Government condemns smoking but defends abortion?

[novusCatholic]

I just read an article by Jennifer Hartline on Catholic Online. Read the article here.

The article discusses how out of concern for our health and well being, the government will require that cigarette makers place graphic photos on their packaging to show some of the consequences of smoking (a diseased lung, a woman wearing an oxygen mask, a man on an autopsy table, etc.).

The article then draws a comparison to abortion and asks why the government isn’t taking steps to warn the public about its effects.

So here’s the better question: if the government is willing to force tobacco makers to put graphic (some say gross) images on its packaging for the intended purpose of discouraging people from buying and smoking those cigarettes, because they’re concerned about people’s health and well-being, then why not require every abortion clinic in the U.S., including Planned Parenthood, to put poster-size color photos of aborted fetuses at the front door?

Underneath the severed limbs, the crushed head and mangled, bloody body of the baby they can write, “This is what happens in this clinic. An abortion will result in your fetus likely being dismembered, or her head crushed or heart stabbed. Abortion will result in the certain death of your fetus.”

It’s an excellent article that offers very good points.

 

[BraveNewFamily]

I hate to be blunt, but that would never happen because politicians don’t have spines. It would also be overturned by the courts on constitutional basis, because the right to kill your child is in the constitution, just in a small font, and you can only see it if you squint your eyes, and is in just the right light.

 

[novusCatholic]

the right light.

I agree, unfortunately. The right to kill yourself by smoking is also guaranteed. Double standard, huh?

 

[BraveNewFamily]

If you want to smoke, go ahead. Smoking is not a moral equivalent to killing your child.

 

[novusCatholic]

If you want to smoke, go ahead. Smoking is not a moral equivalent to killing your child.

You may have misunderstood my post.

Of course killing yourself by smoking is not the moral equivalent to killing an unborn baby. That’s my point. The government lets people kill their unborn children, yet jumps through hoops to try to get people to stop smoking.

 

[LemonAndLime]

It’s apples and oranges. You can’t compare the two.

The difference is that smoking is known to damage your health and increase you being a burden on the state.

Abortion can be carried out safely without physical damage to the woman.

Showing the fetus does not make sense, as its not pro-health advertisement. It’s a pro-life advertisement. An incredibly sick one. Whatever happened to dignity?

 

[WoundedIcon]

The issue really is all about “rights”. The woman, because it’s “her” body, can get an abortion. But in the government’s eyes smoking takes away the rights of others through that dreaded, often lied about, second hand smoke. So they feel fine attacking it, because hey! We’re defending people’s rights! (plant tongue in cheek)

 

[Oruwaith]

It’s apples and oranges. You can’t compare the two.

The difference is that smoking is known to damage your health and increase you being a burden on the state.

Abortion can be carried out safely without physical damage to the woman.

Showing the fetus does not make sense, as its not pro-health advertisement. It’s a pro-life advertisement. An incredibly sick one. Whatever happened to dignity?

Is this sarcasm?

 

[WoundedIcon]

It’s apples and oranges. You can’t compare the two.

The difference is that smoking is known to damage your health and increase you being a burden on the state.

Abortion can be carried out safely without physical damage to the woman.

Showing the fetus does not make sense, as its not pro-health advertisement. It’s a pro-life advertisement. An incredibly sick one. Whatever happened to dignity?

And abortion makes money to boot! Of course, the lack of smokers in nursing homes, the relatively massive taxes they pay to the state, and scientific fudgery all combine to create a situation where smokers actually help the state make money too. Also, pipe and cigar smokers live longer on average, and in countries such as Japan they’re more rigorous when it comes to determining cause of death but die less from lung cancer even though they smoke more.

 

[novusCatholic]

A good exert from the article:

And why is it that people get more bent out of shape at having to see images of aborted babies than the fact that the babies were aborted in the first place? Why is it so offensive and cruel to show people what actually happens to a baby through an abortion, but the act of aborting is not? Why will people be angered by a picture of a tiny, bloody fetus with her little hand cut off, but refuse to say the killing must stop? If the picture of the act is so troubling, why is the act itself acceptable?

 

[JimG]

Well, smoking has been shown to damage your health. And abortion has been shown to kill your child.

What was the question again? Is this a trick question?

Anyway,you can’t expect that anyone who is pro-abortion will see the slightest contradiction here.

 

[AndyF]

Good point

Andy

 

[LemonAndLime]

The issue really is all about “rights”. The woman, because it’s “her” body, can get an abortion. But in the government’s eyes smoking takes away the rights of others through that dreaded, often lied about, second hand smoke. So they feel fine attacking it, because hey! We’re defending people’s rights! (plant tongue in cheek)

How is 2nd hand smoke lied about? My cousin, as a baby, was deaf in one ear because her mother smoked around her after she was born.

