Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

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.

  • Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

drinking while pregnant...

I am not sure I agree with your correlation into causality.

i think ruffy that it just might be a good idea for you to get pregnant...and then you just might consider the "gut feeling" that good mothers like catwoman have regarding the ingestion of alcohol while pregnant..that gut feeling is far more accurate and scientific than many so called educated studies that have you casting some doubt....so go to a biker bar ruffy and let loose and get pregnant...then i will listen to your dribble..
 
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.

im not saying its easy...its got to be darn hard if your a smoker or drinker..its easy to say to do it but how many guys do you think quit having that drink or smoke while the gal is pregnant...lol...not many i tell ya..
 
I was a high risk pregnancy with both of my daughters and had to be seen by a specialist. Although I never drank with either of them, my sister chose otherwise with her pregnancy. I was told that I could have a glass of wine a day as long as I was not an alcoholic because that is where the fetal alcohol syndrome is found to become relevant in a fetus. But I truly beg to differ!! My daughter and my sisters are only 2 months apart and it literally seems like it's almost a year. My daughter can talk and do all kinds of things that my sister's is no where even close to learning. Her daughter is 18 months old and can hardly say 5 words. My daughter can hold a full conversation with you. So I definitely DO NOT think it is ok in any way shape or form to drink while pregnant!!!
 
At first I thought this thread was a joke. Apprently not.

I may be able to shed a little inside insight on this as my wife is an OB/GYN, and I used to work as an administrator in a labor and delivery delivery unit in a local hopsital .

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.

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. If you don't like that one, try the AMA or New England Journal of Medicine or some other legitimate medical source.

Second, the statement that there is "no risk" is also erroneous. It is undisputed that alcohol adversely affects the development of neural pathways and other fetal biological processes. It becomes a question then of how much alcohol and how much risk is associated with it. Yes, I think most physicians would agree (my wife included) that consuming a small amount of alcohol during pregnancy is probably not going to significantly affect the fetal development, but that risk (no matter how small) is present nonetheless. Further complicating this "equation" is the fact thet the fetus is more prone to developmental delays at different times during the pregnancy. For example, having a glass of wine during the last trimester of a pregnancy (when most, but not all, of the cognitive development has already occurred carries less risk than that same glass of wine during the first trimester (when critical developmental processes are full swing).

Like somebody already said, moderation is the key to everything. A small amount of alcohol is probably not going to make your baby brain dead. Probably won't even substantially affect the baby's development. In fact, I'd wager it won't. But having said that, like someone else already stated, why would you risk it?

(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.)
 
At first I thought this thread was a joke.
nope, no joke, just looking for some information and opinions.. since I came upon some interesting information.

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.
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?

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.
Where was the data and research? I couldn't find any information on the site besides the editorial that you link.

(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.)
almost made me think that this was your words...
 
I guess I am confused as to what point you are really trying to make, unless you are just being facetious.

The medical community has pretty much come to a consensus on this issue (and how often does that happen?).
Alcohol during pregnancy = risk to fetus.
More alcohol = more risk.
Less alcohol = less risk.
Pretty simple actually.

And by the "British Medical Association" reference, I'm assuming that you meant the references to the British Medical Journal? Because the British Medical Association explicitly takes the position that pregnant women should not consume ANY alcohol. Their website is here:
http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promotion_ethics/alcohol/Fetalalcohol.jsp
Page 12 of their guide for healthcare providers regarding fetal alcohol syndrome states "Women who are pregnant, or who are considering a pregnancy, should be advised not to consume any alcohol".

That sentiment is echoed by the vast majority of healthcare professionals in rest of the developed world.

It's not exactly rocket science here.
 
Last edited:
The journal seemed to indicate that it had some information from the association.. anyways..

It's not exactly rocket science here.
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.

Instead it seems that there are just generic fear based recommendations.

Quote from the report Superjag had a link to.

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.
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.
 
Last edited:
ruffy 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...
 
ruffy 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!!!!!!
 
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!!!!!!

You did not just say drinking my nightly beer wasn't good for me health did you?
 
nope, just trying to challenge my previous assumptions and looking for the proof

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.

Or, maybe, just maybe, you are stirring the pot.

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". 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.


i think possibly your mother has some proof....:lol::lol:

That's funny right there.
 
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.
You misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't only looking for personal experiences but also experiences with information and resources...

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 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.

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.
I disagree as the "overall less risk" is nebulous and unquantifiable to specific amounts. Hence the quote I posted.
 
i think possibly your mother has some proof....:lol::lol:
parents very rarely drink at all..

WOW!!!! Is there anyone in this world with half a brain to dispute the fact that consuming alcohol is not good for your health?
?? 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.
 
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.

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."

I disagree as the "overall less risk" is nebulous and unquantifiable to specific amounts. Hence the quote I posted.

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.

Same thing applies to drinking while pregnant.

But again, you already know that. You're just stirring away.
 
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."
I would imagine this was studied in much better detail then you assume, as it is quite easy in comparison to alcohol and pregnancy.



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.
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.

As to the hand argument, the more times you punch your desk the stronger your hand gets and the less likely it will be to break from the same punch repeated. I saw it on a tv show about martial arts guys that break boards and stuff with their hands. So there...

Same thing applies to drinking while pregnant.

But again, you already know that. You're just stirring away.
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.
 
Last edited:
Premium Features



Back
Top