Reputation: 6000
Q&A:
113
0
11
4226
721
3
Classifieds:
0
0
|
I would look down if you fell.
The anti-booze Nazis have persuaded everyone that even the tiniest sip of alcohol for a pregnant woman is tantamount to child murder. Bollocks. A drink or two will not hurt your baby in the slightest. A glass of wine a day for pregnant women is totally fine. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome applies to hard-core alcoholics who drink instead of eat.
Go out and have fun. Have a drink. Have two, you've been saving yourself. Anybody gives you a hard time, tell 'em Fnarf said it was OK, bitchez.
|
Yes yes yes, Fnarf!
Fnarf is right.
|
|
Fnarf, you are wrong! They don't know exactly how many drinks or what combo or timing is involved in Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, but it is not only something related to hard-core alcoholics. It is NOT safe to drink during pregnancy. Dancing is fine, but drinking NO!
|
|
|
Rubbish. The studies that prove so are deliberately designed to confuse, by mixing one-drink women in with five and six-drink women. The statistics are tainted. Alcohol prohibitionism is always the safest route in America. The doctors are afraid of lawsuits, that's all, and are succumbing to the American inability to distinguish between a sip of alcohol and falling-down drunk. Moral values always creep in. Pregnant women in particular are constantly being bullied into fearing that they are going to kill their babies every time they turn around.
|
|
|
I have to call bullshit on your stance Fnarf, sorry. It doesn't sound like you know much about neonatal development and neurodevelopment. I'm no expert of course, but come on! And, there is a big difference between "a sip of alcohol" and two to three drinks. Not drinking during pregnancy doesn't have anything to do with "moral values [creeping] in." Seriously, is it so difficult NOT to have any alcohol during pregnancy?!? I don't think pregnant women should be bullied into fearing they are going to harm their babies at every turn, but mixing alcohol with pregnancy is just dumb.
|
|
|
See, you're doing it yourself. Now it's "two to three drinks", is it? That's what the studies do; they describe "light drinking" as "one to five drinks a day" and then assign the risk of five to the one as well.
The studies that put the fear into women never control for anything else, either; they never talk about the risks of middle-class white women versus poor minority women, for instance. Are these women drinking out of plastic bottles? Are these women eating Hot Pockets? Are they eating anything at all?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/dining/29preg.html
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/healthissues/1043239516.Html
One drink won't hurt your baby, especially in the eighth month. Two won't hurt it either, as long as you don't do it very often. Three? Well, I didn't say three, did I? You did.
|
|
|
You simply don't KNOW that one drink won't hurt someone's baby. To go about spouting that YOU KNOW that it is just fine is ridiculous. You are right, I don't KNOW that one drink WILL hurt someone's child, but why take the risk? It isn't like abstaining from alcohol for 9 months will kill a person. Unless you have a substance abuse problem, it really isn't all that hard not to drink. There isn't one good reason to drink during pregnancy and there are a LOT of good reasons not to. I'm not going to mandate that women can't drink during pregnancy, I just think that it is irresponsible to do so and to encourage people to do so. I am not for telling people what they should and shouldn't put in their bodies, but there IS scientific evidence that alcohol can harm the fetus and the jury is frankly still out about just HOW MUCH is harmful. If someone is compelled to drink during pregnancy, I have to wonder why. It isn't like food, where you HAVE to eat something. No one HAS to drink alcohol. Obviously, people will do what they want and people will roll the dice when it comes to consequences. Yay for that, but don't go bitching when kids come out jacked up with problems.
|
|
|
Kristin,
Fnarf has clinical research supporting his assertion. You have ALL CAPS. You're gonna have to do better if you want to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
What clinical research? A NY Times article written by a woman who wants to justify her own drinking? Yah, that is totally scientific. There is plenty of scientific research out there. Do I really want to bother finding it for a web rant? No. What exactly do you want me to PROVE anyway? I'm not talking about proof of anything. It is well-known that there is debate about how much is a "safe" amount to drink during pregnancy. I'm just saying: why roll the dice at all? If alcohol (amount not yet determined) can harm a fetus, why drink it? Oh, because, god forbid people should abstain from alcohol for 9 months? And, since no one knows how much is "safe" then Fnarf does not KNOW how much is "safe" either, so he shouldn't be telling people it is okay to have a couple of drinks. Anyway, that is something a woman should discuss with her doctor or something. And again, if I had something I was talking about PROVING, that would be one thing, but I am not trying to PROVE anything, so I can use CAPS as much as I like.
|
|
|
The NYT article quotes physicians. And did you see my other link?
