To hate the idea of the new smoking bribe?

[CharleyFarleyy]

What do people who dont smoke anyway get? seems like they are going to miss out un-fairly.

Also if quitting for your and your babys health isnt incentive enough will shopping vouchers help anyway?

Moomin - there are reasonably priced gluten free foods such as potatoes, rice, fruit, veg, meat and fish available for coeliacs to buy.

They're not faced with a stark choice between starvation and a normal bread that'll make them ill if they can't afford gluten free bread.

Hamiltoes, your username suggests you live fairly near me

Chunderella, I was expressing my interpretation of the history I studied, not presuming to know the innermost thoughts of every suffragette. I believed that was clear but as you appear confused I'll break it down for you. I am well aware they did not express a view on smoking during pregnancy, it wasn't on any of the proposals to government, hence how it's pretty clear one could deduce it wasn't something they were fighting for. I am unsure how to simplify that one further.

As for your comments on paragraph two, I am completely stunned to discover that posting on this forum doesn't mean my views will immediately result in them being action. Really?? Is that a fact? Should it be a surprise to you that on a forum about people's opinion that I expressed what I thought.

At least I have given some explanation for my position while you have repeatedly name called someone else a misogynist because they do not agree with you.

Also I note you were completely unable to discuss any of the points I raised regarding responsibilities alongside rights for women. Do you fancy trying to do that or just name call again displaying your utter depth of intelligence and ability to debate on a forum?

I know how addictive smoking is, but seriously, if expecting a baby is not enough incentive to kick the habit then I wonder if shopping vouchers will really have any effect?

I think if a smoker falling pregnant is not enough to get them to quit, then in some ways, this makes it even worse.

A good friend of mine smoked all the way through her pregnancy, and because her LO "turned out fine", she reasoned that smoking is "not that bad".

I had to resist punching my OH when he agreed with her!
His argument was that the baby turned out fine, our mothers used to smoke ergo smoking is not actually that bad

These are educated people with degrees.

Given that all women over the age of 21 got the vote in 1928 in the UK, and the health risks associated with smoking weren't widely known until after the mid 20th century, it's unlikely that the concept of smoking harming an unborn baby would have even occurred to the suffragettes.

It's unlikely that it would have occurred to a doctor either. They were only just starting to notice the link between smoking and lung cancer back when the suffragettes were active.

A doctor working during the time the suffragettes were active, that is. Obviously doctors these days are well aware of the health risks associated with smoking.

There hasn't been a backtrack, you just didn't read what I said correctly I'm afraid. I was never implying there was a link I was pointing out that feminism has generally fought for more important causes. Also as for only pointing out what the suffragettes said I also mentioned the far more current issue of child marriage for women. It is not my responsibility to teach you how to fully read a comment.

My point about responsibilities is that, and yes it's an opinion (if you aren't interested in other people's why are you on a forum?) is that the ability to carry a child should impact a mother's sense of responsibility. If that makes me a misogynist then fine. I'd rather be that than responsible for harm to an unborn child.

As for the importance of a point as part of the electorate in Britain my opinion is as valid as yours really. I do not agree with this proposal and have the same rights as anyone else in this country, vote for people who share my view or even petition against it should I choose.

You have no right to decide who can and cannot post, or how interesting they are. Quite frankly for all your education (didn't feel the need to start mentioning my degree but as you are amusingly making classist separations, funny how you don't mind that kind of discrimination) all you have done is point out that as a legal standpoint women can do what they want to their child. I am aware of the law and have found the people on here expressing their actual views rather than behaving like a parrot, able only to point out the obvious, far more interesting.

Chunderella you seem to assume that feminist arguments would 100% back up your arguments, same arrogance I'm afraid. Also it is possible to look at what suffragettes were fighting for, if you head to your local library and look at a history book you might find it very informative.

The suffragettes were campaigning for women's suffrage, it's kind of obvious from the name. They probably didn't have much to say about FGM or online trolling of female campaigners either. In 1918 when women won partial enfranchisement smoking wasn't much of an issue. Overall smoking rates were lower than they are today and were falling, and far fewer women smoked. It took the soldiers returning from WW1 to really start the tobacco epidemic. Also, of course, the link between smoking and poor health had not yet been made. That came several decades later.

I don't think the suffragettes were that keen on the whole force-feeding in prison business, even though that was clearly 'for their own good' so they probably cared a bit about bodily autonomy.

This idea of a 'dominion of your own body' bloody irritates me. The wonder of today's entitlement and 'I know my rights!!' culture!! People love to drop the accompanying sense of RESPONSIBILITY! Being able to create life is a privilege, not just something we should take for granted. I am happy as a woman to hand over my right to drink, smoke, eat unhealthily and happy to agree with any medical intervention recommended for my child to allow them the best start in life. I believe my unborn child has rights even if the law doesn't. If that makes me disadvantaged as a woman then that is something I am happy to take for the incomparable joy of bringing life into the world.

Unless you wish to impose your way of doing things on all pregnant women, which you say is not the case, you are not talking about rights at all here, you're just talking about the choices you made. You're not 'handing over your right' to drink, smoke or eat crap, you're just choosing not to for your child's health. Well done on your excellent choices.

Being able to create life is not a priviledge it's a characteristic of biology, in fact it's one of the core characteristics in the definition of 'life'. Either we all 'deserve' our children or none of us do.

Plenty if I could clarify, I was explaining that the reason I do not support paying women to stop smoking while pregnant is that they have an clear responsibility to do so. I believe the current measures (please see previous post) are achieving considerable reduction in the uptake of smoking. I am not suggesting we make it illegal to smoke while pregnant, simply that handing out vouchers is wrong. If it truly is an addiction then the promise of a shopping spree should not be enough.

