Should men have a right to damage fetus with substances and other ways?

[Dr. Chuckles]

How can such a thing happen? A man, through self-destructive behaviors such as drug addict, can cause damage or a mutation to his sperm.

again, please cite some form of scientific backing for your claim. Because everything posted here, besides your "woo" site, point to the scientific evidence being inconclusive or being pure speculation

And this is probably the 3rd time I have asked you to document these claims


Secondly, dealing with how a mother impacts a fetus is clearly different than dealing with how a woman impacts her *unfertilized* embryo (or a man and his sperm). And as usual, when it's pointed out you make no sense, you lash out with petty personal attacks and attempts at deflection.

Maybe it's time to just open a book and educate yourself

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]...read...
Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, you clearly don't. Because everything you cited made clear the sperm "theory" points to the fact it's a hypothesis currently being explored through research and we lack any causative understanding of the phenomenon. In opposition to this, we have a working theory of gravity that isn't based simply on speculation, but endless amounts of experimental data. Hence, it's not simply a hypothesis, but a scientific theory

So the one confusing popular use of "theory" here, with the scientific term, is *YOU*.

So, again, it's clear you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Many substances damage male sperm DNA that can lead to birth defects. The list includes many drugs, steroids, cancer drugs, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, and caffeine. X-rays damage male sperm DNA. So can handling pesticides. Should laws be passed to prohibit men from and punish men for using substances or undertaking actions that may damage a fetus if the man is sexually active and has not had a vasectomy?

Subtle ridicule noted. My response is no, men should not have a right to damage fetuses. In other words, I believe fetuses do deserve protection from abuse, even though abortion is legal.

Whether or not some of the ways in which the OP alleges men harm fetuses actually do harm fetuses is an additional discussion, but in any event the plain answer to your OP question is an easy "No."

 

[Henrin]

There seems to be plenty of evidence that toxins and chemicals can damage the sperm which in turn can cause miscarriages and birth defects. So in knowing this do you think men have the right to consume drugs, alcohol and smoke cigarettes that are known to cause birth defects and then impregnant a woman?

What I dispute is the idea you can prove the connection between his activity and the reason his sperm is damaged.

 

[Moot]

You keep saying stuff like this without responding to actual points. Let me try to make this simple. If I say requiring genetic testing regardless of whether it's on the man or woman, for the purpose of jailing the one who could pass on some disability is patently ridiculous, how am I being inconsistent? If you're saying all men should be tested even prior to conception yet women shouldn't have to be, you're the one being inconsistent. Why is that so hard to understand? Try to respond to what I've actually said rather than going on some tangent.

The points RemovableMind made were quite accurate and well said. It's a shame you can't appreciate such truths when they're staring you in the face.

This discussion isn't about genetic birth defects. This discussion is about birth defects caused by toxic substances that damage the sperm. It's been proven that toxic substances can damage sperm. Its also been proven that damaged sperm can cause birth defects. So if a man damages his sperm by abusing alcohol and drugs which have also been proven to cause birth defects and impregnates a woman, the odds of the fetus developing birth defects is substantially higher just as it would be if a woman did the same. So the question posed by the OP is whether or not men should be held to the same standards that women are held to before, during and after conception?



"...And although cigarette advertising associates tobacco smoking with virility, a growing body of research supports the opposite that smoking reduces sperm counts. Heavy use of marijuana has also been linked to similar effects. Even regular intake of cafleine may have sperm- and offspring-damaging impact! GENOTOXIC EFFECTS During the 1950's, doctors said that 10% of U.S. couples were infertile ... and that organic problems in the male partners ac counted for only 10% of those problems. To day, a sixth-over 15%—of our nation's married couples are reportedly infertile, and male dysfunctions are said to account for 30 to 40% of the difficulties. (However, since infertility has traditionally been blamed on women, this increased observance of male dysfunction in couples could reflect a belated recognition of long-ignored facts as well as a new biological trend.)

There is also some evidence suggesting that men with low sperm counts are more likely to produce offspring with birth defects. Erik Jansson, an environmentalist with Friends of the Earth (who's working on anti-birth-defect legislation), notes that artificial insemination of women with frozen sperm from third-party donors results in a birth defect rate of 1% or less ... in sharp contrast to the overall American birth defect rate of 4.5 to 6%. Jansson states that "the most important reason for the dramatic fall in birth defects with third-party donors of sperm is that the artificial insemination laboratories accept only men with high sperm counts . . ." (The FOE staffer has also concluded that the same findings "suggest that American men are presently responsible for between 78 and 83% of all birth defects in the United States"!).....

