Lancashire TelegraphNew ‘multi-agency’ bid to stop East Lancs mums smoking (From Lancashire Telegraph)

When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.

New ‘multi-agency’ bid to stop East Lancs mums smoking

Lancashire Telegraph: New ‘multi-agency’ bid to stop East Lancs mums smoking New ‘multi-agency’ bid to stop East Lancs mums smoking

A JOINT effort is being launched to persuade East Lancashire and Chorley mothers to ditch smoking during pregnancy.

Lancashire County Council health cabinet member Azhar Ali is being asked to endorse a £223,000 investment in a multi-agency initiative designed to combat the problem.

Last month it was revealed that the rate of mothers who continue to smoke pregnancy locally was 19.7 per cent, against a national average of 12.7 per cent.

New evidence has now shown that the number of low birthweights, a common side-effect of smoking-affected maternity cases, is also higher than the all-England rate in at least four East Lancashire boroughs and Chorley.

For 2012-13 there were 560 cases across the five areas – accounting for 9.8 per cent of all births in Hyndburn and Pendle, 9.3 in Chorley and 8.8 in Burnley, opposed to a national score of 7.3.

Other side-effects from smoking include increasing the risk of ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage and still-births, alongside an increased risk of asthma, ADHD, cleft palates and learning difficulties.

Dr Sakthi Karunanithi, Lancashire’s public health director, has told councillors there are ‘significant variances’ currently in delivering smoking in pregnancy programmes.

He wants to ensure all mothers are offered ‘effective support’ to reduce the number of cigarettes consumed or quit for good.

Dr Karunanithi said in an executive report: “It is estimated that around one in five babies that are admitted to a neonatal unit are there primarily as a result of smoking during pregnancy, which equates to 224 low birthweight babies in Lancashire each year.”

An average £12,500 is spent on such premature births, compared to around £1,000 for a ‘normal’ delivery, councillors have heard, which is believed to cost the county an additional £2.8million per year.

The plans would be taken forward by public health teams, hospital maternity services, countywide clinical commissioning groups, stop smoking experts and community and voluntary groups would be asked to contribute.

Proposals will also be discussed by the county council’s cabinet on Thursday.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:16pm Tue 6 May 14

Chris P Bacon says...

Pregnant women found smoking should be convicted of child abuse as that is literally what it is. They are endangering their own babies and inflicting on them the most noxious, harmful carcinogen from which the child cannot escape. The legislation should be changed immediately to reflect the severity of this offence.
Pregnant women found smoking should be convicted of child abuse as that is literally what it is. They are endangering their own babies and inflicting on them the most noxious, harmful carcinogen from which the child cannot escape. The legislation should be changed immediately to reflect the severity of this offence. Chris P Bacon
  • Score: 2

5:31pm Tue 6 May 14

mavrick says...

People still have the freedom of choice whatever your opinion. It would seem that the public health bods need to find something to justify their existence.I noticed they used the old fashion method of extrapolating figures beyond all reason to prove a point. I take a simple view that £223,000 would be better spent on more important issues. people know the risks and if we were to believe everything the so called experts come out with we would be a nation of boring people.
People still have the freedom of choice whatever your opinion. It would seem that the public health bods need to find something to justify their existence.I noticed they used the old fashion method of extrapolating figures beyond all reason to prove a point. I take a simple view that £223,000 would be better spent on more important issues. people know the risks and if we were to believe everything the so called experts come out with we would be a nation of boring people. mavrick
  • Score: 8

5:52pm Tue 6 May 14

Loving lances says...

mavrick wrote:
People still have the freedom of choice whatever your opinion. It would seem that the public health bods need to find something to justify their existence.I noticed they used the old fashion method of extrapolating figures beyond all reason to prove a point. I take a simple view that £223,000 would be better spent on more important issues. people know the risks and if we were to believe everything the so called experts come out with we would be a nation of boring people.
Silly man.
[quote][p][bold]mavrick[/bold] wrote: People still have the freedom of choice whatever your opinion. It would seem that the public health bods need to find something to justify their existence.I noticed they used the old fashion method of extrapolating figures beyond all reason to prove a point. I take a simple view that £223,000 would be better spent on more important issues. people know the risks and if we were to believe everything the so called experts come out with we would be a nation of boring people.[/p][/quote]Silly man. Loving lances
  • Score: -4

6:18pm Tue 6 May 14

Malthus says...

