NATION

PASSWORD

Pregnant drunks avoid prenatal care; Vox blames society

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha
Minister
 
Posts: 2677
Founded: Apr 05, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Pregnant drunks avoid prenatal care; Vox blames society

Postby LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:28 pm

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535399/p ... ms-mothers

Let's recap. Years ago, when it vaguely looked like the law might be on the side of those who drink while pregnant, consensus among those defending them was "well if the fetus is part of her body as per abortion rights, it's part of her body while she's drinking." They deliberately made themselves look like assholes citing a loophole in the law to avoid doing anything that would deter drinking while pregnant.

Now that the law no longer looks like it's on the side of those who drink while pregnant, they've backpedalled to a new talking point; "but those who drink while pregnant will avoid getting prenatal care."

Whatever happened to "you have nothing to fear if nothing to hide?"

Imagine this kind of attitude toward any other form of child abuse. "Oh, if we enact this law, parents who beat the shit out of their children but end up regretting it will be reluctant to take them to the hospital for fear of their child abuse being discovered! Don't you want parents who regret beating the shit out of their children to take them to the hospital?"

Here's a better idea; if you're not ready for children, don't have them. If you do, and the birth defects are proven to be a result of drinking while pregnant, you go straight to jail, you do not pass go, you do not collect $200.

Enough people put away, and either others will get the message, or everyone prone to this will no longer be in a position to get pregnant.
Iridencia wrote:Inept people always decry pragmatic choices as "cowardly" because they know they're not smart enough to play on that level.

User avatar
Costa Fierro
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18747
Founded: Dec 09, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Costa Fierro » Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:12 pm

Vox always has the hottest of takes.
"Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist." - George Carlin

User avatar
Kaystein
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby Kaystein » Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:52 pm

Society is partially to blame. One really good example I can think of is why can't we make our schools teach teenagers about this stuff? Oh wait, we're too busy appropriating half the national budget on "defense" to fund education correctly. We barely have enough money going to public schools to cover common core studies, damn it all.

Another example, what about parental responsibility? Oh wait, parents are too busy staring at their smartphones to care about teaching their children anything.

Society and the families fail to instill good senses in these people, and some blame needs to fall on those shoulders appropriately when these people drink while pregnant.
Last edited by Kaystein on Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:57 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Kowani
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13914
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:08 am

Kaystein wrote:Society is partially to blame. One really good example I can think of is why can't we make our schools teach teenagers about this stuff? Oh wait, we're too busy appropriating half the national budget on "defense" to fund education correctly. We barely have enough money going to public schools to cover common core studies, damn it all.

Another example, what about parental responsibility? Oh wait, parents are too busy staring at their smartphones to care about teaching their children anything.

Society and the families fail to instill good senses in these people, and some blame needs to fall on those shoulders appropriately when these people drink while pregnant.

Don’t forget that certain people still shriek with outrage about teaching the kids anything remotely related to sex.
Narcissistic (Hedonistic) Nihilist. Yes, I am edgy. I know.
Atheist and still proud of it.
Post-Capitalist, Post-Nationalist.
Rights are functionally just privileges society has deemed important.
Prydania wrote:
As a Canadian? I find Americans and their deep, deep distrust of the government to be fundamentally, critically, laughably flawed. I find some aspects of your country completely absurd. The distrust of anything remotely resembling authority is one. The gun problem that stems from that is another.

Seangoli wrote:You are spouting nonsensical drivel with no coherent thought, little logic, and at the end of it all just angry opining at the clouds based on a truly astonishly low level of knowledge or understanding of the subject matter.

0% Capitalism

User avatar
Kaystein
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby Kaystein » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:14 am

Kowani wrote:
Kaystein wrote:Society is partially to blame. One really good example I can think of is why can't we make our schools teach teenagers about this stuff? Oh wait, we're too busy appropriating half the national budget on "defense" to fund education correctly. We barely have enough money going to public schools to cover common core studies, damn it all.

