Christians(tm) are more desperate to increase their flock. As a result. Ban anything that prevents pregnancy, and especially abortion. Screw it if you were raped and got pregnant. The child is to be raised Christian(tm) and it will make the big magic guy in the sky happy. Screw your health, sanity and well being. Twisted logic? I know. Theoretically the true Christians(tm) shouldn't be pumping out babies as having sex is evil to begin with. But, they need as many as they can get.. as more and more realize a dependence on an ancient mythology just doesn't hold up to sane thought processes.

Is it me or is this similar to Ralph Nader fucking up the 2000 elections? I understand that it's a statement, but it's a statement at the wrong god-damned time.

Abortions are not illegal. There are plenty of non-profit organizations that will help fund abortions if needed, and they're not even that expensive! $400-500 for the first trimester? Up to $5000 for the second trimester. It's not like cancer treatment or HIV-treatment.

I understand that it's a step back. But we need to get this bill passed, but swallow this, and amend it later. Let's just get the first step made.

Christ, Democrats, get over it. Stop whining about slippery slopes. You can't even acknowledge that abortion is controversial? You can't realize that some people find it absolutely repugnant that their money is paying to abort babies?

Abortion is still legal (although quite rare). Abortion is not that expensive, but even if it were, so what? Access to cheap abortions is hardly an important issue to me. Passing this bill is 1000 times more important. This is exactly the right thing to compromise on.

Unless someone can correct me I believe abortion is still covered if you are in physical danger or raped no?

If that is true I'm pretty sure not covering other types of abortions is a reasonable accommodation.

Welcome to the marsh lands of the moral legislation. Things like this are the reason why legislating morality is a bad idea. Next up, should overweight people have to pay more tax into the health system than skinny people? Shouldn't the government have full unfettered access to your medical history? It's all for the community welfare, what could go wrong?

Next up, should overweight people have to pay more tax into the health system than skinny people?

It is fascinating how liberals quickly apply the 'slippery slope' to abortion but refuse to acknowledge the slipperly slope of how government will regulate human life far beyond abortions. Rage over privacy issues with the Patriot Act, and mewling subservience to open books for government to 'more efficiently' run your health care. Whine like mules that private corporations are 'too big, rich, and powerful' but a total blind spot with government being bigger and having more power/money than any entity on earth.

The small percentage of 'poor uninsured' can be helped with state programs, municipal level clinics, and voluntary charitable donations. 1.3 trillion to a government agency is absolutely unecessary, wasteful, and philosophically dangerous. We're all better off with a private system, warts and all. Give government this kind of power and you'll regret it. Government cannot be trusted. It will inevitably abuse the power. It is better to never let them have it. Got a beef with a private company? Government is a great place to list your grievences. Government as a supervisory and regulatory entity is fine. Government PARTICIPATING in the process is a horrible mistake. It always has been, and always will be.

>> ^rychan:
Christ, Democrats, get over it. Stop whining about slippery slopes. You can't even acknowledge that abortion is controversial? You can't realize that some people find it absolutely repugnant that their money is paying to abort babies?

OTOH, -I- find it absolutely repugnant that my money is paying to provide services to churches, but every time they call the police or fire department, it happens.

As long as it's legal, and especially when there was -already- language in the bill to ensure that no government funds were paying for abortion coverage, then there is no reason for any such absolute block. Notice, by the language of this amendment, nobody who is -paying- for the public option (which is supposed to be fully funded by premiums, just like private insurance) can buy -any- insurance that covers abortion...not even with their own money. How is that appropriate?

Frankly, this strikes me as yet another case of conservatives hijacking one issue to serve another purpose, precisely like using 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq.

Actually access to cheap contraception and abortion is one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty everywhere on earth.

Same resources divided among more people = poverty.

>> ^jwray:
Actually access to cheap contraception and abortion is one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty everywhere on earth.
Same resources divided among more people = poverty.


Exactly.

>> ^jwray:
Actually access to cheap contraception and abortion is one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty everywhere on earth.
Same resources divided among more people = poverty.


More people = moar people able to contribute to society?

>> ^jwray:
Actually access to cheap contraception and abortion is one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty everywhere on earth.
Same resources divided among more people = poverty.


