Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Endangering the unborn

1235

Posts

  • AegeriAegeri Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Aegeri wrote: »
    trimming the quote tree
    Drinking lots of alcohol over a long period of time will certainly screw up your fetus. That's a course of action that will definitely be harmful.

    See paper above.
    On the other hand, every time you eat raw shellfish you entail a risk of screwing up your fetus. Every time you do anything, any time, there is a risk of screwing up your fetus. It's not really preventable.

    See below.
    So, drinking to excess on a regular basis will almost certainly cause damage to your child. However, eating shellfish on occasion is a course of action with a hugely lower risk of hurting your child.

    Not really:
    Approximately 2500 severe infections and 500 deaths due to listeriosis occur annually, and it is second only to salmonellosis in fatalities related to food-borne illness in the USA

    Ogunmodede et al (2005). Listeriosis prevention knowledge among pregnant women in the USA. Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology, March 2005; 13(1): 11–15.

    Huh, so we have the second largest foodborne illness and second most lethal in the United States, vs. a disease that is reported in less than 1.8/1000 births and I don't really have to put in the obvious that you don't have a clue what you are talking about right?
    Ergo, the first is worse then the second, and the two situations aren't comparable.

    Yes, they are. In fact, you can't even have a leg to stand on after the first paper. Is FAS really that bad being 1.8/1000 births? Really? I mean REALLY?

    Or are you picking a convenient target?
    Of course, I don't know the exact infection rates for obscure bacteria #32605, not being a biologist.

    I know you aren't a biologist, you don't have to state this.

  • AegeriAegeri Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Aegeri wrote: »
    AngrySpoon wrote: »
    You keep spouting nonsense. The entire reason we have laws is because, guess what? Not everyone makes the right decisions all the time, and often the wrong decisions are detrimental to others.

    Except a fetus isn't legally a person and this is about controlling what someone is doing to their own body, with substances that are not legal. Ergo, if you want to argue this now, before you accuse others of spouting 'nonsense', you're going to have to legally support the argument. I think you'll find that the law isn't behind you on this point as a fetus isn't a person.

    But again, we don't need laws because a great many women are responsible, exercise their rights appropriately and do actually genuinely care if their fetus grows properly. Believe it or not, that does mean they can in fact do things like have the occasional drink and similar. The taking of what is actually a fairly small minority and then saying we should ban this, when I would estimate the vast majority of women have more brains than you are willing to grant them and can choose to exercise their own rights to do things with their own fucking body is what's complete nonsense here.

    For example, as I love papers from the literature because it just proves my point:
    RESULTS: A total of 837 pregnant women have described all parameters. The mean age at delivery of our sample was 29.7 years (SD = 4.8 years). A total of 52.2% of women indicated that they had consumed alcohol at least once during their pregnancy, and among abstainers 54.5% had a positive AUDIT score. Of the pregnant women who consumed alcohol, 13.7% reported at least one binge drinking episode (5 or more drinks on 1 occasion) during pregnancy. Binge drinking is significantly more frequent than regular alcohol consumption (at least 1 drink more than 1 time per week) during pregnancy. A prevalence rate of FAS of 1.8 per 1,000 live births was observed.

    Oh look. Stats back me up. Most women they surveyed have drunk some alcohol during pregnancy (52%) and yet there is only a really tiny percentage of babies born with FAS.

    Wow, we sure are taking what isn't a significant problem for the vast majority of women giving birth and trying to make it a blanket ban or anything.

    Oh.

    Wait.

    de Chazeron I, Llorca PM, Ughetto S, Vendittelli F, Boussiron D, Sapin V, Coudore F, Lemery D (2008). Is pregnancy the time to change alcohol consumption habits in France? Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008 May;32(5):868-73. Epub 2008 Mar 27.

    So we shouldn't ban the occasional drink. That's a stupid idea.

    Read the paper. Then call it stupid after you can present a rational opinion, that is based on what experts in the field (IE, see the paper) think on the subject and have written.

    You can also address the quote any time chuckles. 52% of the women they approached said they had the odd drink and yet, the overall rates of FAS is 0.18%. This is surely a plague and clearly we should be incensed.

    Edit: Also, it clearly shows that women aren't half as stupid as you continue to argue. Even without a ban on alcohol there isn't rampant FAS everywhere, as a rate of 1.8 cases per 1000 births would indicate. Please do keep dodging the statistics though, it's getting amusing.

  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2008
    Personally, I do think that alcohol, cigarettes, and other substances that are explicitly harmful to unborn children should be banned from sale to pregnant women (currently, they are not).

    Yeah, must have mis-read that. *snrk*

    I'm saying you misread the other post that you apparently think is me refuting a ban. I never said in any of my posts that I didn't want a ban. All I'm saying is that I personally don't know how to implement a ban.

    Nor how to justify one, apparently. You could make pregnant women wear badges on all their clothes to identify them as pregnant, so that shopkeeps know not to sell them things that you don't think pregnant women should be allowed to possess.

    Edit: Little gold baby patches or something.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • Crimson KingCrimson King we need no grave to bury honesty there's not a grain of it the face to sweeten of the whole dungy earthRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    trimming the quote tree
    Drinking lots of alcohol over a long period of time will certainly screw up your fetus. That's a course of action that will definitely be harmful.

    See paper above.

    This would be the paper that shows that one binge drinking episode per pregnancy won't inevitably lead to FAS, while saying nothing about the effects of something like one binge drinking session per week. The latter being an example of drinking lots of alcohol over a long period of time.

    And, hey, I notice you didn't address the last part of my statement. Basically, it said that I'm opposed to excessive alcohol drinking over a long period of time because I already know about that one. I didn't know about the shellfish thing. Now I do. If you can show that it's as likely to lead to deformed fetii as excessive alcohol drinking over a long period of time, I will also become opposed to it. However, I'm not going to go around thinking that pregnant women who eat shellfish are bad people, because they probably don't know about it either.

    DS: 4742 - 6001 - 2106 add me to your friend safaris
  • AngrySpoonAngrySpoon Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Aegeri wrote:
    yet, the overall rates of FAS is 0.18%. This is surely a plague and clearly we should be incensed.

