@dystopianfutetoday
excellent question and is exactly where the discussion should be.

understand i am not against regulations i.e:background checks,licenses etc etc
i also think a gun safety course should be mandatory.responsible gun safety is just being a good citizen and neighbor.

have a mental illness with a record of violence? sorry.no guns for you.
convicted of a violent crime? no guns for you either.
but these regulations are already in place and responsible gun owners are..well...responsible.

so where is the argument REALLY centered?
unregulated .or more accurately put: weakly regulated gun shows and who benefits from these gun shows? gun manufacturers.
and where do they get their political clout? NRA.where those who are already blocked from gun purchase can skirt the system and the NRA can hide behind the second amendment.

that sound like a fairly accurate assesment?

now..onto your direct question on the downside of only the police and military being armed.
simply put: i do not trust authority or to be more precise,i do not trust power because power begets more power and seeks only to retain its own power which will always lead to you losing your power of self determination in the end.

america was never designed to have a standing army and their are articles that espouse the ending of the republic if we tried.here we are going on 60 years with a standing army.how is that working out for us?

bush had his illegal wars and surveillence and obama has his assasinations.

the police,which was born from the old town sheriffs were put in place to enforce this new and noble idea america had "all equal under law".a local citizenry trained to enforce the law and protect this "property ownership" another new and novel approach to society.

what do we have now?
defense money being spent on SWAT teams who now have high powered assault weapons and tanks...TANKS!..FFS.

do i really have to make a list?
waco
ruby ridge
the list is not short.

do you see where i am going with this?
i am not speaking about right and wrong.
i am pointing to the hypocrisy.
this is about elementary morality.
i totally agree with you that violence begets violence but if we are going to take away peoples right to own guns then we need to take them away from the police as well.

because just as some seriously damaged people have wrought death and suffering,so to has our very own government officials.
having the power of the government behind their actions does NOT make it more morally acceptable.

on a personal note i find the politicizing of the sandy hook school shooting so fucking despicable and grotesque that i literally shake with rage.this goes out to both sides of this political whoring.
the NRA can go fuck itself with a dirty razor-bladed dildo and the tree-hugging,pussified everybody-wants-to-bugger-my-lil-jonny scaredy cats can go fuck off as well.

i do not carry a gun nor am i interesting in owning one but i will fight for your right to own one.they are a weapon and as such should be monitored and regulated,but they should not be banned due to a giant fear storm and an over-abundance of "what if" pontificating.

who wants to live in a minority report world?not me.
most gun owners are responsible.
most police are good at what they do.
do not let the statistics arguments allow you to give up more of your rights.

but if we are going to protest i will be there with not a single weapon on me.

The sentence doesn't have to be an argument. You cannot write a single sentence that is not biased. The more sentences you write, the more biases you reveal. 10 powerpoints says I can find at least 10 instances of bias in any sentence you write. There will be no penalty when you lose.

Hey... I just noticed if you edit a sarcastic post, you lose the sarcasm and can't re-ensarcasm it.

@ghark there are some different issues with it. One is that you can "stream snipe", which means timing your finding match to the streamer, increasing the chances of getting matched up against him. that in itself isn't necessarily so bad, but it is essentially griefing.

The other is that if you add delay to your stream, you lose fundamental ability to interact with your viewers, which makes the stream much less entertaining for both parties.

A huge part of Starcraft is scouting what your opponent is doing and reacting to that, and being able to see the whole map negates that and gives you an extremely unfair advantage. It's like looking over the shoulder of someone else you're playing against, or looking into the cards of a poker player you're playing against.

I'm not american, so I don't really get the two party thing. In the UK we have more choices of who to vote for, so a third party vote isn't as idiotic, but I agree completely with his statement that people who don't vote are idiots. As far as I'm concerned if you didn't vote, you lose the right to complain about who wins or loses. You had your chance to make a difference, if you chose to not vote then you just have to put up with the choice of other people.

If the tax cuts are indeed revenue neutral as Rmoney keeps claiming....

THEN WHY THE BLOODY HELL DO YOU WANT TO DO THEM??????

If paying lower taxes will prod the "job creators" into making more jobs, and they aren't going to be paying less tax, then this won't do a dang thing, right?

This is such nonsense, I can't hardly stand it.

