrictions to what the electorate can do.

The right not to be poisoned in the womb would be well out of place in such a charter.

Future generations would look back in horror if they saw that written in a human rights agreement so they would.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Not quite. There's a reason why western democracies have all signed up to various human rights agreements which set restrictions to what the electorate can do.

Absolutely, and that’s a fair point. I don’t think there’s any realistic prospect of the idea ever becoming legislation, but that’s not to say it couldn’t if the will was there to put it in legislation. There isn’t a day goes by that some minority lobby group with enough political clout is able to make an argument from the perspective of how various issues impact upon their interpretation of human rights law.

For example there’s a poster just above wonders where people stand on the issue of prostitution. Amnesty International have argued for it’s decriminalisation on the basis that prohibition violates “sex workers rights”. That’s a pure bunkum argument because it’s more closely related to employment law than human rights law, whereas campaigners against prostitution are accused of violating women’s right to self-determination, which would be a violation of human rights law.

For the greater good of women and for society in general though, member States of the Council of Europe have all voted to adopt the Nordic model in recent years, in spite of claims of the negative impact the laws have on people in the sex industry who are predominantly women. I think if we’re being fair, any idiot could see their concerns are less about women’s rights and women’s welfare, and more concerned with any impediment to men’s control over women, and that’s something Amnesty International, who purport to be a human rights advocacy group, are attempting to have taken seriously.

It’s no surprise that the vast majority of people don’t appear to be interested in taking AI seriously, same as the vast majority of posters here don’t appear to be too interested in taking the OP seriously.

ceadaoin.

Hobosan wrote: »

The right not to be poisoned in the womb would be well out of place in such a charter.

Well they better do something about air pollution then which has the same effect as smoking but without the choice of whether to expose yourself and your child to it. Seems like a bigger danger than the small amount of pregnant women who smoke but no one is up in arms about it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/air-pollution-early-pregnancy-premature-birth-effects-babies-new-york-university-study-a7863016.html

Same with how no one cares about fathers smoking and damaging their sperm which can cause birth defects and increasing the risk of SIDS in their children (and they don't need to smoke inside or around the child for the risk to be increased). I wonder why that is?

Hobosan

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well they better do something about air pollution then which has the same effect as smoking but without the choice of whether to expose yourself and your child to it. Seems like a bigger danger than the small amount of pregnant women who smoke but no one is up in arms about it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/air-pollution-early-pregnancy-premature-birth-effects-babies-new-york-university-study-a7863016.html

Same with how no one cares about fathers smoking and damaging their sperm which can cause birth defects and increasing the risk of SIDS in their children (and they don't need to smoke inside or around the child for the risk to be increased). I wonder why that is?

I care about fathers smoking and damaging their sperm. You obviously care about fathers smoking and damaging their sperm since you're aware of it, as well as the scientists that figured this out. I'm against men smoking and damaging their sperm. Are we friends now?

And the claim that nobody is up in arms about air pollution... you'll be happy to hear that you're incorrect. In fact, New York University recently did a study on it which appeared in the Independent which I came across, proving that the problem is being taken very seriously. I can't remember where I read that report though.

Also, I think a study appearing in major publications could be deemed as more noteworthy than a few people discussing pregnant women smoking on boards. I must have everything completely backwards!

ceadaoin.

Redsky121 wrote: »

If Father's smoking causes birth defects then absolutely it should be illegal, but I certainly hope I didn't ruin your female victim complex which you enjoy so much.

I think smoking in general is disgusting and I'm glad it's becoming less commonplace now. I'm not sure about actually making it illegal though, for anyone.

Hobosan

Redsky121 wrote: »

If Father's smoking causes birth defects then absolutely it should be illegal, but I certainly hope I didn't ruin your female victim complex which you enjoy so much.

Banning pregnant women smoking. Boooo!

Banning pregnant women AND rutting males from smoking. Hooray!

I guess two rights make a right afterall!