Loving lances wrote:
mavrick wrote:
People still have the freedom of choice whatever your opinion. It would seem that the public health bods need to find something to justify their existence.I noticed they used the old fashion method of extrapolating figures beyond all reason to prove a point. I take a simple view that £223,000 would be better spent on more important issues. people know the risks and if we were to believe everything the so called experts come out with we would be a nation of boring people.
Silly man.
Is he silly though? Even though I find the act of smoking whilst pregnant distasteful and I and everyone else in society are probably aware that smoking whilst pregnant is likely to cause damage to the unborn child it does not stop people from doing it. I am therefore of the opinion that there are those who will smoke regardless of any public information campaign and also those who will not smoke as they are aware of the risks. We should then save taxes on employing all of these public health educators when the money could be used to better effect elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]Loving lances[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mavrick[/bold] wrote: People still have the freedom of choice whatever your opinion. It would seem that the public health bods need to find something to justify their existence.I noticed they used the old fashion method of extrapolating figures beyond all reason to prove a point. I take a simple view that £223,000 would be better spent on more important issues. people know the risks and if we were to believe everything the so called experts come out with we would be a nation of boring people.[/p][/quote]Silly man.[/p][/quote]Is he silly though? Even though I find the act of smoking whilst pregnant distasteful and I and everyone else in society are probably aware that smoking whilst pregnant is likely to cause damage to the unborn child it does not stop people from doing it. I am therefore of the opinion that there are those who will smoke regardless of any public information campaign and also those who will not smoke as they are aware of the risks. We should then save taxes on employing all of these public health educators when the money could be used to better effect elsewhere. Malthus
  • Score: 9

6:18pm Tue 6 May 14

grumpyoldlady says...

Mavrick states that people still have the freedom of choice. So where is the child's freedom of choice? When a woman becomes pregnant it is her duty to protect that child from conception to adulthood and that means putting the child's needs before her own.
Mavrick states that people still have the freedom of choice. So where is the child's freedom of choice? When a woman becomes pregnant it is her duty to protect that child from conception to adulthood and that means putting the child's needs before her own. grumpyoldlady
  • Score: 4

6:56pm Tue 6 May 14

Excluded again says...

Malthus wrote:
Loving lances wrote:
mavrick wrote:
People still have the freedom of choice whatever your opinion. It would seem that the public health bods need to find something to justify their existence.I noticed they used the old fashion method of extrapolating figures beyond all reason to prove a point. I take a simple view that £223,000 would be better spent on more important issues. people know the risks and if we were to believe everything the so called experts come out with we would be a nation of boring people.
Silly man.
Is he silly though? Even though I find the act of smoking whilst pregnant distasteful and I and everyone else in society are probably aware that smoking whilst pregnant is likely to cause damage to the unborn child it does not stop people from doing it. I am therefore of the opinion that there are those who will smoke regardless of any public information campaign and also those who will not smoke as they are aware of the risks. We should then save taxes on employing all of these public health educators when the money could be used to better effect elsewhere.
The report makes it clear that this is not the case.

The national average for women smoking whilst pregnant is 12.7%. In East Lancashire it was 19.7%. You don't have to have a degree in maths to realise that firstly the number of pregnant women smoking while pregnant is well above the national average and that there must be areas where the percentage is even smaller than the national average.

Therefore there is not a fixed percentage of pregnant women who smoke no matter what.

And, if your concern is saving taxes, how much do you think it costs to treat all those increased number of children with asthma, ADHD, cleft palates or learning difficulties year after year? A lot more than £223 000.
[quote][p][bold]Malthus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Loving lances[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mavrick[/bold] wrote: People still have the freedom of choice whatever your opinion. It would seem that the public health bods need to find something to justify their existence.I noticed they used the old fashion method of extrapolating figures beyond all reason to prove a point. I take a simple view that £223,000 would be better spent on more important issues. people know the risks and if we were to believe everything the so called experts come out with we would be a nation of boring people.[/p][/quote]Silly man.[/p][/quote]Is he silly though? Even though I find the act of smoking whilst pregnant distasteful and I and everyone else in society are probably aware that smoking whilst pregnant is likely to cause damage to the unborn child it does not stop people from doing it. I am therefore of the opinion that there are those who will smoke regardless of any public information campaign and also those who will not smoke as they are aware of the risks. We should then save taxes on employing all of these public health educators when the money could be used to better effect elsewhere.[/p][/quote]The report makes it clear that this is not the case. The national average for women smoking whilst pregnant is 12.7%. In East Lancashire it was 19.7%. You don't have to have a degree in maths to realise that firstly the number of pregnant women smoking while pregnant is well above the national average and that there must be areas where the percentage is even smaller than the national average. Therefore there is not a fixed percentage of pregnant women who smoke no matter what. And, if your concern is saving taxes, how much do you think it costs to treat all those increased number of children with asthma, ADHD, cleft palates or learning difficulties year after year? A lot more than £223 000. Excluded again
  • Score: 3

7:07pm Tue 6 May 14

wilddog says...

