No one can do a controlled study to say what level of consumption would be safe. That would be unethical under today's human research guidelines. That's why the CDC went for total abstinence. My "What to Expect When We're Expecting" book and other books say one glass a day has never been implicated in FAS. We don't know where between one glass a day and 6 FAS happens.

There are links for smoking and mercury hurting everyone, etc. The rest is overkill.

I'm pregnant, second trimester, and I have the pregnancy police out and about always. I think pregnancy is seen as an excuse by controlling people to inflict themselves on strangers. My one soda a day is not linked to any birth defects. Eating fast food (yes, I've been chastized for that) isn't linked, either. You'd be amazed what some people claim is "scientifically shown" to hurt babies. From people telling me to get rid of my dog to quitting work, the whole thing is ridiculous.

There is no such thing as "pre-pregnant". Enjoy yourselves while you ar enot with child. moderation is good.

And tell the nosy bots to mind their own businesses.

I didn't crawl everywhere: I googled and then used our university's system to check abstracts. It seems that if one is NOT abused before getting pregnant, there is around a 2% chance it will start, but that abuse does not escalate to mother murder (see the GAO report and a number of other reports out there) nor does there seem to be a link to child support. The men may like to hit, but they don't want the double homicide of killing a pregnant woman (if we assume rationality, and knowing that a number of places have "fetus protection" laws). I do not assume rationality here. The abuse is implicated in some pre-term births. These murders are usually seen as "heat of the moment", not "premeditated".

Middle class pregnant women are far less likely to die of intimate murder than lower class women. Middle class women have more access to lawyers, etc, to actually get things like child support and alimony. In the unstable neighborhoods where most pregnancy related murders happen, child support is nominal if awarded. Child support does not seem to be a factor. For it to be a factor these murders would have to be rational. It is the assumption of rationality that seems problematic.

More pregnant women die of car accidents that intimate murder, and the number for intimate murder appears to be exaggerated because of the Baltimore study. The real risk is there, but it is much lower than 1 of 3. Adultery seems to be a bigger motivator for the premeditated murder of pregnant women than general abuse. Again, we are talking about such small numbers and so few studies that it is problematic to extrapolate.

What we know is that a small number of pregnant women will be abused and murdered during the course of that abuse by intimate partners. 98% of these women were already being abused. Some women's abuse stops during pregnancy and picks back up when they deliver. We can not say it is rational. The evidence seems to point to being in economically frail neighborhoods as a risk factor, but not as a catalyst.

Most men will not abuse pregnant women.

If she's having mental issues, the duplex won't work. As she deteriorates, she can wander away, etc. Supervised arrangements are the best thing here. She'll be in her old community, with her friends, but she'll have people there to supervise. You and sister will split supervision of the community, and there will be structured activities for her. You will be able to retreat fromt he chaos. Because there will be chaos. Physical deterioration leads to chaos at this age.

The people who run communities (with handicapped accessible apartments and such) are trained in gerontology. They are used to this stuff. She will have her familiar area, you will have peace of mind.

I've seen this, up close and personal. She won't like it, the relatives won't either. But THEY ARE NOT MOVING IN. If they are not going to live there, they need to STFU. Relatives have all sorts of opinions until they are asked for money or physical help. Absent both, they need to butt out.

Blass you and good luck.

Was she afraid her mother would beat her tail if she ragged on the kitschy black angels and Santas, ugly enought to match the white ones? Or the people who think we all single gospel music? Or how about a whole post on the silliness of Kwanzaa?

Geez. Are we skipping Chrsitmas this year?

This is about more than sports. I know the sports fan care only about their entertainment, but the NCAA and the schools can't. The kind of playoff and extended season you want would be horrendous for the academics. I was a football/basketball tutor at OSU in the late 80s/early 90s, and I can tell you those kids had killer schedules. Most professors are NOT accomodating or understanding of the practices, etc. Add a quarter system, etc and you have all sorts of fun. Given the calendar and class days consideration, as well as the lenght of time and need for recovery, and it's just not going to happen. You can't play two games back to back as you can in the NCAA Basketball tournament. Not without a tremendous potential for injury.

Football is hard on the body, and the more they play, the more they endanger that potential NFL career (where they will actually make money) or just their body.

If you want a playoff system, pay the atheletes. Otherwise, forget it. The risk is far too great.

The bickering is fun, but sometimes sports fans take this stuff way too seriously.