Roe v Wade is on deck

[ZiprHead]

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

Is this really true? First I've heard of that.

Unfortunately, yes.

I first heard of it was when I saw the Ron Howard movie Bitter Harvest, which was based on a book by the same name that documented the health effects that resulted from an accidental contamination of cattle feed with PBB in the 1970s.

PBB accumulates in body fat and takes decades to clear, if it ever does. Cows fed PBB contaminated feed produced contaminated milk. Women who consumed dairy products made from that milk produced contaminated breastmilk. The children of dairy farmers in Michigan were heavily impacted and studies have shown the effects are multigenerational.

I understand the breast milk thing. It's the bolded above I found new to me.

 

[Emily Lake]

I’m old enough now to recognize that I can only make choices for myself —and that it is wrong for me to judge others for making the choices they do. Because it is not our body or our life.

At some point it's not one life, it's two.

That point is not conception. But it's also not solely delivery. There's a gray area in there where decisions are being made that kill one life in favor of another. When that's a necessary decision, okay. When it's not necessary, I rather have a problem with deciding it's okay to kill sometimes if that other life might be an inconvenience or bring up bad memories.

 

[Emily Lake]

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

Is this really true? First I've heard of that.

Some viruses and some drugs can cross the placenta and affect the developing fetus. Thalidomide is the most infamous drug bit other drugs, including prescriptions can affect a developing fetus. We know that babies are sometimes born addicted to drugs or with fetal alcohol syndrome, and that rubella can cause serious birth defects. The chickenpox virus can be fatal to both mother and fetus. Those are off the top of my head.

And, of course, the health and nutritional status of the mother can have a profound affect on the developing fetus. And if a woman dies not have sufficient calcium in her diet/blood stream, the developing fetus will make use of calcium stored in her bones. Which is part of the reason some women are at higher risk of osteoporosis.

I assumed Zipr was being sarcastic. I thought it was pretty well understood, which is why pregnant women aren't supposed to drink or eat sushi and are precluded or strongly warned away from a lot of prescription drugs.

 

[Emily Lake]

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

Is this really true? First I've heard of that.

Unfortunately, yes.

I first heard of it was when I saw the Ron Howard movie Bitter Harvest, which was based on a book by the same name that documented the health effects that resulted from an accidental contamination of cattle feed with PBB in the 1970s.

PBB accumulates in body fat and takes decades to clear, if it ever does. Cows fed PBB contaminated feed produced contaminated milk. Women who consumed dairy products made from that milk produced contaminated breastmilk. The children of dairy farmers in Michigan were heavily impacted and studies have shown the effects are multigenerational.

I understand the breast milk thing. It's the bolded above I found new to me.

Lolololololol

In this case, I'm guessing that you're considering a not-yet-born fetus to be a baby, despite the insistence of some posters in this thread!

 

[ZiprHead]

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

Is this really true? First I've heard of that.

Unfortunately, yes.

I first heard of it was when I saw the Ron Howard movie Bitter Harvest, which was based on a book by the same name that documented the health effects that resulted from an accidental contamination of cattle feed with PBB in the 1970s.

PBB accumulates in body fat and takes decades to clear, if it ever does. Cows fed PBB contaminated feed produced contaminated milk. Women who consumed dairy products made from that milk produced contaminated breastmilk. The children of dairy farmers in Michigan were heavily impacted and studies have shown the effects are multigenerational.

I understand the breast milk thing. It's the bolded above I found new to me.

Lolololololol

In this case, I'm guessing that you're considering a not-yet-born fetus to be a baby, despite the insistence of some posters in this thread!

Doing no such thing.

 

[Emily Lake]

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

Is this really true? First I've heard of that.

Unfortunately, yes.

I first heard of it was when I saw the Ron Howard movie Bitter Harvest, which was based on a book by the same name that documented the health effects that resulted from an accidental contamination of cattle feed with PBB in the 1970s.

