Misc Is this being too judgmental? - Page 8

Titty Meat · 05-31-2012, 04:07 PM

Today I saw something I thought was pretty shitty and shared it with facebook. I saw a visibly pregnant women smoking outside of Arby's with a Co-worker. I called this women a selfish POS and was told by someone how that's ****ed up and I was being judgmental. Was I in the wrong?

Pablo · 05-31-2012, 07:51 PM

Yeah, but did you kick her in the stomach for smoking? That's what a real ninja would have done.

Al Bundy · 05-31-2012, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

Some people smoke because they like to smoke. Some people smoke once in a blue moon when something stressful happens. Some people eat crap food because it tastes good, or once in a blue moon when something stressful happens. Not everybody fits into these neat little boxes you're trying to put them in.

I would be willing to bet anything in this world that the woman in question is a regular pack a day smoker.

Brock · 05-31-2012, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Bundy

I would be willing to bet anything in this world that the woman in question is a regular pack a day smoker.

For whatever that's worth.

Cephalic Trauma · 05-31-2012, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Bundy

I would be willing to bet anything in this world that the woman in question is a regular pack a day smoker.

Stop using common sense! It oversimplifies things.

Brock · 05-31-2012, 08:01 PM

yes! We must absolutely assume the worst about somebody doing something we dont' like!

What a bunch of nagging busybodies.

**AustinChief** · 05-31-2012, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

So the cdc is caught up in this media bugaboo? I'm sorry, but I'm going to side with the surgeon general on this one.

Actually yes to a certain extent. The CDC is not above politicizing things and pushing agendas. If you dig down and look at the studies they show CORRELATION not CAUSALITY. (see my example earlier about the difference)

That is not to say that there isn't a health risk. It is the DEGREE of unhealthiness that is being overblown. Let's look at the MAJOR concern. You are replacing oxygen with carbon monoxide.. that isn't healthy for the baby. No one disputes this. Now, let's look at carbon monoxide intake in a city like Los Angeles. Let's go a step further. A cab driver in LA takes in about the same carbon monoxide as a moderate smoker (less then a pack a day). Why aren't you up in arms about pregnant cabbies in LA? Pregnant bus drivers?

I could go on and on if you cared to actually listen and look at the science.

Cephalic Trauma · 05-31-2012, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

yes! We must absolutely assume the worst about somebody doing something we dont' like!

What a bunch of nagging busybodies.

If I went up to 100 women in the same situation, I guarantee 95 of them would be consistent smokers. I like those odds, so I will continue to feel that way. If they feel I'm being judgmental, tough ****.

SPATCH · 05-31-2012, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

So the cdc is caught up in this media bugaboo? I'm sorry, but I'm going to side with the surgeon general on this one.

I'm finding it REALLY hard to believe that you are actually a med school student. You would surely have been taught to scrutinize research and consider deficiencies. Specifically, you would have been taught the deficiencies of human research (no laboratory settings due to ethics issues). Human research that is conducted outside of a controlled environment is riddled with variables. Surely you have been taught to think independently and approach things skeptically... surely.

PS: this n00b informed me he is a med school student in a rep comment, which means we must bow to his brain-power

Brock · 05-31-2012, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

If I went up to 100 women in the same situation, I guarantee 95 of them would be consistent smokers. I like those odds, so I will continue to feel that way. If they feel I'm being judgmental, tough ****.

I feel pretty confident that you can't back that up, so I'm fine with you continuing to feel that way.

Pasta Little Brioni · 05-31-2012, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

If I went up to 100 women in the same situation, I guarantee 95 of them would be consistent smokers. I like those odds, so I will continue to feel that way. If they feel I'm being judgmental, tough ****.

Well aren't you just a regular Douchie Howser.

Cephalic Trauma · 05-31-2012, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Actually yes to a certain extent. The CDC is not above politicizing things and pushing agendas. If you dig down and look at the studies they show CORRELATION not CAUSALITY. (see my example earlier about the difference)

That is not to say that there isn't a health risk. It is the DEGREE of unhealthiness that is being overblown. Let's look at the MAJOR concern. You are replacing oxygen with carbon monoxide.. that isn't healthy for the baby. No one disputes this. Now, let's look at carbon monoxide intake in a city like Los Angeles. Let's go a step further. A cab driver in LA takes in about the same carbon monoxide as a moderate smoker (less then a pack a day). Why aren't you up in arms about pregnant cabbies in LA? Pregnant bus drivers?

