Smoking harms moms and their unborn children

Lynda wrote:

<quoted text>
Smoking rates have declined by almost 50%; exposure to SHS has dramatically decreased over the last 20 years..........so explain to me why so many children have asthma? Surely you are not suggesting that the hour a week they might be exposed to SHS in a restaurant is the cause? THINK. Baby boomers born to smoking parents in a time when exposure was everywhere and pretty constant, did NOT have the rate of asthma that kids today (with little to no exposure) have. EXPLAIN THAT.

Bob wrote:

Talk to a Vet. They will tell you the facts. However, smokers do not understand facts. Most can't even read. If they could read and understand what they read, they would not have to be told not to smoke. Also, I do understand we need smokers, how else will we weed out (no pun) losers!

Slcory wrote:

You want to play the innocent act or the blame game. Well let me tell all you smokers something. I smoked for 16 years and used all your excuses. I smoked while I was pregnate for my 1st born. And you want to know something. He has learning disabilities all around. I regret smoking with him. Don't you dare tell me it had nothing to do with it. I went to a conferance for special needs children and there was a brain specialist there, and he stated that with parents who smoke during and after pregnacny, there children will have noticable learning disibilities by the age of 7-10 years of age. Do you really want to be that selfish for a ciggerate. Find another way to relief your stress and don't take it out on your child by smoking that ciggerate. Their lives are depending on you. And I have not had a ciggerate in over 5 years now. And it was not easy to quit but I thought of my children instead of my self.

AZ_smoker wrote:

<quoted text>
Really? Then explain please, since I'm sure you have actually read all the studies done by the EPA, the World Health Organization, and the 727 page report the Surgeon General supposedly based his media announcement on, how come none of those reports actually back up the claims being plastered all over the news, tv, radio, internet? I mean, you being so literate and non-smoking and all, surely you are NOT going to suggest that those reports that show ONLY a slight increase in risk; no definitive connection to cause or death; actually are wrong now are you?
Here's a question for you: Have you actually READ the studies, or did you just believe the news blast?
Do the research, you might be surprised at how literate smokers really are.

TMiller wrote:

Studies can be done in a manner that tilt them toward desired results. The EPA is not trustworthy, as a whole, in part because they are politically motivated to a degree, and the balance is incompetance. This comes from working on projects involving them, although they are lots better today. The world health organization is not trustworthy either. The world health organization hides the truth about aids, from the world. Theirs is also politically motivated, and if the truth got out, it could be panic. In many ways, they are like a great many government beaurocrats, that think the common public cant handle the truth. Every one of these studies are done by groups who usually have an opinion, or bet riding on the outcome. All I can offer is opinion, and you have yours. No problem with that. Logic tells me it could hurt, but like the link of smoking to cancer, all the studies there are flawed and biased also. Sooner or later some study will shed light, and hopefully soon.
<quoted text>

AZ_smoker wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but I have to say it..........BULLSHIT
I smoked before, during and after with my son and that boy is perfectly healthy with normal learning abilities and NO brain damage at all. I met a doctor years ago who was in the the smoking studies done back in the 50s and 60s and he told us mothers that the tests were biased because the smoking mothers to be were all low-income with poor diets and limited pre-natal care, and the non-smoking mothers to be were all from the upper class with good diets and excellent pre-natal care, and he said the worst thing that could be stated was lower birth weight but even then there was no real proof as the smoking mothers all had poor diets to start with and that diet played into birth weight more than anything else.
I'm sorry about your son, my son does have a physical defect not associated with smoking or anything else, just a freak occurance, so I understand the pain associated with our children having problems. By the way, the doctor I mentioned above I met when he came to speak to us mothers of children with birth defects, and he also had 2 children born with defects who had died. So, I tend to believe him, as he was searching for answers for his own children too.
Too many healthy babies have been born and continue to be born to women who have smoked or do smoke, for me to believe that smoking, and smoking alone, is the cause of these issues. If this were true, there would be NO baby boomers, or at least not enough to be classified as "boomers" as we were all born during a time when most people smoked and we were also constantly exposed to SHS growing up.
There are far too many other confounders to pin problems on any one thing, unless it has been proven beyond a doubt to be a sole cause (and in the case of smoking/SHS, THAT just has not happened yet).

Faleto wrote:

Im am 5 to 6 mounths pregnant and feel i have to smoke to keep me on my toes i told my B/F today i am not going to smoke alot ever again now im down to 2 a day starting tomarrow. and happy as can be.
Thanks to God hhim self hes helped alot.

