Fathers-to-be Should Stop Smoking to Protect their Unborn Child

Smoking bad for baby, aborting baby is okay though...

Perhaps they should stop pressuring the mothers-to-be to dump their unborn child in an abortion clinic bin as well. That said, some fathers are never given a 'choice' concerning the life of their unborn child.

It appears that this University of Nottingham study seems more concerned with the 'perfectness' of the baby in question, out of a desire not to see any babies born with cleft palate, club foot and other imperfections. Of course, if these imperfections exist, then abortion is recommended in order to protect society. The whole study would fit in well as subject matter for a Galton Institute (formerly British Eugenics Society) meeting chaired by Professor Steve Jones, the good friend of Dr Richard Dawkins.

According to the BBC's report...

'Fathers-to-be should stop smoking to protect their unborn child from the risk of stillbirth or birth defects, scientists say. University of Nottingham researchers found that pregnant women exposed to smoke at work or home increased their risk of stillbirth by 23% and of having a baby with defects by 13%.

They looked at 19 previous studies from around the world. A UK expert said it was "vital" women knew the risks of second-hand smoke. The studies used to pull this research together were carried out in North America, South America, Asia and Europe.

All the studies focused on pregnant women who did not smoke themselves but were passive smokers due to their proximity to a partner who smoked or work colleagues who smoked. The combined data from the studies suggests that being exposed to more than 10 cigarettes a day is enough for the risks to be increased.

However, the University of Nottingham study did not find an increased risk of miscarriage or newborn death from second-hand smoke - only an increased risk of still birth and birth defects. The results did not point to a link with any specific congenital birth defect.'

Does that make any sense? The study found an 'increased risk of still birth and birth defects. The results did not point to a link with any specific congenital birth defect'. They sound like contradictory statements to me, but then I guess I'm just a simpleton. In an abortive society, it is pretty much impossible to claim that it is unborn children themselves that are the centre of this study's concern. If they really wanted to protect unborn children they would condemn abortion outright. The twisted logic only makes sense in a Dawkinsian society.