Saturday, April 28, 2012

Should pregnant women be held accountable for the health and well being of their unborn child

Should pregnant women be held accountable for the health and well being of their unborn child?

Women's Health - 5 Answers


Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
If they are choosing to keep the baby and not abort it, yes. Just as much as they are held responsible for out-of-womb children.
2 :
depends whats wrong with the baby. if it's like cerebal pulsy, (sp??) than no the mother can't help that, but if the baby is addicted to crack, or something like that than yes. but it all depends on how the mother treats the baby inside of her.
3 :
They should do everything they can to bring a happy and healthy baby into the world. So yes, if they do something intentially that could harm the baby then they should be held accountable.
4 :
If the child is born with either Drugs or Alcohol in its system I think they should!!
5 :
If a mother decides to keep it she should be held responsible for that baby's health. I'm not saying if she ate a hamburger/junk food or god forbid didn't quit smoking she should be hung from her thumbs. But if she intentionally does things to grievously harm that baby she should be held accountable.




 Read more discussions :

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Scientist claims "breast milk is no more beneficial for a child's health than formula milk"

Scientist claims "breast milk is no more beneficial for a child's health than formula milk"?
I just read an interesting article about hormones and breastfeeding. "It said the researcher, Professor Sven Carlsen, said the child’s health is actually determined by the hormone balance in the mother's womb, with a high level of male hormones affecting both her ability to breastfeed and the baby’s health." Your thoughts on this? http://www.nhs.uk/news/2010/01January/Pages/Hormones-and-breastfeeding.aspx I didn't base my decisions on this man's findings. I just read it and though it was interesting. I don't think formula is better than breast milk. I was just wanting some opinions on this.
Newborn & Baby - 12 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
That is one researcher and his opinion not borne out by years of studies, in other words that is one person against a tsunami of evidence that says otherwise. Utter horse sh*t.
2 :
Most studies have found that breast milk is better. Until there's more of a scientific consensus, Professor Carlsen's claims are not something to base your decisions on.
3 :
They're making fun of that "scientist". It says later "The researchers have supplied no evidence to back up their claim that there is no benefit from breast milk." They tried, but sorry, you can't put live white blood cells in a can.
4 :
In the debate of breast milk vrs. formula: formula has come along way to be very healthy for babies but breast milk will always be best. There is no way to scientifically put the mothers natural antibodies into a can of formula.
5 :
Even if that one man's opinion is correct, to me there are still many other reasons to breastfeed. It's easier, it's free, it's a way to bond with baby. I just hope no one reads that and makes the decision to use formula based on an article. I actually was watching "The Doctors" the other day, and they were discussing breastfeeding. One of the Dr's actually said something along the lines of "formula is almost exactly like breast milk now that it contains DHA, and is a perfect alternative to breastfeeding." I just thought about how that statement would go over on Y!A, lol.
6 :
I LOVE "scientist" crap! Sorry, but people put sooo much stock into what "scientists" say, and it changes all of the time. When I had babies, it was. "Put them to sleep on their stomaches, in case they throw up, so they won't choke." Now, it's, "Put them to sleep on their backs, because there is less SIDS". People don't believe in God, thanks to "scientists". My advice, do what you want in the way of feeding, and love your baby, because that is what they need the most.
7 :
It says right in the second paragraph that "the researchers have supplied no evidence to back up their claim that there is no benefit from breast milk". I'll wait to see the evidence before I let this study influence any of my decisions.
8 :
The article also says, "The researchers have supplied no evidence to back up their claim that there is no benefit from breast milk." Without getting into the specific science of it, there's a reason why women were developed to produce milk for their young. Otherwise, we would have no breasts. Because that is their primary function - to feed our young (regardless of whether you use them for that purpose or not). If it weren't so, we'd have two cans of Enfamil strapped to our chests. I'm curious whether Dr. Carlsen is getting some funding from formula companies, perhaps. It's entirely possible. It's pretty clear through the personal anecdotal experiences of many moms in the US, at least, struggling to nurse their babies, that the formula manufacturers are sending subliminal messages to mothers that undermine the breastfeeding relationship and make them rely less on nature and more on their product. Plus, the hospital/doctors often get compensated for it.
9 :
I think breast is best, and it will always be this way, but I also think the benefits of breast milk are exagerated, along with the horrors of formula. I have seen breastfed babies get sick, and formula kids as healthy as a horse. I believe the benefits of breastfeeding are 1) not set on stone, 2) more on the emotional and psicological side of both the mother and the baby than physical.
10 :
There are about a million things wrong with this claim, but the one that immediately jumped out at me is the assumption that all, or even most women who don't breastfeed do so because they 'can't'. True inability to breastfeed is VERY rare. Most women who formula feed do so by choice, or due to lack of advice or support, NOT lack of milk. (And the hormonal issue is far more complex than just 'too much testosterone' = too little milk.)
11 :
of course breast milk is better.. its real milk and the way initially intended for every mother to feed their child until aomeone was lazy and created fake milk.. formula is a powder milk that can live on a shelf for like a year and then u add water to it.. how is that milk? breast milk is way better for a baby.. breastfed babis see and hear better.. have higher i.q.s and are less likely to get sick and if they do get sick its for like 2 days.. they are less likely to have developmental issues.. its just better
12 :
I find it interesting that the newspaper article says 'this study says there is no difference nutritionally between the two'. I've READ the study (rather dry and boring reading, but still) and NOWHERE in it does the author come to the conclusion that there is no nutritional difference between the two. The study focuses solely on factors that appear to influence the breastfeeding SUCCESS rate of women, and says that women with high levels of male hormones in their bodies while pregnant appear to have a lower chance of success. Now given that most of the women I know who struggled to breastfeed had MALE children, I feel there is a good bit of circumstantial evidence to back that up. The study also concluded that maternal smoking, alcohol consumption, and low maternal weight also increased the chances of poor breastfeeding success- which are things that lactation consultants have been telling us for years! I HAVE read an extract of a study that DID say there is no difference between the two, HOWEVER it said that 'after eliminating the variables of parental lifestyle, nutrition, intelligence and education levels there appears to be minimal difference between breastmilk and formula nutritionally' It also said that there appears to be a major psychological development advantage to the breastfed babies. What needs to be remembered when reading these things is that they are STUDIES, research if you will, working to increase our knowledge and point us in the right direction for future studies- they are NOT scientific fact!




