Anonymous wrote:I am anti incubator status within reason. There is zero, and I mean ZERO evidence to suggest that a very occasional glass of wine causes any issues. So I am deeply opposed to giving anyone crap for that.

Modern parenthood is measured by pain. How much did you sacrifice/give up/suffer for your child. The more you did the better you are as a parent or something.

I do not drink often when pregnant and never more than a glass. Anyone who wants to give me a hard time about that can give me a report on everything they do day in and day out and see if they meet all the recommendations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I judge women that judge other women for having a glass of wine here and there when pregnant. First, these judgy women are not supporting the autonomy and rights of fellow women. We women are more than incubators. We have our own minds and lives, and can weigh relative risks and benefits for ourselves. One person’s glass of slowly sipped wine may improve their happiness and cortisol levels as much as another person’s piece of chocolate, guilty pleasure tv show, walk in the park, etc. You don’t get to decide the worth of that glass of wine to that woman v. the (totally unproven) risks to her fetus.

Second, these women lack critical thinking skills and the ability to think logically. I bet the vast majority of those judgy women don’t judge themselves or others for other things that may present risks to a fetus, like being or mating with someone with certain genetic predispositions, being or mating with someone older, wearing makeup, living near a highway or having a long commute, eating too much sugar, driving in a car, spending time near lawns that have been sprayed with pesticides, going out in public ever given you could catch a virus, eating any raw veggies or fruit, etc. If these judgy women were capable of logic, they’d realize their mental energy is better spent worrying about other things.

Yes, all of this.

And of course, the indisputable: Before 1970, women drank and smoked in pregnancy, and levels of overall disability weren't higher. There's less intellectual disability and more autism diagnosis, but that's just labeling issues.

-- Signed, child of the '60s

Anonymous wrote:I judge women that judge other women for having a glass of wine here and there when pregnant. First, these judgy women are not supporting the autonomy and rights of fellow women. We women are more than incubators. We have our own minds and lives, and can weigh relative risks and benefits for ourselves. One person’s glass of slowly sipped wine may improve their happiness and cortisol levels as much as another person’s piece of chocolate, guilty pleasure tv show, walk in the park, etc. You don’t get to decide the worth of that glass of wine to that woman v. the (totally unproven) risks to her fetus.

Second, these women lack critical thinking skills and the ability to think logically. I bet the vast majority of those judgy women don’t judge themselves or others for other things that may present risks to a fetus, like being or mating with someone with certain genetic predispositions, being or mating with someone older, wearing makeup, living near a highway or having a long commute, eating too much sugar, driving in a car, spending time near lawns that have been sprayed with pesticides, going out in public ever given you could catch a virus, eating any raw veggies or fruit, etc. If these judgy women were capable of logic, they’d realize their mental energy is better spent worrying about other things.

Anonymous wrote:I judge women that judge other women for having a glass of wine here and there when pregnant. First, these judgy women are not supporting the autonomy and rights of fellow women. We women are more than incubators. We have our own minds and lives, and can weigh relative risks and benefits for ourselves. One person’s glass of slowly sipped wine may improve their happiness and cortisol levels as much as another person’s piece of chocolate, guilty pleasure tv show, walk in the park, etc. You don’t get to decide the worth of that glass of wine to that woman v. the (totally unproven) risks to her fetus.

Second, these women lack critical thinking skills and the ability to think logically. I bet the vast majority of those judgy women don’t judge themselves or others for other things that may present risks to a fetus, like being or mating with someone with certain genetic predispositions, being or mating with someone older, wearing makeup, living near a highway or having a long commute, eating too much sugar, driving in a car, spending time near lawns that have been sprayed with pesticides, going out in public ever given you could catch a virus, eating any raw veggies or fruit, etc. If these judgy women were capable of logic, they’d realize their mental energy is better spent worrying about other things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No because the CDC and large health organizations recognize that most people are morons, first and foremost. Then they also know that people will take more liberal actions based on their recs. The my say zero drinking and some people will still drink. They say a few drinks are ok and some will use it as justification to get smashed. Population health looks at people like a massive group, not as individuals, and certainly not as intelligent adults who can make their own personal decisions. Do you rely on large professional bodies to make all decisions for your life?

Quote your source. Otherwise, this is just something you and the "I love my wine more than my child" camp wants to believe.

Says the person who clearly knows zilch about public health.

This idea that the CDC "thinking that most people are morons" is completely subjective in the absence of a reputable source or actual statement by the CDC. Any thinking person can agree to that.

Well, I would have thought any thinking person could realize PP was being hyperbolic, but apparently not.

