Government condemns smoking but defends abortion?

[LemonAndLime]

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/

Oh I agree that there are risks. And I think most women who have abortions are aware that every procedure carries risks along with it. If anything, thats an argument for doctors to give more information then for abortion to be outlawed.

In the UK, our doctors are more… “standardised”. In the US, doctors seem more independent. I mean, we have private hospitals/clinics etc here too, but with the government in charge of a lot of our healthcare, it’s much better regulated. If a doctor fails to tell you the risks, or cannot produce paperwork which proves he has explained to you every possible side-effect, then he can be suspended. Is it the same in the US?

As to the link with breast cancer - I researched this and I couldn’t find any evidence, that to me, proved a link. Most of the websites advertising this were pro-life and when you tried to find their sources they were strangely hard to find.

I am really against pro-life campaigners going down the medical route. People aren’t going to stop having abortions if you tell them about the increased risk of certain conditions, etc. Also, every time I’ve seen a pro-life argument that looked at the medical side I’ve found the researching dubious. Just focus on the moral.

 

[beafedor]

I am really against pro-life campaigners going down the medical route. People aren’t going to stop having abortions if you tell them about the increased risk of certain conditions, etc. Also, every time I’ve seen a pro-life argument that looked at the medical side I’ve found the researching dubious. Just focus on the moral.

I couldn’t agree more. I remember that you are working in the medical field and I do not mean to enter your territory and be judgmental or spread lies. Nevertheless, it is a fact that abortion is the most common medical procedure in the US, that abortion businesses are not as strictly regulated as veterinarian clinics and that women do not receive information about the health risks prior to the surgery or prior to taking the abortion meds. Have you heard of the Telemed abortions? With no medical supervision whatsoever, women take the RU486 pill in their homes after watching a video. It’s really scary as this drug has caused dangerous complications and even death of several women which are documented. Sorry I don’t have time to research the sources of this right now but will do later.

There is scientific evidence about the things I mentioned in scientific peer reviewed articles and studies from around the world. If you look at this PDF brochure from the Silent No more Awareness Campaign, you can see their sources in the middle of the last page. Zoom in at 200% to be able to read as it is small print. priestsforlifecanada.com/English/Resources/Post_abortion/whats_so_bad_about_abortion.pdf

I’m against spreading false rumors about abortion but we have a duty as Christians to share the truth when we discover it and to educate others, our Baptism demands it. The abortion industry, which is taking advantage of women’s distress to make money, is obviously not going to advertise the health risks and the documented deaths.

 

[melekali]

Yes, the government is schizophrenic…

 

[valentino]

It may be a justifiable idea however this society would never allow it Our society views smoking as injurious to health and expensive whereas abortion is viewed as a woman’s right and not injurious to her health.A very weird society we’re living into today.I think we have thrown common sense out the window.

 

[Me_Consule]

It seems to me that the article is pointing out the irony of governments failing to condemn what is (in Catholic terms) a sin- the killing of an unborn child, but vigorously condemning what is not considered a sin- smoking.
Now, one could argue that smoking does cause death as well, either by shortening the life of the smoker, or by shortening the life of those exposed to the smoker’s exhalations, by ‘second-hand’ or ‘passive’ smoking.
However, the difference is in the intention- abortionists deliberately set out to kill; smokers* intend* no harm to anyone. They might die of their habit- but again they might not. And remember, as Christians, we know that we cannot prevent bodily death, and the prolongation of earthly life is not a good in itself.
If we believed otherwise, we would have to condemn those saints who starved themselves in the desert, and mortified their flesh, and also, indeed the holy martyrs themselves.
We must recognise that almost everything we do has the potential to shorten our own lives, or potentially harm those of others. Do you drive? You pollute the air as well (probably much more effectively than second-hand smoke, with the added bonus that the rest of us can never escape the emissions), and the effects of second-hand driving- hitting that old lady crossing the road- are a lot more immediately fatal than giving her a hypothetical marginally increased chance of contracting cancer. The fact that you ‘didn’t mean’ to hit her doesn’t make her any less dead.
The other argument against smoking which we’ve seen is primarily an aesthetic one- smokers ‘smell bad’, with their ‘stinky butts’. Those of us with an addiction to sugar may (but obviously not necessarily) look grossly obese, and offend the aesthetic sense of others. The point here is that all of us stink in the eyes of the only judge that matters, God, on account of our sins.
So, in matters of petty irritation like smoking, fatness, driving polluting SUVs, we must learn to act with charity towards each other, and forgive each other, as God forgives us far greater omissions; the point of the article- that grave sin and minor personal habits are being given the opposite weight to what they should have is correct.

