Women who are pregnant read magazines that educate them as to how to protect their wombs. The articles they read state things like "Doing this increases the chance of first trimester spontaneous abortion by 300%". I can't possibly imagine how a comment like that can be made, there are an infinite number of variables that are involved in gestation, to suggest any single event can increase the risks of spontaneous abortion in the first trimester is just plain rubbish. What is worse, are we talking about 1 in a million to 3 in a million? Are we talking 1 in 10 to 3 in 10? It doesn't say, just says by 300%. Yet, women will instantly stop doing whatever it says they shouldn't do to avoid that.
"Pregnant women magazines" may not cite this information -- or even paraphrase it correctly -- but it like this typically comes from scientific studies, where that behavior actually increased the risk of first trimester spontaneous abortion by 300%.
If you have a problem with pregnant women using information provided by science to improve their own chances, you probably disagree with most of humanity, and not just the Wal-Mart people.
They wanted popularity and didn't care who suffered for it.
On the contrary, I think they did care, wanted people to suffer, and thrived on it. That's the main difference between them and Cohen, IMO.
What is algebra, exactly? Is it one of those three-cornered things? -- J.M. Barrie