Is it OK to hunt while pregnant?

[teratos]

True. At the same time people are very bad risk managers. They tend to overstate the risk of unusual or sensational things (plane crash, mass shooting, pregnant woman at the gun range, omg!) and understate the risk of mundane things (fatty food like fries and burgers, hot/cold weather, chemicals under the sink, the drive to the grocery store). They also tend to think that they are "avoiding" risk, when in fact they are trading one risk for another. The correct answer to most risk management questions is "it depends."

Personally, I blame the state of the country on too many people butting into other peoples lives trying to make decisions for them. When enough buttinskies get together, they pass a law. It's the curse of cushy lives, people do not have enough of their own problems to address, so they try to solve other peoples.

I also find it kind of amusing that 2nd amendment "supporters" think there is some exception for pregnant women. As in: I don't serve pregnant women because they don't have 2nd Amendment rights? Firearms are dangerous. They are dangerous in different ways for different people. MD gun laws are pretty heavy on the "dont do this for your own good."

Nobody is denying anyone "Rights". What they are saying is "I don't believe this is safe, and I will not participate in it". Big difference. Nobody is making decisions for anyone. If you are pregnant, with your belly button poking out telling everyone the turkey is done, and want to go to the range nobody is stopping you. People have an absolute RIGHT to dictate what they will or will not participate in. Despite the fact that we do live in a nanny state, it doesn't mean that every law passed to keep people safe is somehow based on junk science.

There are some small studies sugggesting hearing damage can occur in utero after 24 weeks. There is also the question of lead. While adults can excrete lead pretty nicely and without issue, children handle it differently. There are no studies I can find looking at shooting during pregnancy and lead exposure to the fetus. My professional opinion (and in court I would be considered and expert and pain $600/hour for my testimony) would be to NOT shoot during pregnancy. My advice as a strong 2A advocate and a father would be the same.

Stop with the "trampling on my Rights" nonsense and listen.

 

[danb]

What they are saying is "I don't believe this is safe for you, and I will not allow you to participate in it".

FIFY

Informing/Educating someone of the risk is a lot different than refusing service, which is exactly what some people are suggesting and what I find so amusing. There may be risks, but only one person can make the judgement as to whether it is worth it.

 

[Haides]

FIFY

Informing/Educating someone of the risk is a lot different than refusing service, which is exactly what some people are suggesting and what I find so amusing. There may be risks, but only one person can make the judgement as to whether it is worth it.

And refusing service is a lot different from actively preventing someone from doing something. No one is under any constitutional or moral obligation to provide any service, especially one they aren't comfortable with.

 

[Mr H]

Do you know what my favorite part of this thread is??

How a bunch of guys without vaginas or uterus's are arguing about what's best for those of us who do have them and occasionally use them to grow lifeforms. It's so reminiscent of the abortion battle it's almost spooky.

You don't see me walking into a men's forum and commenting about the best ways to check testicles for cancerous tumors, but men as a whole feel it's not only acceptable but ideal for them to comment on women's health issues.

Then again, no doubt all of you, especially those using derogatory terms for those who disagree with your stance, are all medical doctors and other such experts on female bodies, pregnancy and fetal health. What a joke.

Well stated.

For those who didn't bother to read the article, the Cuppster did her homework. Maybe a bit clumsy, but she saw it through.

She is a shooter, fisher, and loves the outdoors. Something I never knew about her. But above all, she seems to take all her responsibilities seriously.

So, if she came to the conclusion--with her Dr's [grudging] approval--then it's her call, not ours.

As with anything, opinions are like armpits. We've all got'em and they all stink from time to time.

 

[teratos]

FIFY

Informing/Educating someone of the risk is a lot different than refusing service, which is exactly what some people are suggesting and what I find so amusing. There may be risks, but only one person can make the judgement as to whether it is worth it.

I would never participate in something I believed to be harmful to a person, even if the "understood the risks". It's just plain silly to suggest anyone should. What about the Rights of the person providing the service? You forget about those, but their Right to refuse service is every bit as real as any other Rights you want to discuss.

 

[danb]

I would never participate in something I believed to be harmful to a person, even if the "understood the risks". It's just plain silly to suggest anyone should. What about the Rights of the person providing the service? You forget about those, but their Right to refuse service is every bit as real as any other Rights you want to discuss.

People most certainly have a right to refuse service.

You participate in risks that may be harmful to yourself or others every single day.

 

[teratos]

People most certainly have a right to refuse service.

You participate in risks that may be harmful to yourself or others every single day.

So you would knowingly participate in something that has the potential to be harmful to an unborn child as long as the dipshit asking you for such services is aware of the risk? That is, after all, the crux of your argument.

 

[danb]

So you would knowingly participate in something that has the potential to be harmful to an unborn child as long as the dipshit asking you for such services is aware of the risk? That is, after all, the crux of your argument.

The horse is mostly dead several times over, but to answer your question, you cannot avoid risk. You can only choose how much, of what kind, to take.

So a pregnant woman comes into the E.R. having fallen down the stairs. X-Ray? CT scan? Or do you refuse service and medication because tests and medication are dangerous for the unborn child?

The correct answer is probably that you minimize the risk, but in some cases the risk of not doing the test (like the x-ray) are higher than the risk of doing the test. Right? There are lots of medical procedures where the risk of not doing it is greater than the risk of doing it, right? Every single medical procedure I can think of has some risk - including antibiotics, which runs the risk of a antibiotic resistant super strain cropping up.

Now, suppose a pregnant single mother who lives in a Baltimore row home is at the gun range and asks you to show her how to use her new revolver because there have been an sudden upswing in break-ins. You choices are a) refuse service; or b) help her out and recommend a good safe?


