Conservative Logic: "I want to dictate who you're allowed to marry based off of this book from the Iron Age that I pick and choose from at random. I also want to tell women what to do with their bodies. When you disagree, you're persecuting me!"
I don't have problems with fetus. It's a potential person, not a complete one - there are many hormones and biological triggers that the mother's body has to input before that heart beat becomes a sentient creature.
I'll give you that. A life would be like 1.00 and unborn baby is like .75. A baby should not be aborted unless danger to the mother, rape, incest. (Now I am missing something, I do nt know about the morning after pill, I believe it's ok but not sure
Heartbeat doesn't make something a live human, to whoever said that it starts 18 days in. I'm too lazy to go back and check who said it, but you're ignorant.
Guess I'm not a conservative, I don't believe any of that, even thou I'm a catholic and do believe the bible, you should be able to marry who you want, and it's your life not mine, I will not tell you how to live it!
Second hand smoke can ruin lives, there are new lightbulbs which are a lot better but it was kinda stupid to do what they did with the old ones, buy whatever car you want, and idk for sure what they're doing with guns anymore..
STAT - if you do your research and read the studies, you'll find not a single proven case of second hand smoke mortality/morbidity (illness). The lightbulb issue to me is a scary thing. Read the disposal label sometime, and then find out what people
STAT - not only have I read all the studies WebMD cites in that article, but many more as well. They ALL go one of two routes: 1) they identify the chemicals found in cigarettes that cause cancer or some other ailment, test passive (second hand)
Smoke, find it, measure how much is there, turn that amount into # of cigarettes, and then say the risks are equal to a person who SMOKES that much or 2) is an animal study. One exception. There was a study done I believe in the mid-80s. The
Researchers compared non-smoking women in California and FL whose husbands did not smoke with women in OH, MI, and PA whose husbands that did. The OMP group had significantly higher cancer rates, therefore secondhand smoke kills.
shazam try Home Depot. They advertise nationally that they'll accept the bulbs for recycling, so I bet all their stores do. That's where I take my 2-3 year old dead "20-year" CFLs. What a crock of schwazaa...
The problem - often pointed out by critics - is the higher incidences aligned with what at the time was called "the rust belt" where lung cancer was higher bc of factory pollutants. There WERE critics in the scientific community at the time, but this
Study aligned with the politics that were just going after smoking in general, so that group didn't get much press. As a rule, whenever a politician says "all scientists says..." I immediately think s/he's lying until I actually go and read the
The one I REALLY wanted to send was the most recent published in the Journal of National Cancer institute. It's not open access though, so can only link the synopsis:
I have read the full report, and will keep looking for the pdf. But the Forbes article does a good job on summarizing. And this is the last point. EVERY study that follows large groups of non-smokers living with smokers and compares them to NSs
Living with NSs (no smoke in home) find no statistically significant difference between incidences of smoke caused illness/death. These studies are wicked hard as they have to follow a ton of people (50K+) for more than a decade. Look, I don't care
If people do not want to be around secondhand smoke - i think that's 100% reasonable and fine. I don't like to be myself. What I find crazy bad though is the politicization of science. It NEVER leads to good. 2H smoke is a massive example of that.
Whether it is harmful or not, it is still disgusting.Just as you have a right to summon I have the right to not, and when you smoke around me you take away my right to not have it in my lungs. Separate smoking sections don't keep it out of the air.
hahahah second hand smoke isn't dangerous. Wow, that's hilarious. I bet if we were having this conversation 40 years ago, you would be siding with the people saying smoking wasn't bad for us.
I'm not going to argue that it causes cancer because I haven't done that research, but it certainly triggers asthma attacks and it is harmful to developing fetuses. Not to mention that it is just plain rude to pollute the air of others around you.
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment