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

[ChrisL]

You still keep proving you don't know anything about science. How embarrassing for you.

Yes, the CDC says that "a man's exposure to substances in the workplace can affect his ability to have healthy children." Was that too scientific for you, ChrisL?

Another excerpt from your link, now Moot pay close attention to the bold section.

Reproductive hazards can affect the chromosomes found in sperm. The sperm and egg each contribute 23 chromosomes at fertilization. The DNA stored in these chromosomes determines what we will look like and how our bodies will function. Radiation or chemicals may cause changes or breaks in the DNA. If the sperm's DNA is damaged, it may not be able to fertilize an egg; or if it does fertilize an egg, it may affect the development of the fetus. Some cancer treatment drugs are known to cause such damage. However, little is known about the effects of workplace hazards on sperm chromosomes.

 

[digsbe]

No, and neither should a knowingly pregnant woman. Damaging a fetus likely damages them for life and imparts upon them a permanent disability due to the actions of an idiot.

I'm talking about direct damage, not drinking before someone knew they were pregnant, not eating 100% healthy, or something that may be a risk factor, but purposeful damage like taking isotretinoin or other things.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm curious about what Moot wants to do with these men who have jobs which expose them to chemicals that may or may not contribute to a deformed fetus. I mean, what is her point?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I can't find where this issue has ever been addressed in past DP topics. "Original studies" that do indicate that damaged DNA sperm do cause birth defects and still births truly exist. And there are many of them. UNFORTUNATELY...most of the studies regarding damaged DNA sperm are only available through JAMA and Oxford Journals FOR A FEE. Abstracts are obtainable but are very technical and study summaries aren't included.

This issue isn't built around pseudo-science.

No one claimed the issue was built around pseudo-science. What was claimed was that the sources cited, indicating anything more than a wrkling hypothesis, were sources that heavily promoted pseudo-science.

So I suggest you pay closer attention to arguments actually being made and take the time to post the abstracts you cited above.

Studies by top scientists have been ongoing for several decades in private research companies and universities around the globe work on DNA effects on conception and birth defects. There is a study that links birth defects caused from cocaine using men, which they know that sperm mutation and damage happens and has impacts on conceptions and born children. But....I ain't paying 40.00 to download.

but you can easily post the abstract ...

But I can assure you...and you are as much as aware of this...that there are those who are indeed candidates for C.I. and C.D. who will not accept even the most hardcore evidence.

The problem is no evidence was actually posted that support what you and others are claiming.

In fact, the popular news articles posted actually contradicted the claims made by you and others ...

 

[Moot]

Exactly, like I said, they don't know. There is no proof, and there are too many other mitigating factors to make a positive correlation.

No, its the complete opposite of what you said which proves that you either can't comprehend what you read or you're so ideologically blind that you can't think outside your little box.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I can understand why you would think that because there are quacks out there and detoxing can be rather fadish. But you haven't proven that my sources are quacks or that detoxing won't remove toxins out of your system so that you can reduce your risk of having a child with birth defects.

If you want to ignore the fact that claims of cell phone use causing miscarriage and popular notions of detoxing are anything but junk science I am fine with that. I have no need to validate such claims in this discussion, because they are still not scientific journals and they still would not establish your claims, even based ion their own writing (remember the use of words like "seemingly" "possibly", etc)

Okay, let me get this straight...if Mother Earth News which is a reputable source btw, said that cyanide will kill you, you'd scoff and go eat some cyanide? Is that right?

Mother earth news isn't a scientific journal and often promotes crap science. So they are not an authority on science, so no one needs to take their controversial claims on science seriously.

Cyanide being poisonous isn't a controversial claim. So false equivolency

I don't recall claiming to be an authority either. So why would you think I was unless I am more reasoned, logical and civil than you?

you're certainly attempted to lecture people on science, when you clearly had no clue what you were speaking of. You also did the same with logic.

Oh okay well, here you go then....

This was already addressed: a connection between work place and certain birth defects does not, in anyway, establish that the causative factor is mutated sperm. As mentioned previously, it could be anything from trace amount of materials on cloths or skin being transferred to the mother

When you say that detoxing and my sources are quackery you are making a postive claim without providing any evidence. So where's your evidence?

Your sources are problematic from the outset because they are not scientific journals, the issue is only compounded when they are making wild claims about cell phones and detoxing. The issue with these claims can be easily verified through a simple search online, but do not actually speak to any issue here directly. SO there is no need to validate or discuss them. because if true, or not, it is not my job to prove your sources are un-credible. It is your job to prove they are credible and exist as an authority on science

I don't consider ridicule or mockery as evidence of your knowledge about science. What else do you have?

Moot, you have engaged in ridicule and mockery through out this thread. it seems to only become a problem when you are exposed as someone ignorant of a subject she's attempting to lecture others on

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Have you figured out what a scientific theory is yet, ChrisL?

