Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Smoking While Pregnant Causes Finger, Toe Deformities: Just Half a Pack per Day Harms Unborn Child
American Society of Plastic Surgeons ^ | January 5, 2005

Posted on 01/09/2006 8:19:48 AM PST by billorites

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last
To: Calpernia; All
Yuppers/. . .The Cigarette Restitution Fund enables multiple grant money systems that is being overly abused

That they can quote these funds as political do-goodism and while keeping a straight face is amazing.

Of course, this now classic justification for government interference upon smokers was used just a few weeks back in Californina. . .the 'healthcare fund for children' was quoted as another good reason for Californina to up it's ante on the price of cigarettes - and of course, bundled in with. . .'because we think it is good for smokers to have their cigarrettes be cost prohibitive as it discourages new smokers. . .'

OMG, the hypocrisy of it all. . .while sliding down the slippery slope of ursurping citizens' rights. . .

But then, that is what Liberalism is all about. . .

61 posted on 01/09/2006 11:02:26 AM PST by cricket (No Freedom - No Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: cricket
This is an awesome point you made in your other post. I meant to bump it before.

Meantime, many of these same protesters of cigarette smoking, would probably vote as well and in a heartbeat. . .to legalize marijuana. . .and probably think giving alcohol to the 'addicted homeless' is a great idea. . .

62 posted on 01/09/2006 11:05:55 AM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: sandbar

Lucille Ball HAD to smoke all the way through her pregnancy on "I Love Lucy". Their major sponsor was Philip Morris, and it would have been hazardous to her (financial) health NOT to smoke.


63 posted on 01/09/2006 11:10:15 AM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: billorites
Researchers examined the records of more than 6.8 million live births in the United States during 2001 and 2002, finding 5,171 children born with a digital anomaly where the mother smoked during pregnancy but did not suffer from other medical complications, such as heart disease, diabetes or high blood pressure.

I would be a lot more confident in the honesty of this study, had it been applied to births of 40 years ago, when the smoking rate was double.

I would expect the I, along with my kids and tens of millions of others would exhibit a similar percentage of anomalies. Which we don't.

Corelation is not causation. Doctors, on principle, choose to remain ignorant of scientific statistics.

64 posted on 01/09/2006 11:13:03 AM PST by Publius6961 (The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: basil
My husband has the same condition. His mother (a Pentecostal preacher) NEVER smoked.

Dear admins,
Please delete this irrelevant, mean-spirited and homophobic post!

< /sarc >

65 posted on 01/09/2006 11:14:39 AM PST by Publius6961 (The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tiki
In my experience the one child I know who was born with finger abnormalities was the child of 2 non-smokers so can I take it that not smoking may cause defects?

Don't be silly.
Obviously, that poor couple was surrounded by smokers.
Second hand smoke. Isn't it obvious?

66 posted on 01/09/2006 11:18:41 AM PST by Publius6961 (The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

You obviously did not read anything I posted regarding this ...... even the 78% increase risk they claim is not statistically significant. If they were talking about an increased risk of over 200% it would be a different story, because then it would start being in the realm of a significant increase in risk.


67 posted on 01/09/2006 11:19:21 AM PST by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: All

When I read articles such as "new findings" from groups hired to elevate the status of professionals (who can't for obvious reasons toot their own horns in fear of diminishing their "professional status")....makes me wonder what the agenda is here.

Could it be the notoriety in the last decade or so of "cosmetic surgery" being performed with far more advertising and promotion than the less grand "plastic" surgery - dedicated professionals who repair all manner of nature's whims such as birth defects or deformities, or on victims of disease, fire and accident, etc.

Perhaps it is time for the "Plastic Surgeons" to make the news and this little study fits right in. The stats may not tell the whole story of course and as pointed out smoking was generally accepted for millions of pregnant women who bore beautiful babes....

I have a feeling we are witnessing a public relations campaign.... no doubt due its time for recognition, but it may suffer a "flame out" from rational arguments by people who have been life-long smokers, or who were born of women who were.

Before the new discoveries of harmful things such as lead paint and asbestos, we all apparently survived for the most part intact.... I wonder what disease the internet will give us....except addiction! :o)


68 posted on 01/09/2006 11:26:56 AM PST by imintrouble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: imintrouble
If you're interested in what drug-induced birth defects are really like, do a google search for "Thalidomide"..