    Edit: Also, it clearly shows that women aren't half as stupid as you continue to argue. Even without a ban on alcohol there isn't rampant FAS everywhere, as a rate of 1.8 cases per 1000 births would indicate. Please do keep dodging the statistics though, it's getting amusing.

    Really its gotten to the point where the only one i'd call stupid is you. I don't even know what to say to you anymore as you seem to live in your own magical little world. No one has said or implied women are stupid in any way, let alone argued it. Also, just because there is a low percentage of something happening, does not mean that it shouldn't be illegal in the hopes of lowering that rate even more.

  • Crimson KingCrimson King we need no grave to bury honesty there's not a grain of it the face to sweeten of the whole dungy earthRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Aegeri wrote: »
    the odd drink
    excessive drinking over a long period of time

    DS: 4742 - 6001 - 2106 add me to your friend safaris
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt Damn you, eidetic memory! Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    AngrySpoon wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote:
    yet, the overall rates of FAS is 0.18%. This is surely a plague and clearly we should be incensed.

    Edit: Also, it clearly shows that women aren't half as stupid as you continue to argue. Even without a ban on alcohol there isn't rampant FAS everywhere, as a rate of 1.8 cases per 1000 births would indicate. Please do keep dodging the statistics though, it's getting amusing.

    Really its gotten to the point where the only one i'd call stupid is you. I don't even know what to say to you anymore as you seem to live in your own magical little world. No one has said or implied women are stupid in any way, let alone argued it. Also, just because there is a low percentage of something happening, does not mean that it shouldn't be illegal in the hopes of lowering that rate even more.


    So... what exactly are you advocating? That pregnant women who drink should be thrown in jail? Or that if I'm the register jockey at a liquor store, and I sell a woman a fifth of vodka, I should be thrown in jail, even if she isn't far along enough to be showing? Or should there be an ultrasound machine next to the register, and _every_ woman buying booze needs to take a turn under that before I can sell to them?

    Origin ID: Null_Cypher
    Thomas-Vail.png
  • AegeriAegeri Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    trimming the quote tree
    Drinking lots of alcohol over a long period of time will certainly screw up your fetus. That's a course of action that will definitely be harmful.

    See paper above.

    This would be the paper that shows that one binge drinking episode per pregnancy won't inevitably lead to FAS, while saying nothing about the effects of something like one binge drinking session per week. The latter being an example of drinking lots of alcohol over a long period of time.

    You like not reading what the paper wrote don't you?

    Also, why don't you address the statistics given, the key part. Did you ignore that only 1.8 cases of FAS are reported per 1000 births. Is this not significant because you're railing against something that isn't anywhere near the problem you are overblowing it out to?
    Basically, it said that I'm opposed to excessive alcohol drinking over a long period of time because I already know about that one.

    How about 1.8 cases of FAS per 1000 births?

    How about that one?

    Let's say France isn't a country, would stats from the United States make you happier?
    The more broadly defined Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder (FASD) is also completely preventable. Current Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data reports FASD rates varying from 0.2 to 1.5/1000 live births2 depending on surveillance methods and the population studied.

    Oh look 0.2 to 1.5/1000 births.

    CLEARLY THE HOLOCAUST OF THE FETUSES BY WOMEN DRINKING IRRESPONSIBLY BEGINS.

    BAN ALCOHOL IMMEDIATELY!!!

    THEY ARE MURDERING THE FUTURE GENERATION AT A RATE OF 0.002 to 0.15% OF THE POTENTIAL PERSON POPULATION PER 1000 BIRTHS!!!

    PANIC !!!

    DRAMA!!!

    SAYING SHIT ABOUT THINGS WE KNOW FUCK ALL ABOUT.

    Is this clear to you ?

    O Awopetu, M Brimacombe, D Cohen (2008). FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME DISORDER PILOT MEDIA INTERVENTION IN NEW JERSEY. Can J Clin Pharmacol Vol 15 (1) Winter 2008:e124-e131; February 26, 2008.

    So there we go. If you gain your intelligence any time soon and can explain why what must be an extremely small subset of women drink enough to give FAS to a tiny majority of births per year, warrants banning the majority of women who evidently can think for themselves responsibly, get back to me.

  • Crimson KingCrimson King we need no grave to bury honesty there's not a grain of it the face to sweeten of the whole dungy earthRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    what gabriel said, screwed up the quote

    Nothing, since there's no realistic way of instituting such a ban. I've said this a few times.

    DS: 4742 - 6001 - 2106 add me to your friend safaris
  • AngrySpoonAngrySpoon Registered User
    edited May 2008
    AngrySpoon wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote:
    yet, the overall rates of FAS is 0.18%. This is surely a plague and clearly we should be incensed.

    Edit: Also, it clearly shows that women aren't half as stupid as you continue to argue. Even without a ban on alcohol there isn't rampant FAS everywhere, as a rate of 1.8 cases per 1000 births would indicate. Please do keep dodging the statistics though, it's getting amusing.

    Really its gotten to the point where the only one i'd call stupid is you. I don't even know what to say to you anymore as you seem to live in your own magical little world. No one has said or implied women are stupid in any way, let alone argued it. Also, just because there is a low percentage of something happening, does not mean that it shouldn't be illegal in the hopes of lowering that rate even more.


    So... what exactly are you advocating? That pregnant women who drink should be thrown in jail? Or that if I'm the register jockey at a liquor store, and I sell a woman a fifth of vodka, I should be thrown in jail, even if she isn't far along enough to be showing? Or should there be an ultrasound machine next to the register, and _every_ woman buying booze needs to take a turn under that before I can sell to them?
    Well, quoting myself from further up the page, this

    "In none of my earlier posts did I argue for either a fetuses rights, or that pregnant women shouldn't be allowed to drink at all while pregnant. In fact I stated it didn't matter what they did while pregnant, as long as they aborted the fetus at some point, because I also agree with the fact that they have no rights. But as soon as the baby is born, and it has a condition that can be tied directly to something harmful and avoidable the mother has done while pregnant, she has taken actions that have harmed another human being, one which has rights."
    and from the last page
    "But once the child is born we need to do whatever is best for its welfare.
    edit: and to a lesser extent to deter the mother from doing it again, which as I stated above is probably best done through education and counseling."

