Your views on drug use during pregnancy

[stoneinfocus]

Consodering zera's quote

Originally Posted by zera

http://www.jointogether.org/news/you...igma-open.html

I think this mostly is there's to it, mother nature had to deal with worse things than the drugs one uses, so I don't think smoking(chewing tobacco), taking opiates, amphetamines(Ephedra is even harder on the body, than amphetamines) or cocaine was damaging, it's again cited in other posts, different sources, i.e. STD, holding a job, etc. was the main problem, but it's more the lack of a proper drug regime, with clean drugs and all the worst things mentioned are a consequences of prosecution, again, with the worst damage done by legal drugs, in quality and quantitavely.

I've heard a medcine student citing that heroin caused damage to a rat fetus, well, but that's it.Cortisone is deadly to a rat while it's live-saving to humans in high doses.Cocaine doesn't cause a dependence, so I don't see how a child could be addicted -a "crack-baby", or suffer worse damaga, than from chewing coca, if any. Of course you can take the children away, raise then in homes, away from children and make them feel, that they were crack-kids, were wackos, and presto, you got your results, because the children will give this back to you, you had your "medical" conclusions and tax-funds again... . Gimme a gun now, it's no longer fun now.

[Handle]

You know when I think about it, eaten marijuana would probably be the least harmful thing a mother could take while pregnant.

But yes, I feel a bit self conscious after reading that earlier post, like we are all pontificating on something in a way that might seem hypocritical.

Here's a good question: should guys feel guilty using drugs if those drugs degrade their sperm and could lead to children suffering from alll sorts of problems?


[Is that even possible?]

The only hint of a thing like that I can remember is the strange claim that LSD damages chromosomes...but I don't think that's true.

However, it does give me an opening for the schmoltziest joke of all time:

Whaddya get when LSD damages your chromosomes?

I dunno Larry, what is it?

ACID FADED GENES!!!

[snow_queen]

swim is not particular to babies or small children. Swim does not ever want to have children. However, swim does respect those who choose to reproduce. With that said, swim would like to say that she does watch her actions when they might possibly impact and effect those around and close to her.

A mother-to-be's actions do not just affect her body, but also that of her unborn child. She should not be selfish for nine months and remember that whatever she puts in her body, she is also putting in her child's body. Swim believes that a pregnant mother should put her health, and her child's health, before anything durin her nine months of pregnancy. There are no excuses. What the mother does during these nine months will have a lasting impact on another human being for the rest of their lifetime!!!

Reputation Comments on this post:

it it were that easy, the world had no problems

[Handle]

Yes, I must admit, I'm not trying to be a male chauvanist pig about this, and I don't think that the mothers should bear the whole burden, but everybody should try to take responsibility for a baby before it is born, if it is intended that the baby will be born.

If unnecessary damage can be avoided, who wouldn't want that?

And by the way, I knew a couple who were in constant IV drug use while expeceting, on two separate occasions, and twice the result was miscarriage, now, even if we ignore possible suffering of a child, the fact is it was a horribly traumatic experience for the poor woman and made me realise that drug use like that, heavy, hard drugs, frequent and IV admin, during pregnancy is UGLY, and whether I sound like a nagging scold or not, it brought happiness to nobody. It ws not pretty.

I don't really, to be honest, I don't really think that it is unfair or hypocritical to discuss these matters, everybody, male or female can fuck up their own life all they want, other people might not be happy, but it does not intrinsically cause physical harm to anyone but yourself.
However, I feel no guilt in admitting that when anyone is involved with a pregnancy, male or female, and if you intend to go ahead with that pregnancy, you must all admit that there is an extra responsibility there that was not there before.
And everyone must admit, whether it is a feminist idea or not, the fact is that medical
evidence says drug use like I described is a medical disaster for the child, and dangerous for the mother as well [because she used stimulants, her vascular health was not so good, and there was more vascular damage during the miscarriage than average].