Another example, what about parental responsibility? Oh wait, parents are too busy staring at their smartphones to care about teaching their children anything.

Society and the families fail to instill good senses in these people, and some blame needs to fall on those shoulders appropriately when these people drink while pregnant.

Don’t forget that certain people still shriek with outrage about teaching the kids anything remotely related to sex.


They need to have gag-balls locked around their mouths whenever they decide to yap like that. Ironically punish them while educating them about something at the same time. Burst their little bubble worlds.

User avatar
Kowani
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13914
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:23 am

Kaystein wrote:
Kowani wrote:Don’t forget that certain people still shriek with outrage about teaching the kids anything remotely related to sex.


They need to have gag-balls locked around their mouths whenever they decide to yap like that. Ironically punish them while educating them about something at the same time. Burst their little bubble worlds.

Hey, I’m not gonna argue with you.
Narcissistic (Hedonistic) Nihilist. Yes, I am edgy. I know.
Atheist and still proud of it.
Post-Capitalist, Post-Nationalist.
Rights are functionally just privileges society has deemed important.
Prydania wrote:
As a Canadian? I find Americans and their deep, deep distrust of the government to be fundamentally, critically, laughably flawed. I find some aspects of your country completely absurd. The distrust of anything remotely resembling authority is one. The gun problem that stems from that is another.

Seangoli wrote:You are spouting nonsensical drivel with no coherent thought, little logic, and at the end of it all just angry opining at the clouds based on a truly astonishly low level of knowledge or understanding of the subject matter.

0% Capitalism

User avatar
Thepeopl
Envoy
 
Posts: 280
Founded: Feb 24, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Thepeopl » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:26 am

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535399/pregnancy-drinking-during-alcohol-drugs-moms-mothers

Let's recap. Years ago, when it vaguely looked like the law might be on the side of those who drink while pregnant, consensus among those defending them was "well if the fetus is part of her body as per abortion rights, it's part of her body while she's drinking." They deliberately made themselves look like assholes citing a loophole in the law to avoid doing anything that would deter drinking while pregnant.

Now that the law no longer looks like it's on the side of those who drink while pregnant, they've backpedalled to a new talking point; "but those who drink while pregnant will avoid getting prenatal care."

Whatever happened to "you have nothing to fear if nothing to hide?"

Imagine this kind of attitude toward any other form of child abuse. "Oh, if we enact this law, parents who beat the shit out of their children but end up regretting it will be reluctant to take them to the hospital for fear of their child abuse being discovered! Don't you want parents who regret beating the shit out of their children to take them to the hospital?"

Here's a better idea; if you're not ready for children, don't have them. If you do, and the birth defects are proven to be a result of drinking while pregnant, you go straight to jail, you do not pass go, you do not collect $200.

Enough people put away, and either others will get the message, or everyone prone to this will no longer be in a position to get pregnant.


Ok, according to you the Dutch queen should have been imprisoned and never have had more children after her pregnancy of her first.
She was photographed drinking alcohol while pregnant.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathari ... _of_Orange
As you see, the queen has harmed the baby greatly with the use of alcohol, the princess is in a public school getting good grades.

Most people who abuse children, will absolutely not take the risk to bring the abused child to health care.

In the Netherlands we don't criminalise the use of alcohol. We try to explain how the use is bad, and explain that stopping now is always better than keeping the fetus drunk.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/stu ... 1309106667
https://www.netinnederland.nl/en/artike ... cohol.html

All expectant mothers in the Netherlands are welcome in the pre natal care. You go to the midwife as soon as you tested positive for pregnancy and she/ he will see you (in the first trimester) every 4 weeks, refer you to a sonogram, do blood tests etc.
Than the visits to the midwife increase, 3,2 1 week, depending on how anxious you/ the midwife is.
If you are considered to be a high risk pregnancy ( high blood pressure, multiple babies, breech position, abnormal growth of baby) you are referred to an obstetrician.

