Alcohol and Pregnancy

I knew a kid in elementary school who's mother drank and smoke frequently while he was in her uterus. He was messed up!

Had it the worst out of nearly every kid in the school.

Nice sample size. Sometimes I forget that I'm on Veeky Forums: the board that ironically doesn't understand scientific studies.

"junk science" is better than engineering DESU

off yourself

>No, because they get to make the decisions in a free society. I'm sorry that the idea of someone's kid being raised or created a certain way is alien to you.

So, because someone likes doing something, we shouldn't care about the consequences? What if a mother likes beating her pregnant belly against the wall, should we ignore the consequences to the baby and just let her do whatever she wants? This is a very dangerous rationale you have adopted there. Granted, I'm not comparing the severity of my example to a pregnant woman buying a beer outside, but personal freedom should be limited according to the severity of the consequences of the actions in question.

And more specifically, in this case, perhaps FASD is rare enough that disallowing alcohol purchase to pregnant women is too severe a measure, and New York was right not to ban it. Or not. I'm still thinking about this.

>Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is rare
It is rare, but less severe Fetal Alcohol spectrum disorders aren't as rare. According to the CDC (cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/facts.html):

>There is no known safe amount of alcohol during pregnancy or when trying to get pregnant. There is also no safe time to drink during pregnancy. Alcohol can cause problems for a developing baby throughout pregnancy, including before a woman knows she’s pregnant.
Said alcohol usage could cause FASDs at any time, FAS included.

and

>FASDs are completely preventable if a woman does not drink alcohol during pregnancy—so why take the risk?

which is my point as well. Maybe FASDs aren't severe enough to warrant a ban on personal freedom like buying alcohol, but the argument still stands, why take the risk at all?

You've bought into the system, it must be painful to be as dense as you are, I pity you.

You all STILL think that pregnancy is a right and not a privelidge? Fark.

>So, because someone likes doing something, we shouldn't care about the consequences?

At the risk of making a fallacious argument, people can do as they please with their bodies, and it's been that way for decades now. Drawing arbitrary lines in the sand will not help, and neither will adopting a "better safe than sorry" policy over a personal choice that is an overrated health risk. They should accept the consequences if any were to hypothetically arise.

>Granted, I'm not comparing the severity of my example to a pregnant woman buying a beer outside,

Regardless, you kind of did. Beating your own fetus shouldn't be an issue anyway since abortions already exist as a popular option to terminate a pregnancy. FASD on the other hand is not even a well supported correlation with little solid evidence.

>but personal freedom should be limited according to the severity of the consequences of the actions in question.

Spoken like a true conformist who doesn't understand liberty.

>It is rare, but less severe Fetal Alcohol spectrum disorders aren't as rare. According to the CDC (cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/facts.html): There is no known safe amount of alcohol during pregnancy or when trying to get pregnant.

Right out of the gate that's bullshit on the CDC's part. There are certainly safe amounts of alcohol during pregnancy. I've seen enough pregnant women IRL who drank regularly and enough studies that point to the contrary to know that the risks are overblown and the attempt to link Alcohol to after birth development complications are flimsy.

If you knew anything about these groups you'd know that they significantly stretch the truth to create nonexistent alarmism. They do this with a variety of diseases and health problems.

>but the argument still stands, why take the risk at all?

Spending nine months without something personally ingrained into cultures across the world as a socializing tool and as a way to destress is pretty difficult.

>At the risk of making a fallacious argument, people can do as they please with their bodies, and it's been that way for decades now. Drawing arbitrary lines in the sand will not help
This is your opinion and I will respect it. To me, this is a problem of utilitarian ethics, so drawing lines is all I have. The severity of the consequences is the only semi-objective measure I have to draw those lines.

>Beating your own fetus shouldn't be an issue anyway since abortions already exist as a popular option to terminate a pregnancy.
My example was an analogy, not a comparison of the consequences. Also, my example was meant as a thought experiment, not as a real-world implementation of an abortion, obviously.

>Spoken like a true conformist who doesn't understand liberty.
I wrote that sentence about personal freedom to see if you would bite and start raving about limitations and infringement of liberty, and unfortunately, you kind of did. You do realise what your argument entails right? If everyone can do whatever they want without others judging their actions by their consequences, you can't have a functioning society. You might as well have serial killers running around killing others (affecting other people's lives) and we shouldn't do anything about it because we have "liberty" and because it would be an infringement on "personal freedom"? Give me a break. Either you accept that this is your position, or you accept that you intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood the sentence about personal freedom. No middle ground here.

