At best it's negligence or reckless endangerment, at worst it's willful endangerment.

The alternative being forcing pregnant women to take responsibility for their actions like most other humans on the planet?

She has full rights to do what she wishes to her own body.

Fine. Then all child disorders proven to be correlated to injestion or injection of drugs should be investigated, and should evidence present itself that the mother abused her child in the womb, then all tax-payer funded support for care will be revoked.

No, I would only do it for women for whom there is reasonable cause to believe are dangers to the children they are determined to carry to term, be it reports from doctors or reports from husbands or family or friends.

A man cannot give birth to a child that will require tax-funded medical support as a result of his drinking through natal development.

Which is fine, so long as our society also begins to absolve itself of communal responsibility for the children born to irresponsible mothers and parents.

If a woman chooses to drink or do drugs during pregnancy, than the government should reserve the right not to support the child through any of the birth defects proven to be correlated to such behavior. There is no reason to punish the tax-payer for the selfishness of the mother.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about men who would like to see paper abortions made legal?

I would suggest that drinking or injesting drugs during a pregnancy is also bad for a woman's children.

If a woman that gives birth to a baby with fetal alcohol syndrome or any other drug-induced developmental mutation is happy with not accepting tax-payer funded help to deal with the consequences of her own decisions, then sure, let her fuck up her kids as much as she would like.

No, it isn't, but if the mother is determined to see through the pregnancy then a child will happen.

If you're ok with child abuse, then I guess that's the line at which we differ.

But it is a criminal issue so long as the mother plans to go through with the pregnancy. Because so long as that is the case, then it's child abuse.

Shackling? No. Putting them into some kind of supervised environment and ensuring they cannot harm themselves or their fetus so long as they maintain their determination to see through the pregnancy? Yes.

I do think, as a culture, we need to start discussing and debating the idea of whether just because a person CAN have a child, whether they should.

Then wouldn't the mandatory screenings ensure that these women are forced to get the help they need?

But on the grand scale, nobody really got offended by the song or any of things Thicke said except easily offended, pearl-clutching professional victims.

And surprise alcohol tests for alcoholics or anyone who's ever been treated for any alcohol related medical issue. Anyone who has ever been issued a drug summons.

Terrible response to a respectable comment.