Simple answers to statistically insignificant 'problems'...

1. Don't use Medicare/Medicaid.
2. Get a better plan and use those providers.
3. If you can't do 1 & 2, then pay for your own care out of pocket and deal with your providers directly.

I reject the narrow definition of what is and isn't acceptable in the vid. There's a whole world of options - all of them easily available and affordable just about anyone. All it takes is the guts, gumption, and initiative to go out there and take them. The problems this woman is harping about can be easily avoided by the vast majority of the US population. The mathematically small percentage to whom this argument applies does not merit the need of a nationalized, federal policy. People that down & out can avail themselves of the many charitable organizations that exist for the truly in need.

Oh... What? Those charitable groups tend to be religious organizations that don't want to give Sandra Fluke barrels full or free condoms, or run abortion abbotiors, and who counsel adoption instead of free, unfettered, instantly accessed, no-restriction abortions? Ah - well - now we know what this is really all about... Whatzerface isn't whining about the number of clinics. She's whining about state covering her birth control and abortions and she doesn't want to have to walk 30 minutes to get there (as if she couldn't drive). :eyeroll:

uhhhh.....he's flat n his harp playin's remedial

@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

The difference between religion and science is that science updates its knowledge based on evidence. That's how we make fun of religion: pointing out they do not update their knowledge based on evidence. Your question is about why we make fun of religion. The answer is that for a set of knowledge that is contradicted by evidence, we believe religion has undue influence, and we seek to reduce that influence. One example is that abstinence-only education programs correlate with rises in sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Abstinence-only education is religiously motivated. Science would recommend giving people condoms and educating them on how to use them, reducing both unwanted pregnancies and STIs.

People can read and believe whatever they want. When it starts to matter is when people who believe false things gain real political power and create laws that harm people based on the false information. Another's right to act on their faith ends when it begins to unduly affect the lives of others.>> ^dirkdeagler7:

Some nice hidden gems in there, like the doors reference
I do think that poking fun at the bible, and the old testament for that matter are seen as more clever than I feel they really are. I mean religious people could make endless videos about some of the most brilliant men in history PROVING to the world something that we now know to be not quite right, and then using them to make the point that science changes its mind and has inconsistency too (is matter points or waves people?)...but what would be the point?
Harping on the lack of logic in a book written by and for people in antiquity is a waste of time, even if the book was divinely inspired why assume that it would be any different than all the other books/literature at that time? If a prophet spouted off things about big bangs and everything being made up of tiny dots that sometimes acted like waves back then...he would have been laughed at or burned!

>> ^dirkdeagler7:

Some nice hidden gems in there, like the doors reference
I do think that poking fun at the bible, and the old testament for that matter are seen as more clever than I feel they really are. I mean religious people could make endless videos about some of the most brilliant men in history PROVING to the world something that we now know to be not quite right, and then using them to make the point that science changes its mind and has inconsistency too (is matter points or waves people?)...but what would be the point?
Harping on the lack of logic in a book written by and for people in antiquity is a waste of time, even if the book was divinely inspired why assume that it would be any different than all the other books/literature at that time? If a prophet spouted off things about big bangs and everything being made up of tiny dots that sometimes acted like waves back then...he would have been laughed at or burned!

Have you ever taken the time to look at what the apologists/"sophisticated theologists" of today are on about? Because they do not leave out the OT, even in its worst aspects: http://videosift.com/video/The-Obscenity-of-Christianity-or-Pro-Life

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" Thomas Jefferson (on the concept of Trinity)

Some nice hidden gems in there, like the doors reference

I do think that poking fun at the bible, and the old testament for that matter are seen as more clever than I feel they really are. I mean religious people could make endless videos about some of the most brilliant men in history PROVING to the world something that we now know to be not quite right, and then using them to make the point that science changes its mind and has inconsistency too (is matter points or waves people?)...but what would be the point?

Harping on the lack of logic in a book written by and for people in antiquity is a waste of time, even if the book was divinely inspired why assume that it would be any different than all the other books/literature at that time? If a prophet spouted off things about big bangs and everything being made up of tiny dots that sometimes acted like waves back then...he would have been laughed at or burned!

>> ^nock:

Interesting, but invalid point Mashiki. In the case of Reid, he may or may not beat his wife, hard to prove either way. But with Romney, there is an easy answer to prove how much tax he paid - release the returns.


Really? Because this is birther level material that he's "hinting" at. The fact that the left is harping over it in the same way is just as telling. And should be dismissed just as much. Either that, or various members of obama's cabinet should come clean first on all of their taxes. And Obama should come clean on all of his law review papers first.

I never even considered that harps could be electric..
This video would've been much cooler if they showed them playing it live rather than a million different takes of them trying to look "sensual and graceful".

