Now I can see them all. Apologies for littering on the thread.

How'd you do that?  I can't see "Here to Help".  My settings: nested, display: all, sort by rating: ignore ratings, sort by age: oldest, rate: yes.

Humorless. Cretinous. What'd you expect?

I did the same thing and at it made no difference - and then all off sudden I could see them again. Either there is a delay before the settings changes take effect, or it's some kind of bug.

pretty much every five seconds and every time I go to a new page, in order to see any kind of changes. That may just be me, though.

{ k }

A fetus is an "animal in the later stage of development before birth. In humans, the fetal stage is the from the end of the third month until birth."  Whereas a baby is "a child under 24 months of age."

Medical dictonaries are fun.  Trolling, no so much.

Thalia

BlueCrossBlueShield of Rhode Island calls you on your second hand smoke jibberjabber, son. As does my own personal experience.

Insurance companies know that families of smokers are more likely to have asthmatic kids. Even if the smoking started AFTER the kids were born. And that's why if you even LIVE with a smoker your premiums can go up. So it's not just "a lie the government is telling me", but an objective correlation the free market uses to determine risk allocation.

As for my own experience, I know that when I go to a bowling alley or some crappy bar in a crappy state without the appropriate non-smoking laws I get physically ill, my eyes tear up, and I reek of death. I don't think my body's response to second hand smoke would be so potent if second hand smoke had zero effect, as you seem to be implying (without any information to back you up at all, I might add). And before you go thinking maybe I'm allergic to smoke, you're talking to someone who used to be a two-pack-a-day-er. It was only after I kicked the habit that I began to notice the effect of second hand smoke.

Meanwhile, will you and all your cronies please stop hating objective facts and reality? Pretty please? 'Cause you're making humans look bad.

{ k }

What the government does is take the (believable if not reliable) study showing that chronic long-term exposure to high concentrations of secondhand smoke presents a long term health risk and then disingenuously attempt to confuse people into believing that acute exposure also presents a long term health risk with publicly funded ad campaigns. Which works great on people who don't know anything about epidemiology or toxicology, but it's likewise spending our tax dollars to promote lies, and leads to the propoganda victims cries: "i smell smoke therefore you are killing me" while standing at a bus stop in a cloud of exhaust fumes.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

Basically what you're saying is that I make myself sick and uncomfortable subconsciously when I hang out around people who smoke? Because I'm obviously so stupid, and I don't know anything about that toxi-whatsamacologies? And, of course, you don't have to, you know, back up such claims WITH ANY DATA WHATSOEVER?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Oh, AND you're saying that insurance companies (who rely entirely on their own internal data FOR PROFIT) will nonetheless listen to and go along with a "government lie" for no reason? (BTW - exactly WHY is the Government using all these resources lying to us? Are the aliens telling them to do it? Or is it the microchips the CIA implanted in the heads of all the scientists in order to shut down the global tobbaco cartels?) I find that even more incredulous than your failure to back up your claims.

And the most incredulous thing I find about your post is that we're even having this discussion. Are you honestly arguing that people should be forced to endure MORE second hand smoke? Other than to attack legitimate science, what possible reason could you have for this opinion? Does having to smoke outside get you all riled up? Or are you one of them crazy libritarians that want the government to get out of the governing business entirely (if so, I am sure there are better places to start than "second hand smoke")? I mean, sure that person at the bus stop is annoying, but you can't seriously hate that hypothetical jerk so much you'd argue that EVERY REAL PERSON MUST IMMEDIATELY BE INTRODUCED TO MORE SECOND HAND SMOKE.

Look, everyone knows that you can have two studies say the opposite thing - anyone (even the government, yes) can pay for a disreputable scientific study. Intelligent Design uses the words of "science", too. But that doesn't make evolution any less real. I'm sick sick sick of people going around bashing on objective facts. And I am sick sick sick of the anti-intellectual bent this country seems determined to have. And I am sick sick sick of pointless debates about things that are well within the province of PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

Don't come to me telling me I don't know jack about "color-ology" and that the sky isn't really freakin' blue ("It's one o' dem Gov'mint Conspiracies!"), okay? 'Cause no matter how "persuasive" your arguments may seem to you, I'm still thinking you're a crack pot. If, on the other hand, if you come to me with a reasoned argument (based on OBJECTIVE AND VERIFIABLE FACTS) which doesn't insult my intelligence, and a scientific community opinion that agrees with you (or at least debates the subject matter AT ALL), then I'll listen.