 

[stevicus]

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.

This is a good point. Smokers pay through the nose in taxes, so in terms of dollars and cents, smokers have more than paid for their “burden to the state” many times over. Besides, smokers who are privately insured would pay for their own burden anyway.

What I wonder about, though, is why there is such a vendetta against tobacco companies anyway? It seems like someone in power is obsessed about going after the tobacco companies, and I can’t seem to figure out why. I realize that tobacco is harmful, but what about all the other things that are harmful and create burdens to the state? Alcohol is something that comes immediately to mind.

I was at a seminar on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome once, and while the discussion of funding was taking place, I asked the question, “If people can sue tobacco companies for the damage done by cigarettes, why can’t those who have FAS sue the alcohol companies?” The answer I got was that the alcohol were just too powerful, and it would not turn out with the same results as with the tobacco companies. But that seems unfair. Alcohol causes much more damage to society and burdens to the state than tobacco does, so why do the alcohol companies get a virtual free pass compared to the tactics used against tobacco companies?

 

[LemonAndLime]

This is a good point. Smokers pay through the nose in taxes, so in terms of dollars and cents, smokers have more than paid for their “burden to the state” many times over. Besides, smokers who are privately insured would pay for their own burden anyway.

What I wonder about, though, is why there is such a vendetta against tobacco companies anyway? It seems like someone in power is obsessed about going after the tobacco companies, and I can’t seem to figure out why. I realize that tobacco is harmful, but what about all the other things that are harmful and create burdens to the state? Alcohol is something that comes immediately to mind.

I was at a seminar on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome once, and while the discussion of funding was taking place, I asked the question, “If people can sue tobacco companies for the damage done by cigarettes, why can’t those who have FAS sue the alcohol companies?” The answer I got was that the alcohol were just too powerful, and it would not turn out with the same results as with the tobacco companies. But that seems unfair. Alcohol causes much more damage to society and burdens to the state than tobacco does, so why do the alcohol companies get a virtual free pass compared to the tactics used against tobacco companies?

Because alcohol can be taken responsibily without any damage, and in fact, with some benefits in moderation (red wine is good for your heart and circulation, for example). Just because SOME people abuse something is never a reason to ban it.

Cigarettes are always harmful. Theres no “moderation”, whether you smoke 10 a day or 50, it is gradually damaging your body. It’s also much more addictive than alcohol.

 

[exnihilo]

What I wonder about, though, is why there is such a vendetta against tobacco companies anyway? It seems like someone in power is obsessed about going after the tobacco companies, and I can’t seem to figure out why. I realize that tobacco is harmful, but what about all the other things that are harmful and create burdens to the state? Alcohol is something that comes immediately to mind.

I think there are several reasons. One is that tobacco companies had a lot of money. They had ‘deep pockets’. The other is that cigarette smoking declined. The government loves to come in after a problem has worked itself out and make all sorts of laws to ‘protect’ the people. I noticed this with non-smoking restaurants. Most new restaurants and many established restaurants had already stopped allowing smoking. The trend was obvious. But the government had to pass a law. It somehow gives the government moral credibility. Since alcohol is still wildly popular they aren’t going to do anything to ‘help’ us. The government mostly fixes problems that dont exist.

 

[exnihilo]

Because alcohol can be taken responsibily without any damage, and in fact, with some benefits in moderation (red wine is good for your heart and circulation, for example). Just because SOME people abuse something is never a reason to ban it.

Cigarettes are always harmful. Theres no “moderation”, whether you smoke 10 a day or 50, it is gradually damaging your body. It’s also much more addictive than alcohol.

