You took the words right out of my mouth.

WTF?LOL!

There are tons of things that "present a risk" to a fetus, including driving in a car or living in a city. What is so damaging about a glass of wine or a beer?

I don't have a big problem with *a* beer once in a while *hopefully a dark one full of vitamins and minerals* but am not behind liquor during pregnancy.

Wine is ok if it's organic and sulfite free.

I'm not demonizing women who doing it, nor am I judging them. My personal belief is that it's a no in my book. I think women should be adequately informed on the effect that these things *may* have on an unborn fetus.

For example: Every inhale of a cigarette is robbing not only your body of oxygen, but their's as well.

*a side note about your previous article - a woman in this area was shooting meth during her first tri-mester. She carried her son to full term - he was born without a liver (and that's just the most shocking thing that's wrong with him). He will be on Social Security for the rest of his life - not to mention how miserable the rest of his life with be.*

ah, but the distinction is that to get anywhere, one generally must use a car. there are plenty of things that present a risk, but that are a necessary part of life. drinking alcohol is completely frivolous.

even if the risk of harm is small, it just seems irrational to me to roll the dice here when the only gain is purely selfish gratification, and temporary at that.

what percentage a risk do you consider significant enough to require legislation?

once that baby's born there's all kind of risks you just aren't allowed to expose it to, or you'll face having the child taken away and/or imprisonment. do you feel that the government has no right to ensure you carry out that same standard of care before the baby is born, and if so, why?

Let me point out first of all:

There has been, in fact, a lot of correlation and case study research done on alcohol and pregnancy over the last few decades. Not so with experimental studies; that's unethical. Without experimental studies, it's hard to be definitive from a scientific viewpoint.
It has been inferred, though, that drinking is most dangerous during the second trimester due to brain development.

Secondly, I don't necessarily disagree that it's okay to drink some. I will say that it often reflects upon the mother (or parents) ideals and self discipline. Take that as you will. I've had plenty of friends who drank occasionally during pregnancy, and plenty who didn't, and how their kids are turning out has less to do with that than the amount of sense they're being raised with.

But there are pregnant women who don't have enough sense not to down a 12 pack a night until the baby pops out. Those are the people the warnings were written for (although if you're too stupid to know better, what's the chance you're gonna read the warning).
Anyhow, this is just food for thought. Please don't get me started on modern parenting observances or television.

*If you reserve the right to raise an ignorant, asshole child, I reserve the right to stab them when they annoy me.*

well, considering that a woman has (at this point) a constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy up until a certain piont, i'd say the standard of care is already different.

(i'm not using this to support a blanket license to fuck up your kid if you choose to have one, but it's a point i thought was worth mentioning).

Not long ago the BBC had a documentary about FAS and would interview expectant mothers for their opinions on drinking whie pregnant and what information they had been given regarding it.

One of the most disturbing was one of the women who got all defensive. She claimed that just because she was pregnant, she wasnt going to be "a hermit" I'm not convinced being sober means you can't leave the house or have any fun.

Then she topped that comment with "Of course doctors say its dangerous to drink while pregnant. They're paid to say that!"

Fine. The issue isn't whether you think it's frivolous or not, or even whether I think it's frivolous. The issue is: when do we have a right to tell other people what to do with their bodies?

ok point blank, and generally i think the answer to that question is "no", but pregnancy complicates the issue. suddenly there are two people involved (or one person and one developing person, depending on at what point you think life begins). i think it's absurd for the government to be able to tell me i can't, as a competent adult, drink a beer (or smoke a bowl for that matter, but that's another can of worms), but it sure as hell better be able to enact laws that keep me from getting behind the wheel once i've had a few.

it's still "my body", the difference is that other people are directly put at risk. pregnancy is analogous because you are no longer the only one inhabiting your body.

First off, the newswire is not your personal blog. Idiotic, poorly constructed responses to your initial stupidity does not a newsworthy article make.

Second, as alluded to in my second sentence, your logic is terrible. The fact that the studies are inconclusive as to how damaging alcohol is should only be further motivation to not partake in something that is completely unnecessary. Alcohol is a luxury, not a necessity. Let's keep that straight for the purposes of the analogies presented.

The next problem in your reasoning is that you keep making reference to pregnant women and not the fetus. This is typical of your aforementioned selfish tendencies, where you make the case for yourself and not for the human being growing inside of you.

Another issue that is so glaringly obvious that I can't believe you would actually use it as evidence, is your son's intelligence. Even if your drinking during pregnancy caused absolutely zero damage to him, you cannot infer then that "drinking is OK". Your first premise does not make your second premise a correct conclusion, hence your logic is faulty (and quite frankly, downright stupid).

It is also utterly ridiculous to claim that (and I paraphrase) "most damage from drinking is done before you know you're pregnant." You obviously do not understand how alcohol affects a fetus. It does not take x number of alcohol cells to alter DNA; it takes just ONE at the right place, at the right time.

All in all, this might could be the faultiest piece of logical reasoning that I've ever come across in my life. And I pore over George W.'s every word.

Why bother doing it at all if there is any risk involved? My wife is 10 weeks pregnant and wouldn't even consider drinking anything alcoholic because there is ANY risk involved regardless of how minor.

I don't think it's a matter of "choice" so much as a matter of priorities. What's more important, your unborn child, or that Jim Beam and Pepsi you wanted with dinner? If anyone is so aloof that it isn't even a consideration, then it begs the question of what other bad choices you will make based on statistical improbability.

Alcohol is poison (and I'm a heavy drinker)..It also dehydrates you. If you aren't an alcoholic, then I see zero reason why it would be an issue to aviod it for 9 months all together. Drink a glass of water or juice.. When the baby is born THEN go out and have a drink to celebrate.

To a point, I agree with this argument, but at the same time, it's affecting another body. This would of course bring up the entire abortion debate and spawn a 12 page diatribe on everyone's feelings. Suffice to say that when a human being begins to endanger another human being, laws come into play to protect the (in this case helpless) human being that is being endangered.

That sentence sucked.