'Till then? Please smoke the fuck outside, ya' lazy, selfish bastard. Worse case scenario? You get a little fresh air. Best case scenario? We have prevented lots of innocent people from getting hurt by your actions. Why is this so hard to freaking understand?

{ k }

Sorry you wasted all that time writing. Maybe you should have read what I wrote. I have no idea what your point is or why you think I support smoking indoors in public places. Or smoking at all for that matter. Or why you keep referring to OBJECTIVE AND VERIFIABLE FACTS as if that wasn't what I was trying to offer you.

Victim.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

What the government does is take the (believable if not reliable) study showing that chronic long-term exposure to high concentrations of secondhand smoke presents a long term health risk and then disingenuously attempt to confuse people into believing that acute exposure also presents a long term health risk with publicly funded ad campaigns. Which works great on people who don't know anything about epidemiology or toxicology, but it's likewise spending our tax dollars to promote lies, and leads to the propoganda victims cries: "i smell smoke therefore you are killing me" while standing at a bus stop in a cloud of exhaust fumes.

Facts? Even one link or case study? Anything other than the comments in this "debate" to back you up? I don't see any. Then again, we probably just define "facts" differently.

After reading and re-reading your post a number of times now, and considering its context (as a reply to my original response to the parent post), I still don't see how I couldn't come to the conclusion you were arguing the following points: (i) second hand smoke isn't dangerous (or, to be specific, as dangerous as the government has made it out to be), (ii) the government is wasting tax dollars "disingenuously" warning people of a danger that doesn't exist, and therefore (iii) people shouldn't worry so much about second hand smoke and might as well put up with it.

And you still haven't answered a single question I asked (although you were almost rude enough for people to ignore that inadequacy). I'll summarize so that, in case you have any suppositions or answers, you can check them off a handy list: (i) why do you think people (myself included) feel ill after short term exposure to second hand smoke (coincidence)?, (ii) why would third party insurance companies (such as where I am working right now) use second hand smoke as a factor in determining risk allocation costs if in fact there is no harm (or little harm)?, (iii) why motive could the government possibly have to be "disingenuous" in the manner you suggest?, (iv) what possible reason could you have to argue against low-cost preventative actions when the potential (or likelihood) for very large harm exists?

And, here's another one for you: do you really and honestly think I feel "victimized", or are you just projecting? Or, perhaps, you honestly think I'm a victim of some sort?

{ k }

PS - Name calling is CLASSY. It wins you friends and arguments.

OK fine, I'll answer your questions even though they don't have much of anything to do with my point.

why do you think people (myself included) feel ill after short term exposure to second hand smoke (coincidence)?

why would third party insurance companies (such as where I am working right now) use second hand smoke as a factor in determining risk allocation costs if in fact there is no harm (or little harm)?

why motive could the government possibly have to be "disingenuous" in the manner you suggest?

what possible reason could you have to argue against low-cost preventative actions when the potential (or likelihood) for very large harm exists?

*The actual real scientific evidence about the dangers of secondhand smoke is much thinner than people believe- in fact almost every piece of US propaganda on the issue derives from the 1993 EPA study on ETS which was pure crapola. HOWEVER in my personal opinion I find it very BELIEVABLE that long term exposure to ETS at high enough concentrations results in a small but statistically significant increase in mortality over enough time. BUT, and I'm bringing you back to my original point here, anti-smoking propoganda is NOT attacking chronic long term exposure to ETS but is instead encouraging non-smokers to behave with hostility to ACUTE, SHORT-TERM exposure to secondhand smoke, even outdoors, by eliding the difference between acute and chronic exposure and deluding the propaganda victims into believing that catching a whiff of cigarette smoke threatens their lives. In fact the only risk to health from acute exposure to STS is the same risk as exposure to any other irritant and does not carry any of the health risks (cancer, emphesema, bronchitis, etc) that primary smoking or chronic exposure can lead to. The real dangers of ETS exposure, assuming that indeed there are any (which as I said I believe despite the weak evidence) are from living with an indoor smoker or working in a smoking environment over long periods of time. Like the difference between getting an X-ray and living outside chernyobl for a decade.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

"1993 EPA study on ETS which was pure crapola"

I have only read parts of the 'new' (meaning recycled old studies) EPA report, but they address the bogus statistical methodology used in the 1993 report in one paragraph which states, essentially, that there was a contentious debate over the statistics of the 1993 report. That's it. No admission of being wrong while laughably not really defending (but then how could they?) their own bogus study.