I got some mail from Obama today. Don't usually read it. Did today. Saying the same ole thing about Republicans not having a plan, or at least not willing to share it. Here's a paragraph that made me laugh:

"And that's because they've got the same plan they've had for 30 years: Tax cuts, tax cuts, gut a few regulations, and then give some more tax cuts. Tax cuts when times are good. Tax cuts when times are bad. Tax cuts to help you lose a few extra pounds, tax cuts to improve your love life."

Sex sells, ya?

Yes, thank you, you put it so much simpler than I do!
In reply to this comment by Thumper:
Your views are inconsistent because you're suggesting her obesity is somehow impactful on others. If it's not that then your suggesting you're concerned for her health. If you're so concerned for her health (or others) then what about her mental health (or ours)? Arguably the most important form of health. You already admitted there is no polite way to tell a stranger that is probably already aware, that their weight is a health concern. I don't see how promoting forwardness with disregard to one's reaction/ feelings is any bit healthier. Not to mention the whole bully awareness month - which this is just a guess, but, doesn't that specifically entail "we" as a society passing stronger consideration for others feelings?

This is where we need to draw the line on the whole obesity/ drug addict comparison. There is NO NEED to throw tough love at an overweight person. Even if you succeed in pushing them to lose weight - you're changing the very foundation of personal relationships. Where does the bully draw the line at school? "Stop being so dorky?". Oh and I'm not a fan of letting our children carry such moral burdens. Their parents should lead by example. Lets not build a world where people push one another into choices even if they are good for them. Let's let freewill be freewill. If you really want to make a difference - befriend them, get close to them, within the "YOU can say that to me" walls. Actually give a shit about the person and not the idea of people. Stop treating that woman like an negative average in a large container and more like a PERSON.

Problem solved. Become their friend - follow time-tested relationship rules and then, and only then, can you relay such private and impactful information to them.

>> ^scannex:

I am not sure how my argument is nihilistic at all.
I am not sure what mold you think I am promoting, aside from not being in a state which has been, by all available science, deemed to be u healthy. (read: not obese)
I am happy to address where you think my view is inconsistent, can you please elaborate?
Re feeling: I think that is fair, to a point. But to me, the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.
You pretend to care for the health of others yet there is a perverse nihilistic undertone to your entire argument. The only thing in this for you is to point out that "people" should fit a mold that you and your constituents have deemed appropriate. Which furthers strengthens the overall bizarre and inconsistent view you're slinging. Shouldn't your dismissal of common morals/ sensibilities completely free you up from trying to impress or coincide with a particular group? The thing that bugs me the most is that you seem to completely ignore this person's feelings. It's as if, for the purposes of your argument having a body you have obfuscated her feelings or anyone else's for that matter.

>> ^scannex:

So your counter to the point of it being a behavior, is that it is term applied as the result of a series of behaviors which is a combination of over-eating and lack of exercise?
You must be kidding.
And sorry I have to put words in your mouth above, because aside from divine intervention I am not sure what mysterious factors cause one to be obese unless you are referring to genetic disorders/thyroid problems. Have fun finding a source on what % of obese Americans that covers.
It is behavioral, and its remedy is behavioral. I certainly will not say its an EASY behavior to modify (see previous arguments on leptin/dopamine), but you need to deal with it.
Also regarding what is impressionable you are simply incorrect. If you believe a child with two overweight parents that is the result of those parents having an idle lifestyle and providing garbage food for their kids isnt impactful youre dead wrong.
But here you go, some backup for that concept. From the AACAP
No one is advocating mocking is the right thing to do. And if you think this guys letter came from a place of hate or mockery I suggest you reread it. There really is no indication of that to me. It comes from a place of concern, even if that is misguided. You want to crucify this guy for trying to (perhaps poorly) encourage this woman to lose weight and that really isn't the right ethic either.

_{I realised why your comments annoyed me so much: they remind me of those MRA-holes who try to defend the missteps and/or bile of privileged/sexist people and then see them as being persecuted or "witchhunted". I can only hope I am wrong in seeing a connection.}

To the substance: you completely miss my point, go after strawmen, and then try to defend the unethical while falsely accusing the anchor and myself of persecuting a person (instead of criticising a... you guessed it, behaviour).