PBB accumulates in body fat and takes decades to clear, if it ever does. Cows fed PBB contaminated feed produced contaminated milk. Women who consumed dairy products made from that milk produced contaminated breastmilk. The children of dairy farmers in Michigan were heavily impacted and studies have shown the effects are multigenerational.

I understand the breast milk thing. It's the bolded above I found new to me.

Lolololololol

In this case, I'm guessing that you're considering a not-yet-born fetus to be a baby, despite the insistence of some posters in this thread!

Doing no such thing.

So... this is the first you've ever heard that a baby (as in no longer in the womb) won't have booze in their system just because mom has a whiskey a month post partum and isn't breastfeeding?

 

[Toni]

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

Is this really true? First I've heard of that.

Unfortunately, yes.

I first heard of it was when I saw the Ron Howard movie Bitter Harvest, which was based on a book by the same name that documented the health effects that resulted from an accidental contamination of cattle feed with PBB in the 1970s.

PBB accumulates in body fat and takes decades to clear, if it ever does. Cows fed PBB contaminated feed produced contaminated milk. Women who consumed dairy products made from that milk produced contaminated breastmilk. The children of dairy farmers in Michigan were heavily impacted and studies have shown the effects are multigenerational.

I understand the breast milk thing. It's the bolded above I found new to me.

Lolololololol

In this case, I'm guessing that you're considering a not-yet-born fetus to be a baby, despite the insistence of some posters in this thread!

Doing no such thing.

So... this is the first you've ever heard that a baby (as in no longer in the womb) won't have booze in their system just because mom has a whiskey a month post partum and isn't breastfeeding?

They likely will not have booze in their system but the alcohol may well cause any in a set of well documented issues associated with fetal alcohol system. The baby is t burn with a buzz. It’s born with a set of disabilities and facial differences —and an increased propensity towards alcohol addiction.

 

[Emily Lake]

They likely will not have booze in their system but the alcohol may well cause any in a set of well documented issues associated with fetal alcohol system. The baby is t burn with a buzz. It’s born with a set of disabilities and facial differences —and an increased propensity towards alcohol addiction.

Yes, I know that.

Go back to what Arctish originally posted:

Normal adults understand that a fetus receives oxygen, nutrition, fluids, and everything else in a pregnant woman’s bloodstream that will pass through the placenta because the fetus and its mother are linked via the umbilical cord. They understand that a fetus is literally inside its mother. A fetus will be affected by alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc, if its mother is being affected by them.

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

You and I both understand that Arctish's first paragraph is talking about a fetus being subjected to what the mother eats or drinks - what is in her bloodstream frequently passes to the fetus. Thus, FAS.

The second paragraph, however, is talking about after the baby is delivered. A baby will not have alcohol or other toxins int its system just because mom had them in hers - they're not longer sharing a circulatory system. A baby will only receive those things from its mom if she's breastfeeding.

Okay, now that we're on the same page with respect to Arctish's post... give a look to Zipr's comment:

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

Is this really true? First I've heard of that.

Unfortunately, yes.
...
PBB accumulates in body fat and takes decades to clear, if it ever does. Cows fed PBB contaminated feed produced contaminated milk. Women who consumed dairy products made from that milk produced contaminated breastmilk. The children of dairy farmers in Michigan were heavily impacted and studies have shown the effects are multigenerational.

I understand the breast milk thing. It's the bolded above I found new to me.

To me, it seems that Zipr did not understand that Artish's second paragraph was talking about what a baby receives from its mother AFTER birth.

I found it funny. Not mockingly, just genuinely funny that Zipr would say that this is the first he's ever heard that a baby after birth doesn't get alcohol in its system just because mom does, but only if they're breastfeeding. Because I'm about 98% sure Zipr absolutely already knows that very straightforward and common sense thing, and this is all just a case of misreading someone's post.

But it seems that my jab was also misunderstood... leading you to feel the need to incorrectly educate me.

So... apparently there's a lot of miscomprehension going around. I am not actually surprised by that.