I'm not ashamed to say, those are the facts whether we like it or not. Sorry Simone de Beauvoir. But as I said, it's not just the women who must bear the burden of these facts, it applies to everyone. You want kids, you must face these realities.

[stoneinfocus]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15511875

I'm sorry Handle, but I have to say, that we canot possibly be called hypocrits when we're refering with very much reason, that the problems of prohibition didn't carry their ways right into pregnancy and are leading to miscarriages.

IV-ing is a nearyl 100% sign of using street-cut dope and after reading some articles, oral opiate use is not linked to a worse outcome, compared to clean controls.
If it was easier to get the clean opiates for pregnant women, even better, if they had not had to ruin their health and overall situation, due to restrictive laws, years before getting pregnant with the "help" of impure street-dope, social oppressions, due to the laws, then we wouldn't have any significant miscarriages due to opiate-use and it was easier for pregnant women to adjust their behaviour of opiate use, when they get to know that they're pregnant.

This link's showing the legal supression of discussions and experimenting and how this ignorance had made it into the medical professionals' ways of treatments, in 1982, and made up for an disgusting lack of research;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

This study shows no(sic) difference in methadone maintenace to delivering abstinent women.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

I think, the same would go for oral heroin (most probaly even for pure IV heroin).Considering, tha many street addicts are spending their whole money on the drug, instead on protein drinks and health-food, and did so for many years, injected as a co-morbidity lidocaine, benzocaine, glass, dirt, viruses and bacterias and did-you-not see(tested) during pregancy, there can't be made a conclusion about drug-use during pregancy, becaue it shoild be ground on a study with steady-state parameters.

And considering the christians and other conservative morons didn't want their strongest arguments to be at question, those, criticising them, to be preferably tared and fethered by the mob, deported by the police forces, then wheeled, crossed or shot, it 's no hypocracy to question how drugs could and therefore had to be deliverd, the way they didn't do harm or the lest possible harm.

So you're actually tellin' don't use street drugs, because it's no fun seeing your children die? Don't you know we didn't already get that?

We have absolutely no right in judging pregnangt women for being addicted, as this has always been the case in human histrory and we just have to deal with that fact, the best ways we can and keep our ideologies and opinions to us, better, we had none and STFU.

Considerning the general way the threat topic can be interpreted, my opinion is, those, who refuse giving free drugs at low cost to the people are the mass murderers (fuckin' murderin' faschist) and ought to be shot.

Considering "street drugs", I wouldn't be or much less concerned, if that pregnant woman was rich, well trained and well-nurished and used the purest street dope in reasonalbe quantities and at best seldomly.

But this is not wish-you-something, there're pregnant women, due to that drug-policy, in a totally devestated health condition, in a financial-, social, law- and psycholigicla depressing state, that I can not say that I could condemn drug-use, drugs or anything, or had a opinon or judgemnet on this topic, because before I'd started doing this, I'd burn down some churches and kill some of those responsible for the misery of addicted mothers and their chuldren, those, who are also affecting the weakest parts of our society ever more, and for the fact, that this way, neither I or anybody can possibly scientifically link drug-use and drugs to complications and miscarriages and have to bear discussions over watered-down bull-shit opinions and again and again have to refer, that one had to eliminate the major causes of the problems , first, before makign a reasonalbe conclusion about a subjject and not "killing the jew" instead, and before compromising with a lie, by giving into this lie, and where there's no compromise found in reality, that way. -no pun intended, I'm just sick of it evenmoreso, becaue I know how it is to have to rely on drugs for certain conditions, and beside some minor liberal approaches, this all, yet, is being supressed at an even higher rate yb the meida and politics and as such, condemed by the typical ignorant idiots on the street and even said-to-be intelligent sympathetic people, I'd otherwise would have liked to get to know.

[moda00]

The cause of miscarriage in cases of opiate use is the withdrawal syndrome. Of course I can't speak for the specific individuals you describe, but in general this is the medical explanation for increased m/c risk due to heroin use.

