Government condemns smoking but defends abortion?

[LemonAndLime]

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.

Nope. I was under the impression we were talking about definate health risks associated with smoking and alcohol, as opposed to “maybes”.

 

[LemonAndLime]

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?

Interesting scenario, but we’re not talking about that. Both parents of my cousin smoked around her as a baby. She had had no viral infections, lived by the seaside… the only viable cause was the smoking. Oh, and the doctor knows more than you.

Early entry into day care is also said to be a cause.

Not applicable to my cousin.

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.

It’s a well known fact that heavily urban areas have high levels of pollution which can have negative consequences.

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.

Because day care can go very well without any damage. Smoking can never be good for you, or have 0 damage to your health.

 

[formerlysure]

I do not think there is a valid correlation between what the government does in one area of life and what the government does in another area of life or issue. The government is all of us - it is our leadership which we put in place and pay - they work for us. It’s not one guy comparing issues and picking one as more important than another. Different committees and governing bodies, different people and agendas, different departments, different budgets. And personally I think that graphic photos related to abortion do nothing to advance the pro-life cause and everything to make pro-life advocates appear crazy and unreasonable and insensitive.

I do not think this issue is going to be won with protesting in the street or harassing women entering clinics. Rather, I think it is more subtle and complex than that and that attitudes have to be changed on many levels first, so that changes to law arise out of those changed attitudes. Pro-adoption advocacy would be wonderful to see. There are some really incorrect and negative perceptions of adoption out there and if this were addressed, particularly in lower income populations which might not be as educated, I think it would be a lot more popular option.

Also, I think it would be very helpful if children were taught the emotional consequences of premarital sex, not just the rules and morality of the thing. I’ve taught my teenage son, as well as some of his friends, to really think carefully about how much they risk emotionally and socially when they escalate a relationship to intercourse - that the expectations and emotional bond felt by the girl really accellerates to a point where the guy is probably not ready to go, and how used she feels and shamed when she has sex with him but he is not fully committed to her. I’ve also taught my son really think through consequences to the end - to imagine himself sitting with a girl and telling her parents together that she is pregnant, doing the same with me and his father. Being at school and having everyone talking about him getting his girlfriend pregnant. Either giving his child up for adoption, or being a parent before he is ready - living with me perhaps 5 or 6 years longer than he will if he has no children becuase he will have to give his money to his child’s mother. I’ve tried to get him to imagine giving up hanging out with his friends, going away to college and instead going to community college. Coparenting with a girl he’s broken up with and losing the girl he loves only because they put themselves in a situation they are ill prepared to handle at this time in life. Explaining to future girls he meets that he’s already a father.

I hear a lot about how parents should talk to their kids about sex and it’s usually meaning the mechanics. They need to learn about this but frankly, they can learn that pretty easily on their own. What they won’t learn from their friends is how to think critically and wisely. And this is not a one-time conversation - this is an over and over and over and over discussion that grows with the age of the child.

 

[novusCatholic]

The thread was started to discuss why the government condemns smoking to such a large degree, yet defends abortion (something also bad for you - physically, emotionally, psychological, spiritually…).

The discussion has morphed into a thread about the health effects of smoking…

If the government is going to make such an effort to warn people about smoking and place graphic images and warnings on packaging, then shouldn’t there also be an effort to inform and warn those who are considering abortion?

 

[exnihilo]

Nope. I was under the impression we were talking about definate health risks associated with smoking and alcohol, as opposed to “maybes”.

Hmm, well I guess the many people who have died from alcohol poisoning in one drinking episode dont count compared to the set of zero, that I am aware of, who have died from smoking too much in one sitting.

 

[exnihilo]

The thread was started to discuss why the government condemns smoking to such a large degree, yet defends abortion (something also bad for you - physically, emotionally, psychological, spiritually…).

The discussion has morphed into a thread about the health effects of smoking…

If the government is going to make such an effort to warn people about smoking and place graphic images and warnings on packaging, then shouldn’t there also be an effort to inform and warn those who are considering abortion?

True, and I’m part of getting it off track for which I apologize.

