'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result • Hacker News Board

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#261

Post by pyre » Wed, Jul 24, 2013, 2:27 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #245

pdonis wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In our society, where drinking is an important social rite, not drinking makes you "the other" IMO, the appropriate response to that is to fix our society's attitudes about drinking as a social rite, not to use it as an excuse for women to risk harm to their children. That said, if the woman's job is what's going to support the child, that does add an element to the risk-benefit calculation.

You're begging the question. There is no evidence of harm to children from light drinking during pregnancy. So you really have to question the motives of a policy that dictates women to engage in a behavior that excludes them socially for an imagined benefit to children. Its one step above segregating women into sanitation tents during menstration. A policy completely disproportional to the underlying problem whose i…

  > There is no evidence of harm to
  > children from light drinking
  > during pregnancy

To my knowledge, there are is no evidence that taking ibuprofen during pregnancy harms the child. Should a woman then ignore the medical recommendations that she not take it?

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#262

Post by 7s » Wed, Jul 24, 2013, 8:02 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #172

DanBC wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make an excellent point. A wine tasting portion is a sip, that you slurp up and then spit out. No-one (I imagine) thinks of that portion as a real serving size!

I never spit out when tasting wine, that seems pointless to me :) Then again, I'm not a professional or even in any manner advanced taster, I just do it for fun.

Why would you do that, I never even heard of this before.

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#263

Post by 7s » Wed, Jul 24, 2013, 8:02 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #172

DanBC wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make an excellent point. A wine tasting portion is a sip, that you slurp up and then spit out. No-one (I imagine) thinks of that portion as a real serving size!

I never spit out when tasting wine, that seems pointless to me :) Then again, I'm not a professional or even in any manner advanced taster, I just do it for fun.

Why would you do that, I never even heard of this before.

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#264

Post by bittired » Wed, Jul 24, 2013, 11:24 AM UTC

gyepi wrote: post #260

bittired wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously there are exceptions, but most poor schools do not have internet access for the students or computers for them. If they do have a library, it is generally inadequate and most are not encouraged to use it. I appreciate your response, but I believe that your experience is based of your childhood in Africa. In our local county library we probably have 30-40 computers available for free internet access. This…

My responses are based knowledge of poverty in many parts of the world. I mentioned my childhood in Africa because my knowledge of it is deeper than that of most people discussing the issue. In addition, as I mentioned, I have a keen interest in the topic beyond my personal experiences. The question of why poor people don't take advantage of the amenities available to them or, in other words, pull themselves up by th…

I know the conversation is over, but

> Sorry, genetics don't work that way and poor people aren't all stupid.

If you reread what I've said in multiple places in this topic, I don't think that at all. In fact, that is why I started arguing with the initial post. To summarize:

1. Being poor does not make you stupid.

2. Giving money to the poor is best handled by an organization that can ensure the money is not being abused. In the U.S., the cost of adequate administration of aid to the poor is not possible, and they do such a poor job at it that welfare is abused to the point that it is hurtful to the poor because it keeps them down and dependent on the government or worse it keeps them using drugs. Charities such as the Catholic church which gives more money and time than any other organization including the Red Cross are better fit to do this, however the growth and acceptance of atheism/child abuse by priests/the economy/several other rights (gay right to marry, pro-choice, wanting openly-gay/female priests) issues continue to lower giving without a similarly efficient organization (nuns who work for room/board without families) getting those funds.

3. I understand that not all have the opportunities I've described (libraries, computers), and I think they should. It is more common in the U.S., and one of the main reasons it isn't used as much or in the right way is due to parenting and community. I think that we need to spend more time working on all of that, not just using the welfare system (which in the U.S. is a bureaucratic mess that is unable to effectively manage how funding is allocated).

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#265

Post by mistermann » Sat, Jul 27, 2013, 5:05 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #146

mistermann wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with smoking. If someone sees a pregnant woman smoking, they lose their mind. I don't know the stats, but I know a lot of people walking around today were born to smoking mothers. Prior to 1980 or so, whenever the media campaign began, massive numbers of people smoked, including pregnant women who didn't know any better.

tobacco use and alcohol use are very different. We don't know if there's a safe level of alcohol, and we do know that it varies between different women. We do know that any level of tobacco use is harmful to the mother and harmful to the child. Please don't conflate the two. > Prior to 1980 or so, whenever the media campaign began, massive numbers of people smoked, including pregnant women who didn't know any better.…

> We do know that any level of tobacco use is harmful to the mother and harmful to the child.

Every child born to a smoking mother is "harmed"? Depends on the definition of "harmed" I suppose.