Read more: THE SPERM CRISIS


With such high odds that American men are responsible for 78% to 83% of all birth defects in this country, isn't it time that men took more responsiblity for impregnating women instead of putting all the responsibility and blame on women? Imo, any answer other than 'yes' shows a lack of personal responsibility and moral conscience.

 

[ChrisL]

The points RemovableMind made were quite accurate and well said. It's a shame you can't appreciate such truths when they're staring you in the face.

This discussion isn't about genetic birth defects. This discussion is about birth defects caused by toxic substances that damage the sperm. It's been proven that toxic substances can damage sperm. Its also been proven that damaged sperm can cause birth defects. So if a man damages his sperm by abusing alcohol and drugs which have also been proven to cause birth defects and impregnates a woman, the odds of the fetus developing birth defects is substantially higher just as it would be if a woman did the same. So the question posed by the OP is whether or not men should be held to the same standards that women are held to before, during and after conception?



"...And although cigarette advertising associates tobacco smoking with virility, a growing body of research supports the opposite that smoking reduces sperm counts. Heavy use of marijuana has also been linked to similar effects. Even regular intake of cafleine may have sperm- and offspring-damaging impact! GENOTOXIC EFFECTS During the 1950's, doctors said that 10% of U.S. couples were infertile ... and that organic problems in the male partners ac counted for only 10% of those problems. To day, a sixth-over 15%—of our nation's married couples are reportedly infertile, and male dysfunctions are said to account for 30 to 40% of the difficulties. (However, since infertility has traditionally been blamed on women, this increased observance of male dysfunction in couples could reflect a belated recognition of long-ignored facts as well as a new biological trend.)

There is also some evidence suggesting that men with low sperm counts are more likely to produce offspring with birth defects. Erik Jansson, an environmentalist with Friends of the Earth (who's working on anti-birth-defect legislation), notes that artificial insemination of women with frozen sperm from third-party donors results in a birth defect rate of 1% or less ... in sharp contrast to the overall American birth defect rate of 4.5 to 6%. Jansson states that "the most important reason for the dramatic fall in birth defects with third-party donors of sperm is that the artificial insemination laboratories accept only men with high sperm counts . . ." (The FOE staffer has also concluded that the same findings "suggest that American men are presently responsible for between 78 and 83% of all birth defects in the United States"!).....

Read more: THE SPERM CRISIS


With such high odds that American men are responsible for 78% to 83% of all birth defects in this country, isn't it time that men took more responsiblity for their own behaviour and lifestyles instead of putting all the blame and responsibility on women? Imo, any answer other than 'yes' shows a lack of personal responsibility and moral conscience.

LOL! You really are a hoot Moot! What exactly are you suggesting here?

Oh, and please post links to the statistics and instances of birth defects that have been directly correlated with the use of drugs, alcohol or other other substances by the biological father.

 

[Moot]

What I dispute is the idea you can prove the connection between his activity and the reason his sperm is damaged.

It's not conclusive but the evidence is mounting to support the claim. NTL, if it was your child why would take the chance that your lifestyle might cause his or her birth defects?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

This discussion isn't about genetic birth defects. This discussion is about birth defects caused by toxic substances that damage the sperm. It's been proven that toxic substances can damage sperm. Its also been proven that damaged sperm can cause birth defects.

Nothing cited here actually supports this claim, besides the 'woo" site claiming cell phones cause miscarriage ...

 

[ChrisL]

Just what is the ulterior motive behind this thread? Is someone actually trying to suggest that some dude who drinks a 6-pack on the weekends and perhaps indulges in a doobie occasionally is AS responsible for a birth defect as a woman who drinks, takes drugs or smokes during a pregnancy?

If so, I guess what the OP is suggesting is that men and women should never indulge in any kind of substances or take any job or be anywhere where there could be some kind of "toxic" exposure if they ever want to contemplate having children?

When a woman does drugs during her pregnancy, the drugs go DIRECTLY into the bloodstream of the fetus, and the fetus actually suffers the effects of those drugs, same with cigarettes and alcohol. Babies born to mothers who do drugs, a LOT of times, are born addicted to those same substances and go through painful and agonizing withdrawals.

THAT is the reason why mothers are held more responsible. There IS a DIRECT correlation between mother's drug/substance use/abuse and babies born addicted or worse.

 

[Henrin]

It's not conclusive but the evidence is mounting to support the claim. NTL, if it was your child why would take the chance that your lifestyle might cause his or her birth defects?