I am about two and a half months pregnant with my first child. It is interesting to go back and read mine and others' posts in this thread given the current context.

Swim is on methadone maintenance. As far as the studies I have seen, the information given by my physicians, and it looks like some of the other studies linked to in others' posts in this thread, being on a pharmaceutical quality opiate in a steady and regulated dose does not show any adverse complications such as increased risk of miscarriage, lower birth weight, birth defects, etc.

In the case of IV heroin use, users are often in withdrawal due to the short duration of heroin's effects and it's illegal and expensive nature, thus the cycle of getting sick, looking to score, getting more dope and feeling better for a few hours, repeat. One can't be a regular/dependent IV user of heroin, in my opinion/experience, without at times experiencing withdrawal.. it's just a fact of life and swim has been there.

The reason it is contraindicated for pregnant women to discontinue methadone treatment during pregnancy is just that- that withdrawal can kill the fetus. So while I don't doubt that additives and chemicals in street drugs are likely much more damaging to both mother and child than pure pharmaceutical ones, the highest risk to the fetus is that caused by withdrawal.

This is also why pregnant women who are current IV heroin users are strongly encouraged to switch to methadone and are given priority to get into a program- because the cycle of heroin use and withdrawal can be fatal to the baby, while methadone, if given in a regulated and stable dose, is shown to be quite safe.
Given these findings, it makes sense that pharmaceutical heroin maintenance would also be quite safe and effective if given correctly, but I think methadone has such a long track record of safe use that it is preferred, along with the long half life allowing for less frequent dosing to prevent withdrawal- heroin would simply have to be administered much more often in order to keep mother and child safe during the pregnancy an this might not be feasible given that opiate maintenance must often occur at some sort of clinic or facility. I think it is quite true that there is strong stigma and misconceptions surrounding heroin because of it's illegal status and perception as a street drug, when in actuality any difference between heroin and any other opiate is that heroin is the one opiate drug that tends to be very strongly affected and influenced by current drug policy.

[Handle]

I said drug use "like I described". That means we have to bear in mind the dangers and difficulties of present day drug use. The problem of old school right wing ideology is they imagine everyone has the same innate abhorrence of drug use, and the same iron will and cold heart as a drug legislator, but that was not the reality.

Well, we might wish that harm minimisation prevailed over zero tolerance, and provided clean heroin for addicts to be safe, but whatever we may wish, they don't, and so the best harm minimisation strategy must be based not on what we wish, but on the reality,otherwise we will be guilty of the same desire to impose our view of the world on an unrelentingly different set of facts. Until the facts change, my personal opinion is that from the perspective of health and safety, and no other, IV drug use during pregnancy is just too dangerous.

My sister has to be careful even in the types of food she eats, to avoid even minor GI upset, that is how sensitive a pregnancy can be.

I'm all for harm minimisation, totally, and have no moral outrage against people who keep going during pregnancy [and this includes husbands and boyfriends and non pregnant friends who keep pushing the limits even when a woman tries to cut back during preganancy] but what, is it taboo to discuss these matters?

I support free heroin, totally, but I'm just saying as long as that's not an option, there are undeniable risks attendant upon
IV street drug use at such a risky time. I blame nobody, I'm not pointing the finger, I'm just saying, if you could have seen this woman, the way she bawled her eyes out, the look on her face, you would see that she wasn't saying "yes, all this happened because of my free independent and deliberate philosophical choice that I made
in protest against the lack of sufficient harm minimisation measures out there"

She was just fucking depressed.
There was nothing wrong with her pregnancies or kids before the drug use.

And I still think, I dunno, maybe my own sister is being overly cautious, but if that's how she is with seafood, I still think that IV use during pregnancy would have, just unacceptable risks to a good pregnancy. Too much could go wrong.