  • AegeriAegeri Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    AngrySpoon wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote:
    yet, the overall rates of FAS is 0.18%. This is surely a plague and clearly we should be incensed.

    Edit: Also, it clearly shows that women aren't half as stupid as you continue to argue. Even without a ban on alcohol there isn't rampant FAS everywhere, as a rate of 1.8 cases per 1000 births would indicate. Please do keep dodging the statistics though, it's getting amusing.

    Really its gotten to the point where the only one i'd call stupid is you.

    From quoting actual statistics from an actual journal, written by actual medical professionals who have actually studied a disorder you clearly know nothing about?
    Also, just because there is a low percentage of something happening, does not mean that it shouldn't be illegal in the hopes of lowering that rate even more.

    Lowering a 0.2, 0.15 and 0.001 rate even more, by punishing the vast majority of people who clearly can have the odd drink responsibly?

    Do you have any idea how absurd you sound? You've got no grip on reality now.

    Why pick FAS and not shellfish poisoning, which is both more common, more devastating to the fetus and not something that is clearly not at a significant level in the population to indicate such over the top hysteria as your posts come out as?

  • AegeriAegeri Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    what gabriel said, screwed up the quote

    Nothing, since there's no realistic way of instituting such a ban. I've said this a few times.

    And as papers from the peer reviewed medical literature indicate, there is nothing to warrant such a ban either.

    Edit: and for those cases that do persist, none of the medical literature recommends bans on alcohol either. Funny that. I guess these people with PhDs who actually study things and read about what they are talking about, instead of talking pure shit, really do deserve to be considered experts. They universally recommend awareness and education campaigns, but shucks, those things rely on women being intelligent and we can't rely on that.

    Surely?

  • AngrySpoonAngrySpoon Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    trimming the quote tree
    Drinking lots of alcohol over a long period of time will certainly screw up your fetus. That's a course of action that will definitely be harmful.

    See paper above.

    This would be the paper that shows that one binge drinking episode per pregnancy won't inevitably lead to FAS, while saying nothing about the effects of something like one binge drinking session per week. The latter being an example of drinking lots of alcohol over a long period of time.

    You like not reading what the paper wrote don't you?

    Also, why don't you address the statistics given, the key part. Did you ignore that only 1.8 cases of FAS are reported per 1000 births. Is this not significant because you're railing against something that isn't anywhere near the problem you are overblowing it out to?
    Basically, it said that I'm opposed to excessive alcohol drinking over a long period of time because I already know about that one.

    How about 1.8 cases of FAS per 1000 births?

    How about that one?

    Let's say France isn't a country, would stats from the United States make you happier?
    The more broadly defined Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder (FASD) is also completely preventable. Current Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data reports FASD rates varying from 0.2 to 1.5/1000 live births2 depending on surveillance methods and the population studied.

    Oh look 0.2 to 1.5/1000 births.

    CLEARLY THE HOLOCAUST OF THE FETUSES BY WOMEN DRINKING IRRESPONSIBLY BEGINS.

    BAN ALCOHOL IMMEDIATELY!!!

    THEY ARE MURDERING THE FUTURE GENERATION AT A RATE OF 0.002 to 0.15% OF THE POTENTIAL PERSON POPULATION PER 1000 BIRTHS!!!

    PANIC !!!

    DRAMA!!!

    SAYING SHIT ABOUT THINGS WE KNOW FUCK ALL ABOUT.

    Is this clear to you ?

    O Awopetu, M Brimacombe, D Cohen (2008). FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME DISORDER PILOT MEDIA INTERVENTION IN NEW JERSEY. Can J Clin Pharmacol Vol 15 (1) Winter 2008:e124-e131; February 26, 2008.

    So there we go. If you gain your intelligence any time soon and can explain why what must be an extremely small subset of women drink enough to give FAS to a tiny majority of births per year, warrants banning the majority of women who evidently can think for themselves responsibly, get back to me.

    In canada the rate of FAE (fetal alcohol effects) which means the child can have all the same symptoms as FAS, only not quite as severe is 30/1000. 3% is a pretty significant portion of children for something entirely preventable. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fnih-spni/pubs/preg-gros/stop-arret-syndrome/index_e.html
    maybe you should stop getting hysterical about things you dont' seem to know fuck all about either

    edit: and once more no one has said anything about banning pregnant women from drinking alcohol recently and your attempting to put words into peoples mouths to try and make your so called arguments more effective
    in fact looking back you seem to be the only one consistently going on about alcohol bans, making shit up about people saying it.

  • Crimson KingCrimson King we need no grave to bury honesty there's not a grain of it the face to sweeten of the whole dungy earthRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Aegeri wrote: »
    [
    So there we go. If you gain your intelligence any time soon and can explain why what must be an extremely small subset of women drink enough to give FAS to a tiny majority of births per year, warrants banning the majority of women who evidently can think for themselves responsibly, get back to me.

    It's not. Only drinking enough to give your fetus FAS should be banned. Only a very small amount of women drink this much alcohol, and there is no realistic way to implement such a ban. Nevertheless, it would be nice if it could be done. Pregnant women should not be banned from drinking alcohol. Pregnant women should be banned from drinking enough alcohol to give their fetus FAS. Is that clear?

    DS: 4742 - 6001 - 2106 add me to your friend safaris
  • AegeriAegeri Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    AngrySpoon wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    trimming the quote tree
    Drinking lots of alcohol over a long period of time will certainly screw up your fetus. That's a course of action that will definitely be harmful.

    See paper above.

    This would be the paper that shows that one binge drinking episode per pregnancy won't inevitably lead to FAS, while saying nothing about the effects of something like one binge drinking session per week. The latter being an example of drinking lots of alcohol over a long period of time.