 

[ZiprHead]

To me, it seems that Zipr did not understand that Artish's second paragraph was talking about what a baby receives from its mother AFTER birth.

This.

It was my bad.

And thank you for recognizing that.

 

[Emily Lake]

To me, it seems that Zipr did not understand that Artish's second paragraph was talking about what a baby receives from its mother AFTER birth.

This.

It was my bad.

And thank you for recognizing that.

I'm sorry that my jab - which was intended to be lighthearted, not mean - ended up resulting in a quagmire of miscomrepehension

ETA: I don't, however, feel bad about pointing out that you assumed that "baby" also refers to a developing human that is still inside the womb

ETA2 for everyone: Because Arctish did what several other posters say ought be done - She (?) drew a distinction between a "fetus" being inside the womb, and a "baby" being exclusively outside the womb. You read baby, but still assumed inside the womb. Because in real life, we're none of us doctors. And in real life, a developing human inside the womb late in pregnancy is almost always thought of and referred to as a baby, not as a fetus.

 

[Toni]

They likely will not have booze in their system but the alcohol may well cause any in a set of well documented issues associated with fetal alcohol system. The baby is t burn with a buzz. It’s born with a set of disabilities and facial differences —and an increased propensity towards alcohol addiction.

Yes, I know that.

Go back to what Arctish originally posted:

Normal adults understand that a fetus receives oxygen, nutrition, fluids, and everything else in a pregnant woman’s bloodstream that will pass through the placenta because the fetus and its mother are linked via the umbilical cord. They understand that a fetus is literally inside its mother. A fetus will be affected by alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc, if its mother is being affected by them.

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

You and I both understand that Arctish's first paragraph is talking about a fetus being subjected to what the mother eats or drinks - what is in her bloodstream frequently passes to the fetus. Thus, FAS.

The second paragraph, however, is talking about after the baby is delivered. A baby will not have alcohol or other toxins int its system just because mom had them in hers - they're not longer sharing a circulatory system. A baby will only receive those things from its mom if she's breastfeeding.

Okay, now that we're on the same page with respect to Arctish's post... give a look to Zipr's comment:

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

Is this really true? First I've heard of that.

Unfortunately, yes.
...
PBB accumulates in body fat and takes decades to clear, if it ever does. Cows fed PBB contaminated feed produced contaminated milk. Women who consumed dairy products made from that milk produced contaminated breastmilk. The children of dairy farmers in Michigan were heavily impacted and studies have shown the effects are multigenerational.

I understand the breast milk thing. It's the bolded above I found new to me.

To me, it seems that Zipr did not understand that Artish's second paragraph was talking about what a baby receives from its mother AFTER birth.

I found it funny. Not mockingly, just genuinely funny that Zipr would say that this is the first he's ever heard that a baby after birth doesn't get alcohol in its system just because mom does, but only if they're breastfeeding. Because I'm about 98% sure Zipr absolutely already knows that very straightforward and common sense thing, and this is all just a case of misreading someone's post.

But it seems that my jab was also misunderstood... leading you to feel the need to incorrectly educate me.

So... apparently there's a lot of miscomprehension going around. I am not actually surprised by that.

If the mother is breastfeeding, absolutely some things will pass through breastmilk to the baby.

 

[Emily Lake]

They likely will not have booze in their system but the alcohol may well cause any in a set of well documented issues associated with fetal alcohol system. The baby is t burn with a buzz. It’s born with a set of disabilities and facial differences —and an increased propensity towards alcohol addiction.

Yes, I know that.

Go back to what Arctish originally posted:

Normal adults understand that a fetus receives oxygen, nutrition, fluids, and everything else in a pregnant woman’s bloodstream that will pass through the placenta because the fetus and its mother are linked via the umbilical cord. They understand that a fetus is literally inside its mother. A fetus will be affected by alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc, if its mother is being affected by them.

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

You and I both understand that Arctish's first paragraph is talking about a fetus being subjected to what the mother eats or drinks - what is in her bloodstream frequently passes to the fetus. Thus, FAS.