Alcoholic beverages are not inherently dangerous products. On the contrary, they are extraordinarily healthful in the right circumstances. Small amounts of alcohol are good for the mother, you know.
You know what causes problems with babies? Being born to poor mothers with poor nutrition, including (but far from limited to) immoderate booze intake. But you don't have a massive public campaign to shame pregnant women who are caught in the microwave popcorn aisle at the supermarket, or down at KFC ordering the extra crispy chicken with tumors.
No, you only get that level of hysteria with alcohol, and only in the United States. This would be more impressive if the US didn't have such a crappy record, for its wealth and health spending, on infant health. But no, you have to live in fear of this perfectly normal, healthy, and culturally critical product.
There are thousands of things pregnant women don't "have to do". Obsessing about them is frankly an oppressive thing to do, fussing around them with endless prohibitions and folklore. That's all the anti-alcohol prohibition is -- folklore, for a society that bizarrely worships but doesn't understand science. People used to believe that pregnant women shouldn't take baths, either -- germs get in! OMG, germs!
One thing pregnant women should indisputably do more of is relax, and not freak out so much over all the terrible things that might happen, that our society tells us endlessly about. Stories that have you in a pure panic, even though you're not yourself pregnant.
|
|
Kristin, if you notice, Fnarf got 10 thumbs up here. That doesn't mean his answer is right, but it does mean that maybe, just maybe, his answer reflects a certain wisdom about pregnant women (of whom at least a few of our members here are/have been) that doesn't fall in line with modern opinion.
This is important because in the existence of man, in the face of various dangers, illnesses (and even plagues), and scares, we've managed to procreate. lt's true that now we know more about the risks to pregnancy, we take better precautions.
But he has a point. We really are talking the difference between the occasional glass of wine and the falling-down drunk, and that means 1-2/wk, and 3-6/wk. The occasional glass of red wine is not going to kill a child when we're discussing the black plague or smallpox. Especially given the many health benefits red wine provides.
lf you've ever been part of the medical profession, one of the things they tell you is that what you're studying at that point in time, you may exhibit symptoms of, and l know that firsthand. We are a psychosomatic species, which in and of itself is quite fascinating, but nonetheless, just because we seem to exhibit the signs and symptoms of whatever we're currently studying doesn't mean we actually have it. lt's human nature to worry that we might, but if we take in humanity as a whole -and our current population growth over even the last two hundred years- we don't really have that much to worry about.
All in moderation. We allow our kids to eat dirt, and they build up immunity. We give them too much, and they get sick. Same with alcohol - we have a glass of wine occasionally during the pregnancy, and they turn out fine. We have three a day, and they become used to it; THAT is the nature of dependence.
My two questions are to you and Meggers:
Meggers: l wonder by your emphatic response if you're a mother who occasionally enjoyed a glass of wine, and has a healthy baby.
To you, Kristin: Was your mother an alcoholic?
Let's also acknowledge that the mother in question has said quite clearly she won't be drinking, so while Fnarf has said it won't kill her, you don't have anything to prove to the mother who posed the original thought.
|
|
|
Fnarf: yes, I saw both articles and neither are scientific nor scholarly. They are both anecdotal at best and having quotes from doctors in an article is like having quotes from anyone. It doesn't make it scholarly or scientific. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what actual research looks like. I don't know. Also, comparing the consumption of alcohol with bathing during pregnancy is ridiculous. There is actual evidence that alcohol consumption during pregnancy causes fetal alcohol syndrome. I invite you to go visit some people with FAS before you go around advocating drinking during pregnancy. And btw, now you are actually saying people SHOULD drink during pregnancy? Come on!
freikja: getting thumbs up does not show any wisdom...whatever.