    You like not reading what the paper wrote don't you?

    Also, why don't you address the statistics given, the key part. Did you ignore that only 1.8 cases of FAS are reported per 1000 births. Is this not significant because you're railing against something that isn't anywhere near the problem you are overblowing it out to?
    Basically, it said that I'm opposed to excessive alcohol drinking over a long period of time because I already know about that one.

    How about 1.8 cases of FAS per 1000 births?

    How about that one?

    Let's say France isn't a country, would stats from the United States make you happier?
    The more broadly defined Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder (FASD) is also completely preventable. Current Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data reports FASD rates varying from 0.2 to 1.5/1000 live births2 depending on surveillance methods and the population studied.

    Oh look 0.2 to 1.5/1000 births.

    CLEARLY THE HOLOCAUST OF THE FETUSES BY WOMEN DRINKING IRRESPONSIBLY BEGINS.

    BAN ALCOHOL IMMEDIATELY!!!

    THEY ARE MURDERING THE FUTURE GENERATION AT A RATE OF 0.002 to 0.15% OF THE POTENTIAL PERSON POPULATION PER 1000 BIRTHS!!!

    PANIC !!!

    DRAMA!!!

    SAYING SHIT ABOUT THINGS WE KNOW FUCK ALL ABOUT.

    Is this clear to you ?

    O Awopetu, M Brimacombe, D Cohen (2008). FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME DISORDER PILOT MEDIA INTERVENTION IN NEW JERSEY. Can J Clin Pharmacol Vol 15 (1) Winter 2008:e124-e131; February 26, 2008.

    So there we go. If you gain your intelligence any time soon and can explain why what must be an extremely small subset of women drink enough to give FAS to a tiny majority of births per year, warrants banning the majority of women who evidently can think for themselves responsibly, get back to me.

    In canada the rate of FAE (fetal alcohol effects) which means the child can have all the same symptoms as FAS, only not quite as severe is 30/1000. 3% is a pretty significant portion of children for something entirely preventable. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fnih-spni/pubs/preg-gros/stop-arret-syndrome/index_e.html
    maybe you should stop getting hysterical about things you dont' seem to know fuck all about either

    That refutes the statistics for France and America how exactly?

    Also FAE isn't FAS. Just so you realise you proved my point. FAE is much less severe and if you talk about FAE, talk about FAE, but you've been gibbering off about FAS all thread. So don't act like you've suddenly found some witty comeback to the fact you can't figure out FAE isn't FAS and you can't just decide you're right about FAS because you find statistics about FAE (which is not the same thing). Please use terms correctly, if you've been talking about FAE and not FAS, we'll talk about FAE.

    Edit: This still isn't significant enough either. Again, the vasty majority of women (97% in this scenario) are still completely responsible enough to exercise their rights and not manage to require a ban to stop them killing their kids (which they actually aren't).

  • Crimson KingCrimson King we need no grave to bury honesty there's not a grain of it the face to sweeten of the whole dungy earthRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    It's not. Only drinking enough to give your fetus FAS should be banned. Only a very small amount of women drink this much alcohol, and there is no realistic way to implement such a ban. Nevertheless, it would be nice if it could be done. Pregnant women should not be banned from drinking alcohol. Pregnant women should be banned from drinking enough alcohol to give their fetus FAS. Is that clear?

    This got botp'd, and I want to make sure you read it, as it addresses a fundamental misunderstanding here. I also want to take the opportunity to say that my opinion may not be the same as Stalin or Spoon's opinion.

    DS: 4742 - 6001 - 2106 add me to your friend safaris
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    Nova_C wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Still, no one is brainstorming ways to ban pregnant women from travelling or living with their partners! Won't someone think of the fetuses.

    Well, to be fair I wasn't really talking about fetus death resulting from mother death, regardless of the scenario. Unless traveling or their partners can likely result in fetus disability/deforming, it's not really relevant to the thread.

    Pregnancies can miscarry when the mother is injured or traumatised. Surely she would be criminally irresponsible for remaining near such statistically clear sources of potential injury and trauma!

    tmsig.jpg
  • AngrySpoonAngrySpoon Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Aegeri wrote:
    Also FAE isn't FAS. Just so you realise you proved my point.

    Actually, it looks like neither FAE, nor FAS are considered seperate anymore, they are both grouped into the same condition called FASD..So..your point doesn't really exist? also we were just using FAS as an example, and the the thread was about anything purposefully harmful done to the fetus, that carries on to when it is born...So i'm still not sure what point you're trying to make. Other than you really like making straw man arguments.
    edit: and in response to your edit, once more just because the majority of women don't do it, is not a reason for it to be legal. The majority of people are responsible enough to go around without committing various crimes, that doesn't mean the ones who do shouldn't be punished

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    KevinNash wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Still, no one is brainstorming ways to ban pregnant women from travelling or living with their partners! Won't someone think of the fetuses.

    I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "partners" aspect of this argument. Is the epidemic of deadbeat men who beat the crap out of pregnant spouses greater than that of prego women who get loaded or smoke cigarettes? I find that really hard to believe. Regardless that's one individual beating the crap out of another one as opposed to a woman abusing a fetus. Philosophically maybe they are the same (or not at all) but legally there is a distinction here.
    The biggest cause of death in pregnant women is spousal homicide, in the west. Pregnancy is a well known risk factor increasing violence in relationships. It is, in fact, an epidemic of violence, and a way, way bigger danger to women and their pregnancies than eating the wrong foods.

    tmsig.jpg
  • Crimson KingCrimson King we need no grave to bury honesty there's not a grain of it the face to sweeten of the whole dungy earthRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Still, no one is brainstorming ways to ban pregnant women from travelling or living with their partners! Won't someone think of the fetuses.

    I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "partners" aspect of this argument. Is the epidemic of deadbeat men who beat the crap out of pregnant spouses greater than that of prego women who get loaded or smoke cigarettes? I find that really hard to believe. Regardless that's one individual beating the crap out of another one as opposed to a woman abusing a fetus. Philosophically maybe they are the same (or not at all) but legally there is a distinction here.
    The biggest cause of death in pregnant women is spousal homicide, in the west. Pregnancy is a well known risk factor increasing violence in relationships. It is, in fact, an epidemic of violence, and a way, way bigger danger to women and their pregnancies than eating the wrong foods.

