@ReverendTed
Many issues to address here, but first, some clarifications. My analogies (wonky as they are) were to point out the immorality of the “you’ve got to live with the consequences” stance, they were not about who’s harmed. But speaking of harm, it would be more ethical to let the two analogical characters “suck it up” than to demand of a woman she bring an unwanted pregnancy to term. In the first cases, there is only one victim, but in the latter there are two. When I say abortion is “punishment enough”, what I mean is that it is already a disagreeable outcome of mistake-making/poor-choice-making, while obliging a woman to give birth to (and raise) an unwanted child not only negatively affects the mother’s life, but that of the child as well; it is a disproportionate price to pay for the former and completely unfair for the latter. Hence, imo, abortion is by far the lesser of two “evils”.

Adoption instead of abortion is “a non-solution and worse” for several reasons. First, there are already more than enough children already alive who need parents, and you know very well that most people prefer making their own than adopting, so many of these will never have a family (not to mention the often inferior care-giving in foster homes and social centres). Now imagine that every abortion is replaced with a child given up for adoption; can you not see the horror? It’s that many more neglected lives, not to mention the overall problem of overpopulation.

I’m going to go on a slight tangent, but a relevant one. I have a certain amount of experience with humanitarian aid in Africa, and one thing that causes me no end of despair is the idiotic, selfish way much of it is performed. Leaving aside corruption, proselytization, etc., the “West” pours food and medicine into Africa with that whole “life is sacred” “feed the poor” mentality – good intentions of course – but with disastrous results because education and contraception (not to mention abortion) are almost always left out, even discouraged, with the support of the usual religious suspects (remember the pope on condoms causing aids?). The result is simple, and simply appalling: despite aid and funds increasing globally every year, starvation and child mortality continue to rise. Why? Because the people being barely maintained keep making kids who grow up to starve and die in turn, instead of focusing on the education of one or two children to get them out of the vicious cycle (there is another argument to be made about the education of women, but I’m ranting enough as is).

The point of this digression is to show that the non-pragmatic “all life is sacred” stance is terribly counter-productive, and the same holds for abortion (viz: on adoption above). As for lack of pragmatism, the same goes for your comment on abstinence:
I appreciate that "don't have sex if you can't accept being pregnant" is not a magical incantation that makes people not have sex, but it has to be a part of it, because no method of contraception is 100% effective, even if used correctly.
What you’re saying basically is “people shouldn’t have sex unless they’re ready for childbearing/-raising”, which is absurd when one considers human nature and human relations.

All of the above arguments weigh into the question of the “ball of cells” vs “human being/identity”. The “sacred life” stance is one of quantity over quality, and in the long run devalues human life altogether. To quote Isaac Asimov on overpopulation: “The more people there are the less one individual matters”. In the abortion debate, what we have is one side so intent on protecting the abstract “life” that they disregard the lives of the two individuals in question, namely the “individual who is” (the mother) and the “individual who might be” (the child). The former is already a human individual, with memories, relationships, a personality, etc. The latter is not. The abortion question takes into account the future quality of life not only of the mother but of the would-be child as well, something the anti-abortion stance does not. Abortion doesn’t end an individual’s life, it prevents a ball of cells from becoming one. Here is where the religious aspect is crucial, because while embryologists see a complex mass of cells with no capacity for cognition/sensation, superstitious people assign an individual “consciousness” or “soul” to it, thus making abortion feel like murder instead of like the removal of a tumour. The question of potential is an emotionally manipulative one that does not hold up to criticism, because as @packo sarcastically (and the Monty Python brilliantly ) point out, you can go a long ways up the stream of potential.

I like the first half of @gorillaman’s tomato analogy for that reason (the second half is hyperbolic absurdity), that it underlines what is important in the debate: the living “thing”’s capacity for sensation/cognition/interaction. If you grew up with a tumour on your body which giggled when you tickled it and cried when you hit it, you would probably think twice before getting rid of it. That does not mean I’m categorically against late-term abortions, but for me the scale seriously tips between the 20-25th weeks when the nervous system of the foetus centralises. Of course, it is preferable that should an abortion take place it would be before the foetal stage, for the sake of medical and psychological comfort, but unfortunately one cannot always know so soon that one is pregnant.

