4. Pregnancy, labour and childbirth pose a far greater risk to a woman’s health than abortion. Banning abortion is not at all like banning smoking. It is more like banning quitting and forcing someone to be a pack-a-day smoker against their will.

Do I care if a woman wants to get an abortion….nope. (Seems odd though…how is it put…it’s my body, don’t tell me what to do with it. Makes me curious what business it is of the gov’t to be concerned with what others do with their body….cigarettes, trans-fats, salt, soda, etc).

Allow me to explain.

1. The consumption of cigarettes, trans-fats, salt, etc. is not illegal. The pro-choice movement is not about encouraging abortion, but about preventing it from being illegal.

2. Where smoking is illegal it is not because of concern about the health of the smoker, but concern about the health of others breathing second-hand smoke against their will.

3. The consumption of cigarettes, trans-fats, etc. imposes a financial burden on society. Sick people need medical care and often cannot work. The opposite is true of abortion. Bringing unwanted children into the world that need care and financial support for twenty-odd years imposes a much greater financial burden on society than allowing abortion.

I know, I know, there will always be waste, inefficiency, corruption and parasiting in any and every system. We can however fight to keep it at as low level as possible.

There are multiple, consilient lines of evidence that verify the existence of gravity, of atoms, of quantum & relativistic mechanics, of climate change.

But where are the multiple, consilient lines of evidence that show that “natural” rights exist?

Don’t get me wrong, as far as I can see, societies which define and defend human rights (person, privacy, property, speech, association, conscience, and others) are IMO far better than societies which don’t.

But they are nevertheless socio-political-legal constructs. Valuable & useful constructs, but constructs all the same.

Messier, no that wasn’t $4B each for each of the two candidates, that was an estimate of the total amount spent for all campaigns across the country. That’s the money raised and spent by 10 or so presidential candidates over the past two years, 30 Senate candidates and 435 House members. Plus all the outside money from private groups.

Okay. Thanks. Still one heck of a lot of money that could’ve been better used that was spent to, well, what good end?

Don’t have any answers to solve this situation but it does bug me.

“Markets do not like uncertainty and all of a sudden clarity was offered and we don’t have to wait for months for recounting of votes,” he said.

“There was a lot of uncertainty about the [U.S. Federal Reserve] and [Ben] Bernanke’s third term. Romney had indicated in his campaign he was going to sack Bernanke and whether he was serious about it or just against monetary easing was unclear,” Mr. Blaabjerg said. ”

I’d say that was pretty clear. But, some insist on not studying matters and ascertaining facts, but instead, show sour grapes and obey their betters in parroting information that is totally opposite of reality.

“As far as broader trading sentiment across Europe, investors initially cheered President Barack Obama’s victory in Tuesday’s election. ”
…
“Fitch Ratings said after the election that the U.S. must fix the fiscal issues in order to maintain the country’s AAA credit rating.

“Now the sideshow of the election has passed, politicians need to tackle the fiscal cliff. The markets won’t accept any more excuses—this needs to be top of the agenda,” said Oliver Wallin, investment director at Octopus Investments, in a note.

“Although the Republicans have suffered a bruising defeat, retaining control of the House of Representatives means that they still have a significant role to play. A grand bargain is required and Obama will need all his negotiating skills to push through his agenda,” he said. ”

Said article went on to European uncertainty, “After the close of the European markets Greece’s parliament is set to vote on a package of austerity measures seen as prerequisites to secure the next tranche of bailout money from international lenders. Failure to win approval could leave Greece on track to run out of money later this month. ”

The latter causing much uncertainty in Europe since the financial crisis in Greece first started. Which is news to the poster, as the crisis is rather new, it started in 2009…

The difference is that in one case the government would be teling you what you can do with your body, and in the other case it’s telling corporations what they can do to your body. Limiting, say, salt content of food doesn’t mean you can’t buy a can of salt and pour it down your throat. So you still have your freedom of action, but you don’t have a right to the existence of a corporation that makes a particular product.