Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/30/08 05:05 PM, Christopherr wrote: The woman wasted the money of her insurance provider, so the average rates for a person increased.

That cannot be the correct explanation because increased use alone is not sufficient reason to explain why the costs of the hospital bills are what is rising so much, not insurance. If each MRI makes a $10 profit, and you do 100 more of them this week than you did last week, why would it cost you, the provider, more, instead of giving you extra money?

Sorry, but I do not believe this is a political issue, nor do I believe anonymous kiddies on an internet forum are the appropriate people to ask. You should talk with your parents, school counselor, elder siblings, etc. as appropriate, if this is a real issue. If it is a fake post, go spend some time with those people anyways.

The first issue, which no one has remembered to mention, is that you cannot legally sign a contract. It is obvious from your situation that you are not a college student, and are most likely in high school or below. In that case, you are a minor and cannot sign a legal contract on your own. Anything you sign for the school is legally invalid unless a parent is required to sign as well.

However, there is also the matter of coercion. By forcing you to sign a legal contract before you will be allowed to attend school - a legally required action - they are forcing a signature under durress. If you do not sign, you will be prosecuted as a truant; your only option is to sign the contract.

Put simply, that contract is legally meaningless, a farce to convey the sense of choice. However, the shirt you suggested would likely not be protected by the First Amendment. You have Freedom of Speech, not Freedom of Talking; an insulting shirt of that sort does not qualify as speech in the legal sense. You cannot say whatever you want without being punished, you can only voice your ideals and the truth with impugnity.

At 6/3/08 09:12 AM, ZOMG3 wrote: The reasons:

1. Their health service. When you are sick the first thing they look for is your wallet. They leave the poor and defenseless to die. Universial healthcare is the way forward!!!

Outright lies. Hospitals must accept a patient, regardless of whether that person can pay or not. The "poor and defenseless" are not left to die - there are all sorts of mechanisms in place to reduce or eliminate the costs of healthcare for those individuals. It's the moderately well off who get screwed because they bear the full cost of healthcare. Medical bills is one of the largest causes of bankruptcy among the American middle class.

2. America has has high emissions of gas and it seems like many Americans dont care about the environment.

That whole issue is tied up in propaganda and political ambitions. The environment has done fairly well in the past few millenia with no one giving a damn about it, so why are modern Americans suddenly horrendous people for not buying into (literally) the Warmist political campaign? (Note that they have followed the environmentalist campaign of previous decades)

3. Americans like the most crappy sports and don't spell words right like colour or favourite. Stop being lazy and add the extra letter. It's not hard.

Words change over time. Stop being so damn lazy and spell words like they did with Middle English, or even Old English. Why aren't you talking in Latin?!

I consider those extra letters to be ugly additions to a word. They serve no purpose and you have no serious basis for claiming that your (British) spelling is any better. Sports are irrelevant.

4. Americans are ignorant and don't pay much attention to the outside world. Most of them don't even have passports.

And this differs from most of the world in what way? In many parts of the world, individuals will live in the same five square mile village for the entirety of their lives, never leaving. Americans are one of the most traveled, more globally involved people in the world (we are a political and economic superpower for a reason).

5. America - Land of the Free...unless you are in Guantanamo

Guantanamo isn't in America. You fail. It exists outside of the country specifically because such detainment is throughly illegal on American soil.

6. For claiming they are the first to help in a natural disater, yet denying any fair trade. Fixing the world trade for themselves keeping millions in poverty for their own greed.

"Denying any fair trade"? What the hell does that have to do with disasters? The US does not "fix" world trade by any means - it produces more and is more successful through effort, skill, and creativity. No one can be "kept" in poverty through non-monopolistic economic efforts, they can only remain there through their own decisions. To lay the blame for the poverty of other nations upon the US is utter foolishness.

7. For fudging the fact that none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi yet many use that as the reason to bomb Iraq.

It is very commonly pointed out to those people that 9/11 was the justification for Afghanistan, and Iraq was in no way related to that. We blew the crap out of Iraq because its leader "disrespected our authority" for over a decade.

8. Selling $20bn worth of defense to the Saudis where 16 of the 19 hijackers WERE from. Fucking geniuses.

We have economic interests in Saudi Arabia. Who gives a damn where the hijackers were from? he issue is where their organization and leaders exist - Afghanistan. This is a global world; the hijackers could have been from any likeminded nation.

9. Capitalism and materialism combined with negligence and apathy are running rampant while honor, dignity, and true spirituality have gone by the wayside.

I call bull. Cite sources or these are simply blatantly opinionated claims.

10. For expeting a country bombed to pieces to thank them afterwards. "We liberated you. Now you are free, even though your home was bombed and your parents raped and mutilated!"