Think of the following scenario. If it's true as you said that withdrawal causes miscarriage, and as you said, the short half life means that to stave off withdrawal you would need a very constant, continuous stream of hammer on hand, what about the admin? Surely such a plentiful supply would end up with sores at the injection site, and failing that, scars. We as individuals may be resilient against the many microbes of even relatively 'clean' use, but pregnancy is a stretch, a trial for every bio resource of the body, so the mother might not respond to extremes when she did without being pregnant, and the baby can be even more vulnerable than that.

So even with pure gear, the needle use could still trigger even a mild infection that could harm the baby.
And such constant use brings up another point.
Anyone who's been on maintenance knows, that the system is not always perfect, and that real people, not wealthy, not catered to, but often poor and powerless, have often been let down or made one mistake that led to hours of agony by missing their dose.
Even in a more enlightened world, you could not guarantee against that. So then even a perfectly sterile habit has this risk of a miscarriage if what you're saying is true, if one dose is lost or missed or stolen, what then?

And what about the baby. Even if they come out at good weight, healthy and strong, what addiction might they have developed in the womb, it does happen. Doctors would never give morphine to a newborn if such things didn't happen. That has its risks too. Is that really what we should support.

The whole idea of harm minimisation is to help people no matter what point they are at in life. If a woman is in the middle of her pregnancy with a raging habit, I don't know, maybe Rx heroin would be the safest option.

But harm minimisation should also focus on enlightened prevention, and say "IF you are pregnant, then existing drug use will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis, and everyone should be helped in the way that helps them best, not left out in the cold. But if you are already one or the other, pregnant, or IV'ing, and yet not both, then I think everyone should say, as advice, think about getting off drugs before you get pregnant, or else, put off the pregnancy if you think you still need the drugs"

I think there is nothing wrong with advice like that. I know you can't say "Quit drugs now" but you can say "Please consider delaying pregnancy until you are drug free, because the risks are just so high for any pregnancy, would you really want to add another risk factor like that at the moment?"

That is my opinion.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good points in post

[The Dreamer]

You shouldn't use anything you don't need during pregnancy IMO. It's a sloppy and dangerous process to begin with and unless you really know for a fact that what you're taking won't further complicate the first several months of your baby's life I don't think it's wise.

At age 6 are you going to be sitting around thinking 'I wish I had done LSD or Weed during those 9 months when he/she was inside of me' no but if you've hurt your baby and have to watch them grow up abnormally in even the slightest way you're going to wish you hadn't for the rest of your life.

I have a friend who's child is a monster (like clinically a monster) and I know for a fact that she was dosing during her pregnancy. Medically I have no idea whether weed can do that to a child or not but every once in a while she worries that her child has so many behavioral disorders because of her choices and I wonder how she lives with that feeling. It may be totally false but I don't think anyone can tell her for sure. So personally I would never ever do anything during a pregnancy even if it was just for my own sake. But then again I don't have a womb so...

(obviously this is a more complicated problem if you're on heroine or something of that nature but if there is any way in hell to stop I would)

[moda00]

I think these are all good points. I agree with you Handle that we have to look at drug use as it exists, rather than in an ideal situation, but while still moving towards minimizing harm and providing alternatives based on an individual's unique needs. So to me, anything from providing clean needles to women who may not otherwise have access to them and may continue using during pregnancy, to educating women about the option of deferring planned pregnancies until they have managed their addictions, or providing alternative medications like methadone when a woman has a desire to get off heroin, are all useful, if not perfect. It can be hard to make generalizations without understanding an individual's situation, and I think doctors and public policy need to focus more on the individual.

I can imagine it would be devastating to lose your child due to IV drug use or anything else. I also know that many moms who have miscarriages (often for no identifiable reason) will obsess over what they could have done differently to save their baby, when in reality many cases are due to chromosomal abnormalities that would not allow for healthy development. I am not saying that moms shouldn't do everything they can to create a healthy environment, just that most do wonder if they could have caused/prevented miscarriage, so it would be even more difficult to live with knowing you did in fact do something that could have increased that risk, such as IV heroin use.