Smoking a cigarette a day wont hurt you. It has to be better than breathing the air at a city bus station. Also smokeless tobacco is basically harmless. In fact there is an anti-tobacco fanaticism that wont recognize the smokeless tobacco is a much safer alternative to smoking.

 

[ForGood]

No abortion is safe.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Smoking a cigarette a day wont hurt you. It has to be better than breathing the air at a city bus station. Also smokeless tobacco is basically harmless. In fact there is an anti-tobacco fanaticism that wont recognize the smokeless tobacco is a much safer alternative to smoking.

Ah yes, “one a day won’t hurt you”.

Tell me, how many smokers do you know who stick to just one a day?

 

[exnihilo]

Ah yes, “one a day won’t hurt you”.

Tell me, how many smokers do you know who stick to just one a day?

But you do agree that one a day wont hurt you, right?

As far as who I know that smokes one a day there are a few people I know who smoke several in a night but go for weeks or months without smoking. My father did know a lady who would only smoke 1-2 after supper. Most people do smoke much more than 1 or 2 a day. So I admit of course it seems rare.

In America gluttony is a serious problem. Americans overindulge in almost everything. They seem to have traded smoking for obesity. Smoking, while having serious negative health affects, is at some point much better than the obesity I observe. The idea that Americans understand and practice good health by not smoking is laughable when you observe what they eat and how they look.

 

[LemonAndLime]

But you do agree that one a day wont hurt you, right?

No I do not. My Aunt smoked around my baby cousin, about 10 a day. My cousin ended up deaf in one ear, caused by passive smoking. She probably wasn’t breathing in a full cigarette a day even, so don’t tell me that one a day can’t hurt. It does. It hurts because you can have have just one a day, it’s addictive.

As far as who I know that smokes one a day there are a few people I know who smoke several in a night but go for weeks or months without smoking. My father did know a lady who would only smoke 1-2 after supper. Most people do smoke much more than 1 or 2 a day. So I admit of course it seems rare.

In America gluttony is a serious problem. Americans overindulge in almost everything. They seem to have traded smoking for obesity. Smoking, while having serious negative health affects, is at some point much better than the obesity I observe. The idea that Americans understand and practice good health by not smoking is laughable when you observe what they eat and how they look.

It takes roughly 10 seconds for a cigarette to start to damage your lungs. It might be small, but the damage still happens whether you smoke 1 or 50.

 

[exnihilo]

No I do not. My Aunt smoked around my baby cousin, about 10 a day. My cousin ended up deaf in one ear, caused by passive smoking. She probably wasn’t breathing in a full cigarette a day even, so don’t tell me that one a day can’t hurt. It does. It hurts because you can have have just one a day, it’s addictive.

Cause by smoking? How do you know that? And if so how could it be one ear and not both? Why are there not most children from smoking households deaf?

It takes roughly 10 seconds for a cigarette to start to damage your lungs. It might be small, but the damage still happens whether you smoke 1 or 50.

Doesn’t more damage occur if you smoke 50 than 1? Doesn’t 50 times the damage occur? If not then is the message ‘if you smoke 1 you ought just smoke 50’?

By the same definition of danger drinking alcohol, standing at a busy intersection, and getting a dental xray are dangerous. Surely we have distinguish between levels of danger.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Cause by smoking? How do you know that? And if so how could it be one ear and not both? Why are there not most children from smoking households deaf?

The doctor said so.

Children younger than seven are much more prone to otitis media due to shorter Eustachian tubes, which are at a more horizontal angle than in the adult ear. They also have not developed the same resistance to viruses and bacteria as adults. Numerous studies have correlated the incidence in children with various factors such as nursing in infancy, bottle feeding when supine, parental smoking, diet, allergies, and automobile emissions;

Children with recurrent episodes of acute otitis media and those suffering from otitis media with effusion or chronic otitis media, have higher risks of developing conductive and sensorineural hearing loss.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otitis_media#Hearing_loss

exnihilo:

Doesn’t more damage occur if you smoke 50 than 1? Doesn’t 50 times the damage occur? If not then is the message ‘if you smoke 1 you ought just smoke 50’?