But I do think that this discussion shows a problem. So many things are harmful to us. Even inhaling auto pollution is bad for us. At what point is something bad enough that it warrants the government requiring warnings? What you tend to find is that people pick something they dont do and dont like and say that it is something the government should try to stop. But they dont want that applied to what they themselves do or like that is harmful.

The bigger problem for me is what moral authority does the government have? I see the government as maintaining a double standard and staffed in most key positions by men who are terribly corrupt and immoral. I find it laughable that the same government that uses depleted uranium munitions on foreigners and incidentally exposes its own soldiers is concerned with health.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Hmm, well I guess the many people who have died from alcohol poisoning in one drinking episode dont count compared to the set of zero, that I am aware of, who have died from smoking too much in one sitting.

What is that comment meant to mean?

Drinking is NOT ALWAYS dangerous in moderation.

Smoking is ALWAYS dangerous, even in moderation.

It’s what I’ve been saying all along. Why is this difficult?

 

[exnihilo]

What is that comment meant to mean?

Drinking is NOT ALWAYS dangerous in moderation.

Smoking is ALWAYS dangerous, even in moderation.

It’s what I’ve been saying all along. Why is this difficult?

Well you have a very strange idea of danger. You consider something that can and does kill people who indulge in it immediately less dangerous than something that takes decades to kill people.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Well you have a very strange idea of danger. You consider something that can and does kill people who indulge in it immediately less dangerous than something that takes decades to kill people.

No, I have a rational sense of danger.

Alcohol is less dangerous than smoking as the majority of people manage to enjoy it without killing themselves, and without any long-term negative effects on health if used responsibly.

Smoking will always lead to negative long-term effects on health.

What you’re saying is like saying I have a warped sense of danger because I believe that electricty is safe, when so many people electrocute themselves.

 

[stevicus]

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

Just as it’s possible for people to smoke one or two cigarettes a day.

I agree with your point that people cause harm, whether it’s with alcohol or cigarettes, but if we’re going to compare the two, I would say that alcohol is worse. You raised an earlier point about being a burden to the state, and plenty of alcoholics and those they’ve harmed would definitely fall into that category.

So, if the issue revolves around who is a burden to the state and who costs the most money, cigarette smokers or alcoholics, which group would it be? I would also note that many alcoholics are also heavy smokers.

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. *

Of course, I’m not arguing that smoking isn’t harmful, but I’m just saying that, just as there are some people who can drink with minimal ill effects, the same can be said of some smokers. As you say, some people are lucky. But I don’t see how that makes one better than the other.

Moreover, I don’t see it as a reason to single out one for demonization while giving the other a free pass. If a heavy tax can be imposed on tobaccoo, then it should be the same for alcohol. If the governments and individuals can sue tobacco companies for the damage done by tobacco, then the same should apply to the alcohol companies as well. Fair is fair. Why would anyone argue against that?

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.*

I’m not a doctor, so I’m only recalling from memory from some seminars and lectures I’ve attended on this subject. I was a social worker and I worked with a number of people who had FAS, as well as Fetal Alcohol Effects, which is a milder form of it. One thing I remember is that it can be manifested in any number of ways, depending on which specific part of the brain was damaged and at which point during the pregnancy that the brain damage occurred.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I don’t think I’m getting through to you. Smoking always has a risk no matter the quantity, yet alcohol does not. Whether alcohol damages you or not is up to you and how much you have.

With smoking, it is gradual damage over a period of time which begins less than a minute after the first inhalation. Within 30 seconds of starting it cells begin showing cancerous changes.

So, explain to me how alcohol is worse, when the majority of the western population can have it with the majority having no long-lasting effects, yet the same cannot be said of the population of smokers?

 

[stevicus]

I don’t think I’m getting through to you. Smoking always has a risk no matter the quantity, yet alcohol does not. Whether alcohol damages you or not is up to you and how much you have.

Where do you get this idea that alcohol has no damage? Every alcoholic starts with one drink. Alcohol harms others around the user as well. Drunk driving, FAS/FAE, etc. At the seminars I mentioned, it was estimated that 70-80% of the prison population has some form of FAE, so the alcohol companies owe a HUGE debt to society, more than tobacco has ever owed.

Remember, we were talking about who is a burden to the state and who costs the most money.