Yes, certain behaviour causes and/or aggravates obesity, but do you see her glamourously binge-eating junkfood while telling the news? Unlike a meth addict, there are plenty of overweight people who are overweight of no fault of their own. In fact, the example you give about obese parents having a higher chance of having obese children supports my point, not yours. Children of obese parents have a higher risk of being obese genetically, as well as environmentally, and that has nothing to do with imitating the parents' behaviour (but it's their fault, right? They should just exercise and not eat what their parents feed them, right?). Of course the parents who feed their children junkfood are responsible for their child's obesity, but what does that have to do with an overweight woman being on TV? Not to mention that even that can be more complex, since there are socio-economic factors, what with the US's terrible education system and the fact that its cheapest high-calorie food (i.e. what poor/hungry people will buy) is 98% corn-syrup (yes, I made that stat up, but the point remains). Finally, obesity can be a side-product of mental health issues / eating disorders (but then maybe you're the kind of ignorant douche who'd tell people with depression to just stop wallowing in self-pity and be happy; I hope not).

You go on in your second comment to, on your own admission, redefine what a behaviour is so it can suit your argument. Say the following phrase, out loud if need be, to realise how ridiculous your argument is:

"The woman on the TV is behaving/being overweight/fat/obese". See what I mean?

Finally, you accuse her of "wanting to crucify the guy". Did you even read my points 1) & 2) above (you know, the ones you ignored in your answer)? The "guy" is not being attacked (you'll note he has been left anonymous), what he is saying/doing is. His letter is being taken as an example to call out a certain kind of behaviour, one which is rampant in our society, and doing much harm. Whether his letter is a well-intentioned yet ignorant expression of misplaced concern (at best, and highly unlikely) or a surreptitious piece of condescending shaming (much more likely*) is irrelevant. It's anti-bullying month, and she's saying "people, don't do this, and here's why".

Your more recent comment is a perfect example of why what she's doing is of utmost importance:

the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.

If what he said was not reprehensible, who cares if it's made public (note once again that no names are named)? Shaming people or projecting one's narrowmindedness on them is all fine, but shhh, don't shed light on it! It's just a private message on the internet, it does no harm! (because we all know that there is no bullying, shaming, sexism, etc. on the internet. Nuh-uh)

When only one side of an exchange says "shhh, don't tell anyone about this, it's private" you usually have a bad situation; and the fact that you would defend the letter-writer and his "right" to not have his error called out does not suggest anything good about your own mindset, either.

In conclusion, it is all the more to this woman's (and her husband's/colleagues') credit that she/they took a "seemingly" (to the thickest out there) innocent letter to expose this form of abuse; a harmful remark need not be shocking or particularly vulgar to leave its mark, and it can even come from good intentions. Maybe some people watching will realise that the words they themselves speak/write are harmful, even if not intentionally, and will be more aware of it in future, while others might realise that the words they heard/read were not so innocent after all, and that they should stop beating themselves up for feeling guilt/shame/self-hate when in fact they've been being worn down by ignorant and/or hurtful attacks.

_{*It would be quite easy to analyse just how ignorant and condescending this letter is, not to mention borderline sexist (try imagining this person writing the same letter to Chris Christie, for example, replacing "girls" with "boys"). Analysis starter kit for you: "choice/habit/lifestyle", and the cornerstone phrase "Surely you don't..."}

Your views are inconsistent because you're suggesting her obesity is somehow impactful on others. If it's not that then your suggesting you're concerned for her health. If you're so concerned for her health (or others) then what about her mental health (or ours)? Arguably the most important form of health. You already admitted there is no polite way to tell a stranger that is probably already aware, that their weight is a health concern. I don't see how promoting forwardness with disregard to one's reaction/ feelings is any bit healthier. Not to mention the whole bully awareness month - which this is just a guess, but, doesn't that specifically entail "we" as a society passing stronger consideration for others feelings?

This is where we need to draw the line on the whole obesity/ drug addict comparison. There is NO NEED to throw tough love at an overweight person. Even if you succeed in pushing them to lose weight - you're changing the very foundation of personal relationships. Where does the bully draw the line at school? "Stop being so dorky?". Oh and I'm not a fan of letting our children carry such moral burdens. Their parents should lead by example. Lets not build a world where people push one another into choices even if they are good for them. Let's let freewill be freewill. If you really want to make a difference - befriend them, get close to them, within the "YOU can say that to me" walls. Actually give a shit about the person and not the idea of people. Stop treating that woman like an negative average in a large container and more like a PERSON.