You've got a lot of fucking gall calling me out for rudeness after the post I responded to.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

Dude, when I speak/type like a dockworker (e.g. "ya' lazy bastard") it's meant to be tounge-in-cheek. I am honestly sorry I didn't make that clear - I probably should have just left it out of the post altogether. I should have known better, and I appologize.

Anyway, two wrongs != a right, and I'm still waiting for a substantive reply to my questions, instead of a dodge.

{ k }

"WHY is the Government using all these resources lying to us?"

Many people in government are zealots. Also, extorting money from tobacco companies has been extremely profitable for the government.

"if you come to me with a reasoned argument (based on OBJECTIVE AND VERIFIABLE FACTS)"

These are all objective facts: Oak Ridge National Laboratory did a study measuring amouts of second hand smoke, and discovered the amount of exposure was not that high: "Subjects, who were non-smokers, wore pumps that sampled the air they were breathing while at work for a minimum of four hours. Researchers recorded a maximum RSP level of 768 micrograms per cubic meter. The OSHA standard for RSP is 5,000 micrograms per cubic meter over eight hours."

This study not been refuted, which would be very easy to do if its results were wrong, in fact no one has tried, because there is no reason to doubt the results. Instead, the anti-smoking lobby has taken the ludicrious position that (as the Surgeon General has stated) "There is no safe level of second hand smoke". One can see how this is absurd: if second hand smoke is really so deadly, shouldn't cigarettes be vastly more harmful than they are for actual smokers?  

It has also put the government in the ridiculous position of claiming that exposure to the harmful fumes of other things at much higher levels are safe, while exposure to the tiniest amounts of SHS is not. So welding fumes in concentrations thousands of times higher are deemed acceptable, and exposure to arsenic in concentrations 10 times higher is acceptable, unlike second hand smoke which is supossedly the world's most toxic fumes.

"I am sick sick sick of the anti-intellectual bent this country seems determined to have."

Yet your entire argument is based on emotion.

That was all I was looking for. Now I can look into your source, see if I find it scientifically persuasive, and see if any data exists that refutes it. I can also compare your beliefs (i.e. "many in the government are zealots") and evaluate your suspected motives (i.e. the government does this to "extort[] money from [the] tobacco companies") with my own beliefs and suspected motives.

Speaking of motives and in the interest of full dislosure, I was wondering if you (or the other guy who was replying to me) smoke or work for/represent a tobacco company? It might not matter either way, but I am curious.

Finally, I am sorry that you seem to think my argument was based "entirely on emotion". That's probably because I was using ALL CAPS or bold to denote words of emphasis. That's something people do when they are writing in a hurry or when they are writing about a subject on which they have great emotion. Please note that my being emotional about the subject doesn't mean my "entire argument" was based on emotion. Indeed, other than "emotion" I used both (i) personal experience, and (ii) economic indicies to debate my point. A point which, I might add, I personally don't think I had to make, as the onus of proof was on your undefended and rather unpopular claim to begin with.

But, again, thank you for responding with at least one link and answering at least one of my questions.

{ k }

I smoke. I don't deny it's bad for me (did you know most smokers actually think smoking is more harmful than it really is?). I don't deny a pregnant woman who smokes is harming her fetus (though it's not as harmful to fetuses as abortions). But the case against SHS has been built on dishonesty and overstatement.

(did you know most smokers actually think smoking is more harmful than it really is?)

Granted that your punctuation clearly indicates that this statement posed as a question is irrelevant, I'd still be interested in how you arrived at this conclusion.

If it's merely anecdotal, then my anecdotal experience is that regardless of what most smokers may worry about privately, they rarely elaborate on the dangers, which, IMO, are pretty difficult to overstate anyway.

See Do Smokers Underestimate Risks?
for example. While smokers think cigarettes are more dangerous than they are, I'm not claiming they don't think they won't be one of the lucky ones who avoids any health problems. But that mental error is not peculiar to smokers.

"the dangers, which, IMO, are pretty difficult to overstate anyway"

Really? How dangerous is smoking compared to operating an automobile? How dangerous is smoking compared to homosexual sex? I don't see how you can make such a statement without having quantified the actual risks.

How dangerous is smoking compared to homosexual sex?

You do know that most homophobes are gay, right? Do you have an older brother?

Now I need to shower.

{ k }

I was discussing relative risks, while making an allusion to my other comments. It's a rich tapestry I'm weaving. Some get it, some don't.

"You do know that most homophobes are gay"

Are they? Interesting. I'm not sure how that's relevant, as I don't see how anything I've said suggests any sort of phobia toward homos.

"Do you have an older brother?"

That's an interesting corellation, but it only goes part way toward explaining what causes homosexuality.