>Right out of the gate that's bullshit on the CDC's part. [...] flimsy.

So we will take only your anecdotal evidence into account now, just like you accused of doing? Either that or take the advice of a government agency's research. I know what most people will do, including me, to minimise the risk, no matter where the exact truth lies.

Why would these groups lie and spread alarmism in your opinion anyway?

It should be illegal to drink while pregnant.

Absolutely not ok.

Watch the rates of Foetal alcohol syndrome skyrocket in new york over the coming years.

>My example was an analogy, not a comparison of the consequences.

The consequences should be compared anyway on the grounds that the "consequences" of drinking while pregnant are overblown compared to a woman disturbing her womb in the fashion you're describing, but I'd have little problem with either, personally.

>You do realise what your argument entails right? If everyone can do whatever they want without others judging their actions by their consequences, you can't have a functioning society. You might as well have serial killers running around killing others (affecting other people's lives) and we shouldn't do anything about it because we have "liberty" and because it would be an infringement on "personal freedom"?

You're reaching with slippery slope style reasoning here. A serial killer killing a fully sentient person who has their own life is far different from an individual controlling their own body's rights and personhood. Will you be comparing gay marriage to bestiality next, I wonder?

>So we will take only your anecdotal evidence into account now, just like you accused (You) # of doing? Either that or take the advice of a government agency's research. I know what most people will do, including me, to minimise the risk, no matter where the exact truth lies.

I'm trying to say that the studies showing little risk of drinking while pregnant, combined with anecdotes (anecdotes should never stand alone as proof obviously) are enough for me. Same thing happens with studies of women smoking while pregnant where it's clear that a risk is stated to be not nearly as serious as initially believed.

>Why would these groups lie and spread alarmism in your opinion anyway?
Many reasons exist. Social engineering, moral crusades, creating an excuse to go after and tax vice related businesses, creating an excuse for more government programs or movements designed to make money by raising awareness on nonexistent issues, etc.

>Watch the rates of Foetal alcohol syndrome skyrocket in new york over the coming years.

Or maybe nothing will change since that only happens when women drink a shit ton and can be classified as regular binge drinkers.

Infrequent, accidental consumption of alcohol is nothing to worry about. Frequent, intentional consumption of alcohol is cruelty to the unborn.

>frequent, intentional

If you mean binge drinking to the extent that you get blackout drunk while pregnant then yeah.

>The consequences should be compared anyway [...] you're describing

Okay, so you DO care about the consequences of an action after all?

>but I'd have little problem with either, personally.

Are you dead serious? I'd like to hear your rationale behind this, either way. I guess if the embryo was underdeveloped and viable for abortion, I'd be okay too, but if the embryo is meant to be born, you find it okay for a woman to bash her pregnant belly against the wall just because she likes doing it, regardless of the effects to the embryo?

>You're reaching with slippery slope style reasoning here. A serial killer killing a fully sentient person who has their own life is far different from an individual controlling their own body's rights and personhood.

I wasn't the one who said drawing lines won't help... You are drawing lines right here. But even then, this is the reason I used the "pregnant woman bashing her belly" argument. The thought experiment assumes that she likes doing it, but this thing has effects to the embryo, just like drinking alcohol might have, despite the user liking it. In the beginning of your own post here you said that the consequences should be compared, which means you draw lines as well.

So, trying to make sense of your argument, it goes like this: You crossed a line between serial killer and pregnant women because one affects another's own developed life while the other affects purely potential life. Pregnant women can do anything they want that might affect their baby, no matter its consequences, because they like it, without having their freedom to perform said actions infringed. Is this your argument? Correct me if I'm wrong.

>I'm trying to say [...] are enough for me.
I don't agree, but this is fair enough for me. We can conclude this front.

>your last point

A bit too conspiratorial for me, but I really don't know about this. Neither agree/disagree for now.

>you find it okay for a woman to bash her pregnant belly against the wall just because she likes doing it, regardless of the effects to the embryo?

There are many things I don't agree with but find important to stand up for in the name of liberty. Additionally, there are are levels of safe alcohol consumption. In contrast, there is likely no safe amount/way of bashing your own fetus repeatedly. People need sovereign over their own bodies. A person's body should not belong to the state.

>In the beginning of your own post here you said that the consequences should be compared, which means you draw lines as well.