The CDC, like any good public health organization, is making the assumptions described above. Most people aren’t morons, but most women who drink to the level at which exposure would be harmful to a developing fetus are going to need a very hard line about drinking and pregnancy. They literally cannot moderate their drinking if they drink at all. Hence the “no safe quantity” language.

We don’t know what level of exposure is harmful to a fetus. We don’t know what level of exposure is harmful to a fetus. We don’t know what level of exposure is harmful to a fetus.

Thankfully, most women aren’t selfish enough to take such risks for a momentary buzz.

Seriously? Women who occasionally have one glass of wine while pregnant aren't getting buzzed while doing it. They're having a little wine with a meal. That's different than having 3 drinks in an hour and getting tipsy.

I don't have a problem with women having an occasional drink while pregnant, but your statement is simply untrue. For many, many women, myself and friends included, we get a little buzzed off a single glass of wine. Three drinks and we're not tipsy but full on drunk. I think your comment contributes to the danger in thinking that woman and every fetus processes alcohol the same way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No because the CDC and large health organizations recognize that most people are morons, first and foremost. Then they also know that people will take more liberal actions based on their recs. The my say zero drinking and some people will still drink. They say a few drinks are ok and some will use it as justification to get smashed. Population health looks at people like a massive group, not as individuals, and certainly not as intelligent adults who can make their own personal decisions. Do you rely on large professional bodies to make all decisions for your life?

Quote your source. Otherwise, this is just something you and the "I love my wine more than my child" camp wants to believe.

Says the person who clearly knows zilch about public health.

This idea that the CDC "thinking that most people are morons" is completely subjective in the absence of a reputable source or actual statement by the CDC. Any thinking person can agree to that.

Well, I would have thought any thinking person could realize PP was being hyperbolic, but apparently not.

The CDC, like any good public health organization, is making the assumptions described above. Most people aren’t morons, but most women who drink to the level at which exposure would be harmful to a developing fetus are going to need a very hard line about drinking and pregnancy. They literally cannot moderate their drinking if they drink at all. Hence the “no safe quantity” language.

We don’t know what level of exposure is harmful to a fetus. We don’t know what level of exposure is harmful to a fetus. We don’t know what level of exposure is harmful to a fetus.

Thankfully, most women aren’t selfish enough to take such risks for a momentary buzz.

Seriously? Women who occasionally have one glass of wine while pregnant aren't getting buzzed while doing it. They're having a little wine with a meal. That's different than having 3 drinks in an hour and getting tipsy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No because the CDC and large health organizations recognize that most people are morons, first and foremost. Then they also know that people will take more liberal actions based on their recs. The my say zero drinking and some people will still drink. They say a few drinks are ok and some will use it as justification to get smashed. Population health looks at people like a massive group, not as individuals, and certainly not as intelligent adults who can make their own personal decisions. Do you rely on large professional bodies to make all decisions for your life?

Quote your source. Otherwise, this is just something you and the "I love my wine more than my child" camp wants to believe.

Says the person who clearly knows zilch about public health.

This idea that the CDC "thinking that most people are morons" is completely subjective in the absence of a reputable source or actual statement by the CDC. Any thinking person can agree to that.

Well, I would have thought any thinking person could realize PP was being hyperbolic, but apparently not.

The CDC, like any good public health organization, is making the assumptions described above. Most people aren’t morons, but most women who drink to the level at which exposure would be harmful to a developing fetus are going to need a very hard line about drinking and pregnancy. They literally cannot moderate their drinking if they drink at all. Hence the “no safe quantity” language.

We don’t know what level of exposure is harmful to a fetus. We don’t know what level of exposure is harmful to a fetus. We don’t know what level of exposure is harmful to a fetus.

Thankfully, most women aren’t selfish enough to take such risks for a momentary buzz.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No because the CDC and large health organizations recognize that most people are morons, first and foremost. Then they also know that people will take more liberal actions based on their recs. The my say zero drinking and some people will still drink. They say a few drinks are ok and some will use it as justification to get smashed. Population health looks at people like a massive group, not as individuals, and certainly not as intelligent adults who can make their own personal decisions. Do you rely on large professional bodies to make all decisions for your life?

Quote your source. Otherwise, this is just something you and the "I love my wine more than my child" camp wants to believe.

Says the person who clearly knows zilch about public health.

This idea that the CDC "thinking that most people are morons" is completely subjective in the absence of a reputable source or actual statement by the CDC. Any thinking person can agree to that.

Well, I would have thought any thinking person could realize PP was being hyperbolic, but apparently not.

The CDC, like any good public health organization, is making the assumptions described above. Most people aren’t morons, but most women who drink to the level at which exposure would be harmful to a developing fetus are going to need a very hard line about drinking and pregnancy. They literally cannot moderate their drinking if they drink at all. Hence the “no safe quantity” language.