The author of the study to which you linked may or may not be right; he does have his critics, as shown by a quick google. I rather hope he's right because he claims that such overestimation actually keeps the number of smokers lower than it would be otherwise.

When I say that the dangers of smoking are difficult to overstate, I am not making any comparative analysis. I'm simply saying that the adverse effects are broad and indisputable.  Anecdote alert: My father suffered many years from a debilitating lung ailment and compromised cardiovascular system exacerbated, if not caused by, a lifetime of smoking. My mother died from small-cell lung cancer, a type of cancer caused primarily by inhalation of tobacco, also after many years of smoking.

BTW, the Oak Ridge study that you provided for koos is interesting in its evaluation of the amount of exposure affecting waitstaff but not particularly relevant to potential damage incurred. Its conclusion is that such exposure by those working in bars may be less than previously thought and that the away-from-work exposure is at least as important as the at-work exposure. That's something to consider before lighting up at home around your kids.  

I'm not claiming smoking isn't bad, I'm observing how absurd it is for the government to claim there is no safe level of SHS while admitting there are safe levels of exposure to other harmful air pollution, such as toxic welding fumes or smog at concentrations higher than concentrations of typical SHS exposure.  

QUOTE: "No, second hand smoke is not deadly."
QUOTE: "I'm not claiming smoking isn't bad..."

"It's harmful, sure, just not deadly, see? 'Cause, you know, you can get a lung transplant and live for a few more years. And then get hit by a truck and die from that! NOT DEADLY!!!!"

You, sir, take disingenuiness to a whole new level with mental gymnastics worthy of our Dear Leader,
{ k }

PS - I liked it on Plastic when you could ignore certain users. Shane?

You can still ignore other users.  There just isn't any technology that will help you with that - yet.  We need a process to keep track of requests.  I don't have any right now but hopefully the board will help change that.  You could post your request in the 'what do we need to change' thread or on the wiki. Seems like a feature that would be nice to have.

Yes, second hand smoke isn't deadly. First hand smoke, on the other hand, has the potential for serious health consequences. These statements are perfectly compatible. It's like how being exposed to automobile exhaust as you walk down the street isn't deadly, but if you close your garage doors, roll down your car windows then run your car for about 5 hours it is deadly.

It's like how being exposed to automobile exhaust as you walk down the street isn't deadly,

Would you care to explain that? Automobile exhaust contains poisons and carcinogens. Walk down the street exposed to exhaust fumes for long enough, and you stand a significant chance of being killed by it.

Billions of people were exposed to automobile exhaust while walking down the street today Snarky, and none of them died, which means you've been hiding in your Mom's basement all these years for no reason.

EUREKA!!!!! We have the miracle formula to eternal life right here.

Try and not smoke for about two months. Not for quitting purposes, mind you (you have to want to do that and it doesn't appear you do), but just for a simple scientific experiment (it's objective AND repeat-able, making it fairly scientific in my book).

--

So, now that you've quit smoking for a few months, go to a bar/bowling alley/pool hall where the smoke hangs thick and people are hacking out their lungs. Breathe deep. Take a good, honest whiff of the air. And stay there for a few hours.

At first it isn't going to smell very good (although, as an ex-smoker I'll admit it'll also make you crazy for a smoke... resist just this once... you'll be smoking tomorrow!). In fact, your body will start to react like it's being lightly poisoned: you will cough, your eyes will tear, and you may even begin to have a seriously hard time breathing. That's just smoke inhalation, don't worry. It's the next day we're really concerned about.

'Cause no matter how much drinking you did or didn't do the night before, that next morning is not going to be fun. Unless you showered, you'll reek of smoke, which will actually make you a bit nauseous. Your throat will be seriously scratchy, to the point where you may have lost your voice or it hurts to drink or eat. Your eyes, teary the night before, will now be red and puffy. Your face will likely look haggard.

Now, go and smoke that sweet, sweet tobacco. I will, honestly, be a little jealous (once an addict, always an addict). You'll actually start to feel a bit better (at least you won't notice the smell - which comes in handy when you don't want to pay a lot for dry cleaning)!

See... I don't need the government to tell me what I can notice for myself: SHS isn't good for you. It may not kill me immediately (obviously it doesn't), sure, but it's certainly not going to cure any diseases I have, either. And if people can avoid it at the low, low cost of smokers walking outside to smoke...? I just don't see the downside.

{ k }

Maybe you just have a sub-par bronchial system?  

