Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am not sure I agree with your correlation into causality.
I guess the short and long of it is, WHY RISK IT! if you can't go 10 months with out drinking or smoking you've got a problem.
just the good ones...but how many guys do you think quit having that drink or smoke while the gal is pregnant...lol...not many i tell ya..
nope, no joke, just looking for some information and opinions.. since I came upon some interesting information.At first I thought this thread was a joke.
So one reference that you don't like means that all the rest of the references are equally gibberish? What about the British Medical Associations references?First that website and it's referenced "study" are suspect at best (i.e. garbage). Look at footnote #3 (the source note). It was conducted for and published in AIM (Alcohol in Moderation) Digest, a rag published by a pro-alcohol lobby. I would argue they might have an agenda to push.
Where was the data and research? I couldn't find any information on the site besides the editorial that you link.If you want a more scientifically accepted source for information, try something like this site http://www.rsoa.org/fas.html, which not only provides a slightly more objective viewpoint, but also provides a substantial amount of medical source data to back up it's contentions.
almost made me think that this was your words...(Oh, and don't even get me started on the "study" that said women who have a glass of wine once a day have a higher success rate of child birth. Did that study also address the fact that women who regularly drink wine also tend to come from higher socio-economic classes who are generally more involved and proactive with their prenatal health care, have better access to resources, and have better eating habits, etc.)
Rocket science would be easier as there would be a study methodology easly implementable with results that would show correlations and site specific quantifiable conclusions.It's not exactly rocket science here.
It seems the mantra - "no drinking" is just a result of not having good enough information and the issue being complex and highly dependent upon the specific person / mother.Existing evidence on the adverse irreversible effects of prenatal alcohol exposure at low-to-moderate
levels is inconclusive and there is currently no consensus on the level of risk or whether there is a clear
threshold below which alcohol is non-teratogenic. A 2006 review of the existing evidence on the
effects of alcohol on the developing embryo, fetus and child conducted by the National Perinatal
Epidemiology Unit (NPEU) found there to be no consistent evidence of adverse health effects from
low-to-moderate prenatal alcohol exposure.4 Other reviews have drawn similar conclusions.44, 51 It is
worth noting that the current evidence is not robust enough to exclude any risk from low-to-moderate
levels,4 and that evidence is continuing to emerge as to the possible effects of prenatal alcohol
exposure at these levels.
nope, just trying to challenge my previous assumptions and looking for the proofruffy ruffy ruffy...your so darn good at stirring the pot and being devils advocate im darn sure your could make a dry turd smell again..i actually find your quest for the other side an amazing fun factor to the forum..i really do give ya the kudos...
nope, just trying to challenge my previous assumptions and looking for the proof
WOW!!!! Is there anyone in this world with half a brain to dispute the fact that consuming alcohol is not good for your health? So why would it not be for a baby in the womb? That is what I would say is NOT rocket science. HOLY COW!!!!!!
nope, just trying to challenge my previous assumptions and looking for the proof
i think possibly your mother has some proof....
You misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't only looking for personal experiences but also experiences with information and resources...Really? Not pot stirring? Now that's funny. Trying to "challenge your previous assumptions" by asking snowest members "What their experiences are" regarding drinking during pregnancy? What "conclusions" exactly were you hoping to glean from your very scientific data gathering here? That one snowest member once had a beer while pregnant and the result was not fetal alcohol syndrome? Very scientific of you.
I don't agree with this analogy as the risk is not dependent upon the quantity, but more upon the specific location and surroundings at the time. IMO that is much different.Let me put it another way. I think most of us would agree that drinking and driving is potentially harmful. Or texting while driving. But I think we can also agree that just because you drink and drive once or text and drive once, it does not necessarily mean that something bad will happen. For example, I might be way out in the country where there are no other drivers while I am drinking and texting and driving. But, does that mean that we should be advocating that it's ok to drink and drive to text and drive a little bit? Or that it's ok to text and drive or drink and drive in certain situations? I would say "no" (perhaps you disagree) , because from a policy standpoint you don't want to start going down that slippery slope. So instead, we say "don't drink and drive" or "don't text and drive".
I disagree as the "overall less risk" is nebulous and unquantifiable to specific amounts. Hence the quote I posted.Not because "result of not having good enough information and the issue being complex and highly dependent ", but because it presents overall less risk to the public than the alternative.
parents very rarely drink at all..i think possibly your mother has some proof....
?? Really? Does it cause cancer or something else? I think you went a little far with that comment. Remember we are talking about casual drinking here, not alcoholism.WOW!!!! Is there anyone in this world with half a brain to dispute the fact that consuming alcohol is not good for your health?
I don't agree with this analogy as the risk is not dependent upon the quantity, but more upon the specific location and surroundings at the time. IMO that is much different.
I disagree as the "overall less risk" is nebulous and unquantifiable to specific amounts. Hence the quote I posted.
I would imagine this was studied in much better detail then you assume, as it is quite easy in comparison to alcohol and pregnancy.Not really, in that you can just as easily make the analogy based on the frequency with which I text and drive or drink and drive, but ok, let's use a different analogy. Says right on the mouthwash bottle "Do not drink". Does that mean that something horrific will happen if you take a swig of mouthwash? Probably not. But again (and just like) my other analogies, "Do not drink", makes much more sense (in terms of providing the most overall effective deterrence) than some open-ended policy like " Do not regularly drink the mouthwash" or "It might be ok for you to drink the mouthwash once in a while."
You are correct, I was talking about currently.. Though placing yet tends to lead to a slippery slope as in time travel isn't possible... yet... type of thing.First of all, these things are not unquantifiable. They may not yet have been explicitly quantified, but that certainly does not make them unquantifiable. Also whether something has actually been quantified has absolutely no bearing on whether it exists or not. Example: Let's say that every day I go to work and punch my desk as hard as I can. I think it's reasonable to state that while I may not break my hand just punching my desk once, I think it is also reasonable to infer that the more times I punch my desk, the more likely I am to break my hand. Even though nobody actually quantified how much more likely I am to break my hand by punching my desk every day, that doesn't make the risk less overall. As I said, it doesn't have to be quantified to exist.
I think I have already said that I get your point and I get your reasoning or the reasoning for the statements you are backing up. That doesn't mean that there are studies and results showing this though. Again, not saying it isn't unreasonable, just looking for the proof instead of inferred conclusions. From what I have seen and you have shown, there isn't much. Now just because that is so, doesn't mean that woman should start drinking all the time.But again, you already know that. You're just stirring away.