Hang on a sec you do gooders! Wot about women who drink throughout? Wot about the poor women who does not smoke yet has to endure all the fumes from cars and buses etc? no thats ok, aint it? Smoking oh Smoking! the bane of your lives aint it? 2 faced more like! Dont like people smoking but would moan like crazy if half the public stopped and the tax went on petrol? clothes?tv sets? food even? yes food as that way it would hit all the people that eat unhealthily too eh?That would cure that problem too! LET HIM OR HER WITHOUT SIN CAST THE 1ST STONE! Makes my blood boil when people are 2 faced!
Hang on a sec you do gooders! Wot about women who drink throughout? Wot about the poor women who does not smoke yet has to endure all the fumes from cars and buses etc? no thats ok, aint it? Smoking oh Smoking! the bane of your lives aint it? 2 faced more like! Dont like people smoking but would moan like crazy if half the public stopped and the tax went on petrol? clothes?tv sets? food even? yes food as that way it would hit all the people that eat unhealthily too eh?That would cure that problem too! LET HIM OR HER WITHOUT SIN CAST THE 1ST STONE! Makes my blood boil when people are 2 faced! wilddog
  • Score: 1

10:08pm Tue 6 May 14

Chris P Bacon says...

mavrick wrote:
People still have the freedom of choice whatever your opinion. It would seem that the public health bods need to find something to justify their existence.I noticed they used the old fashion method of extrapolating figures beyond all reason to prove a point. I take a simple view that £223,000 would be better spent on more important issues. people know the risks and if we were to believe everything the so called experts come out with we would be a nation of boring people.
The unborn baby doesn't have the freedom of choice though, does it? Since it is in no position to defend its own rights, then its rights have to be imposed on the mother on the child's behalf.
[quote][p][bold]mavrick[/bold] wrote: People still have the freedom of choice whatever your opinion. It would seem that the public health bods need to find something to justify their existence.I noticed they used the old fashion method of extrapolating figures beyond all reason to prove a point. I take a simple view that £223,000 would be better spent on more important issues. people know the risks and if we were to believe everything the so called experts come out with we would be a nation of boring people.[/p][/quote]The unborn baby doesn't have the freedom of choice though, does it? Since it is in no position to defend its own rights, then its rights have to be imposed on the mother on the child's behalf. Chris P Bacon
  • Score: 10

10:20pm Tue 6 May 14

noddy57 says...

l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards ,
l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards , noddy57
  • Score: 6

10:29pm Tue 6 May 14

Steven Seagull says...

Chris P Bacon wrote:
Pregnant women found smoking should be convicted of child abuse as that is literally what it is. They are endangering their own babies and inflicting on them the most noxious, harmful carcinogen from which the child cannot escape. The legislation should be changed immediately to reflect the severity of this offence.
Couldn't agree more. Similarly for those who continue to abuse drugs and alcohol while pregnant.
[quote][p][bold]Chris P Bacon[/bold] wrote: Pregnant women found smoking should be convicted of child abuse as that is literally what it is. They are endangering their own babies and inflicting on them the most noxious, harmful carcinogen from which the child cannot escape. The legislation should be changed immediately to reflect the severity of this offence.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more. Similarly for those who continue to abuse drugs and alcohol while pregnant. Steven Seagull
  • Score: 6

10:35pm Tue 6 May 14

Steven Seagull says...

noddy57 wrote:
l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards ,
Spot on Noddy, there is no excuse or justification for putting smoking over the welfare of an unborn child.

I'd even go as far to say that those who practice such activities are just plain scum. Strong that may be, but would they force a cigarette into the mouth of a new born child? No? Then why is it acceptable for them to do it while a baby is developing in the womb?
[quote][p][bold]noddy57[/bold] wrote: l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards ,[/p][/quote]Spot on Noddy, there is no excuse or justification for putting smoking over the welfare of an unborn child. I'd even go as far to say that those who practice such activities are just plain scum. Strong that may be, but would they force a cigarette into the mouth of a new born child? No? Then why is it acceptable for them to do it while a baby is developing in the womb? Steven Seagull
  • Score: 6

11:49pm Tue 6 May 14

wilddog says...