Problem solved. Become their friend - follow time-tested relationship rules and then, and only then, can you relay such private and impactful information to them.

>> ^scannex:

I am not sure how my argument is nihilistic at all.
I am not sure what mold you think I am promoting, aside from not being in a state which has been, by all available science, deemed to be u healthy. (read: not obese)
I am happy to address where you think my view is inconsistent, can you please elaborate?
Re feeling: I think that is fair, to a point. But to me, the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.
You pretend to care for the health of others yet there is a perverse nihilistic undertone to your entire argument. The only thing in this for you is to point out that "people" should fit a mold that you and your constituents have deemed appropriate. Which furthers strengthens the overall bizarre and inconsistent view you're slinging. Shouldn't your dismissal of common morals/ sensibilities completely free you up from trying to impress or coincide with a particular group? The thing that bugs me the most is that you seem to completely ignore this person's feelings. It's as if, for the purposes of your argument having a body you have obfuscated her feelings or anyone else's for that matter.

I am not sure how my argument is nihilistic at all.
I am not sure what mold you think I am promoting, aside from not being in a state which has been, by all available science, deemed to be u healthy. (read: not obese)

I am happy to address where you think my view is inconsistent, can you please elaborate?

Re feeling: I think that is fair, to a point. But to me, the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.

You pretend to care for the health of others yet there is a perverse nihilistic undertone to your entire argument. The only thing in this for you is to point out that "people" should fit a mold that you and your constituents have deemed appropriate. Which furthers strengthens the overall bizarre and inconsistent view you're slinging. Shouldn't your dismissal of common morals/ sensibilities completely free you up from trying to impress or coincide with a particular group? The thing that bugs me the most is that you seem to completely ignore this person's feelings. It's as if, for the purposes of your argument having a body you have obfuscated her feelings or anyone else's for that matter.

>> ^messenger:

Why do you think so? What makes this guy studying for exams different from someone in a classroom studying for exams?>> ^charliem:
Rote learning for exams and using that experience to describe a full 4 year education is dubious at best.
Throw this guy a non-exam question, see how he handles it vs. someone thats done the actual 4 year course.
Id be willing to bet not too well.



My experience with people who obtain knowledge intended to be spread over a large ammount of time, but done so in shotgun approach, is that they are have a very limited scope of understanding of the topics they have read up on.

Typical university courses that run for 3-4 years gives you time to explore concepts in depth. Rushing that in a year is like putting horse blinkers on....you focus soley on the objectives, and dont capture bigger picture lessons that you would otherwise get if you spent a lot longer time investigating something.

Take for example Cisco's CCNA/CCNP program. Ive met people who have brain-dumped for the exams with a 2 week super-course, sat the exam, passed, but cant even use or decypher wireshark dumps.

In theory its a good idea, but you lose so much if you focus on just the end goal to complete objectives in the shortest time possible.

There may well have been evil intent in these voter ID laws, and in fact, they may be doing their best to reduce the voter rolls with unfair voting hours. I'm not defending those tactics.

$30 every few 5-10 years is trivial by any measure. However, in researching the topic, I discovered that in Wisconsin, you can already get a free ID for voting purposes: "If you are a U.S. citizen, will be at least 18 years of age by the next election, and would like a Wisconsin ID card to vote (although it's not currently required), please check the ID for FREE box when completing the MV3004 (Wisconsin Identification Card (ID) application) or when applying online" http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/idcard.htm

In the case of someone who does not have a birth certificate, there are processes in place to resolve that. You do not lose your identity when you lose your identification papers, it's just a pain to fix it. In this case, the state lost the papers, and it is the responsibility of the state to re-certify the birth of the person in question. Most likely it can be done with a court appearance and a few sworn statements, if there's no other way of proving identity.

Even if the intent behind this bill is evil and unjust, the requirement of identification at the voting booth is neither unreasonable, nor unjustly burdensome. The _burden_ is the same for everyone, a half-day in the DMV.

As I said, if you want to msg me, we can discuss this further. I've posted many reasons why I said what I did, if you don't want to accept them at face value that's your choice.