All I am saying is that a blanket "refusal" policy is silly. Some risks are unfortunate but necessary, and you don't really know the answer until you've walked in someones shoes.

 

[rseymorejr]

As moody as my wife was towards the end of her pregnancies, I think the important question should be:
Is it OK to give a pregnant woman a loaded gun!

 

[traveller]

So a pregnant woman comes into the E.R. having fallen down the stairs. X-Ray? CT scan? Or do you refuse service and medication because tests and medication are dangerous for the unborn child?

What you do is to explain to the pregnant woman that in order to properly treat her, you need to do x,y,z tests. You explain that at this stage in her pregnancy the risk from doing the test is low/very-low/unknown but that you believe that the risk of not doing the test would be higher. After you have provided the information and your opinion, you leave it to the patient to decide whether to have the test or not.

Same with the hunting question. The exposure during an outdoor hunt comes down to the risk from a couple of 150-155dB noise exposures. Lead is really a non-issue in that setting, if it makes you feel better you can use a lead-free shot. Is it necessary to go hunting ? Well, I just saw a pregnant young lady get on her Harley. Is it necessary for her to ride the bike on a sunny day or could she have borrowed a car to minimize the risk of an accident or spare her unborn fetus from the vibration and 90+dB noise on the bike ?

 

[coopermania]

Drive a car heaven forbid, NO WAY, NO HOW, should a women that is pregnant ever do anything dangerous
Like drive anything, go swimming, hunting or shooting, lean over a five gallon bucket, work around any loud noises, No jobs on any flightline, machine room, construction, step on the kids turtle stool to get something off a shelf, walk down or up stairs, ride a bike, And ride/walk behind a wagon heading west and walk while pregnant 1500 miles west, and on and on and on and on and on and on.
I would believe there was more danger to mom and fetus driving to go hunting, Than the hunt itself.

Color purple where necessary.

 

[teratos]

The horse is mostly dead several times over, but to answer your question, you cannot avoid risk. You can only choose how much, of what kind, to take.

So a pregnant woman comes into the E.R. having fallen down the stairs. X-Ray? CT scan? Or do you refuse service and medication because tests and medication are dangerous for the unborn child?

The correct answer is probably that you minimize the risk, but in some cases the risk of not doing the test (like the x-ray) are higher than the risk of doing the test. Right? There are lots of medical procedures where the risk of not doing it is greater than the risk of doing it, right? Every single medical procedure I can think of has some risk - including antibiotics, which runs the risk of a antibiotic resistant super strain cropping up.

Now, suppose a pregnant single mother who lives in a Baltimore row home is at the gun range and asks you to show her how to use her new revolver because there have been an sudden upswing in break-ins. You choices are a) refuse service; or b) help her out and recommend a good safe?


All I am saying is that a blanket "refusal" policy is silly. Some risks are unfortunate but necessary, and you don't really know the answer until you've walked in someones shoes.

Drive a car heaven forbid, NO WAY, NO HOW, should a women that is pregnant ever do anything dangerous
Like drive anything, go swimming, hunting or shooting, lean over a five gallon bucket, work around any loud noises, No jobs on any flightline, machine room, construction, step on the kids turtle stool to get something off a shelf, walk down or up stairs, ride a bike, And ride/walk behind a wagon heading west and walk while pregnant 1500 miles west, and on and on and on and on and on and on.
I would believe there was more danger to mom and fetus driving to go hunting, Than the hunt itself.

Color purple where necessary.

Risk-benefit ratio.

 

[TheBert]

So you would knowingly participate in something that has the potential to be harmful to an unborn child as long as the dipshit asking you for such services is aware of the risk? That is, after all, the crux of your argument.

An incorrectly positioned car seat belt is harmful to an unborn child. How do you, the royal you, ensure that pregnant women don't do harm to the unborn child by driving? Do you tell the pregnant women to stop driving?

 

[teratos]

An incorrectly positioned car seat belt is harmful to an unborn child. How do you, the royal you, ensure that pregnant women don't do harm to the unborn child by driving? Do you tell the pregnant women to stop driving?

Nope. Hopefully the OB's do.

 

[danb]

Risk-benefit ratio.

Sounds like we agree then.

 

[dist1646]

Do you know what my favorite part of this thread is??

How a bunch of guys without vaginas or uterus's are arguing about what's best for those of us who do have them and occasionally use them to grow lifeforms. It's so reminiscent of the abortion battle it's almost spooky.

You don't see me walking into a men's forum and commenting about the best ways to check testicles for cancerous tumors, but men as a whole feel it's not only acceptable but ideal for them to comment on women's health issues.

Then again, no doubt all of you, especially those using derogatory terms for those who disagree with your stance, are all medical doctors and other such experts on female bodies, pregnancy and fetal health. What a joke.

Last I heard, this is the United States of America. I thought it is supposed to be a place where the people are free to choose for themselves.
I would be more concerned with a pregnant woman drinking city water that is heavily treated with the deadly chemical chlorine.

 

[smokey]

Jenni and her twin sis are pregnant. Jenni is due in November and her sis is due in Dec. I'm very much in to guns, but it's just not worth it to me. In addition to lead and noise, accidents still do happen. We even try to limit how much we drive these days because of the risk of an accident. We can just go shooting again after the baby comes(assuming we have free time....which we won't).

 

[Mr H]

Jenni and her twin sis are pregnant. Jenni is due in November and her sis is due in Dec. I'm very much in to guns, but it's just not worth it to me. In addition to lead and noise, accidents still do happen. We even try to limit how much we drive these days because of the risk of an accident. We can just go shooting again after the baby comes(assuming we have free time....which we won't).

Congrats to all of you, and you illustrate the principle of "educated decision-making"

If you (generic) do your homework, and the results point to a decision you can confidently make??? No one else has a say.