"Parents raped and mutilated"? More bull. I should refer you to past history, though - for example, World War II. To Japan: "We nuked two of your favorite cities, but we wanna be buddies now, okay?" To Germany: "We bombed the hell out of every last road and industry you have - let's drink beer together!"

Any suggestions?

Make claims that are less a reflection of your own failure and more actual issues.

At 5/30/08 06:02 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: In Modern society, what is the point of debating religion?

The reason for debate is quite simple, really. In a world where religion is a purely private matter with no political, economic, or social influence, it harmless. In the real world, religion has political influence, influential organizations (the Pope, priests, churches), and can exert a massive influence on societies (Middle East holy laws, Israel, Commandments, etc.). For any power structure that relies on being "right" for its strength and support, those seeking to weaken it will very obviously try to prove it wrong -- thus weakening the influence of that institution. Athiests argue against religion because religious organizations dominate our society, control laws (Prohibition as an example), and generally try to suppress groups with conflicting opinions (Science, athiests, other religions, different moral codes, etc).

Or, more succinctly: Ideological institutions can only destroyed at their roots by destroying the ideology. Debate is the way to fight an ideology (besides murdering the followers).

At 5/22/08 11:16 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: 1) Do you agree with the statement that all humans are created equal and why? [Yes or no and why]

No -- The question itself is flawed, because it is based on the assumption that humans are static creations which can be objectively judged for overall "worth." From the instant a human is conceived, it grows and changes continuously, always redefining itself. We must follow the concept of political equality because we cannot make judgements; to favor any individuals or call any "superior" and "inferior" would require false and flawed judgements.

2) What is your conscious reasoning for doing acts of altruism?

Humans take into consideration the effects on individuals to whom they have a social connection when making a rational (cost/benefit) decision. This is clearly illustrated by emotions such as empathy and concern, but it is deeply rooted in the necessity of society to an individual's wellbeing. If you do not have concern for your social relations, you will find yourself alone when danger comes and are vastly more likely to die. This concern is generally limited to closer social relationships, though -- would the genocide of thousands in Darfur affect you as much as your best friend dying in a car crash? Clearly not.

Altruism is a rational decision made when you weigh the benefits to you and your social relations with the costs to you. Hence, altruism is often performed by people who can "afford it", such as charity by wealthy individuals or volunteer work by someone with time to spare. When considering the altruism of soldiers dying in wars, they are usually driven by a cause which outweighs even death. Desertion often happens when the cause, the primary benefit in the decisionmaking, is outweighed by fear of death, the primary cost. Altruism is entirely rational, though worldviews that focus on selfishness and genetics often ignore the key influence of social relationships in decisionmaking.

3) Do you beleive Altruism is or can be a subconscious act? if it is, what makes it treated as so 'venerable' in our society? Can you make a case for why it should still be venerable in our society even if you feel that it is or can be subconscious?

The concept of the "subconscious" acting is foolish. Humans are whole entities -- any part of the mind that acts or works still belongs to the individual. If you do something, it is because you acted, not because "the X region of your brain decided (anthropomorphically) to make you act."

That aside, altruism is venerated for several reasons including: altruism for the sake of our society benefits the society (obvious reason to promote it), a level of personal strength and a powerful cause are necessary for high levels of altruism (an accomplishment to respect), and as a way to cope with the suffering in life (soothing grief, charity, etc.). However, the second reason and the respect it generates seems to be the strongest reason that altruism is venerated in many countries, in my experience.

4) Would you do something beneficial to yourself and consequently harmful to somone else if you knew that you wouldn't get caught or punished for it?

That is the distinction between "personal morality" and "institutional morality." My actions are driven by my own views of right and wrong -- and thus I would not commit the act if it violated my morals. When a social institution must enforce the morality on me, I would have nothing holding me back when I escape the influence of that institution (the "caught and punished" aspect). It's a straightforward situation, really, and simple to answer.

5) Would you kill a murderer if you felt doing so would save more lives? [Spur of the moment descision, a now or never sort of thing]

Killing someone for the lives that "might" be lost is fallacious reasoning. Judging the individual based on past actions ("a murderer") and determining morality for mere possibilities ("felt") are incorrect approaches to the situation. At the least, you should kill because of what has or is being done, not because of what might be done. The best solution is for the next individual that is attacked to kill the murderer; then the murderer was killed for actions being committed. Attempting to justify killing the murderer by future possibilities is simple self-delusion to hide other reasons that you refuse to recognize.

One thing that is often forgotten in these thought experiments is some consideration of utilitarianism.

Track Switch: If the train hits the group of people, you require five events to save all of them: jumping away, medical treatment, whatever. However, with the single person, you only need a single event to have no deaths. By simple reasoning, you should shout to the individual (maximize survival chances) and flip the track switch (minimize casualty chances). You should always favor minimizing casualties first.