The issue with poverty isn't people. That's the groupthink speaking. It's the in general internationalization of some government structures(read despots, dictators, and other forms of absolute control), or people unwilling to work up. The same issue follows through with hunger and so forth. I really couldn't care one way or the other, but we're not running short on: Food(first time in human history), supplies(again a first), energy(well wtf), so what's the issue? Power, corruption, and the inability to crawl your way up from being a dirt farmer, or being kicked back down by someone.

>> ^jwray:
Actually access to cheap contraception and abortion is one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty everywhere on earth.
Same resources divided among more people = poverty.


Mostly false. More people = better economies of scale = better standards of living for everyone.

Do you think a company like Intel could exist without a first world economy with billions of people? How can they afford to invest 10's of billions of dollars and millions of man hours into infrastructure and research to create a next generation CPU? Because the world economy is big enough for them to make up their investments.

Do you think the NIH could distribute 10's of billions of dollars for medical research to extend and improve your life if we didn't have hundreds of millions of taxpayers?

The larger the world economy, the more specialists such as scientists and researchers you can support to benefit the entire world. The more amazing engineering projects you can undertake because the return on investment is higher. GPS, the Internet, etc etc... You could not enjoy the quality of life that you have now if the world population were 1 million people, regardless of how educated they might be and how trivial food and energy production might be (hint: neither would be trivial, because both enjoy economies of scale and both benefit from modern science).

>> ^Mashiki:
>> ^jwray:
Actually access to cheap contraception and abortion is one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty everywhere on earth.
Same resources divided among more people = poverty.

The issue with poverty isn't people. That's the groupthink speaking. It's the in general internationalization of some government structures(read despots, dictators, and other forms of absolute control), or people unwilling to work up. The same issue follows through with hunger and so forth. I really couldn't care one way or the other, but we're not running short on: Food(first time in human history), supplies(again a first), energy(well wtf), so what's the issue? Power, corruption, and the inability to crawl your way up from being a dirt farmer, or being kicked back down by someone.


Except that, while those problems exist (which they will for the forseeable future) having more children does make it worse - having more children while you are poor certainly doesn't make poverty disappear, that's wishful thinking. Have you looked at the birth rates in the coutries most affected by poverty, hunger, AIDS, malaria etc?

The groupthink speaking is actually the people that think that donating money for food is making any long term difference, it warms the cockles of their heart because they think they did something good, and it feeds a hungry child for a month, but in the meantime that childs mother had 5 more babies, like in the Congo for example.

Yes, I have a friend who does work in African countries and birth rate mixed with poverty is a huuuuuge problem. It's not a blanket equation.. if the country is stricken with poverty then these people who are taught by religion that contraceptives are bad, and desire massive families are causing the conditions to worsen.

>> ^rychan:
>> ^jwray:
Actually access to cheap contraception and abortion is one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty everywhere on earth.
Same resources divided among more people = poverty.

Mostly false. More people = better economies of scale = better standards of living for everyone.
Do you think a company like Intel could exist without a first world economy with billions of people? How can they afford to invest 10's of billions of dollars and millions of man hours into infrastructure and research to create a next generation CPU? Because the world economy is big enough for them to make up their investments.
Do you think the NIH could distribute 10's of billions of dollars for medical research to extend and improve your life if we didn't have hundreds of millions of taxpayers?
The larger the world economy, the more specialists such as scientists and researchers you can support to benefit the entire world. The more amazing engineering projects you can undertake because the return on investment is higher. GPS, the Internet, etc etc... You could not enjoy the quality of life that you have now if the world population were 1 million people, regardless of how educated they might be and how trivial food and energy production might be (hint: neither would be trivial, because both enjoy economies of scale and both benefit from modern science).


So by your logic the countries with the highest birth rates should have the best standards of living in the world right?

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

Also, I dont argue that more people = better quality of life for some of the population, but that's looking at it from a macro scale, when you look more closely you'll see that the people benefitting from the additional population are not the poor, they are just providing cheap labour for the companies, and the people who use the resources are the ones getting the most benefit - hence why choice for them makes sense.