 Read more disscussions :


Friday, April 20, 2012

Monday, April 16, 2012

What is the def of dependent and individual health ins when calc child support. use family cover or child

What is the def of dependent and individual health ins when calc child support. use family cover or child?
I am trying to determine how much health ins. gets deducted from wages to arrive at a net income. Is it family coverage or just the child's coverage?
Marriage & Divorce - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Most states require the non-custodial parent to provide health insurance for the child ONLY.
2 :
Since most insurances will not allow just a child to be on the insurance, and not the employed parent, I would go with the family coverage. However, I was told by my lawyer to "not be a nice person" during my legal process. This advice was golden! I wouldn't have gotten custody of my kids if I would have done it my way. What ever works to your advantage, go that direction! Don't just sway that way, be a warrior for your decision! No surrender, no retreat!
3 :
On either parents Insurance invoice it will list the Employee + Dep and should list out the costs separately. The amount of the child's coverage (dependent) should be the only thing deducted from wages to arrive at a net income. Is this what you are asking?




Read more disscussions :




Thursday, April 12, 2012

Do pedophiles and child molesters ever have prostate health problems or erectile dysfunction

Do pedophiles and child molesters ever have prostate health problems or erectile dysfunction?
I need information on whether it is common or heard of that child molesters often have prostate problems? This is urgent and important. I don't care if it is in history somewhere. I thought I heard that it was even common for pedophiles and sexual abusers etc.. to have these issues.
Men's Health - 4 Answers



Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I don't know why they would have more prostate problems that average, but erectile dysfunction makes sense. If they're turned on by little kids, it's probably likely that they have trouble getting turned on by the grown women (or men) who are their partners. This would look a lot like erectile dysfunction, even if that's not really exactly what it is.
2 :
Who knows and that is an odd question, I've never heard that before.
3 :
Hopefully it does. Hopefully they get castration-itis too.
4 :
I don't think it makes much difference what your sexual orientation is, this things happen with age, pills and stress
5 :
God, I hope so!




Read more discussions :

Sunday, April 8, 2012

When does your child stop visiting the health visitor for weigh ins/check ups

When does your child stop visiting the health visitor for weigh ins/check ups?

Toddler & Preschooler - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
to me i would say 2 yrs old. my daughter will be three in december and i plan on not taking her in for a well baby check up. i see no reason cause she doesn't need any shots or anything. all will be done is weight check and height check along with being asked if i have any question. when she was checked at 2yrs she was eating well and growing fine.
2 :
they get discharged at 3 and a half from the he alth visitor but as terms of weighings thats up to you check ups are until they get discarged from the healthvisitors care at 3 and a half when they are in reception class and they are under the care of the school nurse then.




Read more discussions :

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

So bush veto's child health care and tells you to subsidize big business in Iraq

So bush veto's child health care and tells you to subsidize big business in Iraq?
why in the hell are paying taxes again? I know its not for roads or public transport because the city level plays for that. worse will be the congress who-will keep giving this guy money-while crying about it. STOP GIVING HIM MONEY YOU PEOPLE! punk him RIGHT BACK.
Polls & Surveys - 2 Answers



Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I think you confused Politics with Polls and Surveys.
2 :
ok




 Read more discussions :


Sunday, April 1, 2012

how would you explain the health and safety at work act to a child

how would you explain the health and safety at work act to a child?
first answer is best answer :) if its good enough (Y) 
Safety - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
"All businesses want to make money. Whether one person owns them or a whole lot of people share the ownership, they want to make money, otherwise why own the business? "Most businesses make enough money to keep the owners happy, but when one doesn't, they sometimes save money by doing things that make working there not as safe as it should be. This law says they can't do that any more."
2 :
It's the law that tells bosses how to keep their staff safe and healthy at work. Then I'd explain it 'in context'. Choose a job that the child is fairly familiar with, and explain how the Health and Safety Act applies to that job. For example - Lollipop Lady has the colourful outfit and big lollipop to make sure that people can see her easily in the road. - Similar for rubbish collectors - Hairdresser has to be trained properly to use the various chemicals, scissors etc to keep herself safe Use your own job if your child's familiar with that too (or are you the teacher? - if so, use that) I think children understand things like this better when they're applied to something that's real for them. 
3 :
how old is the child<
4 :
Basically, it ensures that people can work in a safe environment. The act means that employers have to make sure they take steps that the workplace is safe and accidents are avoided where possible. I also means employees have to look out for one another and make sure they try and reduce accidents. You could point out that before that legalisation came into place, there things like mills which had a a lot of exposed moving parts, dust everywhere (which choked the employees and gathered in their lungs) and noise (which left them deaf). The places where hell, and there were a lot of accidents and people left crippled or dead due to accidents that could have been avoided. 





Read more discussions :