@bmacs27 Mostly the costs, TEGs aren't cheap, so I would wager the low end on the cost scale is about 50 bucks or so for the stove version give or take about 20 bucks. And indeed you are right, improving the state of being for billions is what the cry of energy is about. Costs are important as it dictates how many people we can help via our limited abilities. If we wanted to help ALL of them RIGHT NOW, it would cost 100 billion or so, which isn't a huge sum. But it is only access to 2 Watt/hours. This is very back of the envelope, so there are many other factors, but lets say we used that money instead to buy power plants. Let's even get something fancy, some high tech CCGT plants. They cost about .6 bucks per Watt hour. For 2 billion people consuming 2W/hs of electricity, that is about 4 gigiwatts/H which on our stoves cost us about 100 billion. Now a .5GW CCGT plan will run you about .3 billion per unit, but you only need 2.4 billion in funds to supply that level of electricity. If you spent the same kind of cash on CCGT plants, you would go from 4GW/H to 166GW/H. Basically, you can help 2 orders of magnitude more people if you invested in other technology, or help that same amount that much more. Now, that isn't completely accurate, power infrastructure costs money, but it is money well spent, even if you burn up an entire order of magnitude. It wouldn't hurt if a few thousand people had one of these, but if you wanted to help 2 billion, it would be a huge mistake. The only reason I keep harping on this is because they marketed themselves so heavily as some wide solution for the third world. A good third world solution doesn't always look like a first world solution, so I am not suggesting there is no merit here, but it would help very few people and to a relatively low level compared to other options. Perhaps small progress, though, is a good way to go about it, I can't say. I would guess they would be better off dropping off some steam system that burns wood and let them power their entire houses instead of a cellphone. There is an older paper about using rice husks in developing world in steam engines to generate electricity, and husks have a bit less energy density than wood fiber. They seemed to think it was pretty viable. There are some technical challenges, but I think those are easier to overcome than spending 100billion for 2W/Hs for 2 billion people. But I digress.

>> ^bobknight33:

I was not presenting any logical connection between the two. I was presenting the fact that there is moral outrage for the cat incident but when a woman has an abortion the is no love lossed for the destruction of life.

>> ^Gutspiller:
>> ^bobknight33:
Riddle me this.
What morally worse a cat deliberately stuck in fresh concrete or a woman having an abortion?
Both are deliberate acts. Most "open minded" folks will see the utter disgust with the cat but wont think twice on the abortion.

Your logic seems flawed comparing having an abortion to putting a cat in cement.



I guess we can ask the next question in the series.

Why will someone go virtually unpunished for cementing a kitten, but face murder for cementing a baby? You're a fucked up person either way, yet it's OK to do this twisted shit to animals although it's clearly not in line with what society wants......and the laws don't reflect it.

While as with abortion, contrary to what some people want..the law supports what society generally wants and leaves it up to the individuals involved in the pregnancy to make the choice themselves instead of taking the choice away. Cementing something alive should clearly not be a choice someone can make and go unpunished or be lightly punished, yet in the case of animals..it is. And it happens in much worse ways to more animals every day, lack of food, lack of water, being chained to a tree with no shelter...lots of dogs end up dead because they twist themselves up in their chain during storms and no one comes out to free them for days and days. Dog dies, person just gets another one.

So if we can torture things like that, some fetuses being killed instantly by deliberate choice seems like a very minor thing in the overall picture. At least it's quick. Hell we don't even torture criminals on death row...they keep trying to make it quicker and less painful...despite what the criminal did of their own free will and probably deserves some suffering for.


And aside from killing, the really humorous part is the same people against abortions are also against child welfare and welfare in general and talk about population control to fix hand outs. Just don't control it in ways they disapprove of, like the pill....condoms.....or basically anything. Then don't get abortions. And then get harped at all your life because you can't follow those simple illogical steps laid out before you. It's a big case of "do as I say, not as I do", religion suffers from it and it tends to carry over...that mental disconnect that when THEY use protection/pill/whatever it's different than OTHERS doing those things...and when THEIR daughter needed an abortion because <whatever> it doesn't make their values any less stupid because OTHERS reasons just aren't as good as their reasons. But they won't openly admit that shit to other people, because.....well they know it's wrong. Forgiveness and all is the motto, yet it's rarely ever practiced...another one of those disconnects. Funny that.

>> ^Chaucer:

this is a harp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apdaZfYIJTU
those guys are playing a harmonica.


Since the subject is hot chicks playing the harp.

>> ^seltar:
Are you fucking kidding me, @bremnet & @Chaucer?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harp
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/harp
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harp
http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/definitions/harp
It's also called a harp.
Get over it, and/or fuck off!
Also, why am I defending the title of the YouTube video?



My point exactly. Can't believe you bit again, and with such passion this time. Good to be right I guess. Carry on.

>> ^Chaucer:

Those are called harmonica's. A Harp is a stringed instrument that is quite large.

@Chaucer

Specifically it's a blues harp.
Images
Video

this is a harp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apdaZfYIJTU

those guys are playing a harmonica.