Rick Meckstroth wrote:

I agree with someone else who noted that you have made at least 4 bad life choices already. You are uneducated, as indicated by your spelling/grammar. You should have paid attention in High School.
Secondly, you are unmarried and pregnant. That means you are having dangerous sex with no protection, bad choice number 2.
Third, you smoke, a bad life choice regardless of if you are pregnant or not.
Fourth, you are not willing to undergo the pain of quitting smoking for the sake of your unborn child. Yes the child may be OK, but statistically the child will be of low birth weight, and the hundreds of chemical carcinogens the baby is exposed to in the womb cannot be good for it. A bad way to start life, bad choice number 4.
Bad choices like these almost guarantee poverty in the USA. You really have to almost work at being poor in the USA.
I am not a Bible thumper, I am an atheist who recognizes that the Bible is full of bad morality. Check out human sacrifice, condoned in Judges 11,29-39, Kill witches Exodus 22,18, etc. etc. Don't get me started.
<quoted text>

guest wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly Rick. BUT..you must remember these people do not believe the reports and think smoking (pregnant or not) is fine and healthy. Most cannot even read the studies as well as the warnings on the cig packs.
I guess these people also do not use car seats for the infants and small children. I guess they do not think the safety reports are correct.
Everyone knows regardless of the studies that smoking is NOT healthy.
SO WHY RISK IT?!?!?!?!?!
Also, it is an expensive habit. Many cannot afford to even have kids, still smoke and risk their lives. UNREAL!!

Vonore wrote:

<quoted text>
You've got to be kidding me. You actually think that smoking does not harm your lungs? You think that the black coating on your lung tissue is OK? You think that you are immune to the over 250 carcinogens that are in every puff of tobacco smoke? You think that the statistic of 85% of people contracting lung cancer are smokers is not valid? The data is in. There are over 10,000 rigorous medical reports that link smoking to all sorts of diseases including various cancers.
I respect your right to smoke, but not your ability to make life choice decisions. Get the data. Talk to your doctor.

AZ_smoker wrote:

<quoted text>
And you can do everything right and have an unhealthy baby..........using THAT logic, why bother having them at all? Right?
And if your afraid of every little thing you shouldn't have kids either.
Your judgements work both ways.

AZ_smoker wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but I have to say it..........BULLSHIT
I smoked before, during and after with my son and that boy is perfectly healthy with normal learning abilities and NO brain damage at all. I met a doctor years ago who was in the the smoking studies done back in the 50s and 60s and he told us mothers that the tests were biased because the smoking mothers to be were all low-income with poor diets and limited pre-natal care, and the non-smoking mothers to be were all from the upper class with good diets and excellent pre-natal care, and he said the worst thing that could be stated was lower birth weight but even then there was no real proof as the smoking mothers all had poor diets to start with and that diet played into birth weight more than anything else.
I'm sorry about your son, my son does have a physical defect not associated with smoking or anything else, just a freak occurance, so I understand the pain associated with our children having problems. By the way, the doctor I mentioned above I met when he came to speak to us mothers of children with birth defects, and he also had 2 children born with defects who had died. So, I tend to believe him, as he was searching for answers for his own children too.
Too many healthy babies have been born and continue to be born to women who have smoked or do smoke, for me to believe that smoking, and smoking alone, is the cause of these issues. If this were true, there would be NO baby boomers, or at least not enough to be classified as "boomers" as we were all born during a time when most people smoked and we were also constantly exposed to SHS growing up.
There are far too many other confounders to pin problems on any one thing, unless it has been proven beyond a doubt to be a sole cause (and in the case of smoking/SHS, THAT just has not happened yet).

AZ_smoker wrote:

<quoted text>
And you can do everything right and have an unhealthy baby..........using THAT logic, why bother having them at all? Right?
And if your afraid of every little thing you shouldn't have kids either.
Your judgements work both ways.

MRab2 wrote:

New Face. You are 100% correct. You've hit the nail on the head; it's not smart, but the day they start trying to legislate smartness is the day we really are all doomed.

New Face wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe it's still worth a try. I'll never give up hope. If even one child is saved, that's a great feat within itself.

QUESTION wrote:

<quoted text>
It sounds like you are just justifying yourself. Even if there is less than a 1% chance something might happen...why would you risk your child's health? Is smoking really THAT important to you???