I could go on and on if you cared to actually listen and look at the science.

Yeah, because a school for political science would NEVER try to push an agenda. Please.

And it isn't simply about carbon monoxide intake. It's about CO intake during a critical period of development. Since the fetus gets oxygen via maternal blood circulation, it will directly affect the O2 and CO levels available to the fetus. Fetal hemoglobin has a much higher affinity for it's substrate (usually O2, but in this case CO). CO also has a greater affinity to both maternal and fetal hemoglobin, so it binds at a much higher rate than O2. Thus, CO is going to bind at a relatively high rate to fetal hemoglobin. If CO is competitively inhibiting O2 to a vital organ, such as the brain, you run the risk of having a congenital abnormality.

To your cabbie point, yes, I agree that's not a good environment for a mother. But smoking is avoidable. Earning a livelihood is not. I have a hard time scolding somebody for making a living in circumstances that are beyond their control.

Cephalic Trauma · 05-31-2012, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_spatula

I'm finding it REALLY hard to believe that you are actually a med school student. You would surely have been taught to scrutinize research and consider deficiencies. Specifically, you would have been taught the deficiencies of human research (no laboratory settings due to ethics issues). Human research that is conducted outside of a controlled environment is riddled with variables. Surely you have been taught to think independently and approach things skeptically... surely.

PS: this n00b informed me he is a med school student in a rep comment, which means we must bow to his brain-power

True, that's why animal models are extremely important in cases such as this. That doesn't mean that case-control human studies are irrelevant. Otherwise they wouldn't be conducted by researchers.

Feel free to question. I don't have anything to prove.

Al Bundy · 05-31-2012, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

yes! We must absolutely assume the worst about somebody doing something we dont' like!

What a bunch of nagging busybodies.

OR we see a pregnant woman smoking a cigarette and we say "what a dumbass bitch, doesn't she know she is probably harming her unborn child?" Truth is she probably doesn't care that she has a real chance of harming her unborn child, I say as long as my tax dollars don't go to providing long term health care to this unborn child then it isn't my problem.

JonesCrusher · 05-31-2012, 08:49 PM

http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20090...regnancy-risks

Obese Women More Likely to Have Babies With Birth Defects, Study Shows
By Kathleen Doheny
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

Feb. 10, 2009 -- Women who are obese during pregnancy have a higher risk than normal-weight women of having babies with certain birth defects, including neural tube defects such as spina bifida, heart problems, and cleft palate and lip, according to a new review.
"It is important to note that birth defects are a rare event and occur in 2%-4% of pregnancies, so the risk remains very low," says Judith Rankin, PhD, a study co-author and a reader in material and perinatal epidemiology at the University of Newcastle in England. "The last thing we want to do is scare women.”
Rather, the goal is to inform them, she says, and to encourage women who are obese to get preconception counseling about weight loss.
The new report, published in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association, is a review of previously published work. Rankin and her colleagues culled the medical literature, pooled the results of 18 studies, and reviewed the findings of 39 other studies to determine if the association between obesity and birth defects still held up. It did.
Obesity & Birth Defects: The Study

Rankin's team undertook the study because of the growing problem of obesity in women of childbearing age. In the U.S., one-third of women 15 and older are obese, the authors note, and those numbers are expected to rise.
"This is a very important public health issue given the growing numbers of women who are obese at the start of pregnancy," says Rankin, who notes that obesity is also increasing in the U.K.
Obesity & Birth Defects: Results

In the new analysis, women who were obese before pregnancy or in early pregnancy had a significantly increased risk of having a baby with birth defects. The risks differed for specific problems.

The risk of spina bifida was more than two times as high for obese pregnant women, and the overall risk of neural tube defects was nearly twice as high.
The risk of cardiovascular defects was 30% higher.
The risk of cleft lip and cleft palate, either singly or together, was about 20% higher.
The risk of hydrocephaly (an abnormal buildup of fluid in the brain) was 60% higher.
Limb reduction abnormalities were 30% higher.

The definitions of overweight and obese differed somewhat from study to study, but many studies used those set by the World Health Organization -- a body mass index or BMI of 25 and above for overweight and 30 and above for obese.
More research is needed to determine if the link between excess weight and birth defects holds for overweight women. "There isn't the same amount of research evidence for overweight as there is for obesity,'' Rankin says.
Obesity & Birth Defects: Explaining the Link

Exactly how obesity increases birth defect risk isn't known, but the researchers offer possible explanations.