You make a birth plan, prepare for the baby ( your bed needs to be high enough for the natal help to clean the bed and do your health checks 7 days after birth , yes we get a 7 day nurse in our house) you have the birthing suitcase ready 4 weeks before the safe birthing period just incase the birth starts prematurely, ( safe birthing period is 3 weeks prior and 2 weeks after the expected delivery date).

Which is why about 1 in 500 pregnancies the baby is born without ever having seen a midwife. Those women did not know they where pregnant. (Crypto pregnancy, no obvious pregnancy signs develop during pregnancy)
Last edited by Thepeopl on Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 8788
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:06 am

Thepeopl wrote:
Ok, according to you the Dutch queen should have been imprisoned and never have had more children after her pregnancy of her first.
She was photographed drinking alcohol while pregnant.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathari ... _of_Orange
As you see, the queen has harmed the baby greatly with the use of alcohol, the princess is in a public school getting good grades.

Most people who abuse children, will absolutely not take the risk to bring the abused child to health care.

In the Netherlands we don't criminalise the use of alcohol. We try to explain how the use is bad, and explain that stopping now is always better than keeping the fetus drunk.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/stu ... 1309106667
https://www.netinnederland.nl/en/artike ... cohol.html

All expectant mothers in the Netherlands are welcome in the pre natal care. You go to the midwife as soon as you tested positive for pregnancy and she/ he will see you (in the first trimester) every 4 weeks, refer you to a sonogram, do blood tests etc.
Than the visits to the midwife increase, 3,2 1 week, depending on how anxious you/ the midwife is.
If you are considered to be a high risk pregnancy ( high blood pressure, multiple babies, breech position, abnormal growth of baby) you are referred to an obstetrician.

You make a birth plan, prepare for the baby ( your bed needs to be high enough for the natal help to clean the bed and do your health checks 7 days after birth , yes we get a 7 day nurse in our house) you have the birthing suitcase ready 4 weeks before the safe birthing period just incase the birth starts prematurely, ( safe birthing period is 3 weeks prior and 2 weeks after the expected delivery date).

Which is why about 1 in 500 pregnancies the baby is born without ever having seen a midwife. Those women did not know they where pregnant. (Crypto pregnancy, no obvious pregnancy signs develop during pregnancy)

I agree with all this.

If pregnant women are criminalised, they are less likely to seek care. If women using drugs or alcohol feel their midwife may report them, they may avoid medical care (54.4% in the linked study), leading to negative outcomes for the resulting offspring and the mother.

Yes, the risks of drinking (and up to 30% of women do have a drink during pregnancy) should be explained in clear language; detoxing should be freely offered to drug addicts and alcoholics.

But prosecution not only lowers the quality of care pregnant women -- and, consequently, their foetus -- receive (important, should the foetus be born), it also violates the rights of the woman over her own body, subjugating her to the foetus (something that must never be allowed), makes medical professionals into an arm of the police (which violates their ethical duty to put their patients first -- their patient is the woman, not the foetus), and risks criminalising women in more than alcohol and drugs.

And, before I'm accused of using a slippery slope argument:

Certainly not. Proven history.

Using the guise of foetal personhood, pregnant women's freedoms have already been restricted and women have already been charged with crimes:
Sixty- eight cases involved women who experienced miscarriage, stillbirth, or infant death. In all but six cases, prosecutors attributed the loss entirely to actions or inactions that occurred during the woman’s pregnancy. In forty- eight of those cases, women were charged under ,variations of the state’s homicide laws, including such crimes as feticide. manslaughter, reckless homicide, homicide by child abuse, and first-degree murder. In four cases in which a woman’s actions were described as inducing a self-abortion, she was also charged under murder or manslaughter statutes.