>> ^VoodooV:

unless you can read minds or they specifically state "I downvote because I hate religion" you can't judge intent that way.
But you're missing the point. It matters not what topic you discuss, if you commit a logical fallacy, people won't respect you and guess what, they're more likely to downvote you here.
understanding and avoiding logical fallacies is like...debate and discourse 101.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Funny thing is, the article on fallacies is one of the few things that both Wikipedia and Conservapedia agree on, both articles appear accurate. Of course, Conservapedia's examples are radically different
What I see you (and bobknight) do a lot is commit the "appeal to belief" fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html
you can believe whatever you want to believe, but when you pass your belief off as fact in the public arena without anything to back it up, you lose any credibility you may have earned.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I gave proof in the thread, most notably the 18 discarded posts I have. I'm not going to debate religion with you here. If you want to debate me, then msg me and pick a topic.
>> ^VoodooV:
see here we go with more fallacies.
"People downvote for ideological reasons (they hate religion)"
This is an untrue statement. Unless you've developed some mind reading abilities that I'm not aware of, you simply cannot know why people downvote.
You forget the most simple reason of all: Religion has zero basis in fact and/or reason, therefore it has zero grounds to be treated with any authority. especially in matters of public government."
If you're going to claim they just do it because of hate, you better: 1) back that up with actual evidence and arguments. and 2) ask yourself the very simple question: "If they do hate religion, do they have a good reason why?"
I'd be willing to bet the kids molested by priests can think of a view VERY GOOD reasons's why.

unless you can read minds or they specifically state "I downvote because I hate religion" you can't judge intent that way.

But you're missing the point. It matters not what topic you discuss, if you commit a logical fallacy, people won't respect you and guess what, they're more likely to downvote you here.

understanding and avoiding logical fallacies is like...debate and discourse 101.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Funny thing is, the article on fallacies is one of the few things that both Wikipedia and Conservapedia agree on, both articles appear accurate. Of course, Conservapedia's examples are radically different

What I see you (and bobknight) do a lot is commit the "appeal to belief" fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html

you can believe whatever you want to believe, but when you pass your belief off as fact in the public arena without anything to back it up, you lose any credibility you may have earned.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I gave proof in the thread, most notably the 18 discarded posts I have. I'm not going to debate religion with you here. If you want to debate me, then msg me and pick a topic.
>> ^VoodooV:
see here we go with more fallacies.
"People downvote for ideological reasons (they hate religion)"
This is an untrue statement. Unless you've developed some mind reading abilities that I'm not aware of, you simply cannot know why people downvote.
You forget the most simple reason of all: Religion has zero basis in fact and/or reason, therefore it has zero grounds to be treated with any authority. especially in matters of public government."
If you're going to claim they just do it because of hate, you better: 1) back that up with actual evidence and arguments. and 2) ask yourself the very simple question: "If they do hate religion, do they have a good reason why?"
I'd be willing to bet the kids molested by priests can think of a view VERY GOOD reasons's why.

@ReverendTed
You have been a courteous sparring partner so I will try to answer in kind, but I must admit being very exasperated by your last response. Moreover, I do not think I want to pursue a debate with someone who cannot see how adoption-in-place-of-abortion is neither feasible nor even remotely ethical (vis-à-vis the woman, the would-be child and human society in general). So this will probably be my last wall of self-indulgent dross.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: we both agree that we need more education all ‘round, on all subjects. And as you know, those most opposed to it are the same that are against abortion. Abstinence education is redundant when proper sex-ed is given, because it goes without saying that “no sex = no unwanted pregnancies” is a part of basic sex-ed. Of course, it is un-pragmatic to expect teenagers (or anyone for that matter) to forego sex, so why harp on it, other than for misguided religious purposes?

Your conception of consciousness is fuzzy at best. Everything we feel, experience, etc. is due to electro-chemical reactions in our body/brain. Magical thinking is saying some non-physical “me” exists attached to it, what religious people call a soul. Consciousness is not subordinate to cognition in terms of value, but in the sense that without the one (cognition) you simply don’t have the other (“subordinate” as in “dependent upon”). I mentioned blind-from-birth people for a good reason; they have no visual aspect to their consciousness, their identity/consciousness is built upon the other sensory input. Now imagine a being that has zero sensory input (or a central system capable of making use/sense of it), and you have a mass of muscles/cells/organs devoid of consciousness. And that is what is aborted before the 25th week. I must make it clear, however, that even if this developed much earlier it would still be the woman’s prerogative to choose what she does with her own body/life. In that respect I think the “viability” argument is a pragmatic (albeit conservative) one, because it draws the line between an excrescence and a (possibly) autonomous being.

