Gilly,

There’s the rub. Is it possible – even in principle – to reconcile such different ethical positions? As Lilith reports, some jurisdictions do not consider addicting unborn babies to cocaine to be criminal behavior. It would seem that some do not even consider it worth intervening in such lifestyles. You, and many people like you, recoil from such behavior. What is considered criminal behavior in Utah is, it would seem, condoned in Florida.

The National Organization of Women does have an argument which bears acknowledging: there exists behavior which, while you may not approve of it, you accept it. A woman has more rights over her body than does the state. While easy to state, this leads to an unavoidable tension when the woman’s decisions are not seen to be in the best interests of the foetus. Does the mother eat right and get enough sleep? Does she drink alcohol or smoke? Does she take advantage of all the help (Well Baby checkups, parenting classes, etc.) that many jurisdictions offer – sometimes for free? If not, should she?

The article you quoted seems to have a distinct slant, what with references to “most radicalized women's group” and “NOW and other misguided groups”, so I’d discount some of the assertions made there. Nevertheless, there are some interesting points made, such as the notion of "bodily integrity" as it might apply to a viable baby in the womb. Medical science has made great strides in the last 31 years (Roe v Wade, 1973), and in many instances, the laws have not kept pace.

__________________
Eudaimonia