The second paragraph, however, is talking about after the baby is delivered. A baby will not have alcohol or other toxins int its system just because mom had them in hers - they're not longer sharing a circulatory system. A baby will only receive those things from its mom if she's breastfeeding.

Okay, now that we're on the same page with respect to Arctish's post... give a look to Zipr's comment:

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

Is this really true? First I've heard of that.

Unfortunately, yes.
...
PBB accumulates in body fat and takes decades to clear, if it ever does. Cows fed PBB contaminated feed produced contaminated milk. Women who consumed dairy products made from that milk produced contaminated breastmilk. The children of dairy farmers in Michigan were heavily impacted and studies have shown the effects are multigenerational.

I understand the breast milk thing. It's the bolded above I found new to me.

To me, it seems that Zipr did not understand that Artish's second paragraph was talking about what a baby receives from its mother AFTER birth.

I found it funny. Not mockingly, just genuinely funny that Zipr would say that this is the first he's ever heard that a baby after birth doesn't get alcohol in its system just because mom does, but only if they're breastfeeding. Because I'm about 98% sure Zipr absolutely already knows that very straightforward and common sense thing, and this is all just a case of misreading someone's post.

But it seems that my jab was also misunderstood... leading you to feel the need to incorrectly educate me.

So... apparently there's a lot of miscomprehension going around. I am not actually surprised by that.

If the mother is breastfeeding, absolutely some things will pass through breastmilk to the baby.

For fuck's sake, Toni. READ THE ACTUAL WORDS IN FRONT OF YOU.

Your response is absurd. All it does is demonstrate that once again, you aren't actually reading what I've written. At some point in the normal process of comprehension, you've inserted your own false assumptions then ran with them.

 

[Toni]

They likely will not have booze in their system but the alcohol may well cause any in a set of well documented issues associated with fetal alcohol system. The baby is t burn with a buzz. It’s born with a set of disabilities and facial differences —and an increased propensity towards alcohol addiction.

Yes, I know that.

Go back to what Arctish originally posted:

Normal adults understand that a fetus receives oxygen, nutrition, fluids, and everything else in a pregnant woman’s bloodstream that will pass through the placenta because the fetus and its mother are linked via the umbilical cord. They understand that a fetus is literally inside its mother. A fetus will be affected by alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc, if its mother is being affected by them.

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

You and I both understand that Arctish's first paragraph is talking about a fetus being subjected to what the mother eats or drinks - what is in her bloodstream frequently passes to the fetus. Thus, FAS.

The second paragraph, however, is talking about after the baby is delivered. A baby will not have alcohol or other toxins int its system just because mom had them in hers - they're not longer sharing a circulatory system. A baby will only receive those things from its mom if she's breastfeeding.

Okay, now that we're on the same page with respect to Arctish's post... give a look to Zipr's comment:

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

Is this really true? First I've heard of that.

Unfortunately, yes.
...
PBB accumulates in body fat and takes decades to clear, if it ever does. Cows fed PBB contaminated feed produced contaminated milk. Women who consumed dairy products made from that milk produced contaminated breastmilk. The children of dairy farmers in Michigan were heavily impacted and studies have shown the effects are multigenerational.

I understand the breast milk thing. It's the bolded above I found new to me.

To me, it seems that Zipr did not understand that Artish's second paragraph was talking about what a baby receives from its mother AFTER birth.

I found it funny. Not mockingly, just genuinely funny that Zipr would say that this is the first he's ever heard that a baby after birth doesn't get alcohol in its system just because mom does, but only if they're breastfeeding. Because I'm about 98% sure Zipr absolutely already knows that very straightforward and common sense thing, and this is all just a case of misreading someone's post.

But it seems that my jab was also misunderstood... leading you to feel the need to incorrectly educate me.

So... apparently there's a lot of miscomprehension going around. I am not actually surprised by that.

If the mother is breastfeeding, absolutely some things will pass through breastmilk to the baby.

For fuck's sake, Toni. READ THE ACTUAL WORDS IN FRONT OF YOU.