I don't draw lines. I'm saying that the comparison falls flat because most women ultimately would not even consume nearly enough alcohol to create a FAS baby. Your entire argument relies on the idea that there's no safe amount of alcohol to drink during pregnancy, which isn't true to begin with.

>You crossed a line between serial killer and pregnant women because one affects another's own developed life while the other affects purely potential life.

Well yeah. If someone affects another human being negatively that's an issue. If a woman affects a nonexistent human being who isn't even classifiable as human yet negatively, then that's not an issue. Abortion is one of the biggest areas where this logic is applied and I see nothing wrong with it either. Parents should get to make decisions for their own children, whether I like it or not. Once the child is born this also applies, unless they go into full blown abusive/neglectful living conditions.

>A bit too conspiratorial for me, but I really don't know about this. Neither agree/disagree for now.

Just because something is conspiratorial doesn't make it wrong. People in these kinds of positions have the far reaching influence and power to lie constantly, and actually get away with it.

Turns out they'll be fine. Nothing to worry about.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120619225938.htm

>Anything that disagrees with my degeneracy is junk science.
Haha. Oh wow.

No, more like "anything that's too draconian and irrational that makes decisions based on extremes" is junk science, and you're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.

Why would you want to give poison to your unborn child?

1.) it doesn't qualify as a person yet and does not have the agency to make decisions compared to the woman carrying the child.
2.) Most importantly, the amount of alcohol needed to actually hurt an unborn child is large enough to cause blackouts, most women will not go that far so it won't matter anyway. This is backed by actual scientific studies like the one at 3.) Even if some women did go that far, it's not my business or my problem if they do it. To try and control their habits is unnecessarily invasive.

Do you think pregnant women should be able to smoke crack too because its they body and they do what they want?

...

Yes. Interestingly enough, studies on smoking tobacco and crack while pregnant showed that the effects on the child were either no different than non smokers or not worth worrying about (tobacco) and reversible/not permanent (in the case of crack; they did studies on crack babies showing the risk wasn't as serious as believed back in the 80's).

Additionally if a woman does do this and it actually hurts the child it should be treated as a public health issue, not a punishable offense. I don't think women should do this thing while pregnant just to clarify, but I'm not going to stop them either especially considering the fact that the "crack babies" narrative was overwrought.

That's really more suited for the people hand wringing over this issue and acting like it's a disaster to moderately drink while pregnant, but whatever makes you feel better.

I agree, if the bitch is dumb enough to drink during pregnancy, then let her suffer through her FAS'ed up child

Unfortunately I think she won't even care about the poor child's state, let God sort em out

IIRC sometimes a FAS'd up child makes them feel remorseful, but that's neither here nor there.

This isn't about a fetus. It is about the future of a person who will be born and live, the same as it's mother, same as you or I.

It is also about responsibility, and a society whose legislature doesn't write laws which make the citizens with a social conscience and a sense of responsibility criminals for acting ethically, and create victims out of the selfish, the undisciplined, and the hedonistic.

Your perspective, and those like yours, are destroying this country.

The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. ~ Tacitus

>This isn't about a fetus. It is about the future of a person who will be born

And before that child exists it is a fetus which has no inalienable rights to speak of. A woman could alternately do everything right and still end up with a genetic mess of a kid while following all of the pre natal care rules that seem necessary to her. I don't even drink, but in an ideal society people should mind their own business.

>It is also about responsibility [etc.]

While the statement specifically regarding legislature has merit, you cannot force people to be responsible and I think part of this new law is to try and dispel the junk science myth that any amount of alcohol is harmful, which was essential in creating a situation where bartenders were obligated to refuse service to begin with. Even then, people have a right to fuck up their lives regardless of what you think, even if that involves fucking up the lives they create. It's sad, but true.

And ultimately, I think it would be better to simply make it so bartenders can choose whether or not they want to serve a pregnant woman in order to not put pressure on employees of private businesses, but I think right now this is necessary to give people deciding power over their own bodies and to dispel the myth of alcohol being poison to the unborn, when in reality it's getting constantly drunk that causes stuff like FAS.

>Your perspective, and those like yours, are destroying this country.

To each their own, I'd say your perspective of constantly trying to protect others from potential harm can quickly turn any place into an obnoxious nanny state that gives little freedom to those who inhabit it.

>The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.

Considering how your argument seems to rely on protecting people it's rather odd that you'd cite that quote, seeing as how New York is pretty liberal and draconian with many of their laws protecting people from bullshit like secondhand smoke.

>And ultimately, I think it would be better to simply make it so bartenders can choose whether or not they want to serve a pregnant woman...

