To be pissed off with pregnant women smoking

[boringbetty]

I know i am being hormonal and emotional but i really don't care at this moment .
Currently suffering second miscarriage in 5 months so been to the hospital again yesterday . Obviously has to go to the antenatal ward and seeing all these women outside smoking clearly heavily pregnant.
I know it is their choice bla bla but it makes me so angry . I have done nothing wrong but have lost two . I'm not saying these women should have to go through this , nobody should but just makes me angry .
To be honest I don't know why I'm writing this . I know it's up to them what they do . Just wanted to vent really

YANBU at all. It disgusts me. All this their baby, their body, what a load of shit. If they can't quit for 9 months they shouldn't bother having a baby because they do not deserve one. As for women who smoke in front of and whilst feeding their children Vile.

All very well to say their body, their baby, WHO is defending the baby that is being poisoned?! I wonder how many people would just sit and watch a woman blowing smoke into a babies face?

@PencilsInSpace so the smoking ban hasn't had an impact on the number of people smoking then?

All this their baby, their body, what a load of shit

It's a fact. It's not a matter of opinion.

It's disgusting and the unborn children should be put on the child protection register- as the parent clearly doesn't care about their child's health.

I can honestly say I've never seen a pregnant woman smoking.... where are these women???

fuckyou

Ok with drug taking whilst pregnant too? A bit of coke, some heroin or meth? Happy with abuse to continue when the baby is born or only before?

Not much of an effect, no Littlelouse, especially if you factor in the huge rise in tobacco duty that has occurred over the same period. If you look at the chart above you'll see that prevalence pretty much flatlined from 2007 to 2012. It's fallen a little bit (not much) faster since then but that's largely due to vaping.

This would suggest otherwise Pencils.

I can see that smoking in pregnancy makes lots of MNers really really angry.

I'm sure you'd all love the figure to be lower than 1 in 10 smoking at the time of delivery and so would be keen to support efforts to make that happen.

I'm sure you're not all a bunch of arseholes who are only interested in having a good old righteous froth and don't actually give a shit about maternal and neonatal health.

Ok with drug taking whilst pregnant too? A bit of coke, some heroin or meth? Happy with abuse to continue when the baby is born or only before

Could you please try to understand a very simple point...it is not about whether you or I or anyone likes or approves of what pregnant women do. The FACT is that they can do as they choose with their bodies.

You are confusing 2 completely different things. Try to see the difference.

pencils, that's kind of a selective graph and you're using it to support your point when it doesn't really. It shows a big drop in the 70s as the message about the health hazards of smoking and the fact it actually killed you got across.

That makes the drop after the smoking ban look small, but in fact, 2 million people gave up and the amount giving up accelerated. It is still significant even if not as fast as the 70s.

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/health/smoking-ban-uk-smokers-numbers-fall-two-million-19-cigarettes-tobacco-drop-10-years-a7817236.html%3famp

I think your misunderstandings on the thread you've just linked to actually prove that sensible, mature people do just give up when they're pregnant (if they smoke in the first place) such as the lady you're conversing with in this screen shot.

You might like to think that everyone needs help to give up but it's just not true. Lots and lots of people, me included, just give up because it's he right thing to do! You seem to be trying to force an agenda which, if this thread is anything to go by, isn't as desperately needed as you may like to think it is.

That's an attitude survey. It's about what people think. It's all well and good but it doesn't change the actual numbers of people who smoke. It doesn't change the fact that the fall in prevalence slowed to a near standstill in 2007.

The FACT is that they can do as they choose with their bodies.

Yes. They can. Doesn't mean anybody is obliged not to judge them though.

I think that if a woman shows such limited concern for her baby before birth as to consciously do something that all evidence suggests is dangerous for that baby then that should automatically be a trigger for concerns to be raised about her as a safe parent. Of course funding dictates that this won't happen so babies have to suffer it.

I didn't say or even hint otherwise. I even said I personally judged them. But this "it should be illegal/shouldn't be allowed" stuff has to be challenged.

That's an attitude survey. It's about what people think. It's all well and good but it doesn't change the actual numbers of people who smoke. It doesn't change the fact that the fall in prevalence slowed to a near standstill in 2007.

No it's not. You're misreading the article and conflating two separate parts.

Cancer Research UK’s statistical information calculated the number of adult cigarette smokers in Great Britain had dropped nearly 20 per cent from an estimated 10.2 million in 2007 to 8.3 million in 2016.

That's not an attitude survey. It's statistical calculations from Cancer Research (who are very much a reputable source) which found a 2 million drop - which is not a 'standstill' in prevalence.

A poll of more than 4,300 people for the charity found that just 12 per cent favoured reversing the laws.

This section referred to the attitude survey and it is entirely unrelated to figures re the number of people smoking.

MargaretTwatyer it's a graph showing ONS stats on UK smoking prevalence from 1974 to 2013. ONS is The UK's largest independent producer of official statistics and the recognised national statistical institute of the UK.

Can you explain why you think it's 'kind of selective'?

Of course there was a huge drop in the 70s as the health messages started to get through. The rapid fall continued, right through the 80s and early 90s. It then slowed until 2003 when it began falling rapidly again until 2007 when it pretty much stalled. If the smoking ban had worked to help people quit these are not the figures we would be seeing.

The smoking ban has been successful at massively reducing exposure to SHS. It's also probably helped some people smoke less. There is no evidence at all it has helped people quit.

then that should automatically be a trigger for concerns to be raised about her as a safe parent

I think it's a bit less hysterical than that and midwives use their judgement. An otherwise engaged mother who is doing her best but cracks and has a sneaky fag every so often would be a waste of time and resources to look at. But if they see smoking in combination with other worrying factors they can make that call.

Sorry for your loss OP. I used to judge them yes.

But I recently lost a baby as well and now I fucking HATE seeing pregnant women smoking.

I feel like I did all the right things yet my baby still passed away, yet it makes me seethe seeing them with their huge bumps puffing away.

Yes their body.

Doesn't make them any less of a selfish arsehole.

Attitude survey was a response to Littlelouse

This is also come from an ex smoker who gave up both pregnancies. Then stopped finally with second child.

@PencilsInSpace, why are you ignoring this from @MargaretTwatyer:

Cancer Research UK’s statistical information calculated the number of adult cigarette smokers in Great Britain had dropped nearly 20 per cent from an estimated 10.2 million in 2007 to 8.3 million in 2016.

That's not an attitude survey. It's statistical calculations from Cancer Research (who are very much a reputable source) which found a 2 million drop - which is not a 'standstill' in prevalence.

I am not saying that ONS are being selective. I'm saying YOU are pencils.

You are using a graph which includes the large drop in the 70s because it makes the post ban drop look less significant. You are also using out of date figures in order to make it look like the drop has been less significant than it has.

In fact, the ONS figures to 2016 show a significant drop from 23.2% of adults smoking down to 17.7% in 2016. That's a 5.5% drop. Not 'stalling'.

Figures are in table 1:

www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/drugusealcoholandsmoking/datasets/adultsmokinghabitsingreatbritain/2016/2016smokinghabitsgreatbritainfinal.xls

With all due respect, you're talking shite to suit your own agenda.

MargaretTwatyer The number of smokers dropping by 20% =/= 20% fall in prevalence.

This is because the population of smokers is much smaller than the population of the UK. Imagine there were only 10 smokers left in the UK. If 2 of them quit that would be 20% drop in the number of smokers. The fall in prevalence would be insignificant.

CRUK are indeed a very reputable source. Here are their stats for prevalence. Scroll to the footnotes and you'll see they use ONS data.