Fat Man Above: There is a distinct difference here: pushing him in front of the train saves the others by means of his death. Following the same logic as before, you do not push the man off the bridge (minimize casualty chances) and call 911 immediately (maximize survival chances). The possibility of five deaths does not justify one guaranteed death because the goal is to avoid any casualties. Probability of death factors into this minimization

Racial Riots: Since this situation includes a group of people already violating ethical standards (the rioters), both of the available reponses are incorrect. You do not sacrifice an individual unless absolutely no other option is available; if you are forced to do so, you use the power of your office (and firearms) to protect the safety of the individual (maximize survival chances).

The proper response to this situation is actually to suppress the rioters and call in any amount of enforcement power you can to help. The rioters are in violation of ethical standards; you must enforce laws to prevent damage in the long term (minimize casualties). A collapse of the ethical enforcement would be a catastrophic event; the result approaches maximum casualties and minimum survival. It is only when a catastrophic event threatens that actions such as framing the individual become allowable -- with the knowledge that you are ethically sacrificing yourself when the law is restabilized.

However, a bit of utilitarianism can apply to any choice you make. If, in the most desperate and absurd of situations you neither suppres the riots nor control the crowd's anger, you can still act to maximize survival chances for the targeted individuals. Possible actions may include creating a safe areas which you protect with force, arming the targeted individuals (hoping for a deterrent that may fail), or creating an armed force to act against the rioters.

At 3/6/08 11:38 AM, johnsmith77 wrote: It will inevitably also raise fears that a suspect's brain could be interrogated against their will, raising the nightmarish possibility of interrogation for "thought crimes".

Or it simply raises the stakes of the game a bit. You're misinterpreting this informaiton, though, because matching sensory information to brain signals is completely different from matching thoughts to brain signals. You could do the same thing by simply tapping into the optic nerve, which sends the signal directly to the brain. Determining the thoughts of the individual, let alone determining truth and falsity as well as extracting complex abstract information from them is virtually impossible in comparison to such a simple act as noticing patterns when visual information is received.

Even given that such thought-invading technology may eventually be available, it simply places more emphasis on the absolute requirement that we protect our own privacy, as a society. Sometime soon that will require retaliation against the governmental and corporation organizations that are actively invading that privacy, but the battle is still on.

At 2/27/08 10:46 PM, arcansi wrote: Have you heard of the new strain? It can be transmitted by almost any body fluid; blood, snot, spit, urine and vomit.

There is no such strain. Your ignorance is profound.

You're too late, bud. Stem cell research is no longer a controversial issue because researchers have discovered how to make fully functional stem cells from many other tissues, including skin cells, and are approaching the ability to create stem cell lines for each individual to grow organs/etc. for that patient from their own cells.

No embyroes are necessary anymore, so the controversy is over and compelted. There is no arguments left except, "How cheap and quickly can we get this going, and what can we do with it?"

I don't think Imperialism is considered an issue beyond the obvious threats it poses to the other nations... who you are attempting to conquer. Obviously, anyone who is not in a Imperialistic position will oppose it, and among the people within the stronger nations who oppose it, they are primarily against 'war' and 'conquering' rather than Imperialism itself. I have never heard an individual promote aggressive wars and conquering, but reject the imperialistic tendency to keep control of territories once conquered.

Colonialism, a practice of the British Empire, is distinctly different, though, and does have many negatives and problems associated with it. As a different topic, there are many things to contest about Colonialism.

Unfortunately, as things currently are, it is highly unlikely that the People will actually be the deciding votes. Obama has to win a massive majority of the remaining states to win my popular vote. Rather, the superdelegates, who seem to heavily favor Hillary so far, look like they will be the ones who decide.

And the end result: so what? Something stupid happened, the survivors were paid money to settle, and the situation was dealt with. This is not an arguable topic, it's just an event that happened out of stupidity and which has no bearing on us in any way. Don't get so fired up and angry over an empty topic.

At 2/1/08 08:50 PM, Christopherr wrote: Hey, guys... The doc. says that the best stem cells come from blastocytes (4-5 days after fertilization), not babies.

By the way, if you haven't heard yet, the argument is over. You all missed it.

Stem Cells can be acquired from adult skin cells now.

The moral problem is gone. Fully capable stem cells can be created from skin cells now, and no one can object to using skin cells for research. This also offers the opportunity to make stem cells from a person's own body, so that replacement organs will never be rejected.

At 2/1/08 10:53 PM, StealthJew wrote: Hell, even GRAVITY is only technically a theory.

Wrong. Gravity is both a Natural Law and a Theory. The Natural Law is the observational effects we see, everything you would normally call gravity. The Theory of Gravity is incomplete and quite probably wrong, but we don't yet know enough to figure out how to fix it. For example, we have never detected Gravitons and we are not entirely sure how it acts in some circumstances.