    Yes, but the risk entailed to your fetus when you are in a relationship while pregnant is hugely less then the risk entailed to your fetus when you go out and get hammered all weekend.

    DS: 4742 - 6001 - 2106 add me to your friend safaris
  • AegeriAegeri Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    AngrySpoon wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote:
    Also FAE isn't FAS. Just so you realise you proved my point.

    Actually, it looks like neither FAE, nor FAS are considered seperate anymore

    Don't squirm.

    FAS is a serious disorder that affects the entire fetuses development. It results in severe developmental abnormalities, brain damage, stunted growth and a wide array of other defects.

    FAE is when you have partial symptoms of FAS, but the disease isn't severe enough to be called FAS. In FAE, some abnormal developmental disorders are present but the fetus does not display all of them. FAE is also sometimes called Partial Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, but is not FAS.

    Hence the difference.

    Also, I don't know why you think because they are grouped under a single term to describe both that somehow makes you right. In science, we have specific terms for things you realise. There is a difference when you are talking about FAS and FAE (PFAS). Get it right.
    also we were just using FAS as an example

    A terrible one, that is in a horribly minor amount of actual cases and then tried to apply to women in general. Where do you think your point fails horribly in there and I'll give you a hint: it might have to do with the fact it's very rare.
    edit: and in response to your edit, once more just because the majority of women don't do it, is not a reason for it to be legal. The majority of people are responsible enough to go around without committing various crimes, that doesn't mean the ones who do shouldn't be punished

    I propose the same things the papers written by experts do. Education campaigns, awareness and proper health care and reporting of sensitive populations. Ham fisted laws and punishments for non-people harming is legally stupid, something you've dodged since I challenged you originally btw.

  • AegeriAegeri Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Still, no one is brainstorming ways to ban pregnant women from travelling or living with their partners! Won't someone think of the fetuses.

    I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "partners" aspect of this argument. Is the epidemic of deadbeat men who beat the crap out of pregnant spouses greater than that of prego women who get loaded or smoke cigarettes? I find that really hard to believe. Regardless that's one individual beating the crap out of another one as opposed to a woman abusing a fetus. Philosophically maybe they are the same (or not at all) but legally there is a distinction here.
    The biggest cause of death in pregnant women is spousal homicide, in the west. Pregnancy is a well known risk factor increasing violence in relationships. It is, in fact, an epidemic of violence, and a way, way bigger danger to women and their pregnancies than eating the wrong foods.

    But clearly, we should be doing out best to punish 0.2% of women and not actually deal with more important issues.

    Because alcohol is such an easy issue to pick and especially when it can result in a horrible, but relatively rare, disorder that is easy to emotionalise instead of making a coherent argument.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Still, no one is brainstorming ways to ban pregnant women from travelling or living with their partners! Won't someone think of the fetuses.

    I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "partners" aspect of this argument. Is the epidemic of deadbeat men who beat the crap out of pregnant spouses greater than that of prego women who get loaded or smoke cigarettes? I find that really hard to believe. Regardless that's one individual beating the crap out of another one as opposed to a woman abusing a fetus. Philosophically maybe they are the same (or not at all) but legally there is a distinction here.
    The biggest cause of death in pregnant women is spousal homicide, in the west. Pregnancy is a well known risk factor increasing violence in relationships. It is, in fact, an epidemic of violence, and a way, way bigger danger to women and their pregnancies than eating the wrong foods.

    Yes, but the risk entailed to your fetus when you are in a relationship while pregnant is hugely less then the risk entailed to your fetus when you go out and get hammered all weekend.

    That's not an argument, particularly since no-one in here is arguing that 'getting hammered all weekend' carries no risk - the argument has only been about moderate consumption, and if you weren't a retard we'd be able to keep on track far more effectively. The point is that its far more dangerous overall to be in a relationship than to consume alcohol while pregnant. As has been pointed out on the previous pages, even moderately frequent drinkers who binged at least once while pregnant did not increase the FAS rate beyond a teeny tiny percentage of births.

    tmsig.jpg
  • AngrySpoonAngrySpoon Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Aegeri wrote: »
    AngrySpoon wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote:
    Also FAE isn't FAS. Just so you realise you proved my point.

    Actually, it looks like neither FAE, nor FAS are considered seperate anymore

    Don't squirm.

    FAS is a serious disorder that affects the entire fetuses development. It results in severe developmental abnormalities, brain damage, stunted growth and a wide array of other defects.

    FAE is when you have partial symptoms of FAS, but the disease isn't severe enough to be called FAS. In FAE, some abnormal developmental disorders are present but the fetus does not display all of them. FAE is also sometimes called Partial Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, but is not FAS.

    Hence the difference.

    Also, I don't know why you think because they are grouped under a single term to describe both that somehow makes you right. In science, we have specific terms for things you realise. There is a difference when you are talking about FAS and FAE (PFAS). Get it right.
    also we were just using FAS as an example

    A terrible one, that is in a horribly minor amount of actual cases and then tried to apply to women in general. Where do you think your point fails horribly in there and I'll give you a hint: it might have to do with the fact it's very rare.
    edit: and in response to your edit, once more just because the majority of women don't do it, is not a reason for it to be legal. The majority of people are responsible enough to go around without committing various crimes, that doesn't mean the ones who do shouldn't be punished

    I propose the same things the papers written by experts do. Education campaigns, awareness and proper health care and reporting of sensitive populations. Ham fisted laws and punishments for non-people harming is legally stupid, something you've dodged since I challenged you originally btw.