The question is Have you? You still are confusing popular usage with the scientific one.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Yes, the CDC says that "a man's exposure to substances in the workplace can affect his ability to have healthy children." Was that too scientific for you, ChrisL?

But that isn't all you are claiming (and it's a premise NO ONE disagreed with). You're making very specific claims about how exposure to work place substances affect his sperm and cause birth defects. Something every source you cited agree is simply based on speculation at this point, and any possible mechanism still remains unknown

So, again, we have you lecturing people on science when it';s clear you have no idea what you speak of

 

[Moot]

I'm curious about what Moot wants to do with these men who have jobs which expose them to chemicals that may or may not contribute to a deformed fetus. I mean, what is her point?

What is the point of discussing anything on DP if you're just going to ridicule, flame bait and troll other posters? If you don't like the topic then why are you posting here? Oh I see, you want to stop other posters from discussing the topic. Is that your point, ChrisL?

 

[ChrisL]

What is the point of discussing anything on DP if you're just going to ridicule, flame bait and troll other posters? If you don't like the topic then why are you posting here? Oh I see, you want to stop other posters from discussing the topic. Is that your point, ChrisL?

I'm sorry if you think that someone asking you to explain exactly what your position is on a particular issue is ridiculing you. Maybe you should stop letting your emotions get the better of you.

 

[Removable Mind]

No one claimed the issue was built around pseudo-science. What was claimed was that the sources cited, indicating anything more than a wrkling hypothesis, were sources that heavily promoted pseudo-science.

So I suggest you pay closer attention to arguments actually being made and take the time to post the abstracts you cited above.



but you can easily post the abstract ...



The problem is no evidence was actually posted that support what you and others are claiming.

In fact, the popular news articles posted actually contradicted the claims made by you and others ...

Of course, Mr. DC..thanks for your reply.

 

[Moot]

But that isn't all you are claiming (and it's a premise NO ONE disagreed with). You're making very specific claims about how exposure to work place substances affect his sperm and cause birth defects. Something every source you cited agree is simply based on speculation at this point, and any possible mechanism still remains unknown.

What did they base their speculation on? Surely they must have some evidence to make such claims.

So, again, we have you lecturing people on science when it';s clear you have no idea what you speak of

No, what we have is you failing to understand the most basic concept of science and demanding absolutes when the only real absolute in this world is that everyone alive today is going to die.

Anyway, the CDC flat out says that toxic substances found in the workplace CAN cause birth defects. I don't how much more clear they can be about it, so apparently the comprehension problem is at your end not mine.....


"Many factors can contribute to producing healthy children. It is well known that the health of an unborn child can suffer if a woman fails to eat right, smokes, or drinks alcohol during pregnancy. It is not well known, however, that a man's exposure to substances in the workplace can affect his ability to have healthy children.

This document provides general information about reproductive hazards, an explanation of how substances in the workplace can cause reproductive problems in men, and suggestions for preventing exposure to reproductive hazards...."

CDC - NIOSH Publications and Products - The Effects of Workplace Hazards on Male Reproductive Health (96-132)

 

[Northern Light]

The OP question is inappropriately framed. Why would the government create a right to enable such behavior? That's just silly.

It's more accurate to ask if such action should be criminal, and my answer is that it depends. Whether or not the fetus is beloved is based on what the woman wants. If she's getting an abortion tomorrow, should we care what anyone does to her fetus? The State should not be making that determination, but rather the woman.

 

[Moot]

I'm sorry if you think that someone asking you to explain exactly what your position is on a particular issue is ridiculing you. Maybe you should stop letting your emotions get the better of you.

Ahh, so now its my emotions. So am I supposed to be upset that your flame baiting me now?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

the CDC flat out says that toxic substances found in the workplace CAN cause birth defects.

Which is 1) not what you have been claiming (your claim deals with sperm mutation and it effects on fetal development), and 2) not something anyone disagreed with

 

[ChrisL]

You still keep proving you don't know anything about science. How embarrassing for you.

Yes, the CDC says that "a man's exposure to substances in the workplace can affect his ability to have healthy children." Was that too scientific for you, ChrisL?

Reading isn't exactly your forte, is it? The CDC webpage doesn't say "they don't know"...it basically says that you don't know....

What is the point of discussing anything on DP if you're just going to ridicule, flame bait and troll other posters? If you don't like the topic then why are you posting here? Oh I see, you want to stop other posters from discussing the topic. Is that your point, ChrisL?

Lol! This is a riot.

 

[Neomalthusian]

The OP question is inappropriately framed. Why would the government create a right to enable such behavior? That's just silly.

1) The OP is a mock-thread of the one I created about substance-abusing pregnant women.
2) Our government doesn't create rights. Our government only restricts rights where exercising them in certain ways causes harm or impedes the rights of others.