With smoking, it is gradual damage over a period of time which begins less than a minute after the first inhalation. Within 30 seconds of starting it cells begin showing cancerous changes. *

Then why don’t ALL smokers get cancer? You make it sound like every smoker is dying of cancer the minute they take their first puff. This is just not true.

So, explain to me how alcohol is worse, when the majority of the western population can have it with the majority having no long-lasting effects, yet the same cannot be said of the population of smokers?*

I don’t believe that the majority of the Western population can consume alcohol and have no long-lasting effects. I would say the victims of drunk driving would take issue with that statement, along with those who suffer from FAE or have been victimized by same.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Where do you get this idea that alcohol has no damage? Every alcoholic starts with one drink. Alcohol harms others around the user as well. Drunk driving, FAS/FAE, etc. At the seminars I mentioned, it was estimated that 70-80% of the prison population has some form of FAE, so the alcohol companies owe a HUGE debt to society, more than tobacco has ever owed.

The examples you are giving are people who abuse alcohol, not regular users. If you compare people who regularly drink alcohol to the advised limits to people who regularly smoke, are you honestly going to tell me that drink is worse of?

Remember, we were talking about who is a burden to the state and who costs the most money.

Smokers and obesity. Not alcoholism. I have am training as a nurse and I have worked on respiratory wards, and I can assure you that smoking takes more of a toll than regular drink.

Then why don’t ALL smokers get cancer? You make it sound like every smoker is dying of cancer the minute they take their first puff. This is just not true.

You’re right, not all smokers get cancer. Instead many get COPD. Look it up.

I don’t believe that the majority of the Western population can consume alcohol and have no long-lasting effects.

Well, over here in Britain, we’re still alive. Where is your evidence that drinking the advised limit of alcohol is going to cause damage?

I would say the victims of drunk driving would take issue with that statement, along with those who suffer from FAE or have been victimized by same.

Again, you’re talking about the ABUSE of alcohol. You took issue with me comparing a smoker who smokes 50 a day with one who only smokes 5, so could you do me the same courtsey and distinguish between abusive and irresponsible drinkers and most people who enjoy alcohol?

 

[exnihilo]

The examples you are giving are people who abuse alcohol, not regular users. If you compare people who regularly drink alcohol to the advised limits to people who regularly smoke, are you honestly going to tell me that drink is worse of?

Aren’t the advised limits that which will not cause serious damage? So then if smokers only smoked to the advised limit of lets say one cigarette a day they would not have problems either. You are using circular reasoning. You are excluding from consideration any people who use the substance according to some standard someone has made up.

Smokers and obesity. Not alcoholism. I have am training as a nurse and I have worked on respiratory wards, and I can assure you that smoking takes more of a toll than regular drink.

Well yes, in the respiratory ward more people would be smokers. In the liver ward aka the drunk driving morgue you’d find the drinkers.

Yes, smoking does damage the body. But the damage is often reversible and only really becomes a problem after decades of use.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Aren’t the advised limits that which will not cause serious damage? So then if smokers only smoked to the advised limit of lets say one cigarette a day they would not have problems either. You are using circular reasoning. You are excluding from consideration any people who use the substance according to some standard someone has made up.

There is no advised limit for smoking. If there was, it would be 0. So, considering it’s possible to enjoy alcohol with no damage, but you can’t say the same for smoking, how can you consider alcohol more dangerous is beyond me.

Well yes, in the respiratory ward more people would be smokers. In the liver ward aka the drunk driving morgue you’d find the drinkers.

But what’s the difference? Ah yes, the smokers were just ordinary smokers, and the alcoholics are abusers of that substance.

Yes, smoking does damage the body. But the damage is often reversible and only really becomes a problem after decades of use.

The damage is not completely reversible. You can tell if someone used to smoke by measuring the levels of oxygen in their blood, even if they gave up years ago. Once the arioles are killed off, there’s little you can do other than patching them up. Once COPD sets in, that’s it.

 

[Eugenius]

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

Thanks for sharing this

 

[melekali]

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.

Yes, and they have no scientific or medical basis for their opinion supporting abortion.

 

[melekali]

If the government is going to make such an effort to warn people about smoking and place graphic images and warnings on packaging, then shouldn’t there also be an effort to inform and warn those who are considering abortion?

Yes.