I still would like to know why you all are so against NOT drinking.
And, I don't know if you meant it as an insult or what, but NO, my mother was and is not an alcoholic.
|
|
|
No, Kristen, there is ZERO evidence that 1-3 drinks a week causes FAS. Zero. It's simply not true.
|
|
|
gah! I can only repeat myself so many times. I agree, there is no solid evidence one way or the other regarding the AMOUNT of alcohol. There is evidence that alcohol in general causes FAS. There is no evidence that it is safe and good to drink alcohol during pregnancy either. Apparently I am not speaking English or something.
|
|
|
Hey folks - wanted to do this sooner, but I was traveling all weekend without decent computer access. Here are a couple of citations for you:
BJOG. 2007 Mar;114(3):243-52. Epub 2007 Jan 12. Systematic review of effects of low-moderate prenatal alcohol exposure on pregnancy outcome.
Henderson J, Gray R, Brocklehurst P.
National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford, UK.
The aim of this study was to review systematically the available evidence on studies in humans on the effects of low-moderate levels of prenatal alcohol consumption (up to 10.4 UK units or 83 g/week) compared with consumption of no alcohol on pregnancy outcome...
RESULTS: The search resulted in 3630 titles and abstracts, which were narrowed down to 46 relevant articles. At low-moderate levels of consumption, there were no consistently significant effects of alcohol on any of the outcomes considered...
The above is a decent summation of the current research in this area. More specifically, these studies support the assertion that adverse birth outcomes are associated only with alcohol consumption of one or more drinks per day in early or late pregnancy. This is the best example of studies supporting this assertion:
Moderate alcohol consumption during pregnancy and the risk of low birth weight and preterm birth. The generation R study.
Jaddoe VW, Bakker R, Hofman A, Mackenbach JP, Moll HA, Steegers EA, Witteman JC.
Ann Epidemiol. 2007 Oct;17(10):834-40. Epub 2007 Jun 28. )
To reach this average, a woman would have to drink every day, binge-drink regularly, etc. which are behaviors that nobody in this string recommends.
Despite this clear evidence, it is unlikely that you will ever see these researchers make some sort of declaration of safety regarding alcohol consumption during pregnancy. This is because a defining characteristic of the scientist is the rejection of absolutes and the eternal willingness to consider new evidence in any direction. The biggest problem with this stance is that it is easily misunderstood and exploited by people who are unable or unwilling to understand the significance of empirical evidence.
Kristin is a good example of somebody like this:
>>There is plenty of scientific research out there. Do I really want to bother finding it for a web rant?
>>You simply don't KNOW that one drink won't hurt someone's baby.
>>...having quotes from doctors in an article is like having quotes from anyone. It doesn't make it scholarly or scientific.
>>I invite you to go visit some people with FAS before you go around advocating drinking during pregnancy.
These arguments are typical of those used against good research by people who have no real information or evidence behind their beliefs. They are emotional, moralistically judgmental, and casually dismissive of the scientific process. They are often, as is the case here, used to defend beliefs consisting of mythologies loosely based on reality.
Kirstin, I understand that you feel misunderstood. Your point is that without an absolute guarantee of safety, why take the risk at all, especially with something so important? Well, on the surface this seems like a good stance that is imbued with common sense. It is not a bad starting place from which to form an opinion. However, that is not where you started. Your first post says, "It is NOT safe to drink during pregnancy," and since that point you have been completely unable to support this statement. When Fnarf called you on your bullshit, your only defense was to become accusatory toward him and equivocal about your own stance.