Hobosan

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I think smoking in general is disgusting and I'm glad it's becoming less commonplace now. I'm not sure about actually making it illegal though, for anyone.

It's okay not to be sure, about anything.

ceadaoin.

Redsky121 wrote: »

I remember a time when people thought banning smoking in pubs would never work and it would be unenforceable.

And yet still no one here has come up with how a smoking ban on just pregnant women would be enforced

jackboy

Redsky121 wrote: »

Arrest people breaking the law or issue a fine.

Can’t work. They could still smoke 40 a day at home. What about the first 5 or 6 months of pregnancy, can anyone really tell for sure by looking if they are pregnant.

volchitsa

Redsky121 wrote: »

Arrest people breaking the law or issue a fine.

Fining families who are already struggling financially will help child welfare, you think? Or jailing mothers who won't or can't pay the fine?

Not even a tiny bit counterproductive? Especially as many perfectly healthy children are born from mothers who smoked - do you test the child before applying the fine or is it a matter of principle?

ceadaoin.

Redsky121 wrote: »

Arrest people breaking the law or issue a fine.

How do you know who is doing it if they are in their own homes? How do you know if a woman smoking in public is pregnant? Arrest them all just in case?

ceadaoin.

Redsky121 wrote: »

You can say similar about many crimes, if people really want to commit a crime usually they can, that doesn't mean you don't set standards of behaviour that you expect citizens to uphold.

So you can't really answer the questions then about how to actually enforce it. Got it

knipex

bingbong500 wrote: »

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?

So until the the moment of birth a baby is not a life or a person and has no legal rights?? Is there a specific moment, when it crowns ? When the head emerges ? When the full body emerges ? When the cord is cut ?

I am no religious nut, I votes yes in the referendum but that's just nonsense..

jackboy

Redsky121 wrote: »

Just like most crimes then it's impractical to catch everyone. Should it therefore be legal to kill people because you can't always catch the perpetrator...

Who are these people who are going to approach smoking women who they consider pregnant? What if the woman just says they are not pregnant? What next, a forced pregnancy test?

One eyed Jack

jackboy wrote: »

Who are these people who are going to approach smoking women who they consider pregnant? What if the woman just says they are not pregnant? What next, a forced pregnancy test?

Why would anyone need to approach anyone when they can simply make a report to the authorities in the same way anyone can report their concerns to the authorities? You make it sound like the logistics of the legislation would be impossible to enforce when it would be unlikely to be statutory offence in the first place!

I imagine there’d be no shortage of people reporting women for smoking during their pregnancy if the legislation were ever introduced, and there wouldn’t have to be too many prosecutions would follow to deter women from smoking during their pregnancy, or to prosecute anyone who knowingly provided them with the means to do so. We have oodles of legislation like that in law already - doesn’t require enforcement, simply the fact that it exists and knowing the consequences for contravening the law is often enough to deter all but the most foolhardy of individuals.

jackboy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We have oodles of legislation like that in law already.

Do any of them work? I can’t think of any.

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why would anyone need to approach anyone when they can simply make a report to the authorities in the same way anyone can report their concerns to the authorities? You make it sound like the logistics of the legislation would be impossible to enforce when it would be unlikely to be statutory offence in the first place!

I imagine there’d be no shortage of people reporting women for smoking during their pregnancy if the legislation were ever introduced, and there wouldn’t have to be too many prosecutions would follow to deter women from smoking during their pregnancy, or to prosecute anyone who knowingly provided them with the means to do so. We have oodles of legislation like that in law already - doesn’t require enforcement, simply the fact that it exists and knowing the consequences for contravening the law is often enough to deter all but the most foolhardy of individuals.

Ok so a person reports what appears to be a pregnant woman smoking. The guards arrive but there is no sign of her so they review CCTV footage. It's not clear if she is just overweight or pregnant. So do they then release images on crimeline or something to track her down just to even determine if a crime has been committed?