Your response is absurd. All it does is demonstrate that once again, you aren't actually reading what I've written. At some point in the normal process of comprehension, you've inserted your own false assumptions then ran with them.

I agreed with you: a baby will get some things from the mother who is breastfeeding the baby.

What did I fail to understand?


What I think you are failing to understand is my level of willingness to engage with you in what appears to me to be a bunch of pointless nit picking you are trying to market as intelligent discourse.

I have no idea what you are attempting to achieve with your posts. It seems as though you are merely looking for someone or something to rage about.

That’s fine: you do you.

But I’m going to keep on doing me.

If you decide you would like to have a genuine conversation, perhaps about processing grief, let me know. I’m not a therapist but I’ve lived long enough to have buried people I loved deeply and to be grateful for people I love who are still around.

If you are just looking for a fight then maybe ask yourself why.

Frankly there is so much anger and hatred being spewed on every media platform /discussion that I’m not interested in engaging with that any more. With regards to stupid people, it’s simply a case of not wanting to get down in the dirt with them because while they may be happy in mud, I’ve got better things to do and enough of my own mess to clean up without adding to it. I don’t think you are stupid but I also don’t think you are going to get what you want out of this discussion, and certainly not from me.

I do solemnly promise not to have an abortion, an easy promise to keep as it would take multiple surgeries and a handful of miracles for me to conceive at this point in my life. I’d just have to try to carry that pregnancy out of scientific curiosity and for the benefit of science. I’d rather avoid the notoriety but science!

If your sense of self or self worth depends upon me or anyone else agreeing with you, then I think you need to have a long talk with yourself about why you care whether some stranger shares your beliefs or bows to your superior logic, if that’s what you want to call it.

 

[Emily Lake]

They likely will not have booze in their system but the alcohol may well cause any in a set of well documented issues associated with fetal alcohol system. The baby is t burn with a buzz. It’s born with a set of disabilities and facial differences —and an increased propensity towards alcohol addiction.

Yes, I know that.

Go back to what Arctish originally posted:

Normal adults understand that a fetus receives oxygen, nutrition, fluids, and everything else in a pregnant woman’s bloodstream that will pass through the placenta because the fetus and its mother are linked via the umbilical cord. They understand that a fetus is literally inside its mother. A fetus will be affected by alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc, if its mother is being affected by them.

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

You and I both understand that Arctish's first paragraph is talking about a fetus being subjected to what the mother eats or drinks - what is in her bloodstream frequently passes to the fetus. Thus, FAS.

The second paragraph, however, is talking about after the baby is delivered. A baby will not have alcohol or other toxins int its system just because mom had them in hers - they're not longer sharing a circulatory system. A baby will only receive those things from its mom if she's breastfeeding.

Okay, now that we're on the same page with respect to Arctish's post... give a look to Zipr's comment:

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

Is this really true? First I've heard of that.

Unfortunately, yes.
...
PBB accumulates in body fat and takes decades to clear, if it ever does. Cows fed PBB contaminated feed produced contaminated milk. Women who consumed dairy products made from that milk produced contaminated breastmilk. The children of dairy farmers in Michigan were heavily impacted and studies have shown the effects are multigenerational.

I understand the breast milk thing. It's the bolded above I found new to me.

To me, it seems that Zipr did not understand that Artish's second paragraph was talking about what a baby receives from its mother AFTER birth.

I found it funny. Not mockingly, just genuinely funny that Zipr would say that this is the first he's ever heard that a baby after birth doesn't get alcohol in its system just because mom does, but only if they're breastfeeding. Because I'm about 98% sure Zipr absolutely already knows that very straightforward and common sense thing, and this is all just a case of misreading someone's post.

But it seems that my jab was also misunderstood... leading you to feel the need to incorrectly educate me.

So... apparently there's a lot of miscomprehension going around. I am not actually surprised by that.

If the mother is breastfeeding, absolutely some things will pass through breastmilk to the baby.

