Posted on 10/06/2002 7:48:41 AM PDT by SheLion
Edited on 07/14/2004 12:59:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Most people cringe at the sight of a pregnant woman smoking. Some people feel strongly enough to say something in protest. But one local man took matters into his own hands early Friday when, according to police, he shot an expectant mother who refused to put out her cigarette.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
Fresh air......... please tell us all where we can find it, fresh air went out with the horse an buggy era, where might you be living. ?
I like this story. :-}
I do know one thing - I do not like people like you telling me what is best for me or my family.
So, who decides who is rebellious........ the ANTI SMOKERS, I am sure god doesn't work this way.
Wonder no more, kids are more sickly today, reason being, they are over protected from all kinds of normal living.
So, why didn't you. ?
I attempted to enlist in the Marine Corps in 1982, it didn't work so I went to the Air Force - that didn't work either, neither did the Navy. My eyesight and my weight were what did me in.
DO NOT come at me about military service unless you yourself are in it.
I also guess you do not live in a community property state, since you have never heard of Dowry rights, or Dower rights, as explained in an earlier post.
Having been divorced I am quite familiar with the statutes of the state in which I reside - and your terminology appears in none of the statutes - even though I live in a community property state.
BTW how much of the Code (state law) of your state have you helped to enact? How much of it have you helped write? How much have you actually written????
Yes, my point is that I can actually answer every one of the aabove questions.
The day I left my ex-husband all he kept saying to me was I couldn't leave because he wouldn't be able to pay the bills. I paid them all before I left.
Not because he loved me and thought we could work it out - because he needed my money.
When I filed for divorce I told him I wanted nothing and I would pay for it. He took me literally and got an attorney and expected me to pay for it. So stupid over a couple hundred bucks.
This is still anecdotal. All a large population tells me is that there was a high birth rate. There are far too many other variables to make any conclusions about the effects of smoking from this data alone. We'd need to dig out statistics on all babies born, isolate all variables other than smoking, and examine the health effects in them. I don't think such information is available, but we do have reputable studies available now.
Such as: "Xiaobin Wang, M.D., M.P.H., Sc.D., of the Department of Pediatrics, Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues reported their finding that pregnant women who smoke are much more likely to have a premature or low birthweight baby if two genes that normally control the body's chemical modification of components of cigarette smoke were missing or inactive. The authors also note that 65 percent of all infant deaths in the United States occur among low birthweight infants (5.5 pounds or less). " http://www.newswise.com/articles/2002/1/GENESMOK.MOD.html
Is there any level of "risk" below which you would feel "safe"? Is there any level below which you'd consider a "study" finding to be invalid?
Absolutely, which is what I've been asking for all along. If you think that smoking while pregnant is A-OK, tell me so because the risk is so miniscule we don't have to worry about it. I recognize that life itself is risky. I'm not saying we should sanitize the world. People are killed every day driving, but I don't advocate lowering all speed limits to 30 mph. Because getting places on time is important. Smoking while pregnant, I'll dare say, is not important.
No, the "evidence" is not significant nor is it credible.
I think there have been volumes of reputable studies done on prenatal smoking. At least enough to raise a question and probably shift the burden of proof. Tell you what. Find me a doctor that says that smoking while pregnant is A-OK.
it certainly is not the business of special interest groups to tell me what I can and can not do
This kind of reasoning, frankly, confuses me. When confronted with so-called special interest groups, I usually employ a follow-the-benefits (usually money) test. If someone is making a argument that will help their pocketbook or their position somehow, I'm immediately suspicious. That's what makes them a special interest. They have an interest. Where is the interest in someone advocating that mothers not smoke?
A possible "risk factor." Please get over it.
As recently as 5 years ago what I was told by my OB-GYN was 'cut it back a bit' and this did not come from some fly-by-nighter---not only has she delivered the children of friends - she delivered several of my friends,
Just to make up numbers, lets say that kids generally have a 2% chance of a given birth defect. So that's 2 in 100. Now let's say that a study indicates that smoking may double that risk, so 4% of kids with mothers that smoke might get it. Now it's 4 in 100.
That still leaves 96 kids that are going to be perfectly healthy. Telling me that you or your kids were one of those healthy 96 really doesn't say anything about whether smoking has impacted the rate of the birth defects. Nor does the fact that 1 kid had a problem give us enough information, because a certain percentage of kids may have problems whether or not a mother smokes. To get a useful answer, we need to pull back and look at the bigger picture.
The we can discuss whether 2% (or whatever) is really a number worth worrying about.
And you use this to support an argument that smoking is harmless? She told you to cut back, as in to reduce? Don't you think that might be because she believed it to be harmful?
I can think of a number of reasons why a doctor might advise a patient to only cut back, such as knowing that quitting altogether would stress the mother, which should probably be avoided as well. But that's certainly not the same thing as saying there's no risk.
You do realize that the CDC considers anyone who has ever smoked even one cigarette in their life to be a smoker? And therefore when they die it is a premature death due to smoking, even if they were killed in an auto accident?
Don't bother laughing, becauuse I am not joking.
BTW - I do a 4 minute 10 second mile. And I'm a smoker - no wheezing problem here
"Cut it down a bit" was the only thing I was told about smoking and it was said to me only once - I never heard it again.
You have never been exactly friendly to people who support the right of adults to use tobaco products or the owners of etstablishments who wish to welcomee them,, have you?
Good grief it makes me ill how healthy the little &^(&*)*$$*#* is!!!!!!!!
My OB commented upon it my first appointment,,, and all she said was cut it back. I never heard another word about it. Until the morning after my daughter was born when the OB came in to see me - and she told me to feel free to call a nurse to take me out to the smoking area - I never did do it. Heck I wanted a beer more than I wanted a cigarette.
You may consider that condoning but it sure as heck is not demonizing.
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.