Misunderstandings such as that one are what lead to so many ignorant arguments involving science.

At 2/1/08 10:42 PM, EmoNarc wrote: I love how evolutionists always say, "Show we proof first!", yet when evolution comes round the table, they always say, "WELL... SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT EVOLUTION DOESN'T EXIST!!!"

Have you taken time to read any scientific arguments in favor of evolution? Unless you have read, at the minimum, Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, you cannot make such a statement. The reason evolution has the Theory status is because no significant opposing evidence has thus far been found. No higher status is attainable under the framework of Science.

And there are many examples of the existence of God. Just look at all the miracles, and the Bible for crying out loud!

All of your examples reduce down into a single one, the Bible. However, humans are capable of writing fiction (as evidenced by your own posts, as well as the multibillion-dollar fiction novel industry). Therefore, you must provide additional support of your point, particularly something more recent than 2000 years ago.

You, sir, have no idea what te hell you are talking about do you?
*long boring quote*

But the thing is, it IS Wikipedia, a VERY unreliable source. And the sources they have are mostly written by NONRELIGOUS scientists who believe in evolution. POV bias there!

POV bias is assumed, allowed, and entirely meaningless to the quality of an argument in a proper discussion. In fact, someone who argues in favor of a topic with personally supporting it is doing an injustice to the topic and thus should not be in the discussion at all. You also said "mostly written" by nonreligious scientists, meaning you still have to deal with the ones written by religious scientists that still contradict your claims.

NEXT?!

I can type faster than you and make intelligent points. You cannot possibly win.

At 2/1/08 10:34 PM, EmoNarc wrote: You obviously have not heard most of the evolutionists out there. Perhaps you are better, but most nonreligious scientists say that we came from monkeys. I am glad we can agree on this.

Again, as I have explained, they believe this not on the basis of Evolution, but on the basis of our Classification System. The point cannot be any more straightforward.

First of all, learn how to spell. E-x-i-s-t-e-n-c-e.

Do you want me to correct your spelling and grammar? Your writing style is slowly typed, inexperienced, and full of mistakes.

Secondly, who are you to question God? We can not understand God, and trying to is the trivial point here. But if we must, if God create everything perfect, then there would be no point in testing us here on Earth.

You say that God did not create perfect beings? You are arguing against the Bible, you blasphemer and false believer. The Bible itself says God is perfect, and that his creation is both in his image and perfect. Who are you to question God?

At 2/1/08 10:28 PM, EmoNarc wrote: But God inspired the Bible, and if Marcus Aquinas has correctly calculated something based on the Bible, it is true.

I just told you, he did it wrong. He missed people and guessed at years, making him wrong. Therefore, he is incorrect. According to the Bible, the world is not 6000 years old.

By the way, evolution actually is a fact. The theory part at this point is the nature of how the transformations happen. Physical evidence undeniably shows evolution, but how each change of species occurred is the part that requires theory for explanation.

Are you kidding me? Mentally developing is NOT evolution. You don't even understand it. So if someone gets an A on a math test, did he/she just go through evolution? OF COURSE NOT! This is just stupid.

First, a test does not involve development, it is merely a confirmation of knowledge. The mental development I speak of is the piece of technology you are using to post to this forum. You cannot deny all of the progress from the Stone Age to the Digital Age. That is undeniable change that has been observable even in a single lifetime.

Why would God write something that wasn't true? Obviously he meant what he wrote, and obviously evolution is wrong, and Genesis is correct. Do I need to continue?

God did not write the Old Testament, the very people who Jesus criticized of perverting God's religion (the Pharises) added in Genesis. Nowhere in the Bible does it call it literal fact, and Jesus many times tells stories that are acknowledged as non-literal. Additionally, Genesis does not directly conflict with scientific theory, only the suppositions placed upon it by thinkers over time conflict (such as Aquinas' inaccurate history).

Anyone next?

It appears to me that you are being slaughtered but can't seem to notice the emptiness when your head falls into a bloody pool on the floor. It does not appear to have been very useful to you in the first place, though. Your trolling isn't even particularly challenging, funny, or at all skilled.

There's a distinct difference between sharing wireless and secure wireless. A Public wireless network is asking to get hack-raped. In this sense, "sharing" your wireless with everyone around you is very dangerous. However, with proper firewalls, passwords, and security, allowing your known neighbors onto your secure, private wireless network is reasonable and safe. Individual computer security is also recommended in that situation, though.

At 2/1/08 10:18 PM, EmoNarc wrote: Adaptation is NOT evolution. You don't even know what evolution is!!! Evolution says that things change and that we came from monkeys!!!

Evolution does not say that we came from monkeys. In fact, it says nothing even close to that, and has nothing to say about human ancestry at all. Species Classification, an entirely different topic and subject, declares the relation between humans and monkeys. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the Classification System, not evolution.