After the first two paragraphs, your response goes from bad to worse. What I said about adoption v abortion still stands, but I would add that it is still forcing women to go through a pregnancy they do not want (thus still affecting the quality of their lives), not to mention leaving them with the guilt of abandonment, the kids with issues, etc etc. And all for what? So some third person’s unfounded superstitions be upheld? And then you have the gall to compare criminalising abortion with criminalising incest and crazy people locking up/raping their families. You seriously need to think a bit before making comparisons. In the case of child abuse and/or rape (incest itself is a victimless crime, but that’s for a different discussion), there are actual victims, for one, and secondly, the crazies would lock them up whether it was legal or not, because it is a question of absolute control over the other.

Since you cite Guttmacher statistics, allow me to suggest you read a little more:

• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

• Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

So basically pushing for the criminalisation of abortion is pushing for there to be more abortions, and more dangerous ones.

You note how a large percentage of abortion-seekers are above the poverty line. Obviously, they can afford it / are aware of the possibility. Ever notice how the poor/uneducated tend to have more kids than the others? Do you really think being poor makes you want to have more mouths to feed? Or perhaps it is because they lack access to contraception/abortion (not to mention the poor/uneducated tend to be more religious; religion thrives on misery). Of the “developed” world the US is a bit of a special case, because it is so backward with regards to healthcare and contraception. Notice how most women in the US pay for their abortion out of pocket, and “Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/) As an aside, the religious right here in Switzerland (not as influential but almost as stupid and backward thinking as that of the US) are trying to make abortion be no longer covered by the universal healthcare system.

On the “potential” question, everything has been said. I’d simply point out that your “95%” potential leaves out something absolutely crucial, namely the choice of the woman to terminate the abortion, which can reduce that to “0%”. You say “it’s nearly guaranteed”, but so what? Two people having heterosexual vaginal sex without projection over a long period of time will conceive of a child, it’s “nearly guaranteed”, therefore every possible pairing of male and female should have continuous unprotected sex otherwise they are depriving potential beings from existing. “But what if they don’t want to?” Exactly, what if the woman doesn’t want a child at that moment? See how absurd the “potential” argument is?

I’ll risk making this wall of text even wallyer and propose an analogy, The Analogy of the Film and Camera. When you put a film in a camera, the potential for it becoming a strip of individual, unique photos goes up. But so long as no pictures are taken, so long as nothing is imprinted on the film’s receptive surface, you lose no individual photos by taking the film out, and there’s the same amount of potential if you put in a different film at a different time. It’s wonky, I know, but it illustrates that potential individual (the film) is not the same as existing individual (the photo), nor does destroying the first cause any damage to the second, because the second doesn’t exist yet.

The comparison with the IGB campaign is terribly inappropriate and simply false. In one case it is question of keeping living individuals from ending their lives, whereas abortion is about preventing eventual individuals from coming into existence because it would harm the quality of life of an already existing individual (as well as the one to be). IGB is about giving people options/hope, whereas criminalising abortion is about taking that away (from women, to give it to the mind projections of superstitious third parties). The only connection between the two is that in both cases the unsubstantiated beliefs of third persons impinge on an individual’s quality of life and liberty. I already addressed your “good from bad” argument, which you draw out again in an emotionally manipulative way (which frankly made me sick).

On eugenics, oh boy. What you’re saying is akin to saying “self-defence should be outlawed because otherwise some (like Zimmerman) might commit crimes and say it was self-defence”. Or, a little closer to home perhaps: “we shouldn’t have universal healthcare because some might fraud”. Yes, some people fraud the insurance, and yes, some people are aggressive and try to pass it as self-defence. That’s why we have a judicial system. Bringing in eugenics is seriously grasping at straws and you know it.

I’ll end my last contribution to this exchange with the following: having a child should never be an inevitability. Bringing a human life into existence is way too big a responsibility to be an obligation. A women’s body is her own, to deal with as she chooses, uterus and co. included.

Cheers