Should pregnant women be allowed (by law) to knowingly endanger the life of their unborn child?

This is one of those grey area questions that everyone fights about. People feel that the women is pregnant so should not be allowed to drink or smoke because it has been known to harm the unborn child. Notice I said ''has been known'' because even though we all know it's true that cigarettes & alcohol harm not only an unborn child but a person health in general, tobbaco & liquor companies still say it isn't true & only put that the surgeon general says it ''MAY'' couse harm, not that ''IT WILL''.

I personaly feel that it's wrong but if we start leting the government regulate us on what we can do with our bodies who knows what else they will come up with? Did you know that in some hospitals they don't even send you home with those free little formula samples anymore, they say it's because everyone knows that breast feeding is better for the baby & formula doesn't give the baby all the nutrients it needs, who are they to tell a women she needs to breast feed her child anyway?

I feel that everyone that chooses to get pregnant or to have a baby, should be responsible to bring up the most health baby they can. The waitress was right though she must serve everyone pregnant or not, just like stores have to sell cigarettes to everyone pregnant or not, it would be discrimination against pregnant women.

Congrats on your little bundle of joy, & for trying to bring up the most health baby you can!!!

As far as bungee jumping, etc. I don't know if the companies insurance would allow them to do this. I know it is probably not a good thing to allow pregnant women to drink, etc. but we are really getting into an area where people might be over controlled if you start telling woman that they have to do this and can't do that. It would be hard to know where it would end. Would it come to the point where the government would tell you what you should eat, how you should exercise etc? I wouldn't want to live in this kind of world.

Women need to be free to make these decisions with their own bodies.

A single Jack Daniels in the 3rd trimester would probably have done very little to harm the baby. The brain was already set. It's really only in America where we are quite so uptight about drinking during pregnancy. It's also a bigger concern in the first 2 trimesters when more of the brain is under development.

I may not like what others do, I was very careful while I was pregnant, but I did eat sushi at a reputable restaurant. It's not recommended in the US, but in Japan, people think nothing of it. Should I have been barred from eating sushi?

I would like to see extra teeth in the law against those who do illegal drugs while pregnant. That's an obvious and clear cut risk.

I don't think they allow then to sky dive or bungee jump do they? I know you couldn't ride a rollercoaster or they advise you not to. Most can't fit no offense...I think they should be allowed to although I don't agree with what they might do. You can't really stop the person because it's sort of their will. You can't really force a person to not do it because they can find a way around the law. I'm into abortion a little with my thinking but I do think everyone has their own choices. It sounds kind of wrong to say you can't to x y and z because it could harm your child. There are a lot of harms out there. A lot of women would fight that.

There are disclaimers all over the place on activities that can harm an unborn baby. But, if you go around policing pregnant women, where do you draw the line? My mother yelled at me for hanging curtains in my son's room before he was born. She said raising my arms over my shoulders would cause him to strangle to death on the umbilical cord....

I don't think a lot of the women out there in the world should be giving birth, but how can you regulate that?

I doubt they're allowed to sky dive and bungee jump; on my honeymoon when I was barely even showing, I was told I couldn't ride the horses they had at the beach because it would be a liability.

I used to waitress and waitresses have the right to refuse service, so yours was full of it. She very well could have told you no and argued she was exercising her right to refuse. Granted another waitress may have been sent to serve you; but by law, she is not required to serve anyone she feels unfit to be drinking.

Before they can make it illegal to endager the life of your child they first have to make it illegal to END the life of your unborn child.... I don't see that happening anytime soon. The whole idea behind pro-choice is a woman has the right to decide what she can and can't do to her body, so you would have alot of women fighting that making something like thi illegal is a violation of her rights. Although it would be nice for there to be more incentive to protect a baby, but it just wouldn't make sense to protect them from endangerment without also protecting them from their life being ended completely.

Should it be illegal? Probably

Will it ever be illegal? Probably not

I agree with Mae, ---in my state, at least---- (I work in a convenience store, I sell alcohol, ETC.) any place of business can refuse any service to anyone. for example, if I do not like your shoes, I can refuse to sell you gas, if I don't like your hair, I can refuse you that twinkie. If I dont want to sell to a pregnant woman, I can refuse those cigarettes and beer.

I agree with what you are saying, but then that would not have made it illegal for her to sell you the alchol, only for you to drink it.

I don't think they *should* be allowed to intentionally endanger their children; but I also think if someone tries to stop them, they'll yell 'discrimination.'

Same with the whole 'car-pool' thing.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlOnh...

I think a LOT of pregnant women look at reasons to use their pregnancy as a 'get out of jail free' card.

It's sad ..

In most states, it is actually legal to refuse service to any patron for any reason. I think she was BSing you. However- yes, totally wrong. How could anyone argue for that?