@renatojj dont worry, I too am enjoying our conversation. Back to the topic at hand

My definition of coercion: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/coerce
"persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats"

That means in any situation where one has a higher degree of power then the other person, there is risk of coercion. Especially in cases of employment there is a large discrepancy between the power of the employee vs the power of the employer. Employers can coerce in numerous ways, by saying you will get fired if you dont, you will not get a raise, you will not be promoted, you will be demoted, and so on.

What can the employee do? He or she can stop working there. Unless there is a shortage of workers (which country in the last 50 years has had that?) that will not overly upset the employer, so the employees negotiation power is limited.

So what is coercion in practical sense? Working 14 hours for 8 hours of pay or get fired? Working 14 hours for 8 hours of pay to get a promotion? If you look at the definition both are coercion as the employee does something he would otherwise be unwilling to do (work unpaid hours) because of (the unspoken) threats. Threat to lose the job or threat to not get the promotion.

So what do I mean with powerful? Exactly that, the ones with more power in any situation. They can be rich, but they dont have to be. Off course, where power reside, usually riches follow or vice versa.

Laziness is part of the human condition. Everyone is lazy, and everyone is not. I have seen toilet ladies work 14 hours shift 6 days a week and I have seen CEOs spend most of their time on golf courses and vice versa. Laziness is dependent on your motivation and on what you can get away with. Nobody will do work they dont have to if they dont like it. And everyone will work their butt of if they really like and want to do it. If the other option is starvation, trust me, no one is lazy.

Employees actually are entitled to something. Employment is a contract between one giving his free hours and the other giving goods (or money) in return. Charity is not. Coercion can follow as many things are not clarified in the contract, or are clarified but later are demanded or not given anyway. In charity there is no contract, hence no agreement on what should be given or received hence no coercion as there is no base of power. You can argue that as the receiver needs the money, it is possible to coerce him or her by offering and asking something he doesnt want to give in return, ie persuading him to do something he would otherwise not have done. That is not charity, that is employment ;-)

@renatojj I agree with you! Coerced into transactions they dont want is indeed the only definition important. I just dont agree free market policies are about making transactions as voluntary as possible. Free market policies only do that in some cases, namely where you have optimal competition. In most markets that is not the case. That is what I mean with right.

I live in Europe. Spain currently has an official unemployment of 25%, 50% for those under 25. Do you think in that situation the unemployed have a choice? You will and do get coercion. People dont want to work for wages that are so low they cannot afford their homes and barely have enough to eat. But the other option is starvation, so they have to. I know the free market people argue that that is still a choice. It is not. If it where up to companies, they would pay even less. Thats why you need for instance minimum wages. If companies would be allowed to go below that minimum all kinds of nastyness would happen. Not for the companies, but for the country, which is bad also for the companies in the end.

Free markets rules are set to minimize government intervention. In some cases that also leads to maximum choices, which you call economic freedom. The issue here is that if all the choices are bad, you are still better off with more rules as lots of bad choices is another form of coercion. The entire idea is to maximize economic freedom while making sure there are good choices. I am not advocating government take full control, which would be the other side of the spectrum. I am advocating a middle road. Use free markets when you can, regulate when you need to.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

What people don't seem to realize is that Atkins is starvation with a full belly. Yes, if you reduce your useable energy intake to zero, you'll quickly start dropping fat... and muscle... and whatever else your body can break down to fill the gap.
When you go back to eating normally, you'll probably pack it right back on. That's how our bodies generally respond to starvation.
The real kicker is how many people think carbs are unhealthy as a result of this stupid diet.
Back around 2000 when I was sick with an ulcer, acid reflux, and a generally uncooperative GI tract, I was telling someone about how I ate a lot of plain pasta because it never irritated my gut, it was reasonably healthy, and at least I was eating something. I was about 40lbs underweight at this point, so I had to take what I could get. Someone overheard me and said, "Oh, all those carbs are really unhealthy."


It's not starvation - fat has twice as much 'usable energy' as carbohydrates have per gram. Your mind will tell you it's starving for the first few days, because it takes time to build up enough enzymes to efficiently process the different form of energy than it usually gets, but it all ends up as ATP eventually. You're probably right about some people thinking carbs are bad because of this diet, but that's assuming they treat the diet like a religion and don't look at any other information, which is not going to be the case for everyone - and heck, quite a few of the sources of easily available carbs these days are pretty horribawful.

