Posted on 06/30/2015 6:48:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Know someone who’s smoking while pregnant? They need to see this video made by Dr. Nadja Reissland, of Durham University. In it she shows that unborn babies of mothers who smoke may have delayed development of their central nervous systems.
Many people believe that abortion should be illegal — at least after a certain period — because it means killing an innocent life. Well, how about physically abusing one? Shouldn’t that be illegal, too? After all, you aren’t allowed to beat your born child until she has brain damage either. How’s this any different?
“Except when their child is born with a birth defect and the parents can’t afford to pay for the care and the government (us taxpayers) has to step in and pick up the tab.”
I was born in 1960. My mom smoked and drank beer while she carried me and my brothers and sister. We all turned out fine. I used to ride in the back of an open pick up truck.
You hover around parents make me sick. Your kid never walked barefoot, you have to protect Baby Huey, but you;ll put your old refrigerator out on the curb, doors intact, and mark it for free. When I complain you snark at me. Where is the concern for the OTHER child? All I can surmise is that you’re stupid, brained washed, but stupid.
Really? the child is CERTAINLY injured?
...and Purell did not exist.
I thought "it" was just a blob of cells, a growth? Based on the abortionist view, this would be like punishing a man for smoking harming a wart.
Based purely on empirical data, one might almost think a little nicotine and alcohol while in the womb makes babies tougher!
Also, keep in mind that when the same government that controls the medical studies also decides what measures must be taken as a result of those studies, there is an inherent conflict of interest.
If we can’t keep people from slaughtering children in the womb or allowing children to be adopted into buggery unions, why in the world would we care about smoking?
I'm pretty certain not a whole lot of women were smoking between 1910 and 1940, so not very many of them. Male smoking does not produce damage to the baby to the extent that Female smoking does.
Also, keep in mind that when the same government that controls the medical studies also decides what measures must be taken as a result of those studies, there is an inherent conflict of interest.
You are not going to successfully dance around the argument that nicotine is harmful to children, so just stop it. We are grown ups here, and we are not foolish enough to fall for such silly arguments.
You can drive your car off of a cliff if you want but don't expect the rest of us to pick up the tab and help raise your kids for you if you die (if you truly are a Libertarian).
So, hopefully we agree on this important point otherwise it is no longer Libertarianism but Socialism.
I was trying to keep things a bit light-hearted, but since you take everything so seriously: You’re dead wrong about women’s smoking rates in the first part of the 30th century, and you’re not going to dance around that, so just stop it. We are grown-ups here, etc. etc., etc... ...you sanctimonious jackass.
Just like a pretend conservative - keep the government out of our lives unless they’re interfering in a way YOU agree with.
SHOULD women smoke while pregnant? No.
Should the government ENFORCE that advice? No.
Yes. Exactly.
And “preventing abuse” on a one-on-one level is NOT in there.
Oops! 20th Century!
Then by all means, lobby the government to outlaw tobacco completely, there, case solved and lots of luck. If you are gonna be a nosey busy body, go full force and be a nanny stater busy body.
I miss those days too.
Now that we have socialized medicine, everything you do now becomes everybody else’s business. That is the most insidious thing of all about government-run healthcare.
Agreed.
I hate smoke, not smokers but yes I see them as stupid. Is it a crime to be stupid?
No dude, I *Am* a conservative, you are a Libertarians. The distinction is the acknowledgement of the social contract, not disdain for it.
The damage caused to a child as a result of exposure to toxic and addictive chemicals has a high probability of causing serious detrimental harm. The damage caused by telling someone "no." on an indulgence, causes no long term harm to anyone at all.
The rights of the baby to be free of negligent or deliberate harm, far outweigh the rights of a woman to get her latest nicotine fix.
Burkean conservatism understands this clearly, while self indulgent Libertarianism (which has never worked successfully in history) is as clueless about this as they are about the larger functions of humanity.
Scary times. And even scarier when the new, government run healthcare single payer plan, tells you what you can and can't eat. That is really where we are headed. And what happens if we don't comply?
“Seems like a legitimate concern. The Child is certainly injured by such indulgence.”
The child is likewise injured when a mother is obese, or takes medication, or listens to super loud music at concerts. I can think of loads of things that might injure a fetus. Should we all be concerned about that too?
Obesity causes birth defects? Injures a child's body?
Don't think so.
or takes medication,
Absolutely, and no such medication should be taken without the approval of a doctor, i.e. someone with the knowledge necessary to ascertain the probabilities and risk of injury to the child.
listens to super loud music at concerts.
Don't think so. Loud music won't cause birth defects or cognitive impairment, at least not as a fetus.
I can think of loads of things that might injure a fetus.
Apparently you can't. You thought of one, and it is of the same nature as the nicotine danger; Drugs introduced into the system which are harmful to the child.
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.