That chart fails to show death rates in comparison with birth rates...Afghanistan is hardly a dense place yet has an astounding birth rate. As with all things, it isn't as simple as A) more people = better for all people, or B) Less people = better for all people...there will always be haves and have not's. However, having MORE people does tend to show higher levels of specialization. For instance, in the US, we have some of the largest and most varied amount of professional athletes.

I think it is better to understand birthrates/death rates in tandem WITH the national economic context they are in. Healthy economic condition would see peoples standards of living increase as more people are added to the equation. There is a fundamental limit on this which is mainly technological in nature (traffic,food,pollution,ect). In other words, you have to compare apples to apples and realize that correlation isn't causation. Zimbabwe would not be cured if their population was halved, their condition is much more a result of political bungling then shear population size. Really, I think population isn't an issue yet on a macro level...micro though it makes all the difference. The difference of the quality of life of someone that has 5 kids and 2 is undeniable. But when the 7 kids are all older, that is 7 people to potentially contribute to the world with all their gifts and talents.

Also, what birth and death rates don't tell you about total population is immigration. Look at the US for that, birth rates here are below 2 on average (last stat I saw was 1.98), but US has always had strong immigration tendencies and our population still continues to grow. Not taking into account migration is to not paint a complete picture of the world.

As with all things the issue is easily addressed with simple, philosophical principles. Principle #1: Free agency. Principle #2: Limited government. Solution: Abortion, contraception, and all that other stuff should be legal - but should NOT be government subsidized or promoted. I don't have a problem with legal abortion. I have a huge problem with government encouraged, taxpayer funded abortions.

>> ^ghark:
Except that, while those problems exist (which they will for the forseeable future) having more children does make it worse - having more children while you are poor certainly doesn't make poverty disappear, that's wishful thinking. Have you looked at the birth rates in the coutries most affected by poverty, hunger, AIDS, malaria etc?
The groupthink speaking is actually the people that think that donating money for food is making any long term difference, it warms the cockles of their heart because they think they did something good, and it feeds a hungry child for a month, but in the meantime that childs mother had 5 more babies, like in the Congo for example.


Between 300-800 years ago, and further back of course; Europe was in a similar situation in the pre-industrial setting. The only way to succeed is to have children, because kids are useful, they can be used to *insert use here*(from dealing with crops/work/etc). The other flip side is, when you have a high child/infant mortality rate you need to replace them. Having children doesn't make it worse, it's the only way to survive. If you want to wipe out a population, then not having children is the way to go.

And actually, then we're getting back into the positive population checks theory that was in limited traction at the time too. Positive population checks = famine/death/war/etc keep the peons/serfs/peasants in line for those at the top. Sound familiar? Many parts of the world that you're talking about are strikingly similar to everywhere within the last 1000 years.

Now it's not bad, that people want to donate money. Actually, that's not really group thing. There's no MOI factors there. And again with your second paragraph, refer to my first two. As with the future, and current situation you look to the past to see how it unfolds.

The only economies of scale that continue to gain efficiency from having more than 6 billion customers are those where the cost of R&D dominates. Most products where the cost of R&D dominates are rather bourgeois, not what most people in poor countries need to stop being malnourished to the point of mental retardation.

The problem isn't present population - it's growth. For every increase in population, new infrastructure has to be built -- roads, schools, houses, markets, water treatment plants etc. When a country already cannot provide basic infrastructure for its current population, growth only makes their financial situation worse. When the average age is 15, there aren't enough adults around to teach or feed the noobs, and this further impoverishes the society. Vast tracts of virgin rainforest are razed to produce new farmland and new settlements -- this is a problem. Earth has enough people on it; population growth must stop.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That chart fails to show death rates in comparison with birth rates...Afghanistan is hardly a dense place yet has an astounding birth rate. As with all things, it isn't as simple as A) more people = better for all people, or B) Less people = better for all people...there will always be haves and have not's. However, having MORE people does tend to show higher levels of specialization. For instance, in the US, we have some of the largest and most varied amount of professional athletes.
I think it is better to understand birthrates/death rates in tandem WITH the national economic context they are in. Healthy economic condition would see peoples standards of living increase as more people are added to the equation. There is a fundamental limit on this which is mainly technological in nature (traffic,food,pollution,ect). In other words, you have to compare apples to apples and realize that correlation isn't causation. Zimbabwe would not be cured if their population was halved, their condition is much more a result of political bungling then shear population size. Really, I think population isn't an issue yet on a macro level...micro though it makes all the difference. The difference of the quality of life of someone that has 5 kids and 2 is undeniable. But when the 7 kids are all older, that is 7 people to potentially contribute to the world with all their gifts and talents.
Also, what birth and death rates don't tell you about total population is immigration. Look at the US for that, birth rates here are below 2 on average (last stat I saw was 1.98), but US has always had strong immigration tendencies and our population still continues to grow. Not taking into account migration is to not paint a complete picture of the world.