This is my entire point.

I'm not saying we police the lives of these pregnant women. That would require legislation as well.

I'm saying it is wrong to force those who consider serving a pregnant woman unethical to suspend their ethics so she can drink.

Their freedom is sacrificed for hers, and it is just one more instance of Gov't extending its power into private enterprise.

>I'm not saying we police the lives of these pregnant women. That would require legislation as well.

Then why were you going on ethically in the post I replied to about the potential future wellbeing of a child and the unethical nature of serving women alcohol earlier? The entire point is to give women a chance to do something with their bodies that isn't nearly as harmless as generally believed (and even if they did try and get drunk and potentially hurt their unborn child, who cares? It's not my kid or my womb carrying that kid)

>Their freedom is sacrificed for hers, and it is just one more instance of Gov't extending its power into private enterprise

I think it's ultimately necessary currently in order to make it clear that the effects of alcohol consumption during pregnancy are overblown to a large degree, maybe (and hopefully) the law will be modified in the future to instead involve employee decisions, but the perception that alcohol is a gigantic red flag during pregnancy needs to end.

Well this thread pretty much reveals that no one on Veeky Forums understands even the most basic concepts of biology, medicine, or ethics.

Just because people here think that junk science shouldn't be taken seriously and that people need more rights than they're currently given (at least based on how LE and the feds treat them) doesn't mean there's a lack of understanding in anything. Maybe you're on the wrong board or something.

My little brother has FAS and I hate my mom for it. There could be been more potential for him. He's an outcast out of all the kids and gets mad at it. He fights often at school, not that the school I great anyways. He's smart and loves learning for kids his age. My mom is the reason why I'm the way I am and my all my siblings, but I don't think anyone is going to have it as hard as him.

Just saying I think it should be to illegal for a woman to drink while pregnant.

The worst sin a society can commit is to ruin the futures of those who will come after it.

That's a kind of over dramatic way to explain what's happening here. It's not the end of the world if a few kids have to deal with the choices of those who gave them life.

More to the point, I don't think many women will get drunk enough for this to be an issue anyway. Most of them will probably just have a few beers.

I'm sorry that this happened o your brother and siblings, but this experience isn't universal and banning pregnant women from drinking alcohol/making it illegal is fascist reasoning.

>It's not the end of the world if a few kids have to deal with the choices of those who gave them life.
No, but given it's something that's both harmful and entirely avoidable, why should we just accept it?

>More to the point, I don't think many women will get drunk enough for this to be an issue anyway
But they are though?
We're not dealing with speculation here, FAS is an actual thing that's fairly common.

>Banning people from harming other people is fascist reasoning.
What.
No.

Just as you believe that "Women should be allowed to make their own decisions because their happiness and liberty is more important than that of a fetal parasite." Shouldn't businesses have the same liberty to voluntarily deny service? Why must we mandate to private owners what choices they are allowed to make?

I already mentioned that thy should. However since most of society has alarmist and mostly inaccurate info regarding alcohol and pregnancy an overwhelming majority will likely think that no amount of alcohol is safe. I think this law will try to dispel that notion. I think that eventually it should be modified to be the choice of a private business, but what would the point be in doing that right now when most bartenders likely wouldn't serve them anyway out of irrational fear?

>No, but given it's something that's both harmful and entirely avoidable, why should we just accept it?

Because a fetus or an unborn child should not suddenly have the power to decide anything, as it is neither self aware nor capable of agency, decision making, or self-conscience/awareness. The fetus in particular also doesn't feel pain or pleasure.

>But they are though? We're not dealing with speculation here, FAS is an actual thing that's fairly common.

It is an actual thing, yes, but it doesn't happen to moderate drinkers. Many pregnant women already drink moderately. Where do you get the idea that it's so common?

>Banning people from harming other people is fascist reasoning.

Controlling people and forcing them to make decisions based on the potential wellbeing of an organism that isn't even sentient or considered alive yet certainly is. It's a similar restrictive thing as pro life arguments.

This law only makes sense if it absolves the seller from legal prosecution, otherwise it is a frivolous law that only degrades the sanctity of the fetus.

Why do we have laws against child endangerment if drinking while pregnant is a human right? Parents should make their own decision on letting their young kids play in traffic.

>Because a fetus or an unborn child should not suddenly have the power to decide anything, as it is neither self aware nor capable of agency, decision making, or self-conscience/awareness
I don't think anyone is claiming otherwise.