I think TheDreamer makes a good point too. Pregnancy is a time of bodily change and increased physical and mental demands. It is also a time when everything you do affects your unborn baby and will shape them in ways that will be with them forever. I think it is just as important, at least for myself during my pregnancy and in my opinion, to avoid unnecessary prescription meds, caffeine, stressors, environmental noise, etc. as it is to avoid illegal drugs. To me, it is about creating the healthiest possible environment in my body, while weighing the pros and cons of different options. For example, personally, I came off provigil since it's category C, and since I don't consider it necessary for my health. But I stayed on methadone, both because it is necessary for my well-being, and also because it could be fatal or harmful to the child if I were to try to come off it now, and due to the taper schedule, a safe taper would not be done until near the time of birth anyway. That is one individual circumstance; everyone's different.

That said, I think, as I know I stated in my post from awhile back, that no mother would intentionally harm her child, so the cases where education and knowledge of possible harm aren't enough to stop the use are usually the cases where addiction is involved, and for those of us who have experienced or witnessed the destructive force of addiction, there is little that can be done unless the addict is ready and willing to accept help. It is a really sad situation. I do think it is wise to educate people about the risks, but at the same time, my guess is most women in this situation were not planning a pregnancy. When a person is caught in an addiction they are usually in a place where they cannot even take care of themselves, much less another person, and they are painfully aware of this. I know when swim was struggling with her heroin and coke addictions she honestly could not fathom the future, and was sure she would die any day, either from suicide, overdose, or any number of things. So while she wasn't really sexually active during that time, she thinks it would have been very hard for her to remember to take birth control daily, or to care about herself enough to think through the risks of safe sex. In fact, now she feels that she has a stable and healthy life and future, and she still got pregnant while on birth control, so it is also hard to make assumptions about whether a pregnancy was planned, unplanned, or somewhere in between. So I think that while it is a good point to encourage women to learn about the risks of pregnancy while using a substance and planning for that when they choose to start their family, I think we have to again acknowledge the reality of the situation, which in my opinion is that most women who are actively using addictive drugs during pregnancy, got pregnant unintentionally and struggle with addiction and perhaps other issues- not to stereotype, I just cannot see most of the women or the addicts I have known knowingly choosing to try to start a family while in such a desperate situation.

I also strongly believe that this should apply to any drug- prescription antidepressants, anxiolytics, nicotine, alcohol, allergy meds, etc. You'd be surprised at how harmful many of these meds can be during pregnancy, many moreso than most illegal drugs. I believe education and factual info should be available, but for any woman on a medication, I don't think being on a medication should preclude a woman's choice to have a child. For example, certain antidepressants and antianxiety meds can be risky to a baby. But coming off these meds can be risky to a mother and when the mother is at risk, this also puts the baby at risk. So rather than say she shouldn't get pregnant at all, or unless she can come off the meds, I think that the risks and benefits should be weighed and it should be managed between a woman and her doctor. I do agree that it is irresponsible to try to get pregnant while actively addicted to illegal drugs, as addiction really does preclude the ability to make rational decisions and also puts one at legal risk, but to me that is more about the state of addiction itself rather than the specific consequences of any specific substance on the body, which I think needs more study. But then again, my thinking that it is irresponsible won't stop it from happening on occasion, so we still have to acknowledge and address that as well. What a complex issue! *whew*

Here's another question- how do you all feel substance use should be handled when discovered after the baby is born? Should hospitals test for this at all? What sort of follow-up should be involved? States have different laws on this but it seems many do test in certain cases, but not for all newborns. What criteria, if any, should be used to determine whether a test is done?

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Your thoughts on this subject are much appreciated.
	You brought more to the thread than just knee jerk judgments.

[moda00]

Handle also brings up a good point, of what is the role of a husband or father in the case of pregnancy? Is it important for him to minimize use or abstain altogether?

