ChatterBank3 mins ago
Does smoking cause infertility?
27 Answers
It was reported today that some experts might refuse IVF treatment to smokers. Why? Are they saying that smoking causes infertility? If not, what are they saying?
If yes, how do they explain the baby boom just after WW2, when approx 80% of the male population were smokers?
I'm a non-smoker BTW.
If yes, how do they explain the baby boom just after WW2, when approx 80% of the male population were smokers?
I'm a non-smoker BTW.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
back then it was ignorance, people did not know that smoking was bad for you. just like the idea of widely using asbestos in buildings. personally I dont like people smoking in my presence, its smell and disgusting, it gets into your clothes and makes you cough.
I used to smoke and when I did smoke I did not realise how much I stank of cigarettes until I quit.
they are banning obese people from IVF as well for a similar reason, the selfish lifestyle choice they have made that may be passed on the the child they bring into the world. If they do want a child they would eat healthier or stop smoking.
deaths from lung cancer has halved since people stopped smoking
I used to smoke and when I did smoke I did not realise how much I stank of cigarettes until I quit.
they are banning obese people from IVF as well for a similar reason, the selfish lifestyle choice they have made that may be passed on the the child they bring into the world. If they do want a child they would eat healthier or stop smoking.
deaths from lung cancer has halved since people stopped smoking
You're very lucky - I am somewhat older than you, born in a smoking family.
I suffered whooping cough so badly as a child I was hospitalised; severe asthma; constant ear infections...
And yes, I still went on to smoke. After all - there was nothing wrong with, was there?
Many of my friends died relatively young from lung disease, stroke and heart attacks. I have friends with emphysema and other chronic lung diseases.
Three of my friends have lost limbs through smoking.
But no - the government health warnings are obviously hype just because people don't like smoking.
I suffered whooping cough so badly as a child I was hospitalised; severe asthma; constant ear infections...
And yes, I still went on to smoke. After all - there was nothing wrong with, was there?
Many of my friends died relatively young from lung disease, stroke and heart attacks. I have friends with emphysema and other chronic lung diseases.
Three of my friends have lost limbs through smoking.
But no - the government health warnings are obviously hype just because people don't like smoking.
-- answer removed --
people blame smoking for everything ?
The radioactive debris of the Chernobyl reactor covered an area more than 5000 km2 with nearly 20 million curies of radionuclides
some farms in cheshire a couple of years back still had to sell their sheep to the government (alive or dead) funny nothing is ever printed about this in the papers.my friend worked on a farm ,thats how i found out. do they still have to do this ?
if it effected the sheep in cheshire why not humans ? and before you post about sheep eating grass there are other animals that were affected.
The radioactive debris of the Chernobyl reactor covered an area more than 5000 km2 with nearly 20 million curies of radionuclides
some farms in cheshire a couple of years back still had to sell their sheep to the government (alive or dead) funny nothing is ever printed about this in the papers.my friend worked on a farm ,thats how i found out. do they still have to do this ?
if it effected the sheep in cheshire why not humans ? and before you post about sheep eating grass there are other animals that were affected.
The primary factors of the post-war baby boom were the ability for large numbers of the population to procreate (difficult when millions were away fighting a war) and a return of vast numbers of women to child-rearing roles instead of war work in factories etc. Marriage became again a cultural and career norm for most women, and the result was an increase in the birth rate.
Whether or not smoking reduced the baby boom by any appreciable amount is unknowable but it is a specious argument to link smoking and the post-war birth rate in the way you have.
It's like saying 100 smoker couples produce more babies than 10 non-smoker couples; the comparison is only valid if you compare equal numbers of both types.
Whether or not smoking reduced the baby boom by any appreciable amount is unknowable but it is a specious argument to link smoking and the post-war birth rate in the way you have.
It's like saying 100 smoker couples produce more babies than 10 non-smoker couples; the comparison is only valid if you compare equal numbers of both types.
-- answer removed --
I did not suggest that experts are saying the baby-boom would have been bigger if people didn't smoke back then. I wrote that such a conclusion is unknowable - we can't go back and re-enact 1946 onwards with non-smokers.
Specious arguments always consist of facts, but facts not necessarily relevant to, or linked in the way portrayed by, the argument.
You appear to be asking "How was it possible for a post-war baby-boom to occur when cigarette smoking was so commonplace?"
The answer is that more people were having sex more frequently in an environment conducive to bringing children into the world and rearing them than before. The cigarettes are an irrelevance in this case because the comparison is to previous birth rates when rates of smoking would have been similar. The war (and it ending) is the greater factor of the argument.
If I have misunderstood your question I apologise, but that is what I take it to be.
Specious arguments always consist of facts, but facts not necessarily relevant to, or linked in the way portrayed by, the argument.
You appear to be asking "How was it possible for a post-war baby-boom to occur when cigarette smoking was so commonplace?"
The answer is that more people were having sex more frequently in an environment conducive to bringing children into the world and rearing them than before. The cigarettes are an irrelevance in this case because the comparison is to previous birth rates when rates of smoking would have been similar. The war (and it ending) is the greater factor of the argument.
If I have misunderstood your question I apologise, but that is what I take it to be.
-- answer removed --
No matter how austere, the child rearing environment was more conducive than when bombs were falling, men were fighting overseas and women were engaged in war work.
People were happy that the war was over (and had beaten the enemy!); men returned to the factories, women returned to the home. "The family" became a viable option once again and so more people had children than during the war years. Why would you think that all this would have no effect on the birth rate?
Baby Boom = More births than previous birth trend.
Are you suggesting that in those previous years (e.g. 1939-45) there were fewer smokers? Is it not reasonable to assume rates of smoking (approx 80% ???) were very similar immediately pre-war and post-war? If so, there is no reason to bring smoking into the Baby Boom equation - you are comparing like for like in regard of smoking and so it is irrelevant. Smoking may only become a relevant factor when comparing years where smoking rates are appreciably different but then you have to also allow for other lifestyle changes.
Birth rates are currently lower than 1946-1960; a time before the contraceptive pill, abortion was illegal, few women had careers - and smoking was more prevalent. Realistically, which of these changes is likely to have had the least effect on birth rates?
People were happy that the war was over (and had beaten the enemy!); men returned to the factories, women returned to the home. "The family" became a viable option once again and so more people had children than during the war years. Why would you think that all this would have no effect on the birth rate?
Baby Boom = More births than previous birth trend.
Are you suggesting that in those previous years (e.g. 1939-45) there were fewer smokers? Is it not reasonable to assume rates of smoking (approx 80% ???) were very similar immediately pre-war and post-war? If so, there is no reason to bring smoking into the Baby Boom equation - you are comparing like for like in regard of smoking and so it is irrelevant. Smoking may only become a relevant factor when comparing years where smoking rates are appreciably different but then you have to also allow for other lifestyle changes.
Birth rates are currently lower than 1946-1960; a time before the contraceptive pill, abortion was illegal, few women had careers - and smoking was more prevalent. Realistically, which of these changes is likely to have had the least effect on birth rates?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
ChatterBank56 mins ago
News71 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.