Steven Seagull wrote:
noddy57 wrote:
l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards ,
Spot on Noddy, there is no excuse or justification for putting smoking over the welfare of an unborn child.

I'd even go as far to say that those who practice such activities are just plain scum. Strong that may be, but would they force a cigarette into the mouth of a new born child? No? Then why is it acceptable for them to do it while a baby is developing in the womb?
Hang on a second ya 2 faced g!ts! Does the dad stop? Do relatives stop? Do friends stop? do people around the woman stop? No, blame the woman, thats right! two faced to the end! The world is better off without your sort!
[quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]noddy57[/bold] wrote: l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards ,[/p][/quote]Spot on Noddy, there is no excuse or justification for putting smoking over the welfare of an unborn child. I'd even go as far to say that those who practice such activities are just plain scum. Strong that may be, but would they force a cigarette into the mouth of a new born child? No? Then why is it acceptable for them to do it while a baby is developing in the womb?[/p][/quote]Hang on a second ya 2 faced g!ts! Does the dad stop? Do relatives stop? Do friends stop? do people around the woman stop? No, blame the woman, thats right! two faced to the end! The world is better off without your sort! wilddog
  • Score: -9

11:50pm Tue 6 May 14

wilddog says...

noddy57 wrote:
l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards ,
you have had a baby personally then? I take it you are a woman?
[quote][p][bold]noddy57[/bold] wrote: l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards ,[/p][/quote]you have had a baby personally then? I take it you are a woman? wilddog
  • Score: -2

11:52pm Tue 6 May 14

wilddog says...

wilddog wrote:
Hang on a sec you do gooders! Wot about women who drink throughout? Wot about the poor women who does not smoke yet has to endure all the fumes from cars and buses etc? no thats ok, aint it? Smoking oh Smoking! the bane of your lives aint it? 2 faced more like! Dont like people smoking but would moan like crazy if half the public stopped and the tax went on petrol? clothes?tv sets? food even? yes food as that way it would hit all the people that eat unhealthily too eh?That would cure that problem too! LET HIM OR HER WITHOUT SIN CAST THE 1ST STONE! Makes my blood boil when people are 2 faced!
I see no one address these comments then about all that goes on around the woman? Nah, it affects you, so lets keep quiet about that! grrrrrrrrrrrrrr
[quote][p][bold]wilddog[/bold] wrote: Hang on a sec you do gooders! Wot about women who drink throughout? Wot about the poor women who does not smoke yet has to endure all the fumes from cars and buses etc? no thats ok, aint it? Smoking oh Smoking! the bane of your lives aint it? 2 faced more like! Dont like people smoking but would moan like crazy if half the public stopped and the tax went on petrol? clothes?tv sets? food even? yes food as that way it would hit all the people that eat unhealthily too eh?That would cure that problem too! LET HIM OR HER WITHOUT SIN CAST THE 1ST STONE! Makes my blood boil when people are 2 faced![/p][/quote]I see no one address these comments then about all that goes on around the woman? Nah, it affects you, so lets keep quiet about that! grrrrrrrrrrrrrr wilddog
  • Score: -7

12:20am Wed 7 May 14

noddy57 says...

wilddog wrote:
noddy57 wrote:
l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards ,
you have had a baby personally then? I take it you are a woman?
so you are in favour of carbon monoxide poisoning while they carry their baby are you ? would you still feel the same if the baby was of stunted growth due to lack of oxygenated blood ? if your answer is yes then you are just as bloody bad are you not ?,its a medical fact smoking while pregnant harms the baby . l would not like you to be my father if that is your view,,
[quote][p][bold]wilddog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]noddy57[/bold] wrote: l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards ,[/p][/quote]you have had a baby personally then? I take it you are a woman?[/p][/quote]so you are in favour of carbon monoxide poisoning while they carry their baby are you ? would you still feel the same if the baby was of stunted growth due to lack of oxygenated blood ? if your answer is yes then you are just as bloody bad are you not ?,its a medical fact smoking while pregnant harms the baby . l would not like you to be my father if that is your view,, noddy57
  • Score: 4

7:40am Wed 7 May 14

BuckoTheMoose says...