I started smoking when I was 19 (so much for the common wisdom that it's the kids who are getting hooked), but I'd been trawling bars and other smoky venues for some time before that.  Not once did I suffer the sorts of profound side-effects that you're talking about.  Even smoking pot (with a much higher tar content) in tiny, unventilated spaces never hurt my lungs or eyes like that.  Now, I smoke, which should certainly be harder on my lungs, since I'm not only inhaling smoke second-hand, but right down my throat, and yet I don't lose my voice, have itchy eyes, or suffer from nausea.

So we have one piece of useless anecdotal evidence canceling out the next.

As for you final piece of wisdom, plenty of things aren't going to cure a disease and will irritate you.  That "low, low" cost only seems cheap because you aren't the one paying it.

I think koos may have rhetorically embellished his point -- but not by much. I envy you your lungs of steel and imperviousness to clouds of tobacco smoke, but I bet that the vast majority of nonsmokers do feel the effects, albeit in varying degrees. For example, I immediately feel a constriction in my lungs when I get a whiff of a cigarette and, if the exposure persists, I start having other problems as well. I honestly can't remember my reaction when I used to smoke (briefly) and spent time with groups of smokers.

That "low, low" cost only seems cheap because you aren't the one paying it.

You're referring here to having to walk outside to smoke? Seems like common courtesy to me.

Of course, Captain, anecdotal evidence only gets me so far, and I always hesitate to bring it up because of that very falability. But the post you were replying to is merely an easy experiment everyone can participate in. I have a theory as to what the typical results of that test will be, but science dictates that we actually perform the test under the circumstances circumscribed. It very well may be that only a small fraction of the population (myself included) have hyper-allergic (or sub-par) bronchial systems, and SHS is only a gross, smelly thing nonsmokers don't want around them. Then again, you may have lungs-o'-steel (you have, apparently, been working your lungs out for quite a while...). Or, it may even be that SHS does cause serious harm (or cause no harm at all - after all, I am willing to entertain that notion, but it has to be proven), yet the short term effects may be different for everyone depending on any number of factors. My only point was that, often, those who claim that there is no affect in SHS are smokers, and should maybe try and see it from the other side of the equation for a bit. In fact, I myself was of the opinion that the smell of smoke, while pervasive, wasn't too bad. But then I dated a smoker after quiting. Blech! Plus, with the kissing... (shiver).

Overall, I find this discussion interesting, if only for the spotlight it shines on certain people's psyches. You smoke, and you don't want to have to go outside to do so when in public. That's what I'm hearing, and that's what I imagine is at the heart of this discussion. But other people don't like being around your smoke (please ignore for now  the health "debate" going on in this thread). All that is being asked is that you act politely - to step outside before taking part in your habit. I see very little difference between this and asking people to speak in inside voices or to play ball outside or to chew with mouths closed or to only take a dump in the appropriate venue... you know, common courtesy stuff. The only real distinction you can make is that smoking is voluntary but also addictive. And... if I see you take a dump in a restaurant, fine, I lose my appetite, but if every bar I visit allows smoking, odds are I'm going to feel gross and sick and I am certainly going to have to dry clean my suit afterwards.

And that is ignoring the potential dangers you are putting other people in. It's simpy the Hand theory of negligence law: the cost (here, walking outside) should only be born if it is less than the likelihood of harm times the amount of harm. As I can see very little cost associated with walking outside, even the slightest chance of the slightest harm to a non-smoker would dictate you step outside to burn your square.

And, before you make too many assumptions, I was still a smoker when the Boston ban came down, so I have paid the price I am asking others to pay. Many times, my firend, many times. And I did so in the frigid NE winters, no less.

{ k }

At first it isn't going to smell very good (although, as an ex-smoker I'll admit it'll also make you crazy for a smoke... resist just this once... you'll be smoking tomorrow!). In fact, your body will start to react like it's being lightly poisoned: you will cough, your eyes will tear, and you may even begin to have a seriously hard time breathing. That's just smoke inhalation, don't worry. It's the next day we're really concerned about.

'Cause no matter how much drinking you did or didn't do the night before, that next morning is not going to be fun. Unless you showered, you'll reek of smoke, which will actually make you a bit nauseous. Your throat will be seriously scratchy, to the point where you may have lost your voice or it hurts to drink or eat. Your eyes, teary the night before, will now be red and puffy. Your face will likely look haggard.

I'm honestly sorry being in smoky bars affects you like that. Truly, I am.

But damn, you must have a seriously compromised immune system or some kind of hyper-allergy to tobacco smoke. I started smoking when I was 17 and quit when I was 35. I am 45 now, so I would guess that would make me fairly "clean".