Of women who were forcibly hospitalised:
These include a pregnant woman who had been in a location while pregnant that exposed her unborn child to dangerous “fumes that permeate in the air,” and another case in which the woman did not follow her doctor’s medical advice to rest during her pregnancy and did not get to the hospital quickly enough on the day of delivery.
[...]
Sixteen percent of the cases (n = 65) involved no allegation that the woman had used an illegal, criminalized drug. These include cases in which women were deprived of their liberty based on claims that they had not obtained prenatal care, had mental illness, or had gestational diabetes, or because they had suffered a pregnancy loss. In fifteen of these cases alcohol was the only drug mentioned. Thirty of these cases involved efforts to force women to submit without consent to medical interventions. These forced interventions included pregnant women who had diabetes or sought to have a vaginal birth and refused to undergo cesarean surgery or other surgical intervention, those who refused to submit to a blood transfusion, and one who refused to allow a public health nurse who had been appointed as a guardian ad litem for the fetus to monitor the pregnancy, “check on the welfare of the unborn child,” and provide any medical services that the nurse deemed necessary (Sealey 2001). In eight cases pregnant women were alleged to have self- induced an abortion46 that the state claimed violated the state’s abortion laws. In two cases state action was used to detain women who expressed an intention to have an abortion, and in one of those the woman’s incarceration prevented her from having an abortion.


So, yes.

People shouldn't drink while pregnant. Society also shouldn't criminalise those that do, and -- if it does -- shouldn't be surprised when even people with nothing to hide are deterred from seeking medical care.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:12 am, edited 3 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Page
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10006
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Page » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:12 am

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:
Whatever happened to "you have nothing to fear if nothing to hide?"


That's bullshit in every context.
I am a libertarian socialist.
I am ungovernable.
I owe no allegiance to any state.
I am bound to my conscience, not to the law.
I stand for liberty, justice, and peace.

User avatar
Bluelight-R006
Senator
 
Posts: 4036
Founded: Mar 31, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bluelight-R006 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:15 am

People who drink while being pregnant shouldn’t be taking care of children. Settle that issue down first before you are actually ready to have children.
Last edited by Bluelight-R006 on Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 8788
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:20 am

Bluelight-R006 wrote:People who drink while being pregnant shouldn’t be taking care of children. Settle that issue down first before you are actually ready to have children.

Yes, that one glass of champagne at a friend's wedding proves a person totally unsuitable to be taking care of children :roll:

Even the NHS' guidelines state 1-2 units a week are alright (though it's best not to drink at all, and pregnant women should never get drunk)
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Thepeopl
Envoy
 
Posts: 280
Founded: Feb 24, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Thepeopl » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:22 am

Bluelight-R006 wrote:People who drink while being pregnant shouldn’t be taking care of children. Settle that issue down first before you are actually ready to have children.

Does that include the father?

User avatar
Bluelight-R006
Senator
 
Posts: 4036
Founded: Mar 31, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bluelight-R006 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:28 am

The Free Joy State wrote:
Bluelight-R006 wrote:People who drink while being pregnant shouldn’t be taking care of children. Settle that issue down first before you are actually ready to have children.

Yes, that one glass of champagne at a friend's wedding proves a person totally unsuitable to be taking care of children :roll:

Even the NHS' guidelines state 1-2 units a week are alright (though it's best not to drink at all, and pregnant women should never get drunk)

One glass of champagne is obviously acceptable. Though constant, regular daily drinking would have a negative impact on the child. You could get addicted, and it’s best as a precaution to avoid it mostly.
Last edited by Bluelight-R006 on Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Forsher
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16566
Founded: Jan 30, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Forsher » Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:23 am

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535399/pregnancy-drinking-during-alcohol-drugs-moms-mothers

Let's recap. Years ago, when it vaguely looked like the law might be on the side of those who drink while pregnant, consensus among those defending them was "well if the fetus is part of her body as per abortion rights, it's part of her body while she's drinking." They deliberately made themselves look like assholes citing a loophole in the law to avoid doing anything that would deter drinking while pregnant.