That isn't the problem I'm talking about. I'm well aware the science is not there, but even if it was you still couldn't prove with certainty his actions were the origin of the problem. You still couldn't win a court case with this.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

"...And although cigarette advertising associates tobacco smoking with virility, a growing body of research supports the opposite that smoking reduces sperm counts. Heavy use of marijuana has also been linked to similar effects. Even regular intake of cafleine may have sperm- and offspring-damaging impact!

So now you're citing another "woo" site as you try to lecture people on science?

Again, note the use of "may".

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Is someone actually trying to suggest that some dude who drinks a 6-pack on the weekends and perhaps indulges in a doobie occasionally is AS responsible for a birth defect as a woman who drinks, takes drugs or smokes during a pregnancy?

Yes, they are equivocating between a sex cell and a fertilized embryo. And apparently none of them can grasp the difference

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, they are equivocating between a sex cell and a fertilized embryo. And apparently none of them can grasp the difference

Utterly ridiculous the things some people try to pull. :roll:

 

[Removable Mind]

again, please cite some form of scientific backing for your claim. Because everything posted here, besides your "woo" site, point to the scientific evidence being inconclusive or being pure speculation

And this is probably the 3rd time I have asked you to document these claims


Secondly, dealing with how a mother impacts a fetus is clearly different than dealing with how a woman impacts her *unfertilized* embryo (or a man and his sperm). And as usual, when it's pointed out you make no sense, you lash out with petty personal attacks and attempts at deflection.

Maybe it's time to just open a book and educate yourself

DC...you're continued sanctimonious interventions in arguments shine like new dollar in every thread you participate. You are becoming so well know for your constant lead weighted analytical tactics and obsessive need to turn threads into pages of accusatory dribble.

I really don't care to placate to your need to intervene in this thread...employing your usual tactics. But I'm going to make one last exception. I'll give you a tidbit...and after that...I really, really care less how you choose to use this following:

AFTER three decades of efforts to discover how a pregnant woman's environment can affect the health of her fetus, researchers are turning their attention to fathers.

The new research, much of it in early stages, suggests that certain substances can cause genetic mutations or other alterations in sperm that lead to permanent defects in children.

These include familiar birth defects like heart abnormalities and mental retardation as well as less familiar ones like childhood cancer and learning disorders.
The new findings may force health authorities and occupational safety experts to rethink or expand regulations intended to prevent birth defects that have limited women, but not men, from jobs considered hazardous to the fetus.

Each year in the United States, at least 250,000 babies are born with physical birth defects while thousands more develop behavioral and learning defects that appear to have a genetic component. The cause of 60 to 80 percent of birth defects is not known, although many scientists suspect that environmental toxins play a role in a sizable number of them. The male contribution may be substantial, researchers now say.