>The fetus in particular also doesn't feel pain or pleasure.
It's probably worth differentiating harm done to a fetus from harm done to the person the fetus is likely to become. After all, you can harm people in the future with actions now.

>It is an actual thing, yes, but it doesn't happen to moderate drinkers.
So what? That's like claiming speeding isn't an issue because good drivers aren't likely to crash anyway.

>Where do you get the idea that it's so common?
Actual statistics. FAS is one of the most common neurological impairments out there.

>based on the potential wellbeing of an organism that isn't even sentient or considered alive yet
Consider the importance of the "yet" in that sentence.
If I put a bomb in a maternity ward, does it not count as murder because the people killed hadn't been born when I set the timer?

Besides, we consider the safety of people in the future ALL THE TIME. Look at any discussion about global warming or nuclear waste or city planning. Just because theres a temporal separation between cause and effect doesn't mean they're not connected.

>It's a similar restrictive thing as pro life arguments.
Only in a very superficial sense. One is about the rights of a fetus, the other is about the rights of a person in the future.

A small amount of alcohol is literally harmless.

Attention all:
Alcohol is only harmful if it's consumed at what's called a 'critical point' in the fetus's development. It's more than likely fine.
Same can be said for putting one shot in a revolver and spinning it and putting it up to your head.

As for this: It's just them embracing darwin. Now they need to make it so that parents that birth retard children have to pay the cost themselves- middle schoolers that haven't been toilet trained get their diapers changed by people being paid $25 an hour in my area, coming out of the funds being used to educate the next Einstein or Stephen Hawking.

The consensus is- it's bad mmkay

>It's probably worth differentiating harm done to a fetus from harm done to the person the fetus is likely to become. After all, you can harm people in the future with actions now.

True, but why is it my concern with how a person decides to raise their kid? It's their own private concern. It especially shouldn't require government or state intervention.

>So what? That's like claiming speeding isn't an issue because good drivers aren't likely to crash anyway.

I know you meant for this analogy to discourage alcohol use, but considering how many motorists are unfairly shaked down by an overly safe police force for things like speeding is also a problem.

>Actual statistics. FAS is one of the most common neurological impairments out there.

Okay, fine. I will concede on this point, but I still feel that getting involved with another person's affairs is ultimately unnecessary and overly judgmental of their situation. Additionally the first paragraph in is important.

>Consider the importance of the "yet" in that sentence. If I put a bomb in a maternity ward, does it not count as murder because the people killed hadn't been born when I set the timer?

That's a point of contention that often comes up. It's the whole "charging a murderer with the death of an unborn child if he kills a pregnant woman" issue when women can already get abortions.

The difference being that a woman has a right and sovereignty to what goes on inside her own body, someone else interfering with that process by killing her unborn child/fetus interferes with that right, obviously.

>Besides, we consider the safety of people in the future ALL THE TIME.

Those people don't rely on another person's body for nine months.

>I still feel that getting involved with another person's affairs is ultimately unnecessary and overly judgmental of their situation.
I think this is very true when it comes to most things, particularly victimless crimes like not wearing a seatbelt. However, there are things where not getting involved with a person's affairs can very easily and often does cause severe harm to come to an innocent third party, such as the matter at hand or drunk driving.

>True, but why is it my concern with how a person decides to raise their kid? It's their own private concern. It especially shouldn't require government or state intervention.
A child has no protections under the law, a child abuse is completely okay?

That's what you're doing when you drink while pregnant. It's child abuse to the future child. It's not guaranteed to have negative results, but neither does beating your kids senseless.

It's a public health issue, though?
I can see why alcohol should be denied to pregnant women, for the same reason we restrict advertisement of tobacco and impose quarantines when necessary.

a law is never "modified to be the choice of a private business". And there should never be a law in order to change public opinion in order to "dispel a notion". Sadly there are far too many like you that believe that government should control and micromanage your personal life and then complain when they do in fact control your personal life.

That doesn't strike me as a fair comparison. Additionally once the child is born they don't rely on the woman's body and have their own independence from said body, and once they're born actually hitting them is a different scenario with different factors involved.

Most women don't really follow every sacred rule while pregnant anyhow, and a lot of pre natal care health risks aren't universal and are shaky when it comes to their validity. For example, smoking while pregnant is common, at least in the U.K., and the results don't at all match up with alarmist expectations like one would think. Same applies to drinking while pregnant.