I spend a lot of time in smoky bars and clubs. I like jazz, and I am semi-serious musician. Except for the smell in my clothing, I experience absolutely none - none - of what you describe.

I know anecdotal evidence is worth nothing. But that applies to yours as well as mine.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

I know anecdotal evidence is worth nothing. But that applies to yours as well as mine.

I admit this above, and will do so again. I merely thought trying this little experiement might shed some light on the hardcore SHS-isn't-bad-for-you crowd as to why some of us won't ever buy their crap.

On the other hand, if they try it and don't have any complaints, well, I guess they can keep ignoring me and/or thinking I am just plain wrong and over-emotional.

{ k }

I have asthma, and I can assure you that second hand smoke can be deadly, at least for the 10% of Americans with breathing issues.  Maybe it won't give you a heart attack, but it will make breathing quite difficult.  And that is enough negative effect that I don't begrudge the campaign against it.

As to carrying a fetus to term & giving birth it causes major life changes for the woman.  

I'm full of rage because idiotic males who never have to carry a child want to tell me that it is not my choice whether I do so or not & that my life and health is not nearly as important as that of a potential-being, the fetus.  That enrages me greatly.  I'm about as educated as you can get about this, having taken both routes.

Thalia

Thalia, are you claiming that abortions are 100% safe?  I am curious about that.  I am not disputing that the government is "lying" to try and persuade young women to not have abortions, but I want to be wary also of going in the other direction that abortions are safe all the time.  As you mentioned people with breathing problems can suffer fatally from second hand smoke.  What about abortions?  Are there no risks at all from abortions?  

For the sake of civility, rather than saying the agencies are "lying", let's soften it a bit and say they are "exaggerating" or passing non-factual data.  Maybe they are mistaken, or got bad data to begin with.  Now, saying that they are "lying" can lead one to think there are no risks at all with abortions.  To provide a true benefit to any woman seeking an abortion, perhaps just saying what the actual risks are may be helpful  Let's contrast what these agencies are saying with the actual factual data.  

Now this website explains some risks, but I am not sure if this is one of those right wing Bush administration lying websites.

This website does not mention cancer risks.  

Another site I googled.

And this site seems to give a bit of a better handle on it.  It discusses the price and the risks in a firm way.  

Today, abortion is about 10 times safer than giving birth.  The cost of an abortion depends on the stage of pregnancy and which clinic is providing services. First trimester procedures run about $450-800. Second trimester procedures cost $600-6000. Many insurance plans cover abortion.  Less than 1% of all abortion patients experience a major complication, such as serious pelvic infection, hemorrhage requiring a blood transfusion or unintended major surgery. The risks associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy. Hysterectomy is exceedingly rare.

The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 10 times as high as that associated with abortion.

Unless you have a complication during or after the abortion, abortion has no impact on your future ability to get pregnant or carry a pregnancy to term.

I am not saying that there are no agendas here.  Some abortion advocates will show the procedure in the best possible light.  And pro-life zealots will twist things to their purposes.  

First of all, Thalia in no way said anything about abortion being 100% safe. So to begin your comment with that question is a bit disingenuous, if not straw-like.

I am not disputing that the government is "lying" to try and persuade young women to not have abortions...For the sake of civility, rather than saying the agencies are "lying", let's soften it a bit and say they are "exaggerating" or passing non-factual data.  Maybe they are mistaken, or got bad data to begin with.

This is nonsensical. For one thing, you're using the word "lying," not Thalia. And you're not disputing the lying. So then why would you want to soften that, and why would anyone even prefer the passing of "non-factual data" (a wonderful oxymoron, btw)?

I read Waxman's report. I think the agencies are lying; i.e., exaggerating, falsifying, fabricating, misrepresenting, misstating, and canarding (okay, not a word). And I think that it is just one more example of a profound ignorance of and distrust of science, when said science does not fit the agenda, that has become so prevalent during this administration.

OT: Glad you found us, nmiguy.

Sue, I thank you for your reply.  I was not entirely disagreeing with Thalia.  My addition to the conversation was  not to initiate name calling, but to try and provide facts to work with.  But I also agree with you that there is a systemic misrepresentation of truth, or falsehoods being told with a purpose.  My service is to bring to light "what are the facts about abortion risks?"  That certainly is a tangent that stays true to the topic.

I personally have never had an abortion.  I don't think any of my sex partners have had an abortion while I have been with them.  I admit being woefully uneducated as to the risks of abortions.  I do know that an abortion prevents a life.  And I do suspect there are risks and likely drawbacks to having an abortion, emotional and physical.  I do not excuse any organization that would lie about such things.  I can understand how some pro-life advocate would see that a simple lie saves a life.  I still do not excuse the lie.  The decision to have an abortion is a woman's choice, and she should make the choice to have or not have an abortion based on real factual data.  