By the same definition of danger drinking alcohol, standing at a busy intersection, and getting a dental xray are dangerous. Surely we have distinguish between levels of danger.

Of course smoking 50 causes more damage than smoking one a day. When have I said it doesn’t?

Why is it hard for you to accept that you are still doing damage to your body regardless of how “little” you smoke?

 

[stevicus]

Because alcohol can be taken responsibily without any damage, and in fact, with some benefits in moderation (red wine is good for your heart and circulation, for example). Just because SOME people abuse something is never a reason to ban it.

Cigarettes are always harmful. Theres no “moderation”, whether you smoke 10 a day or 50, it is gradually damaging your body. It’s also much more addictive than alcohol.

But still, alcohol creates more harm for society at large than cigarettes. How many drunk driving deaths have there been? Cigarettes are not an intoxicant, and they don’t impair one’s driving ability.

Besides, SOME people can smoke and not get cancer or anything. George Burns smoked every day and lived to be nearly 100. Just because some people suffer ill effects from smoking doesn’t mean that everyone will. Some people smoke and do alright.

And from what I’ve learned about FAS, even ONE drink during pregnancy can cause fetal brain damage.

 

[stevicus]

I think there are several reasons. One is that tobacco companies had a lot of money. They had ‘deep pockets’. The other is that cigarette smoking declined. The government loves to come in after a problem has worked itself out and make all sorts of laws to ‘protect’ the people. I noticed this with non-smoking restaurants. Most new restaurants and many established restaurants had already stopped allowing smoking. The trend was obvious. But the government had to pass a law. It somehow gives the government moral credibility. Since alcohol is still wildly popular they aren’t going to do anything to ‘help’ us. The government mostly fixes problems that dont exist.

I agree.

 

[LemonAndLime]

But still, alcohol creates more harm for society at large than cigarettes. How many drunk driving deaths have there been? Cigarettes are not an intoxicant, and they don’t impair one’s driving ability.

No, people cause harm, not alcohol. It is possible to enjoy a few drinks without getting liver disease or a criminal record.

Besides, SOME people can smoke and not get cancer or anything. George Burns smoked every day and lived to be nearly 100. Just because some people suffer ill effects from smoking doesn’t mean that everyone will. Some people smoke and do alright.

Yeah, well done, some people are lucky. There are exceptions to every rule. Big whoop. Smoking harms every smoker negatively but not in the same way as another smoker. Some people get lung cancer, others COPD, mouth cancer, high cholesterol, fertility problems.

And from what I’ve learned about FAS, even ONE drink during pregnancy can cause fetal brain damage.

No. Fetal brain damage as caused by FAS is caused by long-term drinking habits which gradually damage the unborn. Pregnant women can have one or two alcohol drinks a week without any harm, but its recommended that they stop drinking altogether.

 

[exnihilo]

The doctor said so.

The doctor, like most people, is guilty of bad thinking. Let’s say a driver has a car crash and is drunk, speeding, and texting. What caused the car crash?

Over weeks and months, middle ear fluid can become very thick and glue-like (thus the name glue ear), which increases the likelihood of its causing conductive hearing impairment. Early-onset OME is associated with feeding while lying down and early entry into group child care, while parental smoking, too short a period of breastfeeding and greater amounts of time spent in group child care increased the duration of OME in the first two years of life.

Early entry into day care is also said to be a cause. So I guess good parents would not only not smoke but not put kids in day care. Your quote mentions auto emissions. So I guess parents should not let their kids stand around the car or walk them down busy city streets. I imagine the moral indignation will rest solely on the smokers.

Why is it hard for you to accept that you are still doing damage to your body regardless of how “little” you smoke?

I do accept that you are doing damage. I just ask if that is so why is this standard of not allowing any risky behavior not applied to everything else, like day care.

 

[exnihilo]

No, people cause harm, not alcohol. It is possible to enjoy a few drinks without getting liver disease or a criminal record.

You are switching your standards. When talking about smoking any damage is bad. When talking about alcohol it is only bad if you get liver disease or a criminal record.