Charge them with child abuse? Arrest the selfish gits and put them in prison? Believe everything we hear from a bunch of tax payer funded tobacco controllers whose mortgage payments rely on people believing all this clap trap?

It's not so many decades ago that most women smoked while pregnant. How come they managed to raise a healthy generation and we didn't all die out?

Before you start righteously condemning these women ask yourself, do any of these pubic health claims really make sense? Or are they simply justifying their tax grants?
Charge them with child abuse? Arrest the selfish gits and put them in prison? Believe everything we hear from a bunch of tax payer funded tobacco controllers whose mortgage payments rely on people believing all this clap trap? It's not so many decades ago that most women smoked while pregnant. How come they managed to raise a healthy generation and we didn't all die out? Before you start righteously condemning these women ask yourself, do any of these pubic health claims really make sense? Or are they simply justifying their tax grants? BuckoTheMoose
  • Score: -10

7:58am Wed 7 May 14

Steven Seagull says...

wilddog wrote:
Steven Seagull wrote:
noddy57 wrote:
l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards ,
Spot on Noddy, there is no excuse or justification for putting smoking over the welfare of an unborn child.

I'd even go as far to say that those who practice such activities are just plain scum. Strong that may be, but would they force a cigarette into the mouth of a new born child? No? Then why is it acceptable for them to do it while a baby is developing in the womb?
Hang on a second ya 2 faced g!ts! Does the dad stop? Do relatives stop? Do friends stop? do people around the woman stop? No, blame the woman, thats right! two faced to the end! The world is better off without your sort!
What a monumental bellend you are. Are you actually that stupid or is it an act?

Now I'm not a doctor but I'm pretty certain it's the woman that carries the child, what she eats the baby eats, what she drinks the baby drinks what she smokes the baby breaths in. Do you see how this works? It's actually quite straight forward.

Anyone who smokes around a pregnant individual is a thoughtless selfish tosspiece so yes you are right to point that out. But conversely she could simply move away from them. An unborn baby doesn't have the luxury of being able to avoid second hand smoke and your lack of condemnation of this act suggests that you think it's perfectly acceptable.

I hope you don't have any kids, I dread to think what their poor little lungs were filled with when they came out.
[quote][p][bold]wilddog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]noddy57[/bold] wrote: l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards ,[/p][/quote]Spot on Noddy, there is no excuse or justification for putting smoking over the welfare of an unborn child. I'd even go as far to say that those who practice such activities are just plain scum. Strong that may be, but would they force a cigarette into the mouth of a new born child? No? Then why is it acceptable for them to do it while a baby is developing in the womb?[/p][/quote]Hang on a second ya 2 faced g!ts! Does the dad stop? Do relatives stop? Do friends stop? do people around the woman stop? No, blame the woman, thats right! two faced to the end! The world is better off without your sort![/p][/quote]What a monumental bellend you are. Are you actually that stupid or is it an act? Now I'm not a doctor but I'm pretty certain it's the woman that carries the child, what she eats the baby eats, what she drinks the baby drinks what she smokes the baby breaths in. Do you see how this works? It's actually quite straight forward. Anyone who smokes around a pregnant individual is a thoughtless selfish tosspiece so yes you are right to point that out. But conversely she could simply move away from them. An unborn baby doesn't have the luxury of being able to avoid second hand smoke and your lack of condemnation of this act suggests that you think it's perfectly acceptable. I hope you don't have any kids, I dread to think what their poor little lungs were filled with when they came out. Steven Seagull
  • Score: 8

8:32am Wed 7 May 14

Chris P Bacon says...

wilddog wrote:
Steven Seagull wrote:
noddy57 wrote:
l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards ,
Spot on Noddy, there is no excuse or justification for putting smoking over the welfare of an unborn child.

I'd even go as far to say that those who practice such activities are just plain scum. Strong that may be, but would they force a cigarette into the mouth of a new born child? No? Then why is it acceptable for them to do it while a baby is developing in the womb?
Hang on a second ya 2 faced g!ts! Does the dad stop? Do relatives stop? Do friends stop? do people around the woman stop? No, blame the woman, thats right! two faced to the end! The world is better off without your sort!
Firstly, how on earth do you know the dad (if there's one who's still around) DOESN'T stop? How do you know he even smokes? You've set the terms of your 'argument' in such a way that once you've answered to your own satisfaction, you think you've won your little fight. You haven't as all you've posted there is pure speculation. And as it's the woman who carries the baby, it's her who the responsibility lies with.

