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]
Gabz! Can you tell me what post where I was laughing at??!! I don't think I have found ANYthing funny on this thread. Please let me know where you thought something was a big joke to me.
And what is it with you and this "dowry rights" thing? You are apparently unaware that a "dowry" is something the bride's family gives to the newlyweds. Did you have a husband divorce you and not agree to alimony?
245 posted on 10/6/02 9:54 PM Eastern by Gabz
Gabz, I did not know that your were referring to yourself! I just thought your post back to waterstaraat was funny, as in "giving it back to him!"
My crazy laugh was like a High 5 to you for posting a good come-back. That is all. Surely, I would not laugh at YOU! Sorry you thought I would do such a thing.
I remember it from real estate sales courses a millenium (sp?) ago.
And yes your smiley was ugly, as are your opinions.
Your comment is as loony as the guy who did the shooting!
You're totally correct - there is nothing funny about this story.
But, in those days, six pounds was an average weight for a newborn. I only weighed 6 pounds at birth, too, and my husband weighed less than 6 pounds (though he's 6', 190 lbs. today). Today, the average birthweight is at least seven pounds. And, though I am very small (5'2" and 104 pounds) and only gained 25-30 lbs. with each pregnancy, my babies weighed 7-8, 6-10, and 7-11. (Yes, I was concerned about the second. I believe his birthweight was lower because I didn't eat enough. Therefore, it's not a stretch to conclude that someone's birthweight might have been lower due to the mother smoking).
I've never heard about smoking affecting IQ, though. I only remember reading that it could lead to premature birth and low birthweight. I knew a woman who gave birth prematurely three times, and one of her babies died as a result. She was sitting there chainsmoking as she told me the story. It never dawned on her that chainsmoking might have caused the problem.
For the record, I am against laws which tell private businesses that they cannot allow smoking. If a restaurant wants to allow smoking, I have the option of not patronizing that place. I also would never support a law telling pregnant women not to smoke, even though I think they're taking a risk.
I think the statistics the antis shout from the roof tops have more to do with socio-economic status than smoking per se. Cigarette smokers do seem to be in higher proportions in the lower economic ranks and those are the same people that tend to have less pre-natal care. Does one cause the other?, who knows - but those kind of numbers can be used to the advantage of anyone who chooses to manipulate them.
I've never heard about smoking affecting IQ, though.
Lucky you. Die-hard antis also claim it causes ADD, ADHD, and learning diabilities. I've also been called a liar by antis when mention of my daughter's advanced state of education is mentioned.
For the record, I am against laws which tell private businesses that they cannot allow smoking. If a restaurant wants to allow smoking, I have the option of not patronizing that place. I also would never support a law telling pregnant women not to smoke, even though I think they're taking a risk.
You're my kind of non-smoker. If and when we should ever meet, I assure you I will respect your preference for smoke-free.
It's true that there could be many different factors.
Die-hard antis also claim it causes ADD, ADHD, and learning diabilities.
I don't believe "ADD" or "ADHD" even exist. But, that's another topic of discussion (on which I've been flamed). The irony is that the same people who want to stop a pregnant woman from smoking would probably want to force a mother into medicating her "ADD" child.
BTW, my mother was a smoker, and here's how she made sure that I didn't become one: She knew that my friends and I had started trying cigarettes (to "look cool", of course). She tried telling me that it was an expensive habit, a bad habit, etc., but that didn't stop me. So, one day, she offered me a cigarette. Then she sat and smoked with me, talking casually. I thought, Wow, I'm really grown up now. I'm smoking with my mother. I always thought she looked so cool because she could blow smoke rings and blow it out her nose... hahaha. But, as we sat there smoking, she started criticizing the way I held the cigarette, the fact that I couldn't inhale correctly, etc. I tried smoking a second time with her, and she did the same thing again. I was so humiliated that I gave up my would-be habit altogether. Not a conventional way to handle a problem, but it worked. ;-)
Absolutely nothing, I am however wondering about you.
LOL, mine was too, they were so healthy my doctor told me not to bother with a yearly check-up, they were so healthy I was wasting my money and his time.
You're right, of course, about "variables." Unfortunately, variables/confounders are seldom isolated when the "research" sets out to prove more damage from smoking. My comment about the baby boomers takes into consideration the common sense recognition that this huge population had FEWER pre-term and low-weight births than the current population, evidenced by the fact that both are on the rise.
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). "
That someone as obviously bright as you are would use this quote to prove a point puzzles me. Surely you realize it says nothing. "much more likely"? How much more likely? Than what? How low? What percentage of the population is missing those genes? "65 percent of all infant deaths in the United States occur among low birthweight infants"? This is a blatant deception--it's a true statement, but has no bearing on the authors' contentions since pre-term births are the number one reason for low birthweights and there are numerous reasons for premature births, including whether or not the mother is married.
(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.
How about this? Every scientist recognizes there is a level below which his findings can be background "noise," confounding factors, even his own unintentional bias. The state of Oregon has even made this level law (2.0)--at least in some instances. If the range of findings cross unity, it's just as likely the result can be a negative as a positive, and in any case, a finding under 2.0 or 3.0 is a weak association. SHS--in the case of nonsmoking spouses who lived with a smoker for DECADES--is 1.19 (or 1.16 or 1.17, depending on the study). The DOSE makes the poison.
I recognize that life itself is risky. ... getting places on time is important. Smoking while pregnant, I'll dare say, is not important.
You don't have the foundation to decide for someone else what is or is not "important." Smoking, since nicotine is amphoteric, can relieve stress, anxiety and depression, while quitting can be physically and psychologically stressful. Ideally, smoking, drinking (alcohol, soft drinks, tea and coffee), poor sleeping habits and an unhealthy diet should all be stopped prior to a pregnancy, but unless you want only automatons to be permitted to breed, that's not going to happen.
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.
There have been many studies--reputable ones--done on prenatal smoking, but few of them say what you think they say. Yes, they raise a question and more research should be done...real research, not research that sets out to "prove" a connection with smoking or any other single factor, but research that sets out to find the truth. There are many doctors who don't make a point of it; only 67% of them ever mention smoking to their patients.
(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?
I agree one should "follow the money." That's what got me interested in this issue originally. You certainly cannot be faulted for not knowing where the money trail lies, because very little public notice has been taken of it. Here's the short version: This is actually a Battle of the Behemoths--Big Tobacco, Big Government and Big Drugs. For the past decade, Big Tobacco has been the guy with the knife at the gun fight. Billions of people worldwide desire a product (nicotine). Whether or not you believe they are "addicted," the demand is there. The fight now is who owns that market, Big Tobacco or Big Pharmaceuticals, makers of such "smoking cessation" devices and products as patches and gum. Big Government, of course, will fund whoever is politically correct at the time and rip off whoever wins.
Eighty-one different government agencies have their hands in the tobacco pie and since 1991 more than $227 BILLION has been spent funding anti-tobacco coalitions, the charity cartel, and individual anti-tobacco researchers. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Johnson&Johnson, makers of Nicotrol) spends several times more billions of dollars than the tobacco industry on this campaign for a smokefree world. What began as a noble endeavor has become just another corrupt industry and unless people wake up and demand accountability, demand the truth, demand integrity, well, I guess we'll deserve what we get.
Odd.
As far as I know, there is no law against it...... yet.
What fee might we be talking about. ?
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.