I'm sure once you read that name you recall the effects this "tranquilizer" had on millions..

Smoking doesn't even come close to what Thalidomide did...

69 posted on 01/09/2006 11:37:55 AM PST by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Look at the comments here many of which are of the "well my mom smoked and I am ok" type as though that was a refutation of the points the doctor made.

Actually it is a refutation.
No "as though" about it. It clarifies the silliness of the 78% increase BS. A 78% increase of a 0.02% incidence is meaningless.

70 posted on 01/09/2006 11:51:49 AM PST by Publius6961 (The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: luckystarmom

I have an old boyfriend who had webbed toes. I wonder if his mom smoked.




I'll bet it was because she ate okrah.


71 posted on 01/09/2006 11:59:50 AM PST by The Foolkiller ( We're only trying to help people make right decisions-with the full force of government, of course.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: cricket

Meantime, many of these same protesters of cigarette smoking, would probably vote as well and in a heartbeat. . .to legalize marijuana. . .and probably think giving alcohol to the 'addicted homeless' is a great idea. . .




Already happened in Kanada. Smokers have been banned, but they're starting to open 'safe houses' where crackheads and other types of drug abusers can indulge freely. And since it's government-sponsored, no one can touch them.


72 posted on 01/09/2006 12:04:39 PM PST by The Foolkiller ( We're only trying to help people make right decisions-with the full force of government, of course.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: metesky

LOL GOOD ONE, Metesky!! :-D


73 posted on 01/09/2006 12:06:43 PM PST by The Foolkiller ( We're only trying to help people make right decisions-with the full force of government, of course.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

Remember that most people don't believe in numbers anyway.


74 posted on 01/09/2006 12:18:43 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: The Foolkiller

No way, he was from New York. Those Yankees don't eat okrah, that's for us southerners.


75 posted on 01/09/2006 12:21:22 PM PST by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: LWalk18

"they cut off the excess digits soon after birth"

Really?


"she gave birth to four ten fingered children."

Sounds more like a genetics thing than a result of smoking.


76 posted on 01/09/2006 12:26:05 PM PST by swmobuffalo (the only good terrorist is a dead one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
You know, I personally consider my tobacco habit not only unhealthy, but sinful, principally because I know its effects, and that's something I struggle with. Having said that, I don't consider tobacco itself "evil," and in recent years it has been suggested that it may have some properties that warrant further research in regards to therapeutic properties for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, (which I have seen do great damage in my family, BTW) and even HIV. There is also a WHO study on the effects of second hand smoke which indicate they are essentially negligible. The study results have been largely suppressed, and certainly ignored by the major media.

My contention is, if tobacco use is such a threat to society, initiate the Constitutional process to pass an amendment to bar it; perhaps it will be more successful than alcohol prohibition, but I doubt it. Of course this has not been done because tobacco taxes have been such a cash cow for the state and federal governments (talk about addiction!). Short of that, all due consideration must be placed on the fact that a governmental entity is trying to regulate a legal activity on private property. Now, I'm not questioning a government's right to do so; I'm glad that local rules prevent my neighbors from establishing a shooting range in the yard of our relatively dense, suburban community.

The regulation of these activities, however, should be as limited as possible. Given review of the above-mentioned WHO study and copious amounts of personal experience, it is my opinion that the vast majority of anti-smokers are primarily that way out of annoyance or dislike, or out of misinformation. Establishing laws regulating behavior because of personal taste and faulty data is embarking on a slippery slope few of us want.

77 posted on 01/09/2006 12:31:56 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003
Lucille Ball HAD to smoke all the way through her pregnancy on "I Love Lucy".

And your proof of that statement?

I despise Philip Morris more than most of the anti-smoker organizations, but I findthat pretty hard to believe.

78 posted on 01/09/2006 12:43:06 PM PST by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003

>>>Lucille Ball HAD to smoke all the way through her pregnancy on "I Love Lucy". Their major sponsor was Philip Morris, and it would have been hazardous to her (financial) health NOT to smoke.>>>

So what was the excuse the other 2 packs a day?

Not that I'm judging, I smoke. Just that I don't believe it was for ole Phillip Morris.


79 posted on 01/09/2006 12:43:27 PM PST by sandbar (when)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Corelation is not causation.

You're ruining the moonbats' fun.

80 posted on 01/09/2006 12:44:28 PM PST by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson