Lots more information there. They say it's 22% of American pregnancies, which is surprisingly common. I'd be interested to know correlations between abortion frequency and areas that use abstinence-only sex ed; the whole idea with teaching kids to use contraception/properly/ is that (among other things) they'll be less likely to need abortions later on or to use them as contraception.
Disclosure: I've got a young daughter. We tested for serious developmental defects when my wife was pregnant and if any had turned up I'd have pushed hard for her to get an abortion, because I believe it's unfair to the kid to force them to live a life dependent on others when you've got the ability to save them the suffering.
Sure there was, it just wasn't formalized. It was more Thag trying different things and discarding the ideas that failed, or people learning not to eat toadstools the hard way.
Lynx development has slowed down a/lot/ in the last thirteen years. It was at 2.8.2 back in 1999 when I started using it full-time and 2.8.7 came out nearly two years ago, so lately it's averaging a (maintenance, not even a minor release!) release every other year.
"Trust" in scientists is a limited thing. The whole *point* is that you can explain why $THING happens, you can make predictions, and anyone who's reasonably educated and has the correct equipment can replicate or disprove your results, and the whole thing is peer-reviewed.
Except that isn't what he's talking about. Maybe you live in a different part of the States, but in the South it's quite common indeed for people to truly think that their invisible sky friend had a direct hand in whatever's going on in their life at any given moment, and that if their cousin is recovering from a serious injury that said friend had a hand in the recovery.
I suggest that it is, in fact,/you/ who are the ignorant one here.
You're making the erroneous assumption that more food production necessarily causes a higher standard of living. You need a lot of other things to get that standard of living up, such as a stable economic base, sanitation, equal law enforcement, no wars, &c.
I remember reading recently (but not where, alas; maybe a recent issue of National Geographic?) that a common attitude in sub-Saharan Africa is that war is an acceptable population control. The locals know that slash&burning rainforest to start farming in the thin soils and growing their population is unsustainable, but they see and accept that war will inevitably come to thin out the surplus population and the cycle will begin again.
It's an utterly bizarre headspace and I don't know how to reach these people that there is a better way (such as birth control).
Abstinence is a bad joke. People are people and don't want to give up sex, which is one reason why "celibate" priests have been raping kids for time immemorial.
The rhythm method doesn't work without a lot more education and good guesswork than is readily available. It's a lot easier and more effective to simply pass out condoms, and it doesn't cost much more to include the Pill.
Basically the Catholic church needs to pull its collective head out of its ass as it did for geocentrism and for evolution, and admit that artificial contraception works a whole lot better than "natural" methods they advocate.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're making the unfounded assumption that extremists like the Taliban can be reasoned with.
Does it matter?
Oh, I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay...
No doubt it's from one of Rupert Murdoch's properties.
Don't!
Your second link mentions the Guttmacher Institute, so let's go there directly instead of through a group with a political axe to grind:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.pdf
Lots more information there. They say it's 22% of American pregnancies, which is surprisingly common. I'd be interested to know correlations between abortion frequency and areas that use abstinence-only sex ed; the whole idea with teaching kids to use contraception /properly/ is that (among other things) they'll be less likely to need abortions later on or to use them as contraception.
Disclosure: I've got a young daughter. We tested for serious developmental defects when my wife was pregnant and if any had turned up I'd have pushed hard for her to get an abortion, because I believe it's unfair to the kid to force them to live a life dependent on others when you've got the ability to save them the suffering.
You tell me, fanboy.
Sure there was, it just wasn't formalized. It was more Thag trying different things and discarding the ideas that failed, or people learning not to eat toadstools the hard way.
The tentacles come from the Perl in the Firefox build system.
Some languages have tentacles here and there; Perl is /all/ tentacles.
They are, but one certainly still sees people whining about the version scheme itself.
Lynx development has slowed down a /lot/ in the last thirteen years. It was at 2.8.2 back in 1999 when I started using it full-time and 2.8.7 came out nearly two years ago, so lately it's averaging a (maintenance, not even a minor release!) release every other year.
Problem: they don't cite /their/ sources.
That's a bit odd because I sampled some of their other pages and some of them had cites.
Oh, I see, you're trying to score political points here.
Never mind, forget I said anything; this discussion won't go anywhere.
"Trust" in scientists is a limited thing. The whole *point* is that you can explain why $THING happens, you can make predictions, and anyone who's reasonably educated and has the correct equipment can replicate or disprove your results, and the whole thing is peer-reviewed.
It's quite the opposite of faith.
Except that isn't what he's talking about. Maybe you live in a different part of the States, but in the South it's quite common indeed for people to truly think that their invisible sky friend had a direct hand in whatever's going on in their life at any given moment, and that if their cousin is recovering from a serious injury that said friend had a hand in the recovery.
I suggest that it is, in fact, /you/ who are the ignorant one here.
Only because that's what we have to do to un-fuck the economy.
Bullshit. Post a fucking link yourself and don't be too lazy to back up your assertions.
OP was saying what it /should/ be, so you fail reading comprehension as well.
Which doesn't at all invalidate what I said, or any of the other things I said.
Wait, you mean that the libertarian paradise where there are plenty of guns and no government to tell you what to do doesn't work?
Unpossible!
You're making the erroneous assumption that more food production necessarily causes a higher standard of living. You need a lot of other things to get that standard of living up, such as a stable economic base, sanitation, equal law enforcement, no wars, &c.
I remember reading recently (but not where, alas; maybe a recent issue of National Geographic?) that a common attitude in sub-Saharan Africa is that war is an acceptable population control. The locals know that slash&burning rainforest to start farming in the thin soils and growing their population is unsustainable, but they see and accept that war will inevitably come to thin out the surplus population and the cycle will begin again.
It's an utterly bizarre headspace and I don't know how to reach these people that there is a better way (such as birth control).
Abstinence is a bad joke. People are people and don't want to give up sex, which is one reason why "celibate" priests have been raping kids for time immemorial.
The rhythm method doesn't work without a lot more education and good guesswork than is readily available. It's a lot easier and more effective to simply pass out condoms, and it doesn't cost much more to include the Pill.
Basically the Catholic church needs to pull its collective head out of its ass as it did for geocentrism and for evolution, and admit that artificial contraception works a whole lot better than "natural" methods they advocate.
S&M Ultimate doesn't come with a safeword.
In Nazi Germany, they kill people who use poor grammar.
"Mr. President, we must not allow... a hacker gap!"
Standard tactic for getting the government to spend money on a military-industrial complex project.