Also, if you look at the research, those participants in low carb/high fat/adequate protein diets usually fair just as good, or better than, high carb participants in terms of keeping the weight off after the diet is over.

>> ^jqpublick:

Eggshells are permeable to admit air; the egg will die of oxygen starvation quite quickly. If that's any help.
>> ^lucky760:
>> ^Fletch:
>> ^lucky760:
I imagine that's the same as it'd look in space.
Triggers an eerie hypothetical in my mind. If you just dropped eggs into the ocean (somewhere warm enough), when the baby chick started to peck its way out of the shell it'd drown itself. Poor thing.

Knife is a ScubaPro White Tip (if anyone cares).
[...crickets...]

@lucky760
Chick incubation requires about 100°F, so I doubt anywhere is warm enough. I was a Navy snipe, and the highest injection temperatures I ever saw for our main condenser was about 86°F. However, if you just wait a few more years...

True, but 1) I did say it was a hypothetical (focused around what would happen to the chick more than if it could actually hatch), and 2) temperatures reach well into hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit near hydrothermal vents.
That's hot enough for the spawning and evolution of strange new life forms that will literally never see the light of day. Just don't let the egg get too close or it'll boil.



Quite right! Totally valid point that resolves my hypothetical horror show, so it's a big help.

Eggshells are permeable to admit air; the egg will die of oxygen starvation quite quickly. If that's any help.
>> ^lucky760:

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^lucky760:
I imagine that's the same as it'd look in space.
Triggers an eerie hypothetical in my mind. If you just dropped eggs into the ocean (somewhere warm enough), when the baby chick started to peck its way out of the shell it'd drown itself. Poor thing.

Knife is a ScubaPro White Tip (if anyone cares).
[...crickets...]

@lucky760
Chick incubation requires about 100°F, so I doubt anywhere is warm enough. I was a Navy snipe, and the highest injection temperatures I ever saw for our main condenser was about 86°F. However, if you just wait a few more years...

True, but 1) I did say it was a hypothetical (focused around what would happen to the chick more than if it could actually hatch), and 2) temperatures reach well into hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit near hydrothermal vents.
That's hot enough for the spawning and evolution of strange new life forms that will literally never see the light of day. Just don't let the egg get too close or it'll boil.

What people don't seem to realize is that Atkins is starvation with a full belly. Yes, if you reduce your useable energy intake to zero, you'll quickly start dropping fat... and muscle... and whatever else your body can break down to fill the gap.

When you go back to eating normally, you'll probably pack it right back on. That's how our bodies generally respond to starvation.

The real kicker is how many people think carbs are unhealthy as a result of this stupid diet.

Back around 2000 when I was sick with an ulcer, acid reflux, and a generally uncooperative GI tract, I was telling someone about how I ate a lot of plain pasta because it never irritated my gut, it was reasonably healthy, and at least I was eating something. I was about 40lbs underweight at this point, so I had to take what I could get. Someone overheard me and said, "Oh, all those carbs are really unhealthy."

The entire crux of their argument is that people would loose all motivation if everything was provided, as if fear, hunger, and jealousy are the only things that motivate people...

This is patently a false assumption. I mean, think about going to Africa and arguing that the people there are more "motivated" or "creative" because they face starvation. Sometimes these cracked debates are ok, but this one really bugged me.

>> ^jwray:

They actually got it wrong. Rabbit starvation is caused by the total absence of non-protein calorie sources, nothing to do with vegetables in particular. http://everything2.com/title/rabbit+starvation


well, they didn't say that. They said if you ate vegetables, you could eat all the rabbit you want.

Isn't that saying the same thing you are?

Yup. Starvation is merely a problem of distribution.>> ^Auger8:

There is more than enough food for every man, woman, and child on the planet but there are two things stop those people from getting what they need to survive.
Politics
&
Money a.k.a. Greed.

No, I am not saying God cares about football, or who wins. It isn't about the football game. Tebow is a Christian who walks with Jesus openly, and gives God all the glory. Tebow puts God first, and that is why God is giving everyone a sign that He is with Tebow. God gives these kind of signs to others through those who sincerely love Him.

God is also helping the starving children in Africa. Look up Christian charities in Africa and see all that God is doing for them. Starvation is not due to a lack of resources on the Earth, it is due to greed. You could feed all the starving people in the world on the amount of money Europe spends on ice cream every year.

