Okay Skoorb, I'll bite.
You are claiming that the government takes children away from parents who have shown themselves to be unfit through abuse and/or neglect. Society accepts this, in general, as the correct thing to do. You further argue that smoking or drinking is hazardous to the unborn child's health, therefore positing that this constitutes abuse and/or neglect and should follow the same rules.
However, how do you gauge the level of smoking and drinking to show a direct correlation to the necessary level of abuse and/or neglect to warrant such action? When you beat a child severely enough to cause hospitalization, we can all agree that is abuse. Not so with smoking and drinking during pregnancy. Is one cigarette a day or one drink a day bad? Is there scientific evidence to back it up. How about one cigarette a week or one drink a week? Also, you can beat your child and neglect your child in ways that will not result in getting your children taken away. Spanking during episodes of disobedience and enforcing a strict diet that causes the child to be underweight but not malnourished are but two of many.
We can see the broken bones and bruises on the poor child who has suffered an abusive beating. The doctors can look at this child and make the determination. Abuse and neglect is a case by case basis where a determination is made that warrants removal of the child from the custody of its parents. How do you propose to do this, and upon what basis, when you are considering this action in regards to smokiong and drinking. There is enough evidence that shows that smoking and drinking during pregnancy shows no consistent pattern of ill effects. Just look at many of the older generation around you who had parents that were not as health conscious during pregnancy; parents who both smoked and drank.
So, in the end, you are basing this upon the possible harm that may come to a child during pregnancy. If that is the case, then a mother who is ticketed for speeding should also have their children taken away. The possible harm is evident and we have the statistics to back it up.
You are claiming that the government takes children away from parents who have shown themselves to be unfit through abuse and/or neglect. Society accepts this, in general, as the correct thing to do. You further argue that smoking or drinking is hazardous to the unborn child's health, therefore positing that this constitutes abuse and/or neglect and should follow the same rules.
However, how do you gauge the level of smoking and drinking to show a direct correlation to the necessary level of abuse and/or neglect to warrant such action? When you beat a child severely enough to cause hospitalization, we can all agree that is abuse. Not so with smoking and drinking during pregnancy. Is one cigarette a day or one drink a day bad? Is there scientific evidence to back it up. How about one cigarette a week or one drink a week? Also, you can beat your child and neglect your child in ways that will not result in getting your children taken away. Spanking during episodes of disobedience and enforcing a strict diet that causes the child to be underweight but not malnourished are but two of many.
We can see the broken bones and bruises on the poor child who has suffered an abusive beating. The doctors can look at this child and make the determination. Abuse and neglect is a case by case basis where a determination is made that warrants removal of the child from the custody of its parents. How do you propose to do this, and upon what basis, when you are considering this action in regards to smokiong and drinking. There is enough evidence that shows that smoking and drinking during pregnancy shows no consistent pattern of ill effects. Just look at many of the older generation around you who had parents that were not as health conscious during pregnancy; parents who both smoked and drank.
So, in the end, you are basing this upon the possible harm that may come to a child during pregnancy. If that is the case, then a mother who is ticketed for speeding should also have their children taken away. The possible harm is evident and we have the statistics to back it up.
