[wideawake]

Protagoras, unlike certain other posters, I'm sure you can express the reasons for your disagreement without invoking Hitlerian parallels, death camps, etc.

I put this down as no different from existing laws preventing parents from abusing or neglecting born children.

And I don't buy that it is the same thing to smoke and drink while pregnant as it is to smoke and drink in the presence of born children, since you're not forcing them to ingest them the way you are with unborn children.

Of course, I think it's highly irresponsible for a parent to smoke around small children or become intoxicated around their children.

[Calpernia]

Now that I think about it, it is illegal to give minors alcohol and cigarettes. A fetus is a minor.

Therefore, why do we need a 'new law' when this one is already on the books.

[linda_22003]

"unlike certain other posters" - no need to get pissy. The fact is that you do want to restrict people's personal decisionmaking because they're decisions you don't happen to like (and I don't like them either, just to be clear).

With smoke, you are indeed forcing born children to "ingest" it, so that's exactly the same thing whether in-utero or ex-utero.

[Protagoras]

Protagoras, unlike certain other posters, I'm sure you can express the reasons for your disagreement without invoking Hitlerian parallels, death camps, etc.

I have no idea what that reference is all about.

Of course, I think it's highly irresponsible for a parent to smoke around small children or become intoxicated around their children.

So do I. Which of course doesn't mean we need another government gun sticking in our gut.

Existing laws can be taken too far as well. The potential for abuse here is obvious to me, maybe less so to you.