For fuck's sake, Toni. READ THE ACTUAL WORDS IN FRONT OF YOU.

Your response is absurd. All it does is demonstrate that once again, you aren't actually reading what I've written. At some point in the normal process of comprehension, you've inserted your own false assumptions then ran with them.

I agreed with you: a baby will get some things from the mother who is breastfeeding the baby.

What did I fail to understand?

Perhaps it's the ever-present issue with inferring tone from text.

To me, you took an opposition stance to me poking fun at Zipr's misreading. It was clear that Zipr took a left turn from Arctish's post, and that it was unintentional.

But in response to me poking fun, you jumped in and seemed to be trying to correct me about fetal alcohol syndrome and similar impacts from substances in the mother's blood during gestation. That was you misunderstanding the back and forth. So I explained the exchange, and my perspective on what I think Zipr misread - which he has since confirmed.

But your additional follow-on response still comes across as if you're correcting me. As if you think I've got it wrong. Your chosen wording didn't come across as agreement, but as condescension.

Consider some alternatives to my statement of "a baby after birth doesn't get alcohol in its system just because mom does, but only if they're breastfeeding."

You could have said "I agree, a baby will only get those things through breastmilk". Or perhaps "Yeah, if a mother is breastfeeding, some substances will make it through". Those both indicate agreement.*

That's not the approach you chose though. You said "If the mother is breastfeeding, absolutely some things will pass through breastmilk to the baby." The interjection of "absolutely" in that sentence implies that you think I have in some way suggested that substances will not pass through breastmilk - which is in direct contradiction of what I said. The emphasis indicated by your language choice is oppositional in tone. And given the head-butting you and I have had in this thread (among others), it's an entirely reasonable interpretation for me to take.

*I'll also note that agreement is going to be awkward in this exchange regardless. Nobody at all has implied that substances aren't passed through breastmilk. So it's kind of like hopping in to say "Lava is absolutely hot". We all know it's hot, nobody said it wasn't hot, and adding such an emphasized agreement is just weird.

 

[Toni]

They likely will not have booze in their system but the alcohol may well cause any in a set of well documented issues associated with fetal alcohol system. The baby is t burn with a buzz. It’s born with a set of disabilities and facial differences —and an increased propensity towards alcohol addiction.

Yes, I know that.

Go back to what Arctish originally posted:

Normal adults understand that a fetus receives oxygen, nutrition, fluids, and everything else in a pregnant woman’s bloodstream that will pass through the placenta because the fetus and its mother are linked via the umbilical cord. They understand that a fetus is literally inside its mother. A fetus will be affected by alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc, if its mother is being affected by them.

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

You and I both understand that Arctish's first paragraph is talking about a fetus being subjected to what the mother eats or drinks - what is in her bloodstream frequently passes to the fetus. Thus, FAS.

The second paragraph, however, is talking about after the baby is delivered. A baby will not have alcohol or other toxins int its system just because mom had them in hers - they're not longer sharing a circulatory system. A baby will only receive those things from its mom if she's breastfeeding.

Okay, now that we're on the same page with respect to Arctish's post... give a look to Zipr's comment:

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

Is this really true? First I've heard of that.

Unfortunately, yes.
...
PBB accumulates in body fat and takes decades to clear, if it ever does. Cows fed PBB contaminated feed produced contaminated milk. Women who consumed dairy products made from that milk produced contaminated breastmilk. The children of dairy farmers in Michigan were heavily impacted and studies have shown the effects are multigenerational.

I understand the breast milk thing. It's the bolded above I found new to me.

To me, it seems that Zipr did not understand that Artish's second paragraph was talking about what a baby receives from its mother AFTER birth.

I found it funny. Not mockingly, just genuinely funny that Zipr would say that this is the first he's ever heard that a baby after birth doesn't get alcohol in its system just because mom does, but only if they're breastfeeding. Because I'm about 98% sure Zipr absolutely already knows that very straightforward and common sense thing, and this is all just a case of misreading someone's post.