I think that out of support he should. Again, if he is addicted he may not be able to, but I think a big part of taking care of your body during pregnancy is just having a period before your child is born in which to learn about prioritizing your child's needs (which is what parenting is all about to some extent) and prepare for the changes that will come after the birth. I don't think a child's father should be denied the opportunity to ever have a drink of coffee or alcohol just because the woman can't, but I also feel that he should make some lifestyle changes in preparation for becoming a parent, as the mother does, and also to do so out of respect/support for the mother. Especially in a case where the pregnant woman is struggling to overcome destructive behaviors, I think it is so important for her to have the support of her partner in this. I know women who have really struggled to quit smoking when they found out they were pregnant because their husbands kept smoking around them. Just my thoughts, would love to hear from others..

In my case, my child's father is still choosing to drink heavily/regularly and use occasionally. I can't control his choices, but I can control my mine, so I simply have to choose not to put myself or my child at risk by being around him when he is drinking or using. I think part of the problem is that, as they say, a woman becomes a mother when she gets pregnant, a man becomes a father when he sees his child. Not that this is always true, but I do think that it seems more real and immediate for a woman because she is physically the one growing the baby and her actions are of utmost importance. The father may feel that it is not as relevant to him, or may not understand the need to make changes with the same immediacy. At least in my case.. anyone agree or disagree? I guess in cases of unplanned pregnancy I don't expect the father to be willing to make the same sacrifices and commitments, but also feel that one's behavior during pregnancy with regard to commitment to health and safety are a strong reflection of one's priorities and abilities to be a healthy and responsible parent. I just don't think that, male or female, mother or father, any parent is going to drink and use and smoke throughout the course of 9 months and then suddenly change their lifestyle and priorities the day their child is born. I guess maybe it happens, but it doesn't seem likely.

[Handle]

Moda, you have raised the tone of this thread with some pretty realistic stuff to think about.

ANd yes, as with people who would never want a kid in a million years, the support must be the same, it must take into account where a person is in life.

You can't just say "That's it, you're in the wrong, you're on your own. Just say no"

[Yeah, thanks for that advice Nancy]

But seriously, what I'm saying is, troubling as it may be, the painful duty of helping people in all these situations is you can't sort of yell at them from the riverbank and say "get on dry land, then we'll help you". It's a pretty crappy analogy, but every time a person keeps opting for self destruction, you have to keep going and going, at each new low, and offering help in the situation they are in at that point.
So it's like, you say "can you make it" "No" "ok, I'm coming in" "Can you stay afloat?" "No" "here's a life preserver" "can't you at least keep your head out?" "No" "Well here's a snorkel"
But there's no point in stubbornly staying at the side going "Don't go in there"
Both sides want to eventually get the person out of the mess, but one will offer unconditional amelioration with a philosophy that says "Yes it's bad now, but how can we stop it from being worse"

Reputation Comments on this post:

good analogy, thank you for your well thought out contributions

[moda00]

That is a good point and I think it is so important that the initial judgments one may feel when discussing these issues be put aside on a broad/public scale in order to allow for this kind of harm-reduction, meeting individuals where they are at and working with their individual needs.

I also think it's important to point out that many many studies on pregnancy and drug use have had confounding factors such as maternal nicotine use, other drugs (rarely is the mother just using one substance), abuse, poor prenatal care, poverty, nutritional differences, etc. Also genetics is huge, and maternal age can affect a child's risk for certain abnormalities. So it is really hard to accurately gauge the risks. Of course we all agree no use at all is ideal, along with a healthy lifestyle, medical care, the whole nine yards. But if a woman can't or won't stop using, could we improve outcomes by improving access to prenatal care, for example? Encouraging dietary or lifestyle changes unrelated to the drug use? Use substitutions (like methadone for IV/street opiates, as is often already done?)

I love your analogy Handle and think this is so true. I think that because of several high profile legal situations, women are even more afraid to be honest and seek help in such situations- which likely worsens the outcome. I would much rather see a pregnant woman who was using drugs at least get prenatal care, counseling, etc. and think that in cases where drug use just cannot be stopped altogether, outcomes can still be improved.