Aye all good points, i just wish there was more of an emphasis on birth control in these places that currently get food aid, not that i am against giving hungry children food, but just feeding a few of them doesn't solve the core problems (i'm not saying just birth control will either). The death rates per country (as you mentioned was missing) closely matches that of the birth rates given in my earlier link, the top 40 is pretty much all African nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate

I realise some work goes into education (in regards to use of condoms etc) in these countries with rampant poverty, but there is still much ignorance, in no small part because pretty much all the major religions oppose the use of condoms because of their view that chastity is "the only sure way of preventing the spread of HIV and Aids" (Pope Benedict). When ignorance of this magnitude is present in the world, bad things happen.
edit: just saw your name is Jesusfreak, hopefully you realise i dont mean to use the religious view on condoms as a personal attack.

>> ^rychan:
Christ, Democrats, get over it. Stop whining about slippery slopes. You can't even acknowledge that abortion is controversial? You can't realize that some people find it absolutely repugnant that their money is paying to abort babies?
Abortion is still legal (although quite rare). Abortion is not that expensive, but even if it were, so what? Access to cheap abortions is hardly an important issue to me. Passing this bill is 1000 times more important. This is exactly the right thing to compromise on.


What's next, introduce a bill that doesn't allow blood transfusion because Jehovah's Witnesses' find it "absolutely repugnant that their money is paying" for blood transfusions?

>> ^jwray:
Earth has enough people on it; population growth must stop.

I agree to some point and I see it happening. In all developed countries birth rate goes down and approaches or even goes below replacement values (e.g. negative growth in Italy, Japan for example). So once a country reaches a sufficient level of development, population growth stops and further growth is not necessary for improved prosperity, advances in automation and efficiency will make these countries richer.

Now if me manage to help the developing countries develop, they will also level off. Because developed countries just don't need a lot of children to support themselves later in life. This will happen over a period where their population still grows rapidly, though increasingly slower. UN projection estimate that the world population growth will flat-line around 9-12 billion people. So if the Earth can support this population, were fine for the future, a very bright future indeed. I'm convinced the Earth can support this number with increases in intensive farming and technology, so more food production per acre, and by changing our energy demand and energy sources. That is develop large scale fission or fusion processes to power our more efficient society.

What's next, introduce a bill that doesn't allow blood transfusion because Jehovah's Witnesses' find it "absolutely repugnant that their money is paying" for blood transfusions?


Oh, good example of a misguided slippery slope argument. Let me make another for you. What's next, introduce a bill that doesn't allow government workers to be paid on Saturday because it's the Jewish Shabbat?

Blood transfusions are medically vital. Abortions typically are not (in the 1 or 2% where they are, then only a whack-job is against them).

Also, abortion isn't just a religious issue. A secular person can be offended that federal money is terminating a second trimester fetus in a healthy mother. A religious person (e.g., many Catholic Democrats) can support the right for women to choose to end their pregnancies. About half of the country is against abortions for everyone. About 2% of the country against blood transfusions for themselves.

But anyway, to answer your question, I don't think that federal funding of a medically vital procedure which some fraction of members of some backwards cult don't want performed on themselves is equivalent to federal funding of medically unnecessary termination of viable fetuses in health mothers. So no, I don't expect your proposal will be in a follow-up bill.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Lann.

Fixed it up. MSNBC embedding is FUN!