Still, my nature is one where I attack people as a last resort.  I do not think this is an issue decided or determined by science.  It is a moral issue.  Lies are immoral, with few exceptions.  If you can't win an argument with the truth, then you have already lost.

It's nice to read your comments again Sue.  

Still, my nature is one where I attack people as a last resort.  I do not think this is an issue decided or determined by science.  It is a moral issue.  Lies are immoral, with few exceptions.  If you can't win an argument with the truth, then you have already lost.

But nobody is name-calling or attacking, nmiguy. If federally funded agencies are dispensing information that is incorrect or misleading, it is not an attack to call them on it. In fact, I would suggest that they are the ones in the attack mode.

And yes, this particular discussion really is decided by science. If there is no credible evidence for some of the fearmongering going on and if, in fact, there is evidence to the contrary, then science should trump any religious-based agenda.

I have no problem with these outfits saying whatever they want, as long as they are upfront about their purpose and their qualifications and as long as they are not conducting business on my dime. But when they receive federal funds, I expect sound public health practices, not this:

At a 2005 conference, Care Net, the national umbrella organization, described the advantages of abstinence funding for pregnancy resource centers:

[D]efending and promoting a culture of life is not just about saving babies of those women that walk into the center that are pregnant and thinking about abortion .... You're defending and promoting a culture of life through teaching
them about their own sexuality, their own  bodies, and in that, they begin to understand the creation process, and they begin to  understand that an unborn child really is valuable. ...

Now obviously when you go into public schools you can't start talking about Jesus dying on the cross, or you may not get invited back very quickly. But ... you're opening the door to a lot more people that may not normally know of your center, you're building credibility for your pregnancy center, you're helping people begin to trust in your pregnancy center, so that if those girls that may have heard your story and didn't quite take it to heart and end up coming to your pregnancy center, or they have friends or family members that come, that trust is already built, and then you've already earned the right to be heard. So people that come into your center that have already heard you, you get the chance to share the Gospel with them, which is the ultimate thing of what we're doing.

Well I am not entirely disagreeing with you.  But science is not always right either.  We have seen in my lifetime and yours medical and scientific statements that have been discredited and often reversed.  

But to think the abortion issue is merely a scientific issue is not looking at the whole thing.  Abortion is pure and simple a moral decision.  That is not to say that the facts are unimportant.  If a woman goes for counselling to perhaps get an abortion, she deserves to know ho wmany abortions are performed and the odds of some problem that could occur to her.  The odds of her dying, becoming sterile, or mentally ill, she deserves to know the actual facts of those possibilities.  And if she wishes moral counselling on whether to have an abortion she deserves the right to have that as well.  

There are some Christians on a crusade to save babies and fight abortion.  And many of them have gone way over board.  I do not dispute that.  And the administration's policy seems to be aligned with the Christian right, which seems to have emboldened the pro-life crowd to use coercive and misleading tactics to reduce the occurrence of abortions.

The issue is so blisteringly contentious, that it is entirely easy to dismiss one side or the other as evil, inhuman etc.  It always gets that way when it gets pushed from a personal moral decision to one of policy, funding and advocacy.  I personally get offended by both sides.  Who wants to see a picture of a bloody foetus in their face?  Who wants to have their religious convictions attacked as anti-woman?  So I take a breath, and try to treat both sides as human beings with feelings and conflicting opinions.  

But to think the abortion issue is merely a scientific issue is not looking at the whole thing.

I'm interested, at least on this thread, only in the topic at hand and not in the overriding issue of abortion itself.

Oh, thanks for getting me back on topic.  This issue of what is being told to women seeking counselling on abortion is interesting.  They should be up front about their goals and bias.  They should not tell lies, or spin the truth.  Facts where facts are sought, opinions where opinions are sought.

I completely concur that these women have the right to facts.  But the information being dispensed is not fact.  It's simply fiction, it's fiction designed to persuade women to have a baby.  And THAT I object to, a lot.

Abortion is no fun at all.  But neither is having a baby when you're 14, or having severe health consequences as a result of having a baby, or even having a baby that results in losing your job & your ability to support yourself.  Once an unwanted pregnancy occurs, none of the choices are fun.

