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

To: WayneS
What percentage of the Greatest Generation do you reckon were "damaged" in the womb by exposure to the mother's nicotine (or alcohol, for that matter) consumption, VS the percentage of "millenials" who were so "damaged"?

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.

47 posted on 06/30/2015 9:19:29 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp

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.


49 posted on 06/30/2015 9:34:46 AM PDT by WayneS (Yeah, it's probably sarcasm...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

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