 

[exnihilo]

The article then draws a comparison to abortion and asks why the government isn’t taking steps to warn the public about its effects.

The answer is that the government, and the people, are not a good source of morality or principles.

If the government was consistent it would show pictures of maimed soldiers to military recruits. If the government was consistent it would make people engaging in homosexual sex look at pictures of people with AIDS and show them stats demonstrating a decreased life expectancy.

 

[exnihilo]

The difference is that smoking is known to damage your health and increase you being a burden on the state.

The burden to the state is not true. In fact tobacco companies tried to present the evidence that smokers were not a burden to the state in a Minnesota court many years ago and were denied by the ever so fair judge.

Almost everyone incurs big end of life expenses thanks the the power of modern medicine. We can keep very ill people alive for quite some time and perform all sorts of expensive surgeries. Smokers do tend to die earlier and as a result consume less lifetime benefits than non-smokers.

As an example both the smoker and non-smoker work from age 22-65. The non-smoker lives to 75 and collects benefits for 10 years. The smoker lives to 67 and collect benefits for only 2. The smoker is cheaper and paid in lots of extra taxes over the years.

 

[exnihilo]

How is 2nd hand smoke lied about? My cousin, as a baby, was deaf in one ear because her mother smoked around her after she was born.

While it is probably not true that second hand smoke is good for you the science is very sketchy. Anytime a society and a government that promotes abortion are on a moral high horse about some activity I’d be careful of their assertions. I’m not sure how you can draw the conclusion that second hand smoke causes deafness. If one ear why not both? Humans want to draw associations between all sorts of things but sometimes we go overboard. The world is too complex to understand all associations and interactions.

I’ll provide one insight into the second hand smoke lies. Some ‘scientists’ have claimed that second hand smoke is as dangerous as smoking. Let’s assume that is true. What that means is that smoking is not as dangerous as once thought. That is so because smokers are exposed to smoking and their own second hand smoke. If these people really believed their assertion, and were intellectually honest, they would also be talking about the shocking discovery that smoking itself is less dangerous than previously thought. In fact if smokers avoided their own second hand smoke they’d eliminate all risk since the second hand smoke risk equals the smoking risk.

 

[Oruwaith]

Well, smoking has been shown to damage your health. And abortion has been shown to kill your child.

What was the question again? Is this a trick question?

Anyway,you can’t expect that anyone who is pro-abortion will see the slightest contradiction here.

Abortion has also been shown to cause serious psychological issues to the mother and those closest to her.

 

[beafedor]

It’s apples and oranges. You can’t compare the two.

The difference is that smoking is known to damage your health and increase you being a burden on the state… Abortion can be carried out safely without physical damage to the woman…

Lemon, I appreciate your posts and I understand your intend in this one but I can’t let people read it and assume that abortion is safe. Abortion** is not a safe procedure** at all. I know that you are in the UK but let’s talk about the US. Here, it is one of the most common medical procedure performed and yet women do not get any information about the immediate and long term health risks such as: perforation of the uterus, perforation of the bowel consequent to the latter, hemorrhage, blood clots, infections, subsequent infertility, subsequent repeat miscarriages, subsequent repeat ectopic pregnancies. In later pregnancies, the effects include: early labor, placenta previa, low birth weight, death in infancy, not to mention the link with breast cancer and reproductive system cancer. Now about the mental effects: depression, guilt, panic attacks, substance abuse to numb the pain, post traumatic stress, suicide not to mention that indeed women still die from so called “legal and safe abortion” because of blood clots/hemorrhages/sepsis. There are many medical reports that deserve to be shared with the public. You can find some of them here: physiciansforlife.org/content/category/5/144/26/

Sorry that my post is a little off topic and I’m not in favor of showing abortion graphic pictures by the way. As a post abortive women who has to deal with some of the traumatic mental effects mentioned, all I can say is that it doesn’t serve the Pro-life cause. It makes women feel judged and excluded from the Christian community. You don’t know how high a price some of us have to pay like trying to conceive a child years after an abortion and living with the thought that the abortion took not only our child but also our chance to ever conceive another child (I know **many **women in this case). There is a lot more to say like the fact that most abortions are unwanted and forced on us by boyfriends or parents who refuse to help us. Abortion is not a free choice and the more a woman grows old, the more she realizes how high the price to pay is. I’m all for Changing Our Culture to help people opening their eyes on the issue of abortion through testimony of post abortive men and women, people conceived in rape, people who survived abortion procedures as a baby but not through showing of pictures.

I’m sharing all this in peace and if you are reading this and you had an abortion too, know that I’m praying for you and please find a Rachel’s Vineyard Retreat close to you to find healing and peace: rachelsvineyard.org/

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

Didn’t cigar smoking kill George Burns?

 

[JimG]

Didn’t cigar smoking kill George Burns?

Yes, his life was tragically cut short at the age of 100.

I want some of those cigars!