It's a logically coherent point.

I mean, if what you're really saying is that having principles and respecting them makes one an "asshole" I think we've found the problem with modern politics. :)

Now that the law no longer looks like it's on the side of those who drink while pregnant, they've backpedalled to a new talking point; "but those who drink while pregnant will avoid getting prenatal care."


Yes... this is called what you're supposed to do.

New data, new opinion.

Or are you actually trying to say that people should ignore... evidence? :blink:

Whatever happened to "you have nothing to fear if nothing to hide?"


A controversial statement. People have never widely accepted this logic.

Imagine this kind of attitude toward any other form of child abuse. "Oh, if we enact this law, parents who beat the shit out of their children but end up regretting it will be reluctant to take them to the hospital for fear of their child abuse being discovered! Don't you want parents who regret beating the shit out of their children to take them to the hospital?"


Well... what's your real interest here? Better outcomes for the children or punishing the parents? Because the logic of the article you quoted is "we tried to be dicks to bad people to make the kiddies better, but the kiddies got worse".

Won't anyone think of the children!? :rofl:
That it Could be What it Is, Is What it Is

User avatar
Estanglia
Minister
 
Posts: 2107
Founded: Dec 31, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Estanglia » Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:35 am

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535399/pregnancy-drinking-during-alcohol-drugs-moms-mothers

Let's recap. Years ago, when it vaguely looked like the law might be on the side of those who drink while pregnant, consensus among those defending them was "well if the fetus is part of her body as per abortion rights, it's part of her body while she's drinking." They deliberately made themselves look like assholes citing a loophole in the law to avoid doing anything that would deter drinking while pregnant.


Assholes, maybe, but it's not a loophole in the law if the whole point of the law is that women get to control their body, and the argument used is that women get to control their body.

Whatever happened to "you have nothing to fear if nothing to hide?"


An absolutely shit argument.
Yeah: Most of capitalism, some of socialism, egalitarianism, equality
Meh: Brexit, the EU, the UN
Nah: Some of capitalism, most of socialism, discrimination, justifying discrimination, authoritarianism

Political compass test:
Economic Left/Right: -0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.9

8 Values.


Torrocca wrote:"Your honor, it was not mein fault! I didn't order the systematic genocide of millions of people, it was the twenty kilograms of pure-cut Bavarian cocaine that did it!"

User avatar
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha
Minister
 
Posts: 2677
Founded: Apr 05, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:37 am

Thepeopl wrote:
Bluelight-R006 wrote:People who drink while being pregnant shouldn’t be taking care of children. Settle that issue down first before you are actually ready to have children.

Does that include the father?

False equivalence. Alcohol in his system doesn't flow through the fetus.

You know, maybe if we made laws protecting women who seek pre-natal care and made it prosecutable to give birth to a child with fetal alcohol syndrome whether the woman did or didn't seek pre-natal care with the sentences higher for women who didn't, that might be a better deterrent.

Still, seems odd we're more lenient on this than anything else. In what other crimes do we give a shit about criminals' "motives," at least to the point of making something unprosecutable?
Last edited by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha on Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Iridencia wrote:Inept people always decry pragmatic choices as "cowardly" because they know they're not smart enough to play on that level.

User avatar
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha
Minister
 
Posts: 2677
Founded: Apr 05, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:40 am

Forsher wrote:Yes... this is called what you're supposed to do.

New data, new opinion.

Or are you actually trying to say that people should ignore... evidence? :blink:

No, I'm saying that voicing the same opinion, yet changing their "reasons" for their opinion, raises questions about the sincerity of their opinions.
Iridencia wrote:Inept people always decry pragmatic choices as "cowardly" because they know they're not smart enough to play on that level.

