Live Q&As

Well, now we have a fascinating question.  ISN'T a pregnant woman allowed to drink, even to get drunk, as awful as the fetal consequences might be?   By what law can society seize her and imprison her, or whatever, to stop her drinking?

I think in this sense -- perhaps without thinking about it mch -- society DOES acknowledge that the baby is not yet a baby.   Hang on.  Gonna go research.  Stay right here. 

Okay, here is a great article on the subject of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.   Basically, there is mass hysteria on the subject, but (I am summarizing mightily)  it's pretty hard to impair your baby by overdrinking.  There's a lot of evidence that moderate alcohol use by the mom actually helps the baby, and that even occasional binge drinking doesn't usually hurt.  The truly dangerous behavior is chronic alcoholism through the pregnancy.    Until the 1980s, there were no laws that compelled societal intervention in these cases, however:

"Since the late 1980s the issue has become of increasing concern to the US legal system. Cases of physicians facing damage suits for failing to advise that alcohol could affect the foetus have been reported. Since 1987 mothers who use alcohol...during pregnancy have become subject to increasing legal controls, compulsory treatment and may even face imprisonment. If their child shows positive signs of damage they may also face charges of child abuse."

So, we are starting to push our noses into these cases.   I'm not sure I disagree with that.   And I'm not sure I disagree because this is not behavior that terminates a pregnancy early (which I do not define as "killing a child," this is a behavior that creates an injured baby, in the care of someone too irresponsible to care for it. 

Complicated!

That's like saying we can start kids down the path of becoming Einsteins by making them memorize by rote, at 7, all the formulas in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.   They'll learn numbers, not their meanings.  And it will be a chore they will resent. 

Haha. 

There is a tall skinny tower in Northern Manhattan that can be seen at a distance from the West Side Highway.  It was kind of creeopy; looked like something out of Arabian Knights.    When I was a kid, and we were driving past it, I once asked my Uncle Irving what it was.  He told me he didn't like to talk about it or think about it much, but it was The Tower of the Man Who Hates Children. 

That was it.    I never knew whether to take this seriously, but I remember gauging distances and imagining rifle scopes, and thinking we were safe.  I was pretty sure. 

So you are okay with kids being made to parrot a pledge that last had meaning during the waning days of Reconstruction, and whose meaning requires a historian to explain?  

Okay.  But when I see a bunch of bored fourth graders rolling their eyes saying these words, I am thinking that they're thinking:  My country makes me babble.  

Wow.  An interesting analysis.  So it is saying "I dare to eat.  I am a WILD woman."   I am guessing here, but it also might suggest you are not overweight, because you are willing to even DISCUSS food. 

I feel your pain about this.  

The Twitter phenomenon is really interesting, by the way.  Do an experiment:  Find a way to look at, say, 100 random bios.   (Looking at a list of one person's followers is a good way to approach this.)     Where you find food mentioned, 10 to 1 it's a woman.  And that's regardless of the nature of the mention.  "I hate cilantro" will be a woman.   "Yumm bok choi" will be a woman.   

There is another factor you are diplomatically not saying: The sibling of the Down person is also likely looking at having to be the one to take care of him/her in his/her old age.  The parents, in choosing to have the child, are also choosing to burden the siblings with the child's care. 

I do not judge abortion in these cases even a little bit.   

There is an interesting story in today's Post about Santorum and Opus Dei.  

You know, I dont want a president who describes himself as being "head and heart intoxicated with God."   Call me anti-religious, which I am not, but if you insist on that, call me anti-religious.  But I find that thought deeply disturbing; I want a person more grounded in logic than in blind obedience to his concept of a deity.  

I am also deeply disturbed in this line, from a speech he gave during the height of the Catholic Church - rape scandal:

Santorum said that Satan has used “the great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality” to corrupt universities, politics and even most Christian churches, except one.

“You say, ‘The Catholic Church?’ No,” Santorum said, explaining that Satan aimed at the country’s Protestant roots. “. . . If you look at mainline Protestantism in this country, it is in shambles. It is gone from the world of Christianity.”

Um. 

A very interesitng point.  As is the next one. 

At least 200 people alerted me to fart scrolls. 

Okay, Okay.  Fair enough.   The intro to next week's full chat will be a revised, and eccentric, FAQ.    See you all next week.