I suppose that's fair, but when an overwhelming majority of people make uninformed decisions due to deceptive practices and perceptions, does it truly make them free or are they a slave to an overwhelming amount of lies or exaggerations crafted by powerful special interest groups?

they have the ability to make their own voluntary decisions based on their own due diligence, government is the only organization with a monopoly on force. Nobody can make you take action besides government. Everything in the market place is voluntary cooperation, everything government is strictly force and coercion. The only true "powerful special interest group" that can make you do anything is the government. Only government can truly make you a slave. The market at worse can only try to change your perception and deceive you, the government is the only institution with a monopoly of force.

Alcohol I can see, as one drink once in a while is a typical habit and unproven to do harm. Smokers don't work like that. Multiple cigarettes a day is the norm, and that is proven to be terrible for the child. Smokers are doing permanent harm to the kid. Stuff that affects them after they come out. The smoking stuff is quite proven.

The government has a huge hand in getting people to abstain from alcohol and tobacco by lying about how bad both ultimately are, is what I'm getting at. The EPA, CDC, WHO, FDA, etc have been lying for years now which can certainly sway public opinion.

>is quite proven

Not really, it's still up in the air, and studies have indicated otherwise.

sott.net/article/268159-The-myth-of-smoking-during-pregnancy-being-harmful

Metrics used by groups like the WHO are ridiculous. The risk is way too small for it to actually matter, there are things people expose themselves to regularly that are far worse.

government certainly does lie and certainly does control the people, yeah i agree. What is really astounding is that these agencies that are created really do the complete opposite of what they are designed to do. The FDA only hinders progress, the EPA causes more damage than it protects, the department of education spends more and more money with performance going lower and lower the more money spent the more performance stagnates, etc. People with voluntary cooperation acting in their own self interest do a much better job in working at a field than does government workers that steal my income to pay for their own.

I don't deny the way people and experts freak out and make the issue way overblown. But there's definite increased risk. Maybe a small risk, but this is intentional harm we're talking about. That source reads like a personal blog and essentially says the stress of quitting is too great to bother with it. Be that as it may, it doesn't change that the smoking is harmful:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3156888/

boxie a cute

So why do you object to a law being put in place to fix the huge problem started by the government? These lies are pretty hard for the public to wade through.

(Sorry if you're not the guy I was replying to)

because if you look historically more laws don't fix the problems of previous laws. I've read that in order to fix these situations its ultimetly best that you remove or shrink government whenever possible to prevent further limitations on liberties. Authority must not be given to make these troublesome laws in the first place. They must not be allowed power to influence the public one way or the other. Regardless sometime in practicality in some situations it would be best to do as you say but really there shouldn't be authority to be able to decide one way or the other

And you're sure the study was able to rule out other factors involved? Studies like that one don't always consider all of the factors or genetics. Smoking has been a way to mitigate other possible causes for a long time.

Additionally there's this.

dailymail.co.uk/health/article-514330/Smoking-months-pregnancy-does-harm-baby.html

I wish I could actually find the study.

Additionally this is why I don't really trust studies from journals. Just look at the links and studies here for example: all alarmist fluff.

m.phys.org/news/2010-08-baby-full-nappy-reveal-mother.html

>people can do as they please with their bodies

Actually they can't. See the 21 drinking age, the duty-to-report a therapist has if her client says he plans to kill himself, drug prohibition...

Women stop having sole ownership over their bodies the moment they become host to another developing person.

Women should not be permitted to consume alcohol unless they are on contraception.

Alright, people SHOULD do as they please, doesn't mean they can, particularly in a nation like this with so many invasive laws.

The study was from someone who did research on the matter and was rejected by the insurance company he did the research for due to their own personal interests. Smells completely of corruption.

My father had to be put in a ice bath when he was born and his mom smoked regularly

No. This is wrong.

This has nothing to do with stereotypes, it's not 'a view' on what is healthy and what isn't. FAS is very common, alcohol has other disturbing effects on metabolism, not to mention people respond to it differently, have different enzymes.

This law is a direct result of the whole abortion 'debate' where people see it as a black and white issue - both the left and the right are guilty of this.
>muh jayzuz chris, pro life, gawd
>muh wymynz body uterus, muh choice, fetuz iz alienz

The left position is slowly becoming more prevalent though as such laws will become more common.

Like I said, your perspective, and those like yours, are destroying this country.

Again though, how would you know it's smoking that caused this? I could've been any number of factors that aren't related to smoking.

To clarify, I'm talking about the study talked about in the sott link smelling of corruption.