User avatar
Forsher
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16566
Founded: Jan 30, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Forsher » Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:04 am

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:
Forsher wrote:Yes... this is called what you're supposed to do.

New data, new opinion.

Or are you actually trying to say that people should ignore... evidence? :blink:

No, I'm saying that voicing the same opinion, yet changing their "reasons" for their opinion, raises questions about the sincerity of their opinions.


No, you're not. (What you intend and what your text means are two different things.)

And if you think you are saying that then you haven't understood your source correctly.
That it Could be What it Is, Is What it Is

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 56689
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:20 am

An individual's actions are their individual responsibility, but we are not just isolated individuals. Our actions are conditioned historically, socially, culturally and economically, and that's worth talking about. It's worth analysing collective phenomena like this one to find their underlying causes and deal with them.
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha
Minister
 
Posts: 2677
Founded: Apr 05, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:41 am

Kowani wrote:
Kaystein wrote:Society is partially to blame. One really good example I can think of is why can't we make our schools teach teenagers about this stuff? Oh wait, we're too busy appropriating half the national budget on "defense" to fund education correctly. We barely have enough money going to public schools to cover common core studies, damn it all.

Another example, what about parental responsibility? Oh wait, parents are too busy staring at their smartphones to care about teaching their children anything.

Society and the families fail to instill good senses in these people, and some blame needs to fall on those shoulders appropriately when these people drink while pregnant.

Don’t forget that certain people still shriek with outrage about teaching the kids anything remotely related to sex.

This sort of thing is not limited to places with abstinence-only sex ed. Some people just don't care.
Iridencia wrote:Inept people always decry pragmatic choices as "cowardly" because they know they're not smart enough to play on that level.

User avatar
Aclion
Senator
 
Posts: 4221
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Aclion » Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:42 am

Kaystein wrote:Society is partially to blame. One really good example I can think of is why can't we make our schools teach teenagers about this stuff? Oh wait, we're too busy appropriating half the national budget on "defense" to fund education correctly. We barely have enough money going to public schools to cover common core studies, damn it all.

First, We only spend 16% of the national budget on defense. That talking point you're using ignores 2/3rds of federal spending.
Second, we spend more per pupil then all other countries other then Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland and Austria.
We can talk about the problems with US education, but pretending that problem is military funding is simply a lie.
Last edited by Aclion on Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
A free society rests on four boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO Knight
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

It is the citizen's duty to understand which box to use, and when.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 59571
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:45 am

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:
Thepeopl wrote:Does that include the father?

False equivalence. Alcohol in his system doesn't flow through the fetus.

It's actually worth note that this is not clear cut as you would assume.

Have an interesting read:

https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20160517 ... y-health#1

Here’s how: Age and unhealthy habits cause changes to a man’s genes. Although scientists don’t yet fully understand how it happens, these changes are then passed on to his kids -- perhaps even his grandchildren. For example, a man’s obesity may affect his genes in a way that makes his children more likely to be obese. Or tobacco smoke may damage a man’s sperm, allowing it to pass on potentially harmful genes to his children.

Most of the studies were able to show only a link between the two and didn’t prove one causes the other. Absolute risks of birth defects and other issues remain low for any one child, and researchers still believe Mom’s health while pregnant has a much stronger effect on their children's health.

“These findings emphasize the fact that the interplay between nature and nurture -- genetics and the environment -- are far more complex than previously appreciated,” says Andrew Adesman, MD, chief of developmental and behavioral pediatrics at Cohen Children's Medical Center of New York. Adesman was not involved in the review.

....

Diet
Obese men are more likely to father children who face a higher risk for obesity. Their children are also more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes, an abnormal metabolism, and certain cancers. This may happen because obesity and poor nutrition cause changes in certain genes directly linked to these conditions.

On the other hand, Kitlinska says, men who had a lack of food as children often have kids -- even grandchildren -- who appear protected against both heart disease and diabetes.