Bodily autonomy is of course important, which is why I am pro choice and would be against women being prosecuted for choices while pregnant. At the same time I do not want taxes spent on this silly fad. The NHS is desperately stretched, how can we justify handing out this kind of money while people are refused cancer treatment?

As for the feminist argument it is simply my own view that there are far more important fights than women seriously arguing their 'right' to harm a child in utero. For one thing, congratulations, it already exists so the fight is kind of won.

Does no one else feel a bit sad that that is something feminism in this country really shouts about? When women around the world are still fighting for the right to have an education, to not be married at twelve? That was the link for suffrage for me. Once upon a time we applied the fight for equality for women with us being allowed the same rights as men, now we want to put it on a banner alongside our right to 'do as we please' when having children.

MrsCs, coming back late - so you think it's fine that 10% of babies (closer to 20% in Scotland) are born to a mother who is smoking at the time of their birth?

Jassy I answered that quite far back, if you go back a bit you will find my reply. I would re type but there was quite a bit there. I think I put your name at the start though.

MrsCs, coming back late - so you think it's fine that 10% of babies (closer to 20% in Scotland) are born to a mother who is smoking at the time of their birth?

Hang on. Why are you putting this question to MrsC rather than the people who actually have control over the situation- i.e. the women themselves? I doubt MrsC has much to do with it in any case.

Nope sorry Chunderella, I simply don't agree with your points regarding my posts therefore I feel no need to 'flounce'. I don't agree I'm backed into a corner or that you have made any real argument in return at all. Trying to make me feel as if you have 'won' a point is kind of irrelevant as you are one of only several people posting who I am enjoying discussing an issue with.

Your only point has been a desperate attempt to dissect the exact wording of my posts. There is no real argument made and now you've resulted to 'I'm so much wittier so why don't you go away'. You have made no impact on my wish to talk about this issue. I think you have come across as quite immature and as really not understanding what the point of a forum is, but never mind.

I also grew up on a council estate, that doesn't change the fact your comment about a history degree and tutor was an attempt at snobbery. Your point, however implied, was I am more educated than you and therefore more correct in my view. Nice try at backtracking that one but where you live and where you started doesn't change the implied sense of believing you are better.

I smoked during pregnancy. The first time I managed to stop at around 6 months, the second time I managed to stop at 4 months. I don't have a hard luck story, I was just very very addicted. Luckily my DC are fine and all grown up now. Would vouchers have worked for me? I don't know but I'd have given it a shot because I would have tried anything.

I started smoking when I was 12 and spent over 3 decades trying to quit by every method imaginable but I always, always relapsed after a few weeks or months. As well as smoking in pregnancy I have smoked half my teeth out and contributed to an early menopause. It's only with the advent of vaping that I have finally managed to stop smoking. I will probably remain addicted to nicotine for the rest of my life but that's ok because it is no longer killing me. Nicotine on its own has similar effects and a similar harm profile to caffeine so I can live with that.

U2TheEdge - I don't mind admitting it here because no one can make me feel as bad as I felt.
It's taken me a while to admit it on this thread because some of the posts are so nasty but I have owned up on other threads (usually the ones by PG smokers looking for support that always seem to start 'please don't flame me' ) but spot on - nobody can make me feel as bad as I felt.

'Denormalisation' and shaming of smokers has been a major tobacco control tool over the last 2 or 3 decades and it's worked very well - everyone hates smokers! To be fair it has nudged quite a few smokers to quit but there are big and ongoing debates within public health about where the balance is. As smoking rates fall (painfully slowly), smoking becomes more and more concentrated among poor people and those with poor mental health (people with MH conditions are estimated to smoke almost half of all cigarettes). There comes a point when shaming does more harm than good and the remaining smokers either disengage if they have any self-esteem left or feel so ashamed they won't access services.

I strongly believe that MN is badly letting down a sizeable number of vulnerable women and I wish it would stop.

Plenty I would agree the electronic cigarettes have been a fantastic step forward.

MrsC the current measures are NOT working. There has been a fall in the uptake of smoking by children, which is great, but this voucher study doesn't seek to address uptake at all, it's to do with quit rates and overall smoking prevalence. The figures are dismal. After the smoking ban in 2007, prevalence fell 2.2% and has been falling at about 0.7% per year ever since (these are England figures, Scotland's - where this study was conducted - are significantly higher). Successful quit attempts remain at around 3% after one year. If you think that's success you have a very low bar.

Maybe you don't think that matters as long as fewer children are taking up smoking. I do, because I care about people who are actually alive now and whose health is in jeopardy. 10% of the population of the UK are losing a decade of life because of smoking but hey ho, they're selfish bastards and it was their own choice so who cares.

At the same time I do not want taxes spent on this silly fad.
It's more than doubled these women's chances of quitting.

The NHS is desperately stretched, how can we justify handing out this kind of money while people are refused cancer treatment?
How many future cancer treatments do you suppose it prevents the need for? £400 a pop. Bargain!

Plus of course the point made by a PP that this can just be knocked off the £12bn/year smokers pay in taxes.

Plenty a lot of people on here have described the areas this measure is targeting (for example areas of high deprivation) and with that in consideration I would still find this a plaster on a gaping wound situation. If one of the motivations for smoking is the poverty trap and massive overall lifestyle issues then this is unlikely to result in long lasting change.

Again the money could be directed at far more holistic approaches in such areas. I doubt women smoking while pregnant is the only problem in deprived areas.

While I still don't agree with the measure, you certainly give it a good argument.

MrsCs, yes, you said:

'Jassy actually I think the measures we have in at the moment are working.'

So my followup is very clear - do you then think the current rates are acceptable?

Or is it your view that smoking tags will decline to an acceptable rate eventually with existing measures, and baby's born in the meantime are unfortunate collateral damage?