Freikja: Thank you for the question. I am humbled by your assumption, but no, I am not a mother. When and if I am lucky enough to become one, I plan to thoroughly enjoy a glass of wine now and then. My participation in this discussion is motivated by two things: 1) I am tired of pregnant women being treated like they are incompetent, inert vessels for their unborn children and 2) Disdain for those who value truth, and for scientific inquiry, pisses me off.
|
|
|
Yes, why don't we just call this discussion "Let's attack Kristin." Of course, I base nothing on scientific inquiry and I'm being wholly moralistic and judgmental, because I don't agree with you all. No one has bothered to answer my questions after numerous askings: why risk drinking at all? I don't care. You all can drink when you are pregnant. I don't care. Obviously, no one has understood anything I have said and this has just devolved into a bitch-slap fest much like most of questionland and slog usually does.
|
|
|
Is Moderate Drinking During Pregnancy Associated With an Increased Risk for Malformations? by Mills, James L. & Graubard, Barry I. : Abstract. "The relationship between heavy drinking during pregnancy and congenital malformations is well known; however, whether moderate or light drinking is teratogenic is controversial. This prospective birth defects study collected information from 32,870 women about alcohol consumption during the first trimester of pregnancy. Total malformation rates were not significantly higher among offspring of women who had an average of less than one drink per day (77.3/1,000) or one to two drinks per day (83.2/1,000) than among 'nondrinkers (78.1/1,000). An increased risk as small as 12% in the group averaging less than one drink per day and 45% in those averaging one to two drinks per day would most likely have been detected if it were present. Likewise, major malformations were not increased in these drinking groups. Examining malformations by organ system and individual defect revealed that sex organ malformations and all genitourinary malformations increased significantly (P < .05) with increasing alcohol consumption. These findings suggest that alcohol, at the levels usually consumed during pregnancy, is not a significant cause of malformations. Nonetheless, the possibility that there are some malformations for which no safe drinking level exists requires additional investigation."*
*Note that the authors indicate more research needs to be done and that this inquiry alone is not proof of anything one way or another. The topic remains controversial.
|
|
|
Fuck, the source disappeared when I posted: Pediatrics; Sep87, Vol. 80 Issue 3, p309, 6p
|
|
|
And btw Meggers, if you are going to quote me, why not look at the entire thing that I said, instead of taking what I started with out of context. Here it is for you: Fnarf, you are wrong! They don't know exactly how many drinks or what combo or timing is involved in Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, but it is not only something related to hard-core alcoholics. It is NOT safe to drink during pregnancy. Dancing is fine, but drinking NO!
Fuck you all. I hate you all. You are a bunch of assholes and bullies. My main point is and has been that we do not know enough, so why risk it? Is that point so fucking hard to comprehend?!?!?
|
|
|
Kristin, the article you posted is perfectly aligned with and in support of what I posted earlier today. It also supports Fnarf's position. It is arguably a more robust study than the second source I quoted, but with the same results.
It does not support either of your assertions that 1) it is unsafe to drink alcohol during pregnancy or 2) we don't "know enough" to be able to draw conclusions about the effects of alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
It does support, rather overwhelmingly, the conclusion that drinking an average of less than one drink per day during pregnancy does not pose a health risk for the fetus.
Your "main point" is a fallacy. "Why risk it?" does not apply, as there is no evidence of risk. Your point is an uninformed opinion. The ability to type something does not make it true.
The reason the article notes that, as you put it, "more research needs to be done and that this inquiry alone is not proof of anything one way or another," is that all well-written articles will include this in their discussion. Even if the result was 100% of something occurring 100% of the time at levels of 100%, this would be included. That is a fundamental and very necessary element of scientific reporting.
As for the rest of it: Taking the victim's role in this discussion is merely a way of avoiding responsibility for your own behavior.
|
|
|
"freikja: getting thumbs up does not show any wisdom...whatever."
Maybe the word l should have used was 'knowledge'. He has several valid points, and l said that his high vote might be from women who didn't follow the mass hysteria regarding pregnancy and drinking and still managed to produce a healthy baby.
"I still would like to know why you all are so against NOT drinking."
Nobody ever said they were, Kristen. One opinion does not make its opposite absolute.
"And, I don't know if you meant it as an insult or what, but NO, my mother was and is not an alcoholic."
Well, l asked because you jumped onto Fnarf's ass with guns blazing. lt's one thing to disagree, but you came into the discussion yelling. lt seemed a pretty strong reaction, so l thought it possible that you had some personal connection to it we weren't aware of. lf you don't, fine; you just seem especially agitated by this topic, and l was wondering why.