    FAS/FAE are both caused by the same thing, and have the same symptoms, i don't see what your problem is. FAE sufferers can even have worse troubles integrating with society depending on what symptoms they show, and how severe they are.
    http://depts.washington.edu/fasdpn/

    And in regards to your non people crap, in my initial argument and ever since I have argued that punishments would only go into effect once the fetus was born, and became a human with rights, which would mean the mother took actions that harmed a human. If it was aborted before birth, it doesn't matter.
    Sure you could say i've been dodging it, since your saying I said things i never did. Good job there. Most crimes are rare per capita in first world countries, that doesn't make them any less crimes. So I don't see what FAS/FAE/FASD being rare has to do with any arguments.

  • Crimson KingCrimson King we need no grave to bury honesty there's not a grain of it the face to sweeten of the whole dungy earthRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Still, no one is brainstorming ways to ban pregnant women from travelling or living with their partners! Won't someone think of the fetuses.

    I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "partners" aspect of this argument. Is the epidemic of deadbeat men who beat the crap out of pregnant spouses greater than that of prego women who get loaded or smoke cigarettes? I find that really hard to believe. Regardless that's one individual beating the crap out of another one as opposed to a woman abusing a fetus. Philosophically maybe they are the same (or not at all) but legally there is a distinction here.
    The biggest cause of death in pregnant women is spousal homicide, in the west. Pregnancy is a well known risk factor increasing violence in relationships. It is, in fact, an epidemic of violence, and a way, way bigger danger to women and their pregnancies than eating the wrong foods.

    Yes, but the risk entailed to your fetus when you are in a relationship while pregnant is hugely less then the risk entailed to your fetus when you go out and get hammered all weekend.

    That's not an argument, particularly since no-one in here is arguing that 'getting hammered all weekend' carries no risk - the argument has only been about moderate consumption, and if you weren't a retard we'd be able to keep on track far more effectively. The point is that its far more dangerous overall to be in a relationship than to consume alcohol while pregnant. As has been pointed out on the previous pages, even moderately frequent drinkers who binged at least once while pregnant did not increase the FAS rate beyond a teeny tiny percentage of births.

    I've said several times that I'm only referring to excessive consumption, including the very first time I stated my argument.
    Do you, or for that matter anyone in the thread, believe that a woman has a right to drink excessively while pregnant?

    I don't, but I can't think of a way to make it illegal without aforesaid collateral damage.

    So when you responded to me saying that, yes, they do have a right to drink excessively, the argument was not solely about moderate consumption. Other people might be talking about banning all alcohol for pregnant women, but I've never said I agree with that. I have at all times been in favour of banning only excessive consumption. Reading comprehension hurrah!

    DS: 4742 - 6001 - 2106 add me to your friend safaris
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    a) define excessive
    b) tell us how you plan to police this 'excessiveness'

    tmsig.jpg
  • AegeriAegeri Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    AngrySpoon wrote: »
    No, they are both now considered the same condition, just at different severities, that doesn't change the fact that they are the same condition, brought on by the same cause. Take a look around here if you still can't understand it http://depts.washington.edu/fasdpn/

    They are not the same condition:
    This is a third exploration of risk factors for the two most severe forms of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD), fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) and Partial FAS (PFAS)

    May PA, Gossage JP, Marais AS, Hendricks LS, Snell CL, Tabachnick BG, Stellavato C, Buckley DG, Brooke LE, Viljoen DL. Maternal risk factors for fetal alcohol syndrome and partial fetal alcohol syndrome in South Africa: a third study. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008 May;32(5):738-53. Epub 2008 Mar 11.

    You are just making yourself look more and more clueless, but hey, what would scientists and doctors who study the disorder who write about it in medical journals know?
    And in regards to your non people in crap, in my initial argument and ever since I have argued that punishments would only go into effect once the fetus was born, and became a human with rights, which would mean the mother took actions that harmed a human.

    So instead, you just force them pretty much to have an abortion instead?

    So in other words, you still want to just take control of a womans body in the end. Good job, she carries it to term and then is punished for that, or has to go through a medical procedure she may choose later she didn't want to avoid being punished.

    You sure did think this through.
    So I don't see what FAS/FAE/FASD being rare has to do with any arguments.

    Because it is rare and the hysteria you and chuckles have over this just proves that you don't know what you are talking about. Also again,

    FASD = Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.

    FAS = Fetal Alcohol Syndrome a severe form of this spectrum of disorders.

    FAE = Fetal Alcohol Effects a non-severe form of the above with only some abnormalities.

    This is another example:

    Micoorganisms are tiny living organisms.

    Mycobacterium bovis = an environmental organism with a thick lipid rich cell wall.

    Listeria monocytogenes = an environmental organism that commonly lives in seawater and commonly infects fresh seafood.

    Now, saying both the above are microbes is correct. Saying all microbes are Mycobacterium bovis because they are both microorganisms is wrong. The same applies to the first three.

    This is what you are saying. You are saying that FASD is the same as saying FAS and FAE, which is incorrect. FAS and FAE are specific medically diagnosed disorders, they are encompassed under the heading of FASD, but FAS =/ FAE and vice versa. Just the same that just because those two microbes are both microorganisms, they are not the same because they are grouped under the same heading.

    Edit: FAS AND FAE ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

    Are you going to say that because meningitis is caused by microorganisms that all forms of meningitis are the same thing? I pity you if you ever become a doctor, you're going to kill a lot of people.

    Edit2: I forgot that the better example would be autism spectrum disorders. Autism is actually not 'one' universal disorder, but actually a spectrum of different disorders with entirely different effects.

  • Crimson KingCrimson King we need no grave to bury honesty there's not a grain of it the face to sweeten of the whole dungy earthRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    a) define excessive
    b) tell us how you plan to police this 'excessiveness'

    a) Enough so that FAS is a near-certainty.
    b) I don't, it can't realistically be done. Must have said that half a dozen times by now. Magic would be nice.

    DS: 4742 - 6001 - 2106 add me to your friend safaris
  • AegeriAegeri Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    a) define excessive
    b) tell us how you plan to police this 'excessiveness'

    a) Enough so that FAS is a near-certainty.