Or someone reports that they saw their pregnant neighbour smoking. The guards arrive and the woman denies it. What do they do? Get a search warrant to look for evidence? Say they find cigarettes but the woman claims they belong to her partner. What then? In the meantime, waiting for her court appearance a perfectly healthy child is born, as is the most likely outcome even amongst smokers. It all just seems like it would be a huge waste of time and police resources.

One eyed Jack

jackboy wrote: »

Do any of them work? I can’t think of any.

Yes, they do, and rather effectively too. For example the laws with regard to prostitution when they were recently introduced saw a number of men prosecuted for various offences. The Gardai didn’t actually have to be standing over them at the time the offences were committed for the men to be found guilty.

jackboy

Redsky121 wrote: »

Define what working means with respect to a law?

Low levels of offense.

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Ok so a person reports what appears to be a pregnant woman smoking. The guards arrive but there is no sign of her so they review CCTV footage. It's not clear if she is just overweight or pregnant. So do they then release images on crimeline or something to track her down just to even determine if a crime has been committed?

Or someone reports that they saw their pregnant neighbour smoking. The guards arrive and the woman denies it. What do they do? Get a search warrant to look for evidence? Say they find cigarettes but the woman claims they belong to her partner. What then? In the meantime, waiting for her court appearance a perfectly healthy child is born, as is the most likely outcome even amongst smokers. It all just seems like it would be a huge waste of time and police resources.

Well it does when you present specific hypothetical scenarios like that which appear at least to make it a huge waste of time and police resources. I don’t think anyone has argued that the Gardai follow pregnant women around for the duration of their pregnancy to ensure they don’t smoke (how handmaids tale would that be? ). No, rather when a complaint is made, a decision is made that depending upon the circumstances whether it is worth pursuing an investigation or not. Very simple, and Gardai do that sort of thing all the time when someone makes a complaint to them.

jackboy

Redsky121 wrote: »

Levels are low already so that means the law would work according to your definition.

The law shouldn’t be needed then. Just seems like a waste of time.

ceadaoin.

jackboy wrote: »

The law shouldn’t be needed then. Just seems like a waste of time.

And you have to wonder if the prospect of being charged with a crime would actually deter women from smoking or deter those who want to stop from admitting it to their midwife or doctor. It's just a stupid idea tbh

jackboy

Redsky121 wrote: »

Let's make it legal to kill people then :pac:

Well I think it is worth chasing down the few murderers but not worth chasing pregnant women smokers. Resources have to be prioritized.

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And you have to wonder if the prospect of being charged with a crime would actually deter women from smoking or deter those who want to stop from admitting it to their midwife or doctor. It's just a stupid idea tbh

If people actually want to stop smoking, that’s a different issue entirely from prohibiting people from smoking. The prospect of being criminalised for a behaviour certainly does act as a deterrent for people who would wish to engage in that behaviour. It shouldn’t be the case that we shouldn’t introduce laws because it might discourage people from admitting they want to violate those laws. Surely that’s entirely their own responsibility?

People throwing their cigarette butts out of cars for instance, DCC are issuing them with fines as this article says like it’s going out of fashion (and it is is going out of fashion to throw cigarette butts out of their cars, likely because they know they’ll be fined if they’re caught) -


Drivers must obey the litter of the law . . .


EDIT: Updated quite a bit since 2006


Since 2009, Irish anti-smoking campaigners and scientists had been urging the government to introduce such a ban. In July 2011 the Minister for Health said that he was considering a ban where children are present in the car. On January 1st 2016, regulations make it an offence for a person to smoke in a private vehicle when there is more than one person present and there is a person under the age of 18 present. The offence would fall on the person smoking regardless of their age.

The senator and oncologist John Crown put a bill before parliament in 2012 to ban smoking in a car with children. This bill was passed into law in December 2014 with an expectation that enforcement by Gardaí would commence in 2015.


Ban on smoking in private vehicles

Lux23

I suppose because women are adults and are free to make their own decisions, but it is a disgusting thing to see.