[The Dreamer]

I agree; I think it was Mother Teresa who said that: 'loneliness is the new leprosy.' Of coarse addiction is something awful but we (as a society) cannot begin to help those around us until we can stand to look them in the face.

[kaczynski]

If one cares about their unborn child, it seems like 9 months without substance abuse is a small price to pay for their health.

[The Dreamer]

Logic and Concern for another are often much less powerful than even a mild addiction. I've seen people smoke and drink coffee pregnant both of which aren't good for their baby. But these people would be disgusted by someone who 'uses' while pregnant. What's their excuse? I doubt anyone would ever call them to task but really if it were up to logic and sincerety they wouldn't be smoking or caffeineing either.

Ultimately, people aren't in complete control of themselves and while that shouldn't be an excuse it's also something we ought to be sensitive to.

[Handle]

To be seriously honest, I have not heard that mild caffeine use is harmful during pregnancy, I know that tobacco is, but what's the source of the caffeine claim [I'm not doubting you, I just am too lazy to find the info myself right now, and I'm borrowing someone else's net access]

But I'm really diverting off my earlier arguments. WHat drugs do people think, specific drugs and routes of admin, would be the least harmful. I'm sticking to my eaten mojay theory. Anyone disagree. I must admit I don't know what effect it would have on a developing bebby's brain though. Not the brain itself, but mental faculties and stability.

I just mean in terms of raw pathology, I imagine that eaten mojay would be least harmful of all. What do people think?

[Paracelsus]

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/sho...eine+pregnancy

[Handle]

Wow. I stand corrected.

[podge]

All recreational drugs should be avoided during pregnancy , i dont see their being any valid reasons for an exception. When someone is carrying a child they have a responsibility to not only themselves but to the child and the father.

Abortion is a more difficult subject, first problem is knowing when the embryo is technically alive, if at some stage we can scientifically verify that it is not at the moment of conception but later into the pregnancy then things will be easier but for now its very complex.

I dont agree that a fetus is simply better off aborted than being born into a life with disability. The issue isnt simply as black and white as this, a disabled person can also lead a meaningful and rewarding life, perhaps in some cases even more so than people without disabilities. As i believe the harder the lesson learned the greater the reward gained. Also some disabilities are more difficult to manage than others so the word "disability" is far too general.

There are cases where abortion may be the better option but its entirely based on circumstance. One simple example : If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, and she cant even take care of herself and knows that the baby wont stand a chance when born then aborting a fetus may actually be an act of love and compassion. But it really does come down to circumstance and intent.

[Lobsang]

Well people can be messed up. Like this lady comes in and she has a problem. So I tell her she needs an x ray. So when we shoot x rays we ask the person if they are pregnant or could be and stuff like that. Well she says she is not pregnant and could not be. So she signs the forms. So then I take her in the room to show her her x rays. And she is like lookin at the x ray real hard. And then she actually says "Where is the baby". I ask her what she is talking about. Then she tells me that she is pregnant by a few months and wants to see the baby. I get pissed off and say "Why the fuck did you not tell me you were pregnant?" And she tells me that if she had she knew I would not take the x ray.

[The Dreamer]

Thank you Paracelsus I need to start keeping track of some of my sources.

(Lobsang) that is really messed up. Just how dangerous are xrays for a fetus? I've heard its very bad but what sort of things might happen?

[Handle]

Hey by the way I would like to second Podge, that disability is not the same as being effectively dead. I think that is the sort of thinking that gave rise to eugenics. OF course it can be a hard life, but disability is part of the diversity and variety that makes life rich and makes us think about our definitions of a good life. There are many disabled people who aren't ashamed to be so, nor do I imagine they wish they were terminated prior to birth.
So, if you can avoid it and make that person's future life easier [like, by not drinking heavily], sure, go ahead. But a disability shouldn't be an automatic death sentence.