It's more accurate to ask if such action should be criminal, and my answer is that it depends. Whether or not the fetus is beloved is based on what the woman wants. If she's getting an abortion tomorrow, should we care what anyone does to her fetus?

No. Tied to that though, if she does not want an abortion, how far should society go to protect it from her carelessness, her wrath, her addictions, etc.?

The State should not be making that determination, but rather the woman.

If the woman makes the determination that she'd like to smoke as much crack as possible from now until the due date, should the State intervene?

 

[Moot]

Which is 1) not what you have been claiming (your claim deals with sperm mutation and it effects on fetal development), and 2) not something anyone disagreed with

I never said anything about "sperm mutations". Not a word. My arguement hasn't changed during the entire thread and it's always been that toxins can cause damaged sperm which can cause birth defects. So uh, nice strawman, Chuckles. Are we done now?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I never said anything about "sperm mutations". Not a word. My arguement hasn't changed during the entire thread and it's always been that toxins can cause damaged sperm which can cause birth defects. So uh, nice strawman, Chuckles. Are we done now?

mutated sperm=damaged sperm. Regardless of what label you want to toss in there the arguments still stand. What you are citing is not indicating "toxins can cause damaged sperm which can cause birth defects". It indicates there is a correlation between the type of work the father is involved in and particular corresponding birth defects. What the underlying causes for this are, and what series of mechanisms they operate through, isn't known though.

you are making claims beyond that correlation and asserting that the cause and underlying mechanism is known: "damaged sperm". When it could just as well be something like cross contamination through clothing or skin residue.

 

[Fisher]

If women weren't so mentally incompetent and therefore morally inculpable, they would use pharmaceutical and barrier birth control and pick better copulation partners.

 

[Moot]

Another excerpt from your link, now Moot pay close attention to the bold section.

Oh so you think that because they don't know enough about how "workplace hazards effect sperm chromozones"....even though in the same paragraph they say "some cancer treatments are KNOWN to cause such damage"....that somehow negates their entire premise that toxins can cause damaged sperm which can cause birth defects? Really? :roll:

 

[Neomalthusian]

Oh so you think that because they don't know enough about how "workplace hazards effect sperm chromozones"....even though in the same paragraph they say "some cancer treatments are KNOWN to cause such damage"....that somehow negates their entire premise that toxins can cause damaged sperm which can cause birth defects? Really? :roll:

This thread is about the supposition that men+chemicals=fetus damage, which is a link that is not very well established compared to the incontrovertible damage caused by maternal substance abuse during pregnancy, which was the topic on which this mocking thread was based.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

that somehow negates their entire premise that toxins can cause damaged sperm which can cause birth defects? Really? :roll:

But that isn't their premise, that is "your" premise.

On the subject they write "Hazardous chemicals ***may*** collect in the epididymis, seminal vesicles, or prostate. These chemicals may kill the sperm, change the way in which they swim, or attach to the sperm and be carried to the egg or the unborn child.".

" Radiation or chemicals *may* cause changes or breaks in the DNA. If the sperm's DNA is damaged, it *may* not be able to fertilize an egg; or if it does fertilize an egg, it *may* affect the development of the fetus. "

"If a damaged sperm does fertilize an egg, the egg *might* not develop properly, causing a miscarriage or a possible health problem in the baby. If a reproductive hazard is carried in the semen, the fetus *might* be exposed within the uterus, possibly leading to problems with the pregnancy or with the health of the baby after it is born."

Because evidence is currently inconclusive.

 

[joko104]

Are there laws being made or proposed that punishes a woman for damage to the egg? I've heard of such for harm to the fetus, but not the egg. Any links to such laws or proposals?

What difference does it make? And the prosecutions have been based upon birth defects for which the cause MY have been the woman's substance abuse - before and after pregnant.

I gather you are alluding to prolifer's claiming that all pregnancies are the result of immaculate conception so anything that happens before the woman is pregnant never happened at all. Just on-God's-will, ie God conceiving a child in the woman, she is pregnant and therefore actually no man was even involved. Just God and the woman.

 

[joko104]

:lamo So many ProLife men arguing that it is "inconclusive" that male sperm has anything to do with a fetus or child. I understand their logic. The Bible PROVES that a man is not necessary for pregnancy or a child in the birth of Jesus. The Bible does say there are no other immaculate conceptions and God made the whole universe merely by conceiving of it. Therefore, it is entirely possible that rarely - if ever - is a man's sperm involved in anyway in a pregnancy. Pregnancies are not from the female egg being "fertilized." That doesn't happen in humans, only in animals. Rather, for humans it is instead by "conception" of a baby.

Thus, God in the miracle of creation just "conceives" the child in the woman for which life begins at conception of a child by God. ProLife men got pretty convincing defense to exclusion from all their furious moral demands they make at women in such a claim of "life begins at conception" and NOT at fertilization by sperm. :lamo