1. As an additional point, explain the existance in many organisms (like humans) of traits or features entirely trivial to survival, living, and worship. In 'perfect' beings, as created by God, why should such 'imperfect' things exist?

At 2/1/08 10:09 PM, EmoNarc wrote: Evolution is the stupidest idea I have ever heard! Why in any world would God want things to transform themselves when he makes everything already? Evolutionists say that it takes millions and billions of years for evolution is true, but the world is 6000 years old, so they are contradicting themselves???

What stupid ignorant evolutionist wants to take me up? I'll completely own all your arguments. You willing to try?

Disregarding your obvious trolling, I will offer up a few points:
1. The world is not 6000 years old according to the Bible or anything Christian. Marcus Aquinas made an inaccurate estimate based on the length of the lineage of the prophets. If you accept that as fact, you are changing the word of your own God, a blasphemous action.

2. Humans have Free Will. If a God was willing to give humans the ability to mentally develop and cause development in the world around them, how is there any logical leap in giving all of creation the ability to develop? Hence, changing over time is not in conflict with God, but rather a possible expression of his goals.

3. The possibility exists that Genesis is a Creation Myth. Just like every single religion has. When you remove the literal interpretation of Genesis, evolution is entirely within acceptability for the framework of Christianity. In fact, it leaves many opportunities for Christians to describe God's intent for humanity, thus gaining a more intimate knowledge of God. The Bible never declares that Genesis is a literal telling of the Creation, and it is very obviously written as a moral story. Jesus himself never refers to it as literal truth, either, but emphasizes the moral benefit of stories (i.e. parables).

Just some information that a believer might be willing to digest. I don't believe in the Christian God or the entire church structure, but these points are based on your own perspective, minus the troll.

At 1/21/08 03:59 PM, WolvenBear wrote: The same can be said of infants and small children. They have undefined potential.

Wrong. If people can consider things such as IQ tests even for small children, then it is established that their potential is in some way defined already.

We can say much worse about the poor and the elderly, they have no potential anymore. That doesn't mean they have no right to life.

The poor do have potential. The elderly have "earned the right" to last out until they die on their own, but you don't often see us providing complete life support for an elderly person -- which is what a pregnant woman does for an unborn child. If something cannot live mostly-unsupported, then it's not "killing it", it becomes "letting it die" by removing life support. Hence the difference between killing independent individuals who can manage their own wellbeing and health, and clumps of cells which will die if cut off from the host.

The use of medical abortions is less than 1%, around .1 or .01%. About 3-5% of abortions are for "health of the child", which includes Down Syndrome (not life threatening).

It wasn't my statistic. If you want to correct anyone, call your co-supporter a liar for citing false statistics. Regardless, there are still abortions that are medically necessary, and so a complete outlaw of abortion is unreasonable.

Since abortion to save the life of the mother has never been illegal, and no one has ever proposed making it illegal, you're throwing up a strawman like crazy

It's not a strawman because people argue for the complete outlaw of abortion. Don't give me shit about that because at least 18% of people are proposing it according to a Gallup poll last May. I'm pretty damn sure a fifth of the relevant population is significant enough for this not to be a straw man.

Yes, we know it did. The flaw in your argument is that, whenever something is made illegal...less people do it. Period. Without a single exception.

Prohibition. Exception spotted. Your statement makes it obvious that you're lying, anyways. Unsafe abortion has never been particularly expensive, and if you didn't know, medical procedures by a doctor is not the only way to have an abortion. That is why it has always been available.

That's ridiculous. Of course it will stop people. If abortion clinics all over the place close (and they'd have to by law), it would make it harder to find a place to get abortion done. It's not a state of mind argument. It's like weed now, people still do it, but not everybody knows someone to buy weed from.

Perhaps you don't understand, banning abortion will not decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies in any way because it is not facotred into their thinking. It may decrease abortions themselves somewhat, but it won't prevent unwanted pregnancies, the thing he was talking about.

And your "abortion is a last resort" argument is nonsense. Many women panic and go to an abortion clinic FIRST, without thinking bout it.

If you haven't hit puberty yet, I guess you may not know about certain things like "condoms" and "birth control pills" which are the first lines. Abortion is the last resort because all other methods to prevent the child failed. If you don't abort it at that point, you have the child... so it's very obviously the last resort. There's not much to misunderstand here, but you're doing a damn fine job of not getting it.

And telling us to "think about her feelings" is stupid. I don't care what her feelings are. She killed an innocent child. That's all that matters.

First, the doctor killed the unborn child-- not "innocent child". Second, 'Innocent' is an empty term that's just full of moralistic bull, but has no actual bearing on anything in reality. There is nothing morally negative about abortion, it is merely equivalent to not having a child in the first place (however, if you consider never having children to be morally evil, then you may have a basis for judgement).

The most direct handling is to outlaw it. And then, by your advice, to consider it handled.

The problem is unwanted pregnancies, not abortion. And, if you haven't realized it, outlawing something is not a solution, because even you said earlier that people will still do it anyways, regardless of law. Only making actions available can ever be a real solution to anything; outlawing something is just attempting to push the problem somewhere where you don't have to see it. However, referring my earlier example, Prohibition has showed us all what kind of effect that can have. Legal abortion simply makes something you can't stop or reduce a lot safer for those involved. Before you try to connect this to drugs, notice the "or reduce" clause, because I know you're not smart enough to pick up on that kind of thing unless I point it out directly.

At 1/20/08 11:22 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Women have abortions because they don't want the child. Her motivations for not wanting the child are irrelevant.

They are not irrelevant as they strongly reflect the situation in which the child will be born. If a mother does not want to have a child because she has HIV and will likely pass it to her child, does that motivation not matter to the situation? You would ignore her desire to save the child from a life of HIV, calling that totally irrelevant?

There's no one arguing that a woman shouldn't be able to remove a dead baby from her body. And this almost never happens anyway. Straw man much?

Not a straw man, an example of why abortion cannot be outlawed, as many people have proposed and argued for. It can only be restricted for this reason, something critically important to recognize which many policy supporters have ignored in discussion. I'm setting the basis for my argument by outlining what positions are possible, and if you haven't realized that, you need to read more closely.

Well, to debate this:
1. The mother's financial situation is irrelevant.

The financial situation is, but the living conditions are not. A starving, homeless, drug-addicted woman probably will not be able to raise a child properly (at the minimum, without malnutrition and able to give schooling). This is relevant, as it indicates a high potential for harm to the child.

2. After demanding we deal in reality...not potential, you delve into a ridiculous "What if".

Not "what if", but rather "what is". There's a distinct difference between illustrative examples and imaginary attributes.

3. That life is hard doesn't make it unworthy of continuance. Otherwise we'd just execute the homeless...you know...to make life easier on them.

A life that is unfair to a child in every way is something that should not have been given in the first place. Abortion is the prevention of life, not the ending of it; killing a fetus and killing a grown adult are two distinctly different things. Also, in terms of legal issues, a grown adult is in the majority, and thus has legal freedom, so no matter what your two situations are different.

4. The mother can give up the child. There's no shortage of families who want a baby.

Yes, there most obviously is. Otherwise, we wouldn't have children who remain in the foster care system for so long. Simply saying, "Throw them to the foster care system!" is not a solution. About 125,000 child get adopted each year . In the past few years, there have been about 850,000 abortions each year. You do the math; adoption rates are nowhere near high enough to handle even a quarter of the total children from abortion, let alone real orphans.

5. The increase in abortion has coincided with higher rates of child abuse, single parent families, welfare states, crime, etc. The evidence that abortion would fix ANY of these problems is not only non-existant...it is counter to what we have learned.

First of all, I demand sources. You claim higher rates of several things, at least one of which I know to be untrue already. Show me the information you based those statements on. Secondly, if those trends are true, doesn't that suggest that abortion is a symptom of (supposedly) declining home environments? If a parent can not raise a child safely, they are more likely to seek an abortion. It's a safety valve, not a complete solution.

That's imbecilic. We cannot ensure children have a loving family or that life will be roses. The argument that if we can't make life great for the child that we should just kill it...is among one of the more assinine in the abortion advocate's arsenal.

No, if we can't make life minimally bearable then that life should not be brought into the world. If you think it would be a positive thing to force more children to live in squallor and poverty, then you're more cruel than anyone who would simply seek to stop a life before it starts.

My counter proposal:
We can't continue paying for people who are unable to find a job.

Put bluntly, don't be a dumbfuck. First of all, you have no right to act over someone in the majority, and conditions for most adults are dynamic enough that you can't label them with those groups. Second, conditions such as bipolar disorder, OCD, etc. are treatable and fixable, so it generates more economy and money to let the medical system deal with them. We don't "contiue paying for people unable to find a job" if you didn't know; unemployment payments run out after a time period (obviously you've never held a job if you didn't know this). Ending a life that is already established and has an investment of 20+ years is much different than killing something before life has even started, with 0 time investment involved. From a societal perspective, the form is wasteful, the latter is not, and the two are distinctly different.

No child has ever been harmed by being born.

What kind of idiot are you? Children are born with severe disabilities, or born with a body that cannot survive (so they die painfully), or all kinds of physical disorders. The act of birth even kills some babies, through strangulation by the umbilical to all sorts of other events. You can't possibly claim something so ignorant as "no child has ever been harmed."