    I could make your argument for you, but as I seem to be the only one here who actually has taken any term to learn what FAS is and actually fact-check, why don't you go and give a figure for that? You know, actually advance an argument here and then demonstrate how many women this would effect. Then how you would know how a pregnant woman is actually drinking that excessively (fairies and unicorns yes?). Then you can explain why FAS is so important compared to abusive relationships, leaving the house, being hit by a bus and that sort of thing.

  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Still, no one is brainstorming ways to ban pregnant women from travelling or living with their partners! Won't someone think of the fetuses.

    I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "partners" aspect of this argument. Is the epidemic of deadbeat men who beat the crap out of pregnant spouses greater than that of prego women who get loaded or smoke cigarettes? I find that really hard to believe. Regardless that's one individual beating the crap out of another one as opposed to a woman abusing a fetus. Philosophically maybe they are the same (or not at all) but legally there is a distinction here.
    The biggest cause of death in pregnant women is spousal homicide, in the west. Pregnancy is a well known risk factor increasing violence in relationships. It is, in fact, an epidemic of violence, and a way, way bigger danger to women and their pregnancies than eating the wrong foods.


    Your last statement may be true but according to this article your data is skewed a bit. While homicide is a big cause of death it does not appear to be the leading cause, and not all of it is spousal.

    The leading cause of death in pregnant women is "medical complications" which according to this data I'm reading doesn't result from spousal abuse.
    "Studies in recent years have found that outside of medical complications, homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women."
    Experts say that while pregnant women are more commonly targeted by men -- particularly spouses, boyfriends or exes -- they also need to be wary of other women.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/Story?id=522184&page=1

    That doesn't make the revelation that men murder pregnant partners any less horrific but this picture you're painting isn't reasonable and your claim isn't true.

    And as I said above I don't care what women do with their bodies while pregnant or otherwise and I also think that men who beat women should go to prison but the leading cause of death among prego women isn't men.

  • Crimson KingCrimson King we need no grave to bury honesty there's not a grain of it the face to sweeten of the whole dungy earthRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Aegeri wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    a) define excessive
    b) tell us how you plan to police this 'excessiveness'

    a) Enough so that FAS is a near-certainty.

    I could make your argument for you, but as I seem to be the only one here who actually has taken any term to learn what FAS is and actually fact-check, why don't you go and give a figure for that? You know, actually advance an argument here and then demonstrate how many women this would effect. Then how you would know how a pregnant woman is actually drinking that excessively (fairies and unicorns yes?). Then you can explain why FAS is so important compared to abusive relationships, leaving the house, being hit by a bus and that sort of thing.

    My argument is, and has always been, that pregnant women do not have the right to drink enough so that their baby will almost certainly have FAS. This holds true even if only one woman in the world has ever done it. And it is not any more important then any of those things you listed. I never said it was. I never even implied it was. They aren't even relevant to the discussion.

    Oh, and I don't know how you would determine if a woman is drinking that excessively. This is one of the myriad reasons why it would be impossible to pass any laws against it. How many fucking times do I have to repeat this?

    DS: 4742 - 6001 - 2106 add me to your friend safaris
  • AngrySpoonAngrySpoon Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Aegeri wrote: »
    AngrySpoon wrote: »
    No, they are both now considered the same condition, just at different severities, that doesn't change the fact that they are the same condition, brought on by the same cause. Take a look around here if you still can't understand it http://depts.washington.edu/fasdpn/

    They are not the same condition:
    This is a third exploration of risk factors for the two most severe forms of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD), fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) and Partial FAS (PFAS)

    May PA, Gossage JP, Marais AS, Hendricks LS, Snell CL, Tabachnick BG, Stellavato C, Buckley DG, Brooke LE, Viljoen DL. Maternal risk factors for fetal alcohol syndrome and partial fetal alcohol syndrome in South Africa: a third study. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008 May;32(5):738-53. Epub 2008 Mar 11.

    You are just making yourself look more and more clueless, but hey, what would scientists and doctors who study the disorder who write about it in medical journals know?
    And in regards to your non people in crap, in my initial argument and ever since I have argued that punishments would only go into effect once the fetus was born, and became a human with rights, which would mean the mother took actions that harmed a human.

    So instead, you just force them pretty much to have an abortion instead?

    So in other words, you still want to just take control of a womans body in the end. Good job, she carries it to term and then is punished for that, or has to go through a medical procedure she may choose later she didn't want to avoid being punished.

    You sure did think this through.
    So I don't see what FAS/FAE/FASD being rare has to do with any arguments.

    Because it is rare and the hysteria you and chuckles have over this just proves that you don't know what you are talking about. Also again,

    FASD = Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.

    FAS = Fetal Alcohol Syndrome a severe form of this spectrum of disorders.

    FAE = Fetal Alcohol Effects a non-severe form of the above with only some abnormalities.

    This is another example:

    Micoorganisms are tiny living organisms.

    Mycobacterium bovis = an environmental organism with a thick lipid rich cell wall.

    Listeria monocytogenes = an environmental organism that commonly lives in seawater and commonly infects fresh seafood.

    Now, saying both the above are microbes is correct. Saying all microbes are Mycobacterium bovis because they are both microorganisms is wrong. The same applies to the first three.

    This is what you are saying. You are saying that FASD is the same as saying FAS and FAE, which is incorrect. FAS and FAE are specific medically diagnosed disorders, they are encompassed under the heading of FASD, but FAS =/ FAE and vice versa. Just the same that just because those two microbes are both microorganisms, they are not the same because they are grouped under the same heading.

    Edit: FAS AND FAE ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

    Are you going to say that because meningitis is caused by microorganisms that all forms of meningitis are the same thing? I pity you if you ever become a doctor, you're going to kill a lot of people.

    That is a flawed analogy, while I will agree my initial post was incorrect, it would be much more accurate to say that it's equivalent to two people getting meningitis from the exact same microorganisms, and having different severities of the symptoms it causes.