"Fuck you all. I hate you all. You are a bunch of assholes and bullies."
This is *debate*, Kristin. lt includes two or more differing opinions. So far, the only one getting their knickers in a twist is you, and frankly, hon, if you want someone to take you seriously, you are going to have to grow the hell up and stop flinging nasty insults at the general public, just because you don't get your way. Just because you are the minority opinion doesn't mean people are attacking you, nor does it mean you have no valid points of your own. So chill the fuck out, woman, you're gonna blow an artery.
|
|
|
Meggers: "Freikja: Thank you for the question. I am humbled by your assumption, but no, I am not a mother. When and if I am lucky enough to become one, I plan to thoroughly enjoy a glass of wine now and then. My participation in this discussion is motivated by two things: 1) I am tired of pregnant women being treated like they are incompetent, inert vessels for their unborn children and 2) Disdain for those who value truth, and for scientific inquiry, pisses me off."
l can get on board with that. Thanks for the honest response.
|
|
|
Um, Kristen, your study says "Total malformation rates were not significantly higher among offspring of women who had an average of less than one drink per day (77.3/1,000) or one to two drinks per day (83.2/1,000) than among 'nondrinkers'".
Which is the opposite of what you're claiming. Not significantly higher, did you see that?
Kristen, I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your argument. See the difference? I've got nothing against you, and I'm not bullying anybody.
|
|
|
Yes, fnarf, I agree and I see the difference.
|
|
|
I couldn't help but have the melt down. It was before I got a nap in.
|
|
|
Well, I apologize for being a bit harsh. This is a hot-button issue for me in more ways than one.
|
|
|
Thanks. I apologize for being crazy. Fnarf's original comment sort of made my head light on fire and then explode! I was a bit shocked, and I have to admit I hadn't given too much thought to the scenario of minimal drinking. I mostly think about excessive drinking and FAS, especially after reading "The Broken Cord." I also took this developmental neuropsychology class and that scared the shit out of me with all the crap that can go wrong during pregnancy. It is a wonder any of us make it out of the womb in one piece!
|
|
|
Actually, l think it's a wonder more mothers-to-be don't go stark fucking crazy with all the propaganda and responsibility that's laid on them to bring a healthy baby to term. l read some personal account of cyberbullying a while back by a woman who was ostracized by her entire online pregnancy group because she ate or drank something (non-alcoholic) that was supposedly harmful to the baby. When she presented other more common food/drink items that posed a much higher risk, along with evidence that whatever she'd consumed was hardly toxic, they all turned into psychotic stepford chicks, rallied the troops, and voted her out of their group.
lnsane.
|
|
|
Wow. Yah. Even if I was normal, I would go crazy if I was pregnant!
|
|
|
And even if you were normal, you probably would still go crazy; it comes with the territory, so hey. Sometimes, the less procreation in this world to certain folks, the better. Excluding our illustrious OP, that is.
|
|
|
Are you saying I shouldn't have children? and that I'd be a bad mother?
|
|
|
Not if you've had your nap.
|
|
|
No. lt was a general statement referring to those that should simply never be parents to begin with. lf you were included in that statement, then by the entire post, so would l be.
|
Enter your comment or ask a new question
|
Bugs
Feedback
Help
Other - QL FAQ
Arts & Music
Books & Writing
Cars, Bikes & Transit
Celebrations & Gatherings
Entertainment & Film
Family & Kids
Finance/Insure/Legal
Food & Drink
Gardening
Government Services
Health & Fitness
House & Home
Jobs & Education
News & Politics
Pets
Questionland FAQs
Science & Technology
Sex & Relationships
Sports & Recreation
Style & Beauty
Trips & Travel
Whatever
Marty Unger
Charles B
The Gnome
internet_jen
Christina L
ozchick
Biju
Sacrelicious
Kip Waddle
treane
kitschnsync
stinkbug
Mahtli69
e.strange
Arsenic7
Rev.Enant
B Strand
Basil
new york state of mind