Theact of abortion should be criminal unless medically neccessary to save a mother's life. THAT is the reality of the situation. You can bullshit your way around the point, but abortion is murder. Your ramblings don't change that.

Abortion is not murder, and you do not have the right to any say in the matter. War is murder on a grand scale, and it is legally sanctioned, so you can not possibly justify killing something before it even starts life as an actual being is murder. You have to be a human before you can be killed as a human, and even then we have all sorts of procedures such as euthanasia, removal of life support, death penalty, etc. to deal with you.

At 1/20/08 02:55 PM, Christopherr wrote: It isn't imaginary. It's real. Fetuses are unborn people, not imaginary friends.

Yes, fetuses are unborn, undeveloped, and undefined as people. They do not have "all the potential in the world" like you've been babbling about, they have an undefined potential, which is entirely different. If the potential is undefined, one and another can be considered as equivalent in judgements, and the loss of one is rather negligible.

Swing and a miss--medical reasons are less than 10%.

10%? That's far more than I would have assumed, and exactly why we cannot make abortion illegal. For all of those individuals, you have no moral right or ethical justification for condemning them, so you cannot make abortion illegal. This is not something you can possibly argue. Even if you are utterly anti-abortion, your only available option is to argue that abortion be restricted to those individuals, as I stated before, to deal with your imaginary force of "slutty mothers", as you have said.

It should only be an option for less than 7.5% of abortion cases where medical reasons or rape are to blame, not the shortsightedness of the mother.

If you had been paying attention, I already said this. It was the simple basis for something you cannot deny, and I had not yet moved on to the "arguable" portion.

I wouldn't know what to do, because abortion being readily available for mothers who can't predict what might happen as a result of their actions is the root of the problem.

Abortion is always readily available for mothers, and always has been throughout history before doctors offered to do it safely. Do you seriously think any laws or social pressure stopped it in the past? We know it didn't.

Making it illegal would have a rough patch before the results were shown. It would take a while for people to realize that they need to be able to take the consequences of their actions.

I'll put it simply for you: you won't get jack shit for results. It won't stop people in any way because it's not even factored into their thinking. Abortion is a last resort only considered after things go wrong, as the initial goal is to avoid becoming pregnant at all. If you do not recognize this, you need to acquire more experience with people to understand them better before you make moral judgements on their actions.

I'm looking at the reality. You're looking at a false assumption that most mothers need these abortions.

Nowhere did I ever say that, and the misunderstanding is entirely on your end. I said that some number find them necessary, so abortion cannot be entirely outlawed, and then went on to find a justification for all of the "optional" abortions.

Medical problems are not to blame for this, but instead the stupidity of those who get abortions.

I get the distinct feeling that you have never had a child or been involved in any of the relevant situations for this discussion, nor been near to anyone who has been. Your argument is essentially, "Bwah, you dumbasses got pregnant and you're horrible for trying to correct it!" It holds no real weight. Rather than attempting stupid and harmful laws to deter people ineffectively, you should deal with the problem as directly as possible and consider it handled.

At 1/20/08 07:04 AM, Christopherr wrote: It is irrelevant, because you are denying even the chance to live to something that could have been a person, and that is what matters.

That system of logic is completely flawed. You cannot judge the merit of something by an imaginary "potential" it might have, and in the cases of abortion, your supposed potential is even more unrealistic. You can not judge something by "potential", only by the reality of the situation preceding it.

I ask you all this: why do women usually want to have abortions? Most often, there is either a medical threat to the mother/child, or the mother will not be able to properly care for the child.

In the first situation, a medical threat, no one can deny that abortion is a necessary freedom. For example, sometimes the child dies inside of the womb, and the mother faces a medical danger from giving birth to a corpse. Anyone who would deny the right for this mother to have the abortion procedures to remove the baby is obviously a cruel, morally unreliable person. There is no possible reason to not allow it in this situation.

At the minimum, though, this establishes the need for abortion procedures to be available, because medical threats do exist and abortion can be necessary to prevent additional harm in impossible-to-fix situations. Thus, the real question is "Shoulid freely-chosen abortion be allowed?"

Now, if a mother is considering an abortion, two things are usually true: the mother cannot properly care for the child (hence the consideration), and the mother is willing to kill the baby. As a matter of pragmatism, why should you (a stranger) demand that the child be born in this sort of situation, to a mother who cannot care for the child and who harbors that sort of antipathy toward the child? Even if her feelings change after the birth, you are effectively consigning the child to live a struggling, disadvantaged life for the sake of some petty "moral" nuance. If a mother is not ready for a child, and thus the child is already guaranteed a negative youth environment, your "morals" are only harming the mother and child, and perpetuating negative circumstances like poverty, single parenthood, and ruined lives from early parenthood.