Because maternal diabetes is known to increase the risk of birth defects, and obese women are at higher risk for type 2 diabetes, the mother-to-be may have undiagnosed diabetes.
Obese women have been shown to have nutritional deficiencies, especially reduced levels of folate, which is important to prevent neural tube defects. Obese women may need more than the amount routinely recommended to prevent birth defects.

JonesCrusher · 05-31-2012, 08:53 PM

I saw a overweight pregnant women drinking a Mt Dew today. I think I'll go on Facebook and express my outrage.

05-31-2012, 04:07 PM
Titty Meat Inmem 2.0 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: My house Casino cash: $2007558	Is this being too judgmental? Today I saw something I thought was pretty shitty and shared it with facebook. I saw a visibly pregnant women smoking outside of Arby's with a Co-worker. I called this women a selfish POS and was told by someone how that's ****ed up and I was being judgmental. Was I in the wrong?
Posts: 75,443

05-31-2012, 07:51 PM	#106
Pablo Ultrabanned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: KCMO Casino cash: $1749356	Yeah, but did you kick her in the stomach for smoking? That's what a real ninja would have done.
Posts: 40,559

05-31-2012, 08:01 PM	#110
Brock Say hello to my little friend Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Larryville Casino cash: $9598422	yes! We must absolutely assume the worst about somebody doing something we dont' like! What a bunch of nagging busybodies.
Posts: 47,314

05-31-2012, 08:49 PM	#119
JonesCrusher Knock Knock Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Southeast Wisconsin Casino cash: $10006550	http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20090...regnancy-risks Obese Women More Likely to Have Babies With Birth Defects, Study Shows By Kathleen Doheny WebMD Health News Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD Feb. 10, 2009 -- Women who are obese during pregnancy have a higher risk than normal-weight women of having babies with certain birth defects, including neural tube defects such as spina bifida, heart problems, and cleft palate and lip, according to a new review. "It is important to note that birth defects are a rare event and occur in 2%-4% of pregnancies, so the risk remains very low," says Judith Rankin, PhD, a study co-author and a reader in material and perinatal epidemiology at the University of Newcastle in England. "The last thing we want to do is scare women.” Rather, the goal is to inform them, she says, and to encourage women who are obese to get preconception counseling about weight loss. The new report, published in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association, is a review of previously published work. Rankin and her colleagues culled the medical literature, pooled the results of 18 studies, and reviewed the findings of 39 other studies to determine if the association between obesity and birth defects still held up. It did. Obesity & Birth Defects: The Study Rankin's team undertook the study because of the growing problem of obesity in women of childbearing age. In the U.S., one-third of women 15 and older are obese, the authors note, and those numbers are expected to rise. "This is a very important public health issue given the growing numbers of women who are obese at the start of pregnancy," says Rankin, who notes that obesity is also increasing in the U.K. Obesity & Birth Defects: Results In the new analysis, women who were obese before pregnancy or in early pregnancy had a significantly increased risk of having a baby with birth defects. The risks differed for specific problems. The risk of spina bifida was more than two times as high for obese pregnant women, and the overall risk of neural tube defects was nearly twice as high. The risk of cardiovascular defects was 30% higher. The risk of cleft lip and cleft palate, either singly or together, was about 20% higher. The risk of hydrocephaly (an abnormal buildup of fluid in the brain) was 60% higher. Limb reduction abnormalities were 30% higher. The definitions of overweight and obese differed somewhat from study to study, but many studies used those set by the World Health Organization -- a body mass index or BMI of 25 and above for overweight and 30 and above for obese. More research is needed to determine if the link between excess weight and birth defects holds for overweight women. "There isn't the same amount of research evidence for overweight as there is for obesity,'' Rankin says. Obesity & Birth Defects: Explaining the Link Exactly how obesity increases birth defect risk isn't known, but the researchers offer possible explanations. Because maternal diabetes is known to increase the risk of birth defects, and obese women are at higher risk for type 2 diabetes, the mother-to-be may have undiagnosed diabetes. Obese women have been shown to have nutritional deficiencies, especially reduced levels of folate, which is important to prevent neural tube defects. Obese women may need more than the amount routinely recommended to prevent birth defects.
Posts: 771

05-31-2012, 08:53 PM	#120
JonesCrusher Knock Knock Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Southeast Wisconsin Casino cash: $10006550	I saw a overweight pregnant women drinking a Mt Dew today. I think I'll go on Facebook and express my outrage.
Posts: 771