    In fact the two are so similar, that some places have stopped using the FAE and FAS diagnosis completely and now use a 4 digit code.
    http://depts.washington.edu/fasdpn/pdfs/AA2.PDF
    (DIAGNOSING THE FULL SPECTRUM OF FETAL ALCOHOL EXPOSED INDIVIDUALS:
    INTRODUCING THE 4-DIGIT DIAGNOSTIC CODE)

    And its quite a leap to go from punishing someone for purposefully harming a fetus they intend to give birth to, to punishing someone for having a baby

  • AegeriAegeri Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    AngrySpoon wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »

    That is a flawed analogy, while I will agree my initial post was incorrect, it would be much more accurate to say that it's equivalent to two people getting meningitis from the exact same microorganisms, and having different severities of the symptoms it causes.

    No, it's fully accurate. Meningitis is a condition where the meninges of the brain are inflamed, most frequently caused by microorganisms like bacteria and viruses. Just because viral and bacterial meningitis are both still called meningitis, doesn't make them the same disease descriptively.
    In fact the two are so similar, that some places have stopped using the FAE and FAS diagnosis completely and now use a 4 digit code.

    They are still different disorders.

    They are still different disorders.

    They are still different disorders.
    http://depts.washington.edu/fasdpn/pdfs/AA2.PDF
    (DIAGNOSING THE FULL SPECTRUM OF FETAL ALCOHOL EXPOSED INDIVIDUALS:
    INTRODUCING THE 4-DIGIT DIAGNOSTIC CODE)

    So? This doesn't change they are two different disorders. This is a medically accepted fact in the scientific community, would you like me to quote more papers? The one I quoted above is published 11th March 2008, so it's hardly what we could call out of date.

    That paper is from 2000.

    I'm going to go on a limb and assume my more recent papers show that we still do indeed make the distinction between FAS and FAE.
    And its quite a leap to go from punishing someone for purposefully harming a fetus they intend to give birth to, to punishing someone for having a baby

    Prove 'purposefully'. Then prove how your idea wouldn't just force women to have abortions instead

  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited May 2008

    Oh, and I don't know how you would determine if a woman is drinking that excessively. This is one of the myriad reasons why it would be impossible to pass any laws against it. How many fucking times do I have to repeat this?

    What if the technology were available that would allow us to monitor this behavior effectively. Would it be ok then?

  • Crimson KingCrimson King we need no grave to bury honesty there's not a grain of it the face to sweeten of the whole dungy earthRegistered User regular
    edited May 2008
    KevinNash wrote: »

    Oh, and I don't know how you would determine if a woman is drinking that excessively. This is one of the myriad reasons why it would be impossible to pass any laws against it. How many fucking times do I have to repeat this?

    What if the technology were available that would allow us to monitor this behavior effectively. Would it be ok then?

    In theory, if some sort of magic technology that could say whenever a pregnant women was drinking so much that it was going to hurt her fetus, then... well, I'd still have no idea exactly how to punish such behaviour. Or if punishment would even be effective as a form of prevention.

    And now I have dinner to eat and homework to do, and so I'm leaving.

    DS: 4742 - 6001 - 2106 add me to your friend safaris
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    a) define excessive
    b) tell us how you plan to police this 'excessiveness'

    a) Enough so that FAS is a near-certainty.
    b) I don't, it can't realistically be done. Must have said that half a dozen times by now. Magic would be nice.

    so,
    a) you have no idea
    b) you know its impossible

    why are you still posting?

    tmsig.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Your last statement may be true but according to this article your data is skewed a bit. While homicide is a big cause of death it does not appear to be the leading cause, and not all of it is spousal.
    Its not; I'm specifically recalling a study in Massachusetts late last year which demonstrated that homicide had taken the lead, and the vast majority of said homicides were committed by spouses or partners. Its a relatively new trend that appears to be emerging from continual improvements in maternal/fetal care, so you can expect some regional variation for now. Lets be fair and state that this one cause is a rough tie with pretty much all the other causes possible, barring freak accidents. Doesn't make it any better, huh?

    tmsig.jpg
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Your last statement may be true but according to this article your data is skewed a bit. While homicide is a big cause of death it does not appear to be the leading cause, and not all of it is spousal.
    Its not; I'm specifically recalling a study in Massachusetts late last year which demonstrated that homicide had taken the lead, and the vast majority of said homicides were committed by spouses or partners. Its a relatively new trend that appears to be emerging from continual improvements in maternal/fetal care, so you can expect some regional variation for now. Lets be fair and state that this one cause is a rough tie with pretty much all the other causes possible, barring freak accidents. Doesn't make it any better, huh?

    FTA:
    A 2001 study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association said 20 percent of Maryland women who died during pregnancy were murdered.

    I'm not sure what the other 80% is but I'm gonna gander it's not "men killed them on accident". My data is regional like you mentioned but I'm thinking 20% isn't a "leading cause" like the article suggests and I don't see that varying all that much in other regions.

    In fact it's kinda funny the article I linked from a reputable news source only mentions "aside from medical complications" one time in the 4 pages and uses "a leading cause" but then states it's 20% and the reason they use this wording and these phrases is because they wanted to hook it into a recent murder case.

    Anyways I'm just pointing out that you're FAR more likely to die of a "medical complication" than you are of you spouse beating you dead.

    Another stat FTA:
    Data taken from the Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the pregnancy-associated homicide ratio was 1.7 per 100,000 live births.

    And yes I'm with you the thought of prego women getting murdered is awful bad terrible and all that but you're making it a lot worse than reality here.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    here's one of the studies, Kevin. It has the advantage of being US-wide, although something global would be interesting. You're right, it doesn't outweigh other causes combined, but its sufficiently high to be one of the major causes, along with auto accidents, as I originally stated. Are you willing to continue to quibble over exact numbers, or admit that homicide and car accidents are far, far more significant causes of mortality in pregnant women than anything else?

    edit: interestingly, the quote you have verbatim and unlinked above is one I just read in an abcnews article noting that homicide was the leading cause of death in the period 1991-1999. Care to comment?

    tmsig.jpg
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Do the stats on "medical complication" include birth too? That would skew things a lot.

    This tangent is irrelevant anyway; focusing on pregnant women's diet is much more obvious than fixing society's relationship issues.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
Sign In or Register to comment.