>> ^Taint:
Are you seriously saying that Jesus Christ helped win a Denver Broncos game? That's what God was up to on Sunday? The thousands of starving kids in Africa can wait! I've got to help Tebow not only win his game against an opposing sports team, but I'm going to make sure he runs over 300 yards so no one might think it was a coincidence!
Seriously, if you're going to bother believing in God, at least think bigger.
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^agopo:
I don't know what deity was responsible for the picture to come down on her head, but it makes me want to turn religious - too good to be coincidence! (Then again, maybe not)

That's pretty blatant..as blatant as Tebow scoring 316 yards last game. The God I know, Jesus Christ, will let you know that there is no such thing as coincidence, and that you're here for a reason. Place your trust in Him and pray and ask Him for the truth.
Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

>> ^thumpa28:

I dont follow the argument hes making. Religion is bad, just look at North Korea? Seems a bit of a stretch. For a start its a political system whose strength lies in its status as the sole provider of all welfare in a country where there is no other option but death by bullet or starvation. We'd all be praising Jesus if it meant that or starve. And the North koreans are a lot less afraid of eternal damnation than of termination at the hands of the 1.2 million standing army, in a country of 20 million.
Theres serious comment to be made here, he was right on track with the 1984 comparison, but veered way off with the religion analogy. Seems a waste.


Kim Il-Sung is still the eternal head of the nation. North Korea is structured around hailing the great leader as a deity. Hitchens is dead right to note that is not a non-religious society, but is in fact the most uniform and strictly enforced religious society in the modern world.

I dont follow the argument hes making. Religion is bad, just look at North Korea? Seems a bit of a stretch. For a start its a political system whose strength lies in its status as the sole provider of all welfare in a country where there is no other option but death by bullet or starvation. We'd all be praising Jesus if it meant that or starve. And the North koreans are a lot less afraid of eternal damnation than of termination at the hands of the 1.2 million standing army, in a country of 20 million.

Theres serious comment to be made here, he was right on track with the 1984 comparison, but veered way off with the religion analogy. Seems a waste.

Good, I hope the CIA is abducting, killing and otherwise terrorizing Al-Shabab's members. I hope every nation in the world is contributing to such a mission.

The entire problem of starvation and suffering in Somalia is because of monsters like Al-Shabab. There is no problem loading cargo planes with enough food aid to feed Somalia's people. There is no problem with enough land in Somalia to grow food for them. The problem is Al-Shabab murders the farmers because no-one can protect them. The problem is Al-Shabab steals the food aid or murders the aid workers because there aren't enough people to protect them.

The sooner Al-Shabab is gone the sooner Somalia's poor and starving people have a chance at something better than slowly starving to death in refugee camps on Somalia's borders.

So, my unexpected result this year.
I've been trying to lose weight for 15 years. 5'8" 205 lbs. I've tried dieting and always struggled, like most people, with that feeling of starvation and all the temptation that makes you fail.

In March I started walking at lunch 5 days a week and cut my calories down to about 1100 per day. At first I had no workout gear and after a mile and a quarter walk I was winded and sweating. Kept on going with the brisk walking and pushing myself harder and further. After a month and a half walking wasn't enough to wind me so I started alternating some jogging. Bought walking shoes and shorts/shirts to work out in. I kept pushing myself and counting my nutrition using a smart phone app so I wouldn't be deprived of vitamins and stuff on the lower calorie diet.

Surprisingly, no hunger. I started to find it hard to over eat because I wasn't hungry. I fealt nasty when I ate high calorie food. The app helped me make smart decisions when it mattered.
Over time I had to jog more and walk less to get a workout. After 4 months I was varying my workouts daily but averaging 4 miles per day during my lunch break. After 3 months I'd reached my goal of getting under 190. After 6 months I'd lost more than 30 pounds.

I have more stamina, look good, feel awesome and grew a beard for winter. ;-) Just had a physical and my cholesterol and blood pressure are perfect for the first time in 10 years. Every result on my physical was perfectly in range.

The only thing I did different from all my other attempts in 15 years was walk.

If you try to imagine walking/jogging 45-60 minutes a day, 5 days a week...you will fail before you start. Just go the first day and walk fast for as long as you can. Then make the decision to go the next day and push yourself again. Every day, decide to do it. Before you know it you'll be doing distances and times you never imagined and digging in the back of your closet for old clothes that fit.

Walking works.