Ms Macbeth Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Quite so, but I'm not sure a law that enforced sterilisation on alcoholics of only one gender, would be permissible. After all, the European Court has just ruled that it's illegal for women to live longer than men... they would probably also rule that it's illegal for men to not be able to get pregnant. Its as daft as that! Foetal alchohol syndrome is horrific. It has long lasting effects on children who survive birth, both mentally and physically. No amount of education will change some people's actions. I've never been a drinker, but I was brought up with parents who smoked, as was my husband. We both smoked when our children were young. Awareness of the risks wasn't widely known, we were still being told that smoking was good for us. But although there is no excuse now and the proportions have shrunk from over half the population to something like one in five, people still ignore the warnings and continue to smoke. The same goes for drinking - there are plenty of warnings about binge drinking and overuse of alcohol when pregnant, but some people either don't understand or choose to ignore the warnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 [...] I've never been a drinker, but I was brought up with parents who smoked, as was my husband. We both smoked when our children were young. Awareness of the risks wasn't widely known, we were still being told that smoking was good for us. My mum smoked 40 a day when she was pregnant with me in 1981. I've always just blithely assumed that that was before the days of public health warnings, but according to this timeline, that was 30 years after the first large-scale study that linked smoking and lung cancer, 15 years after cigarette advertising was banned on UK television and 10 years after the first warnings appeared on cigarette packets in the UK. Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loubie1985 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 My mum smoked 40 a day when she was pregnant with me in 1981. I've always just blithely assumed that that was before the days of public health warnings, but according to this timeline, that was 30 years after the first large-scale study that linked smoking and lung cancer, 15 years after cigarette advertising was banned on UK television and 10 years after the first warnings appeared on cigarette packets in the UK. Hmmm. Yep my Mum was the same when I was born in 1985. If I ask her about it she swears that there was no public health information warning of the harms at the time. I have to say though I don't actually seem to have suffered any adverse effects, although I was on the small side when I was born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordonb Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 My mum smoked 40 a day when she was pregnant with me in 1981. I've always just blithely assumed that that was before the days of public health warnings, but according to this timeline, that was 30 years after the first large-scale study that linked smoking and lung cancer, 15 years after cigarette advertising was banned on UK television and 10 years after the first warnings appeared on cigarette packets in the UK. Hmmm. Hard to believe it is all those years since the research proved that there was a link with certain illnesses and smoking. Can still remember how cool it felt standing in town with a ciggie in my hand. I must have been very gullible to those flash adverts back in the 50s and 60s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Hard to believe it is all those years since the research proved that there was a link with certain illnesses and smoking. Can still remember how cool it felt standing in town with a ciggie in my hand. I must have been very gullible to those flash adverts back in the 50s and 60s. You were far from alone; well over half the population were smoking in the fifties. It was just taken for granted. Medical people were trying to raise the alarm even back in the twenties, but it took a long time for their warnings to be accepted as valid, and it took a further long time before there was enough gumption to override the tobacco lobby and impose health warnings. I never did smoke, but that was because I tried it once and hated the stuff. It certainly wasn't out of any self-righteous sense of avoiding a dangerous substance; I didn't have a clue how dangerous they were when I was young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redruby Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 A baby won't get foetal alcohol syndrome through a pregnant woman having a small amount of alcohol, say one small glass of wine occasionally (I'm not necessarily condoning drinking alcohol in pregnancy but trying to get some prespective on risks). It's caused by heavy drinking. A woman drinking heavily through pregnancy is an alcoholic and alcoholism is a social problem - the roots of this need to be tackled rather than scaring normal responsible women stiff with horror stories that drinking any alcohol in preganancy will have dire consequences. Which is what tends to happen in reality with "education" on this, while the alcoholics carry on drinking themselves and their unborn children to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Yep my Mum was the same when I was born in 1985. If I ask her about it she swears that there was no public health information warning of the harms at the time. I have to say though I don't actually seem to have suffered any adverse effects, although I was on the small side when I was born. No, me neither. But it's the principle. Also, as a smoker myself now, when she tries to give me grief about it I tell her it's genetic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 My mum smoked 40 a day when she was pregnant with me in 1981. I've always just blithely assumed that that was before the days of public health warnings, but according to this timeline, that was 30 years after the first large-scale study that linked smoking and lung cancer, 15 years after cigarette advertising was banned on UK television and 10 years after the first warnings appeared on cigarette packets in the UK. Hmmm. The tobacco companies did seem to try to cover this information up, and not allow it to be too prominent for some time. When I started smoking in my teens (am a non-smoker now, and have been for some 9 years) it was still seen as "cool". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 The tobacco companies did seem to try to cover this information up, and not allow it to be too prominent for some time. When I started smoking in my teens (am a non-smoker now, and have been for some 9 years) it was still seen as "cool". Yes, I know that. In some circles it's still seen as cool now, despite the risks. But after TEN YEARS of warnings on the actual packets, I don't think my mum has any excuses, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I'm waiting to see the law changed to require people who are that stupid to be sterilised. It won't happen. My way to prevent stupid people from breeding is to temporarily sterilise everybody at a young age, and then when the person has reached adulthood and has proven themselves to be of sound enough mind and body to have children, the temporarily sterilisation can be premanently undone. That would be my solution. x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.