Alcohol
As many as 3 out of 4 children diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders have alcoholic fathers. Children with these disorders may have low birth weight, impaired brain development, and learning disabilities.

“With alcohol and many other exposures, it’s been believed that it’s mainly mothers who influence the children directly,” says Kitlinska, whose review challenges that notion.

But, the review says, ongoing alcohol use by a father can affect a child’s genes even if the mother does not drink alcohol before or during pregnancy. Those changes, in turn, could result in a child being born with symptoms of a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

Too Much Stress
Fathers with high stress levels may have children who develop behavior problems as a result, animal studies suggest. In those studies, ongoing stress appeared to alter certain genes that were passed on to offspring in mice. Human studies need to be done to confirm and better understand the role of paternal stress.

Limited Research
The review notes there hasn’t been much research in this field, and there may be some limitations. For instance, many studies failed to take into account both paternal and maternal factors in influencing a child’s health.

“The combined effects of both parents may have varying degrees of influence,” researchers write, and the interplay needs to be studied. Also, the researchers say, the studies couldn’t pinpoint whether gene changes were the only cause of a certain characteristic or health problem.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha
Minister
 
Posts: 2677
Founded: Apr 05, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:03 am

Galloism wrote:It's actually worth note that this is not clear cut as you would assume.

Have an interesting read:

https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20160517 ... y-health#1

So this is about the genes, in other words. Not about drinking while the woman you happened to impregnate is pregnant.

So it's less analogous to drinking while pregnant and more analogous to reproducing while having inferior genes. Whether you had inferior genes as a result of drinking or already had inferior genes before drinking, the result is still the same: you still have inferior genes. And yet people don't support prohibiting those with inferior genes from breeding either, as that's then considered "eugenics." Personally, I'm all for eugenics, but the point relevant to this topic is I don't speak for popular opinion, and it's popular opinion that will carry the day on what to do about drinking during pregnancy.

Anyway, if the man's obese, I'd be pushing for a paternity test anyway. I doubt the kid's all that likely to be his.

High stress levels, on the other hand, kind of come with the territory of having a job that pays well enough that one can afford one's child support bills.
Iridencia wrote:Inept people always decry pragmatic choices as "cowardly" because they know they're not smart enough to play on that level.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 59571
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:15 am

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Personally, I'm all for eugenics,

It's so rare for people to admit this in public.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Rojava Free State
Senator
 
Posts: 3769
Founded: Feb 06, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Rojava Free State » Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:16 am

If you drink while pregnant after we all told you not to, if anything happens to the baby then it's your fault

It's like if I get behind the wheel while drunk after you begged me not to and I end up crashing into a propane trunk, detonating it and taking out an entire intersection full of people. It's my fault
Last edited by Rojava Free State on Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
political compass:

Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.38
pro: marijuana, gun rights, private property, and sexy brown women

anti: fascism, communism, islamism, sexism, pan africanism, La raza, Warren Police Department (and most of the other police departments of metro Detroit except for Auburn Hills. They're aight), gun control, trump, obama, bush, clinton, reagan, carter, chipotle and snotty in crowd teens. Ugh I can't deal with them
Half Lebanese, Half Puerto Rican. All american. Not Kurdish at all.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aclion, American Princedoms, Arkhane, Bloodshade, Bombadil, Carstantinopipal, Cekoviu, Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia, Darussalam, Dooom35796821595, Dresderstan, Eternal Lotharia, FelrikTheDeleted, Forumland, G-Tech Corporation, Galloism, Greater Miami Shores, Imperium of The Huron, Ism, Jack Thomas Lang, Jean-Paul Sartre, Kubra, LiberNovusAmericae, Madagascarian Zealand, Majestic-12 [Bot], Neanderthaland, New haven america, Othelos, Purgatio, Samudera Darussalam, Telconi, The Wasatch, Vectrova, Yanitza, Zurkerx

Advertisement

Remove ads