And then maybe you missed the part in the story attributing an extra £2.8 million of costs onto the county caused by the selfishness of the mothers who smoke?
[quote][p][bold]wilddog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]noddy57[/bold] wrote: l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards ,[/p][/quote]Spot on Noddy, there is no excuse or justification for putting smoking over the welfare of an unborn child. I'd even go as far to say that those who practice such activities are just plain scum. Strong that may be, but would they force a cigarette into the mouth of a new born child? No? Then why is it acceptable for them to do it while a baby is developing in the womb?[/p][/quote]Hang on a second ya 2 faced g!ts! Does the dad stop? Do relatives stop? Do friends stop? do people around the woman stop? No, blame the woman, thats right! two faced to the end! The world is better off without your sort![/p][/quote]Firstly, how on earth do you know the dad (if there's one who's still around) DOESN'T stop? How do you know he even smokes? You've set the terms of your 'argument' in such a way that once you've answered to your own satisfaction, you think you've won your little fight. You haven't as all you've posted there is pure speculation. And as it's the woman who carries the baby, it's her who the responsibility lies with. And then maybe you missed the part in the story attributing an extra £2.8 million of costs onto the county caused by the selfishness of the mothers who smoke? Chris P Bacon
  • Score: 4

12:55pm Wed 7 May 14

GracesDad says...

Steven Seagull wrote:
wilddog wrote:
Steven Seagull wrote:
noddy57 wrote:
l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards ,
Spot on Noddy, there is no excuse or justification for putting smoking over the welfare of an unborn child.

I'd even go as far to say that those who practice such activities are just plain scum. Strong that may be, but would they force a cigarette into the mouth of a new born child? No? Then why is it acceptable for them to do it while a baby is developing in the womb?
Hang on a second ya 2 faced g!ts! Does the dad stop? Do relatives stop? Do friends stop? do people around the woman stop? No, blame the woman, thats right! two faced to the end! The world is better off without your sort!
What a monumental bellend you are. Are you actually that stupid or is it an act?

Now I'm not a doctor but I'm pretty certain it's the woman that carries the child, what she eats the baby eats, what she drinks the baby drinks what she smokes the baby breaths in. Do you see how this works? It's actually quite straight forward.

Anyone who smokes around a pregnant individual is a thoughtless selfish tosspiece so yes you are right to point that out. But conversely she could simply move away from them. An unborn baby doesn't have the luxury of being able to avoid second hand smoke and your lack of condemnation of this act suggests that you think it's perfectly acceptable.

I hope you don't have any kids, I dread to think what their poor little lungs were filled with when they came out.
You're the monumental bellend Seagull. There is one fundamental flaw in your logic....babies in the womb do not breath!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wilddog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]noddy57[/bold] wrote: l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards ,[/p][/quote]Spot on Noddy, there is no excuse or justification for putting smoking over the welfare of an unborn child. I'd even go as far to say that those who practice such activities are just plain scum. Strong that may be, but would they force a cigarette into the mouth of a new born child? No? Then why is it acceptable for them to do it while a baby is developing in the womb?[/p][/quote]Hang on a second ya 2 faced g!ts! Does the dad stop? Do relatives stop? Do friends stop? do people around the woman stop? No, blame the woman, thats right! two faced to the end! The world is better off without your sort![/p][/quote]What a monumental bellend you are. Are you actually that stupid or is it an act? Now I'm not a doctor but I'm pretty certain it's the woman that carries the child, what she eats the baby eats, what she drinks the baby drinks what she smokes the baby breaths in. Do you see how this works? It's actually quite straight forward. Anyone who smokes around a pregnant individual is a thoughtless selfish tosspiece so yes you are right to point that out. But conversely she could simply move away from them. An unborn baby doesn't have the luxury of being able to avoid second hand smoke and your lack of condemnation of this act suggests that you think it's perfectly acceptable. I hope you don't have any kids, I dread to think what their poor little lungs were filled with when they came out.[/p][/quote]You're the monumental bellend Seagull. There is one fundamental flaw in your logic....babies in the womb do not breath!!!! GracesDad
  • Score: -1

2:14pm Wed 7 May 14

noddy57 says...