Nevertheless, I am pro-choice, but that is a more complex issue than I will wade into here. I'm not saying that the conception thing is the part I'm stuck on, I'm just saying not everyone agrees a disabled child should never be born. That idea scares me more than a little.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good

[Lobsang]

Well my son was born with a severe disability. He cannot speak. He cannot walk or talk or use his arms and legs. Now he has always been a very very happy kid. He laughs and smiles and likes to go places and watch TV and be read to and look at books. He has always been full of life. So I really think that he would say if he could that he was very glad to be born. You se he knows no other condition than the one he has always been in. Now a person who was able bodied and then was put on his condition might not be so happy.

I have mixed feelings on abortion. In Tibeatan culture the child is not a soul until it is born. Until the moment it is out of the mother and breathing. It is not a person and could be killed anywhere up until birth. I think that is pretty ignorant.

Now one of my issues with abortion is that it in my mind lowers societies respect for life. It maikes human life more expendable in a global sense. I think it makes the tone of the culture a bit less sensitive. Also less responsible. In my mind.

Now if you asked me if I liked any abortion my answer is no. But if you asked me if I would be more comfortable aborting before the brain starts to form higher centers the answer is possibly yes.

But I still get a bad feeling from it. However I feel that it is the womans right to do what she wants with her own body.

But the thing is this. I find it disturbing when kids are aborted for disabilities. I mean to me it would be wrong to abort a downs syndrome child or a child with hemophila or other things. But I would be less resistent if the kid had some horrible situation where by he or she would only live a few hours after birth.

But no I think it is 100% wrong to abort disabled children in general. Having a severly disabled child is a hard life. However if a couple takes on the responsibility of having children they should consider that they may not turn out to be Beaver and Walley Cleaver. It is the gamble you take.

I mean we don't put old people out on the ice and se don't kill baby girls like in China in places.

Reputation Comments on this post:

agreed

[stoneinfocus]

As I think, nearly all of todays drugs have been used by our ancesors and are still used in tribes, like weed, coke, smoking all kinds of stuff, hallucinogens, and the fact, that it didn't hurt (that much), together with the fact, that it couldn't be avoided,
prohibition is again the main reason for miscarriages. Peace.

As a side note the term "responsible" is flawed, when it comes to certain issues, of which we know too little/ a thing about how these situations ensued, so we couldn't ever call any behaviour responsibel or the opposite.

It was irresposible to sell cut dope, it's even more irresponsible to leave the selling and buying of dope up to irresponsible dealers.

It were irresposible to use cut dope, or even dope of which one knows it was damaing to the fetus, but if the underlying cause was an addiction and the lack of better treatment that of a policy of fear and restriction, which makes the intervention of professionals void, than the laws are irresponsible, as are the underlying social-interpersonal causes of the addictive behaviour, and not the addiction or the addict himself.

The very "frist"/principal cause leading to "irresponsible" behavior, relative to something, is the irresposibility itself and as we're all too lazy or too dumb to see it, or able to see it through, or the situation is so messed up, that then, any helpless definition of resposibility begets an ideology of hate and creates ever more principals, which are irresponsible to hold up as principals at this moment, so let's please be pragmatic, and not dogmatic, where things don't get better the next days, obviously, and let's work out a society in which everything gets better, for all of us.

[The Dreamer]

Actually, and again my bookmarks list is a mess, but I believe that stress is much more likely to be a hindrance to a child's development than weed, coffee, nicotine and most mild drugs. (by 'mild' I mean drugs that are neither a strong stimulant or depressant and which have not been shown to put a lot of stress on a persons metabolism or other vital system.) Plus, mild drugs generally raise the chances of miscarriage rather than cause disease and illness in an unborn baby. But then I guess whether that's worse or better depends on your own personal beliefs. Poor diet and other physical strain also have a pretty heavy impact as well.

Stoneinfocus I think you're right. No one goes around tossing blame at people for eating unhealthy or avoiding their personal problems while pregnant. Yet these things all effect the situation too. Drugs definitely get labeled as THE cause of birth complications based on a cultural belief rather than evidence.