But it seems that my jab was also misunderstood... leading you to feel the need to incorrectly educate me.

So... apparently there's a lot of miscomprehension going around. I am not actually surprised by that.

If the mother is breastfeeding, absolutely some things will pass through breastmilk to the baby.

For fuck's sake, Toni. READ THE ACTUAL WORDS IN FRONT OF YOU.

Your response is absurd. All it does is demonstrate that once again, you aren't actually reading what I've written. At some point in the normal process of comprehension, you've inserted your own false assumptions then ran with them.

I agreed with you: a baby will get some things from the mother who is breastfeeding the baby.

What did I fail to understand?

Perhaps it's the ever-present issue with inferring tone from text.

To me, you took an opposition stance to me poking fun at Zipr's misreading. It was clear that Zipr took a left turn from Arctish's post, and that it was unintentional.

But in response to me poking fun, you jumped in and seemed to be trying to correct me about fetal alcohol syndrome and similar impacts from substances in the mother's blood during gestation. That was you misunderstanding the back and forth. So I explained the exchange, and my perspective on what I think Zipr misread - which he has since confirmed.

But your additional follow-on response still comes across as if you're correcting me. As if you think I've got it wrong. Your chosen wording didn't come across as agreement, but as condescension.

Consider some alternatives to my statement of "a baby after birth doesn't get alcohol in its system just because mom does, but only if they're breastfeeding."

You could have said "I agree, a baby will only get those things through breastmilk". Or perhaps "Yeah, if a mother is breastfeeding, some substances will make it through". Those both indicate agreement.*

That's not the approach you chose though. You said "If the mother is breastfeeding, absolutely some things will pass through breastmilk to the baby." The interjection of "absolutely" in that sentence implies that you think I have in some way suggested that substances will not pass through breastmilk - which is in direct contradiction of what I said. The emphasis indicated by your language choice is oppositional in tone. And given the head-butting you and I have had in this thread (among others), it's an entirely reasonable interpretation for me to take.

*I'll also note that agreement is going to be awkward in this exchange regardless. Nobody at all has implied that substances aren't passed through breastmilk. So it's kind of like hopping in to say "Lava is absolutely hot". We all know it's hot, nobody said it wasn't hot, and adding such an emphasized agreement is just weird.

When I wrote that oh so offensive post, you were not the sole intended audience.

In fact, I was affirming the statement that some things do pass through breast milk. I’m sorry that offended you.

It is indeed sometimes difficult to convey tone and sometimes what we think we understand is not correct. Tone is difficult to discern which is a limitation of writing to essentially strangers o. The internet who may and sometimes do infer meaning that was not intended.

Some people are better at granting others a bit of grace. Some people like to score gotcha for every typo or poor word choice. Some people have bugs up their bit and are intent on misunderstanding or misattributing meaning or subtext which may or may not exist.

I will try to keep in mind how easily you are offended and respond to fewer of your posts.

 

[Emily Lake]

When I wrote that oh so offensive post, you were not the sole intended audience.

In fact, I was affirming the statement that some things do pass through breast milk. I’m sorry that offended you.

Thus, suggestions on how that could have been worded so as to convey agreement (with a thing that nobody disagreed with in the first place), and avoid the miscommunication.

It is indeed sometimes difficult to convey tone and sometimes what we think we understand is not correct. Tone is difficult to discern which is a limitation of writing to essentially strangers o. The internet who may and sometimes do infer meaning that was not intended.

Some people are better at granting others a bit of grace. Some people like to score gotcha for every typo or poor word choice. Some people have bugs up their bit and are intent on misunderstanding or misattributing meaning or subtext which may or may not exist.

I will try to keep in mind how easily you are offended and respond to fewer of your posts.

You know you do at least as much of this as you claim I do, don't you? You've gotten snippy on several occassions for whatever the hell you assume I must secretly mean, instead of responding to what I actuall say.

But yes, I will also try to keep in mind how sensitive you are, and how prone you are to seeing things that aren't there.