NEWS: Is This Horse Fetus Dead Yet? Or Does it Need More Meth?

The funniest part of this whole debacle is that shen it started I remember her posting something like most of the people on this website will obviously agree with her. She's both condescending and wrong which coincidentally are my two favorite traits in people. I think I've found a new best friend!

at what point can we start talking about 70's hairstyles instead of responding to Bitch's blog posts?

The responses to these articles make me sick.

It seems to me that the whole point of these articles hinged around the idea that we should all understand that conditions like FAS and "Meth Babies" are more complicated than we are often told by mainstream media, and that it is only by recognizing the probable complexity of causation that we can develop both medical and social solutions to treat them.

Immediately demonizing someone who's managed to become both addicted to meth and pregnant is not helpful. Demonizing an author who points that out is not any more helpful.

When did she advocate meth use as a pregnancy healthcare strategy?

HarManic...stop kissing her ass. She's obviously a lesbian.

I'm kind of with you. I mean, nothing here's really making me sick, because I'm not engaged enough, but I do think that people are being deliberately stupid here and deliberately missing the point so that they can continue to be snarky. And hey, people are totally free to do that--but it's kind of lame after awhile.

*shrugs*

Can't win 'em all, though. Probably best to move on, as the discussion still isn't going anywhere.

Ok, supposing her 'meth is not all that bad' argument held water, the author would make a factual argument with some supporting facts. What we have instead is someone who's trying to make absurd statements for the sake of getting people to bicker.

Of course[/] things are not as simple as they seem on TV. Thats a given, but there's a way to adress that issue. And not a shred of it exists in any of Bitch's comments.

My first impulse on reading the first few comments here was to post a long defense of B-Phd and what she's trying to say, but after scrolling through these pages I realize how shockingly naive that was. My excuse is that I hadn't looked at much of the editors' contributions and the comments that follow, and so wasn't yet alerted to the low level of discourse going on here. How dumb of me to expect better. I don't think I'll be chiming in on many more of these, but I'll just say here that I found B's blog via a link from another smart site that I respect, and I'm glad to have her here where I spend so much of my time lurking. I hope she stays here for a long, long, time, if for nothing more than the entertainment value of watching the knuckleheads tossing out their ill-considered responses like monkeys flinging feces from their cages in the zoo.

sorry, but have you read all three threads on this subject?

this article does what you say it does, the first made it sound like women were being oppressed out of their constitutional right to smoke meth while pregnant

the second seemed to claim women who drank and smoked meth while pregnant were actually really smart, and had assessed the risks, and we being judged by sexist men in the government and media that didn't know a damn thing about the subject.

it's really not surprising that, by this point, people are coming to these threads with some bias.

the simple fact is, you made her point better in two paragraphs than she has in the three ridiculous, lengthy, rants she's posted. she may have a point under all her histrionics and paranoid bullshit, but she's sure as shit not a good enough writer to get it across properly.

Using meth or drinking heavily or smoking isn't a-ok even when you're not pregnant _ duh.

I didn't quite get the emphasise until you added the "duh". Thank you.