Society has focused on the mother and fetus because they are easier to study, said Dr. Devra Lee Davis, a scholar in residence at the National Academy of Sciences who edited a recent book on biological markers in reproductive toxicology.

~~~SNIP~~~

Wives of men exposed to vinyl chloride and waste water treatment chemicals have more miscarriages. Welders who breathe toxic metal fumes develop abnormal sperm, even after exposure stops for three weeks. Firemen who are exposed to toxic smoke have an increased risk of producing children with heart defects. Several studies have found that fathers who take two or more alcoholic drinks a day have smaller than average infants.

Research on Birth Defects Shifts to Flaws in Sperm

Now, DC...I won't be replying to any remarks that you might want to post. So...if you feel compelled to continue on, fire away.

But I suggest that you re-read my last post to you...in which I state the following:

I made a claim that was related to the OP.

And that claim is that IT IS POSSIBLE for a man to be negligently and criminally responsible for a fetus to incur serious birth defects or even death in the womb.

How can such a thing happen? A man, through self-destructive behaviors such as drug addict, can cause damage or a mutation to his sperm. It is possible that when such a man ejaculates damaged or mutated sperm into a woman...joins with an ovum...creates a conception...the ensuing fetus can...because of his damaged sperm...have a serious birth defect or cause fetal death in the womb.

You came into this thread with a nonsensical post in which you injected a silly comment about electric blankets and cell phones, yadda, yadda , yadda...which was clearly intended to make fun of the premise of this thread. Now, you'll deny it and that's okay, but fret not...you were in good company of a few others who did the same.

 

[Moot]

LOL! You really are a hoot Moot! What exactly are you suggesting here?

I'm suggesting the obvious, that men are just as responsible if not more so for birth defects than women are.

Oh, and please post links to the statistics and instances of birth defects that have been directly correlated with the use of drugs, alcohol or other other substances by the biological father.

Um, I don't know that it would do any good given that fact that you don't understand what science is and rebuke any evidence that you either don't understand or doesn't agree with your preconcieved notions. LOL Yeah, you're quite a hoot, too ChrisL.

 

[Moot]

Utterly ridiculous the things some people try to pull. :roll:

Why are birth defects ridiculous, ChrisL?

 

[ChrisL]

I'm suggesting the obvious, that men are just as responsible if not more so for birth defects than women are.

Um, I don't know that it would do any good given that fact that you don't understand what science is and rebuke any evidence that you either don't understand or doesn't agree with your preconcieved notions. LOL Yeah, you're quite a hoot, too ChrisL.

LOL! Too funny. That's because you can't provide any Moot, and you've lost this debate.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

DC...you're continued sanctimonious interventions in arguments shine like new dollar in every thread you participate. You are becoming so well know for your constant lead weighted analytical tactics and obsessive need to turn threads into pages of accusatory dribble.

It's no one's fault that you have no understanding or regard for basis logic, besides your own.

I really don't care to placate to your need to intervene in this thread...employing your usual tactics. But I'm going to make one last exception. I'll give you a tidbit...and after that...I really, really care less how you choose to use this following

did you even read that popular news article? Ignoring the fact that popular news articles are notorious for getting research wrong, I suggest focusing on the terms used, like "suggests".

The reason they are using such a term is because it's a hypothesis being explored by researchers and evidence is currently "inconclusive".

This is the same thing I pointed out originally and caused you to do your usual dance of deflection and attack, as you laughably try to cast yourself as some rationalist

And that claim is that IT IS POSSIBLE for a man to be negligently and criminally responsible for a fetus to incur serious birth defects or even death in the womb.

and the problems with this have been pointed out numerous times: 1) you're equivocating between a developing fetus/embryo and unfertilized sex cells. 2) the science doesn't actually support that claim, it's merely currently being explored as a hypothesis

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I'm suggesting the obvious, that men are just as responsible if not more so for birth defects than women are.

Um, I don't know that it would do any good given that fact that you don't understand what science is and rebuke any evidence that you either don't understand or doesn't agree with your preconcieved notions. LOL Yeah, you're quite a hoot, too ChrisL.

you're literally using references that push detoxing and cell phone scares. Seriously, do yourself a favor and avoid the claims to authority on matters of science

 

[Moot]

So now you're citing another "woo" site as you try to lecture people on science?

Again, note the use of "may".

Sadly, you haven't shown or provided any evidence that you even know or understand what science is, Chuckles.

may =/= doesn't or won't

may = could and possible

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Sadly, you haven't shown or provided any evidence that you even know or understand what science is, Chuckles.

You mean besides correcting you on your confussion on basic terms like theory and hypothesis?

may =/= doesn't or won't

No one claimed the above. What was claimed was that the articles point to the fact that it's a hypothesis being explored (may), and not an established working theory (is), like you and others keep claiming

may = could and possible

You are not claiming it's merely possible. You are claiming it represents current scientific theory and there *IS* a connection

 

[Moot]

you're literally using references that push detoxing and cell phone scares. Seriously, do yourself a favor and avoid the claims to authority on matters of science

Interesting, the last source I referenced didn't mention a word about cell phones. But now that you've reduced yourself to insults and ridicule its become clear that you're really not interested in discussing the subject, so I guess our discussion is over.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Interesting, the last source I referenced didn't mention a word about cell phones.

Of course, being it's the one that runs articles on pseudo-quack theories like detoxing

But now that you've reduced yourself to insults and ridicule

No, I am pointing out your "authoritative citations" are not actually an "authoritative" citation. In fact, they're not even a legitimate popular news source like the NYT. They publish quack bull**** that caters to a fringe movement that often finds itself at odds with actual science

 

[Moot]

LOL! Too funny. That's because you can't provide any Moot, and you've lost this debate.

I don't recall having a debate with you, ChrisL. So how could I lose something that never happened?

 

[Moot]

Of course, being it's the one that runs articles on pseudo-quack theories like detoxing

Why are you so hung up on the word "detoxing"? Hmmm....

No, I am pointing out your "authoritative citations" are not actually an "authoritative" citation. In fact, they're not even a legitimate popular news source like the NYT. They publish quack bull**** that caters to a fringe movement that often finds itself at odds with actual science

Attacking the messenger only further validates your lack of a valid arguement. If you were half as intelligent as you think you are, you would know that.