Former Observer

Doesn't bother me one bit. An attractive women puffing on a cigarette is a beautiful thing to see. If she has a bun in the oven so be it. Little tyke can decide not to smoke as an adult if that's what floats his boat.

bingbong500

What kind of investigation could there be? You walk into a cop shop and say you saw a woman who you think is pregnant was smoking. Then what? What would they DO?
And if they did "investigate" and found that a pregnant woman did actually smoke, what then would be the punishment?

bingbong500

knipex wrote: »

So until the the moment of birth a baby is not a life or a person and has no legal rights?? Is there a specific moment, when it crowns ? When the head emerges ? When the full body emerges ? When the cord is cut ?

I am no religious nut, I votes yes in the referendum but that's just nonsense..

When it's fully born and detached, it's legally a person. It's not nonsense, its a fact of law.

Galwayguy35

You would imagine they would want to give their kid the best start in life so it's a bit selfish not to ditch the fags for the 9 months until they push it out.

Lily_Aldrin7

That’s a matter of personal choice- I believe most pregnant women smokers are aware of the risks. I believe doctors will help them to quit if they want to.
That’s said, I’m a non- smoker but I hated it when someone would tell me “you shouldn’t eat/drink that” when I was pregnant. I’d walk with a cup of coffee at work and there would be 5 people telling me I can’t have coffee while I’m pregnant. Mind your own business

uck51js9zml2yt

Former Observer wrote: »

Doesn't bother me one bit. An attractive women puffing on a cigarette is a beautiful thing to see. If she has a bun in the oven so be it. Little tyke can decide not to smoke as an adult if that's what floats his boat.

So it's illegal to smoke with kids in the car but it's fine if the kid is in the womb where it can't even open a window?

It's illegal to sell children Alcohol but it's fine to force them consume it in the womb.

Am I missing something here?

One eyed Jack

Haley Spicy Spat wrote: »

So it's illegal to smoke with kids in the car but it's fine if the kid is in the womb where it can't even open a window?

It's illegal to sell children Alcohol but it's fine to force them consume it in the womb.

Am I missing something here?

Yes - context.

uck51js9zml2yt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes - context.

What context would you like?

One eyed Jack

Haley Spicy Spat wrote: »

What context would you like?

I’m not asking for any context, I can see the context in which you’re making a comparison between two different circumstances already. You asked what you were missing in the two circumstances you presented, and I simply pointed out that what you’re missing is context if you can’t see that they are two different circumstances.

volchitsa

Haley Spicy Spat wrote: »

So it's illegal to smoke with kids in the car but it's fine if the kid is in the womb where it can't even open a window?

It's illegal to sell children Alcohol but it's fine to force them consume it in the womb.

Am I missing something here?

Yes. Legally there is only one person smoking or drinking, the pregnant woman.
With the child in the car, there is another person involved.

And whatever you may think of that, there are very good reasons for that distinction. As Nicaragua, El Salvador and even to some extent Ireland have thoroughly demonstrated to the rest of the world over the last few years.

Cabaal

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Because cigarettes make too much money for the gubbermint and the powerful people connected to it, so banning them outright or enforcing smoking bans, even on pregnant women, will be detrimental to their bank balances.

Actually Ireland spends more money on smoking related health issues then cigarettes take in tax. So government isn't rolling in it by any means from them.

Shefwedfan

Don’t mind about the cigs and booze

It’s when the baby is born and the hospital have to ween it of coke or heroine that I would be more concerned about

bingbong500

Haley Spicy Spat wrote: »

So it's illegal to smoke with kids in the car but it's fine if the kid is in the womb where it can't even open a window?

It's illegal to sell children Alcohol but it's fine to force them consume it in the womb.

Am I missing something here?

Yes you are missing the already explained fact: its not a person before its born. One woman can do as she likes to her own body.

You don't have to like it, or approve. You just have to understand the irrelevance of your opinion.

Gimme A Pound

4pm they're not a person, 9pm they're a person.

The self delusion...

Foetal alcohol syndrome, heroin addicted newborns - fuq em, they weren't people and the woman can do what she likes.