What we, as a society should support, is the best possible youth conditions for our children, the best possible development, and the most upstanding and fulfilled adults. Forcing childbirth when we know the child will be in a negative environment is like intentionally shackling the child to a weight at birth. If a mother wishes a child, and is capable of raising one, it is much better to let her have a child when the most positive environment can be provided, and hence the most capable and successful child can be produced. In this case, it is not a matter of "killing", it is a matter of deferred life-- the child will most likely be born, just at a later time when the mother is better-prepared to raise it. Nothing is being ended, only delayed until it can reach a higher potential.

None of your "morals" look at the reality of the situation, and how important it can be to recognize the reasons behind a mother's choice for an abortion. If you blindly oppose abortion because of your "moral" stance, then you are intentionally ignoring reality in favor of blind ignorance. In some cases, abortion is a necessity. In many others, everyone involved is only harmed by a childbirth, including the child itself; much better then to deger tat child until a later time, when they can grow up in a positive environment. If the mother believes the child can be raised properly, she wouldn't abort it; if she believes that she cannot provide for it and it would thus suffer and live a stunted life, she should not have a child yet. It is our job as "society" to ensure that children grow up in a positive environment, not to force thier birth into a prison life. It is thus our responsibility to recognize the right to abortion when everything will only lead to harm for the child.

At 12/22/07 11:18 PM, T-W-I-D wrote: i'm just saying that things exist that there's no way our science can ever explain it.

That is incorrect, though. Anything which is real can be explained by science, the explanation may just be beyond our current knowledge at this point in time.

At 12/15/07 01:27 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 12/15/07 01:26 PM, Brick-top wrote: China is a larger emitter of CO2 than America.

I was told that china was cutting emissions and the united state was not.

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.
cfm/newsid/39443/story.htm
China is slowing the growth of their emissions, not cutting them. The United States is obviously cutting emissions, but we do so as a standard procedure, not a reaction to Global Warming.

There are two primary reasons why the United States has balked against most of the "emission cutting" programs various people have been pushing, like the Kyoto Protocol.

1. Economic Damage. The US is a major industrial power, we rely on that backbone or production. All of the plans proposed will damage our production in some way, some propose to utterly cripple our economy. For some nations, particularly post-industrial European nations, cutting emissions really doesn't hurt them that much. For the US, many of the major plans could not only threaten our SuperPower standing, but also throw us into a deep recession.

2. This is a Long Term Issue-- and we aren't the problem. Global Warming is undeniably a long term problem, so how should we go for a solution? Cut off our own legs right now to slow the progression, or keep running and develop better technology to solve the problem? I would go with the second solution, particularly because the real threat is the developing countries like China and India. If we don't develop the technology to push them past the high-pollution stages, we're all screwed anyways and the economic suicide of the Western nations will only hasten that.

Besides, GW is primarily bullcrap anyways. Don't make any sacrifices for it, they're pointless.

At 12/8/07 10:53 PM, Yinyangpenguin wrote: Do we rely too much on machines? Will history repeat it's self with a black age and we won't know how to program machines? Discuss.

The only way in which we could lose any of our current level of technology is if our entire industrial complex collapsed. In that case, we're already screwed to the moon and back. Loss of knowledge is irrelevant, our civilization will have already collapsed. Whether we still have any cities left after things stabilize again should be a bigger concern than whether you'll have your iPod still.

At 11/24/07 10:33 AM, Abele wrote: What I am asking is what are we going to do about it? With important cities like NYC, London, Beijing, and Tokyo doomed to be drowned, how are we going to save them?

I have a simple solution to the situation. I call bullshit on your claim of floods.

Sea Level data must undergo "intensive processing"
And someone's calling out the "corrective factors" of the analysis

This has nothing to do with whether warming is happing--it's a matter of whether our measurement techniques are even correct in the first place, or accurate to the single-millimeter degree we claim. Even with the "corrective factors" involved in the heavy processing of the satallite information... it's 3 millimeters per year, consistantly. That should imply that in 300 years we will face a daunting... 1 foot of extra water.

Most prediction models for this topic are working off of only a single speck on the climate timeline, less than 30 years of real information, and yet some people expect to justify claims of massive, exponential change in popular media. However, these claims are neither correct nor accurate to the models.

Solution: You can't drown in a drizzle.

At 11/24/07 10:12 PM, LordJaric wrote: Other than that I don't see any good reason for an abortion, like it a two people got drunk and had sex, that is their fault, they should deal with the consequences.

Or, people will deal with the consequences by having an abortion. It's a solution to a problem and people will take it regardless of whether Moralists say they can or not. Studies have consistently found that abortion rates are similar both in countries that do and do not allow abortions. Banning it does not stop people from not wanting a child, it just means a lot more pain and death as a result of illegal abortions going wrong.