I have absolutely no objection to those who advocate minimizing the number of abortions by better contraception, more education, or even just by trying to persuade people with real facts that abortion is not a good idea.  But come on.  Tell a 17-year old girl who dreams about getting married & having babies later in life that she'll be sterile if she has an abortion?  That's playing dirty.

Thalia

Claiming that it is likely to cause infertility, depression, and breast cancer is out & out lying.  So yes, they are lying.  Through their teeth.  Using federal tax dollars to do it.

Do I think abortions are 100% safe?  Of course not.  But it's safer than giving birth (as you point out).  These organizations claim to these women -- pretending to be pregnant -- that abortion has all these negative effects (untrue) and that it is much better & safer to carry to term (also untrue).  In other words, they're lying.

I don't think abortions are wonderful things & everyone should have one.  But it's ridiculous that our government spreads lies about it.

Thalia

"aid to NGOs that provide abortion"

Notice how something Leftists declare a 'right' always transforms into demands on others to pay for it. If you think it so important to kill unborn babies in the third world you pay for it with your own money.

Notice how right-wingers have zero fucking reading comprehension.  I drew a paralell between the government subsidy of the tobacco industry and their lack of subsidy for abortion providers.  I didn't call for money to go one place or the other, simply pointed out that the your cancer sticks are subsidized, so stop your childish whining.

We should encourage mothers in impoverished countries to smoke around their unwanted recently-born fetuses. I call it 'extremely-late term second-hand abortion'. How's that?

Don't worry, the tobacco industry already is pushing into the third world as hard as it can.  No need for a subsidy there.  It's the Invisible Hand at work.

BTW, I quit smoking when my partner became pregnant for two reasons:  1) The smell of tobacco smoke made her vomit.  2)  The chances of your kid just stopping breathing one day go up by about 100% if you smoke.  That's no lie.

...Dwayne was hoping that he would pay exactly the right amount of attention to Francine's clitoris.

"your cancer sticks are subsidized"

No, some tobacco farmers are subsidized. Actual cigarettes are heavily taxed.

I'm glad you don't smoke around preggos and babies, neither do I. One of the ironies of banning smoking in bars is that has likely increased the amount of smoking done around children. But then such bans aren't really about health.

Production of cigarettes is federally subsidized, tobacco products are taxed differently in various states.  Your cigs would cost more if they it weren't for government subsidies.  Global health would be better funded if the Religious Right didn't control the White House.  

So you've never seen a pregnant waitress?

Smoking bans haven't made people stay home.  Despite what the restaurant and bar owners always fear, people keep going out.  The addicts stand outside to smoke if they have to.

...Dwayne was hoping that he would pay exactly the right amount of attention to Francine's clitoris.

The taxes on tobacco more than offset any subsidies. Tobacco subsidies for the entire United States in the year 2000 totaled $345,201,356.* In the year 2000 the state of Washington alone recieved $382,121,202 in taxes and tobacco settlement funds.

"Smoking bans haven't made people stay home."

Sure they have. Not that anyone cares.

*As that link notes, the total of subsidies for the years 1995-2004 was $528 million.

528,000,000 dollars in smoker's pockets from the taxpayers.  Why can't I get my third world prenatal health care?

...Dwayne was hoping that he would pay exactly the right amount of attention to Francine's clitoris.

"in smoker's pockets from the taxpayers"

No money is going in smokers pockets from tobacco subsidies. The amount of money smokers just from California paid in taxes in the year 2000 alone was 2.2 times greater than total tobacco subsidies for the entire US from 1995-2004.  

The US gives far more money to third world medical care than it does to subsidize tobacco, but if you find this issue so important why not convince your greedy state legislators to spend some of the vast sums they extort from smokers on the third world babies?

While the pointlessness of argueing with you is manifest, I'll leave you with this observation.

States are not supposed to handle foreign policy, that's one of the main jobs of the federal government.

...Dwayne was hoping that he would pay exactly the right amount of attention to Francine's clitoris.

It's not an actual argument, your claim that smokers benefit from federal tobacco subsidies turns out to be false. You should acquaint yourself with the facts before making assertions.

Turns out 'trusted' users could down-mod comments to 0, at which point normal users couldn't see them.  Last night Dan changed the settings so we won't have trusted users around for a while (short term solution).  Today I modified the ratings in the DB so that previously zero-moderated comments are now one-moderated comments.  So now this comment is back.

That may have been me. I was messing around with the modding feature yesterday... and I have to refresh the page everytime I press on a link... so I may have just gotten frustrated and started super up-modding, super-down modding to see if I could actually mod a comment at all.

Not that I should be a "trusted user" anyway... whatever that means I'm certainly not it.

{ k }