SofiaAmes: When I mentioned heroin addicts and gambling addicts, I wasn't using them as an example to 'support' smoking during pregnancy in any way. My point was that non-/anti-smokers often fail to realise that addiction to cigarettes is (or at least can be) a similarly serious addiction. Why else do so many people struggle for years to give up - and often fail? People with emphysema or lung cancer sneak out of hospital for a smoke? And why is there a multi-million pound industry concerned with various methods for quitting?
I'd just like to see a little more understanding and support, and perhaps a bit more information. The majority of people know that 'smoking harms your baby' but when pressed, I expect that most of them would not be able to explain further, beyond perhaps, "The baby gets less oxygen and might be a bit small at birth." The truth is that to a lot of women the idea of having a baby that's, say, 6lb instead of 9lb is actually quite appealing, not that this would be a reason in instelf to continue smoking, but perhaps a disincentive to stop. There's no suggestion that smoking causes deformities or blindness or any of the more visible and thus 'scary' possibilities that might lead a mum-to-be to steer clear of runny eggs and Stilton while still enjoying a couple of smokes each day.
And while I fully respect your opinion on smoking, I'm also surprised that you say you're "glad you're not my child", simply because I believe my rights as a human being outweigh the rights of my much wanted, already much loved unborn child. I have satisfied my own conscience about the way I conduct myself during pregnancy (I gave up smoking, drinking, scuba diving, horse-riding, I take my folic acid and vitamins every day), but I would never judge or dictate how another woman should conduct herself. Nor are my decisions anyone elses business. I smoked on and off for ten years or so and I really liked it; I still have to odd craving. So if I want to give in to that craving and go and smoke a pack of 20 in quick succession, that's absolutely my decision.
Everyone does things that they know are not really in the best interests of their foetus or child; I smoked until my period was late so for the first 2 wks of its existence, my foetus was subject to decreased oxygen levels. Last night I ate prawns simply because it was an easy snack. And there's mothers everywhere who choose to raise a child alone, who choose to bottlefeed, who choose to have a nanny instead of staying at home, who choose to leave their child in front of the telly for hours each night, who choose to feed their child a diet high in salt, sugar and junk: all things that we are repeatedly told by science and the media are, at best, non beneficial, at worst actively damaging to our children's health and development.
If you are arguing that we should all take second place to our foetuses from the moment of conception, then you are effectively arguing that the decision to terminate pregnancy should be taken out of our hands, and medical staff should decide on the type of birth we have based on what they think is best for our babies. Perhaps the sale to and consumption of alcohol and cigarettes by pregnant women should be banned and policed? Should taking drugs and attempting suicide be illegal if you are pregnant? While these may be exaggerated situations they could all logically follow a decision to give full human rights to a foetus that doesn't yet exist independently of its mother.
BTW you're very misguided if you think it's really cheaper to eat healthier. Who do you know on benefits that can afford to eat organic? Or who can afford to spend £2.99 on a watermelon or a box of strawberries? And do you really believe that people enjoy living on a hundred quid a fortnight on some city-limits sink estate? You might get a newly-built 3 bedroom house - if you're exceptionally lucky - but chances are it's in a high crime area and your kids will have to attend a succession of poorly performing, underfunded schools. But I guess that belongs in another discussion.