some good points raised supporting the babies point of view and as usual you get the selfish tossers who really don,t give a **** about the possibility of the unborn child being affected by the selfish attitude of the mother,,the same applies to these who smoke in the home and subjecting their own children to poisons while their lungs are still forming some still smoke in their cars while carrying their children in the back,,them children do not have a choice and its plain wrong in every way,if you want to smoke do it privately its not difficult is it.
some good points raised supporting the babies point of view and as usual you get the selfish tossers who really don,t give a **** about the possibility of the unborn child being affected by the selfish attitude of the mother,,the same applies to these who smoke in the home and subjecting their own children to poisons while their lungs are still forming some still smoke in their cars while carrying their children in the back,,them children do not have a choice and its plain wrong in every way,if you want to smoke do it privately its not difficult is it. noddy57
  • Score: 2

4:32pm Wed 7 May 14

Excluded again says...

GracesDad wrote:
Steven Seagull wrote:
wilddog wrote:
Steven Seagull wrote:
noddy57 wrote:
l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards ,
Spot on Noddy, there is no excuse or justification for putting smoking over the welfare of an unborn child.

I'd even go as far to say that those who practice such activities are just plain scum. Strong that may be, but would they force a cigarette into the mouth of a new born child? No? Then why is it acceptable for them to do it while a baby is developing in the womb?
Hang on a second ya 2 faced g!ts! Does the dad stop? Do relatives stop? Do friends stop? do people around the woman stop? No, blame the woman, thats right! two faced to the end! The world is better off without your sort!
What a monumental bellend you are. Are you actually that stupid or is it an act?

Now I'm not a doctor but I'm pretty certain it's the woman that carries the child, what she eats the baby eats, what she drinks the baby drinks what she smokes the baby breaths in. Do you see how this works? It's actually quite straight forward.

Anyone who smokes around a pregnant individual is a thoughtless selfish tosspiece so yes you are right to point that out. But conversely she could simply move away from them. An unborn baby doesn't have the luxury of being able to avoid second hand smoke and your lack of condemnation of this act suggests that you think it's perfectly acceptable.

I hope you don't have any kids, I dread to think what their poor little lungs were filled with when they came out.
You're the monumental bellend Seagull. There is one fundamental flaw in your logic....babies in the womb do not breath!!!!
Babies ingest through the placenta whatever is in the mother's bloodstream.

When the mother breathes, the oxygen she breathes into her lungs is then absorbed into her bloodstream. This oxygenated blood is transferred to the baby along the placenta. And this applies to anything else she breathes in to. So when the mother breathes in the carcinogens and other pollutants from cigarettes these are all given a free piggy back along the placenta into the baby's body.
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wilddog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]noddy57[/bold] wrote: l stand by my first comment on this subject and that is those women who cannot stop smoking for 9 months for the sake of their baby are selfish bastards ,[/p][/quote]Spot on Noddy, there is no excuse or justification for putting smoking over the welfare of an unborn child. I'd even go as far to say that those who practice such activities are just plain scum. Strong that may be, but would they force a cigarette into the mouth of a new born child? No? Then why is it acceptable for them to do it while a baby is developing in the womb?[/p][/quote]Hang on a second ya 2 faced g!ts! Does the dad stop? Do relatives stop? Do friends stop? do people around the woman stop? No, blame the woman, thats right! two faced to the end! The world is better off without your sort![/p][/quote]What a monumental bellend you are. Are you actually that stupid or is it an act? Now I'm not a doctor but I'm pretty certain it's the woman that carries the child, what she eats the baby eats, what she drinks the baby drinks what she smokes the baby breaths in. Do you see how this works? It's actually quite straight forward. Anyone who smokes around a pregnant individual is a thoughtless selfish tosspiece so yes you are right to point that out. But conversely she could simply move away from them. An unborn baby doesn't have the luxury of being able to avoid second hand smoke and your lack of condemnation of this act suggests that you think it's perfectly acceptable. I hope you don't have any kids, I dread to think what their poor little lungs were filled with when they came out.[/p][/quote]You're the monumental bellend Seagull. There is one fundamental flaw in your logic....babies in the womb do not breath!!!![/p][/quote]Babies ingest through the placenta whatever is in the mother's bloodstream. When the mother breathes, the oxygen she breathes into her lungs is then absorbed into her bloodstream. This oxygenated blood is transferred to the baby along the placenta. And this applies to anything else she breathes in to. So when the mother breathes in the carcinogens and other pollutants from cigarettes these are all given a free piggy back along the placenta into the baby's body. Excluded again
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree