If You Oppose Abortion, You Need to Stand Against Climate Change
The dire consequences for climate change are now predicted at 20 years out. Temperatures are rising faster than previously predicted. The Trump administration is undoing regulations that might have slowed it. What will be the consequences for the average citizen?
Sitting here in here in comfort, it is easy to conclude my air conditioner will just run a little more when the climate heats up. I suppose that is what the average person thinks.
A scientist in the link explains how the heating of our globe will affect us. He sarcastically points out that Trump's wall between the U.S. and Mexico might detour 10,000 people wanting to cross. But, it will do little to stop 10 million. If large areas of the world are flooded and food production falls, I may be able to lock several doors and keep desperate people from entering my apartment but walking down my street may not be safe.
Another author says we could reduce our impact if we humans across the globe act within 10 years.
If we don't act, overpopulation of the earth will be obvious to everyone, including politicians and religious leaders who want to remain in power. It is inevitable that abortion will be endorsed by religion and politics across the board.
There is something anti abortion operatives do not see. Yet, it is right before their eyes. If they become successful at giving government power to eliminate abortion they have given government the power to require them. When the majority goes all out for abortion you can say goodbye to anti abortion politics.
It's the end of the world as we know it. But if we just kill a few million babies every year, everything will be all right.
ReplyDeleteJust summing up your intellectual essay.
It is amazing that all the climate change cultists, pro-abortion train wrecks and homosexual marriage maniacs took all that time out from the important issues to spend time on Judge (now Supreme Court associate Justice) Brett Kavanaugh. They even vow to impeach him and Trump and who knows who else just as soon as they win the US House of Representatives and 67 seats in the US Senate. But even then, not all those Demo(n)crats would be on board to throw out Trump and Kavanaugh. If they did, why stop at just those 2 when the bloodlust of power would convince them to throw out Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Then go after Appellate Court Justices and Federal District Court Judges.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I was drinking from the same kool-aid you were drunk on when you posted today.
Matt "...just as soon as the win the US House ...and 67 seats in the U.S. Senate."
DeleteYou are saying that if the Democrats win the Senate and House they will change things. Is't that what is supposed to happen?
Don't act stupid.
DeleteRemember, all the world's problems can be solved by killing millions of babies.
Republicans act like adults. Democrats are crazed. With 67 votes, the would politicize the entire country. Impeaching and trying every Republican with a scintilla of power is their stated objective.
As Sen. Lindsey Graham stated, he voted for Sotomayor and Kagan, democrat appointees to the US Supreme Court. So did most Republicans. There was no civil war. There were no threats of endless investigations, no repulsive personal accusations with no foundation and no personal destruction. Democrats aren't happy until the "opposition" is personally destroyed.
DeleteBack to our topic, if you oppose abortion rights, you need to be mature enough to support effort to curb global warming.
DeleteMark me down as not "... mature enough to support effort[s] to curb global warming".
DeleteNow, for your biology test.
You can start with these facts. 1. We are uniquely defined by our DNA. That's why it is preferred over fingerprints or lip prints in court. 2. We are define human by our chromosomes and DNA. 3. One is alive if certain medical conditions such as brain waves and/or heart beat are present.
If a living {See 3 above.} human being {See 1 and 2 above} is present anywhere on the planet and is under the age of 6 months, should it be murdered by one or more people? What is the proper jail time for a person convicted of such a murder?
In case you wonder about a human being not yet born, they fit all 3 definitions above. Which one do you want to violate, assuming you want to violate any?
It's OK for you to live in a world of pretend where you pretend the presence of DNA establishes an agreed upon measure that a human being exists. It just does not appear anywhere in science.
DeleteEvade, distract, obfuscate ... anything to get around being accountable for the deaths of millions of babies every year in the USA.
DeleteThere is a difference between human DNA and all other DNA. The DNA inside the womb of a pregnant woman is different than her DNA. It is not 'short term transient' like food, someone who touched her, etc. It is there after conception and up until birth. Do you now understand why DNA is important in this discussion?
DeleteAll I asserted and proved is that separate human DNA exists. After that, I asserted and proved that the entity what that DNA is alive by all normal measures of "alive".
Therefore, (see how logical proofs work), a separate, living human being exists from the mother, while IN the mother's womb.
Your side ignores science. It shoves biology down the rathole where perpetual motion machines were thrown. You accuse Christians in believing in something that can't be proven while you happily dispatch proven, scientific facts of human life. Ding dong.
Perhaps I don't understand your basic math problem, i.e. politics >> science >> religious belief.
really? if human DNA doesn't make one human, I don't know what would. or are you sticking to your idiosyncratic view that a birth certificate, a mere slip of paper makes one human? if so, guess that we didn't have any humans around until birth certificates came along.
Delete…...it just not appear anywhere in science (referring to human DNA and humanness). Sorry, but I cannot understand how anyone in the 21st century could plausibly hold such a view. I don't know about Matt, but I am looking for a detailed explanation of Jon's definition of human "beingness".Exactly when and how does one become a human being? What criterion does Jon use to determine "human beingness"? How does he justify whatever definition of human beingness? Is a person with advanced dementia a human being? why or why not? Is a newborn a human being? a human person? Is there a substantive difference between a human person and a mere human being?
Delete"Sorry, but I cannot understand how anyone in the 21st century could plausible hold such a view."
DeleteYou are referring to my statement that science does not conclude one fertilized egg is a human being. When we use the word "science" we commonly are referring to a consensus among people who hold credentials as scientists. This consensus comes from publications in referred scientific journals, books and positions of the professional societies of scientists.
None of these sources has ever concluded that one fertilized egg is a human being. Thus, in the 21st century science does not consider it to be a human being.
If one asks an M.D. for the definition of the cessation of life, it usually points to brain waves and autonomic breathing. Even in the absence of self-regulating breathing, i.e. tied to a device, life is deemed present. Human DNA distinguishes one from an animal.
DeleteJon enjoys being obtuse and disingenuous since by all scientific definition a separate human being is present and growing in a mother's womb. The only thing not in its favor is the political ruling of a 9-member SCOTUS with less gray matter than 8 unborn babies. In other words, politics trumps science ... for now. Politics trumps religion for now as well.
Jon likes to use the "one fertilized egg" argument quite a bit. Since no abortions occur until about the 6th week post-fertilization, his argument is meaningless except in his head. He is arguing against the Catholic Church which rightly recognizes the presence of the conception of human life. Biology also recognizes this fact so Jon opposes both science and religion in favor of politics.
At six weeks gestation, the human being is budding arms and legs, pumping blood and a host of other functions. That is when the abortion industry starts to kick in, not at conception.
For some reason, these arguments remind me of coprolites, which can also have human DNA.
ReplyDeleteanon: what in hell is that supposed to mean? If by coprolites you are talking about fossilized dinosaur dung, then I am forced to conclude that you have gone way 'round the bend. If I am mistaken, then please enlighten me. or were you attempting a joke of some sort?
DeleteHa Ha Ha!!!! Good point and an excellent analogy!
DeleteCongratulations, you are the first and only person I know of that correlates pre-historic fossilized animal feces with a modern-day human being.
DeleteIt reminded me of you, fossilized thinking and $hit for brains.
Delete"...none of these sources has ever concluded that one fertilized egg is a human being". could have fooled me. seems to me, stupid as you seem to think that I am, that my life began with a fertilized egg. But put that aside: rather, let's unpack the assertion that science is a matter of "consensus". Gosh darn it, I thought that science was in the fact finding business, that is to say the search for what is really objectively real, in the search for truth about the world. It's no secret that we have had lots of scientific "consensuses" that have turned out to be utterly false (e.g. Ptolemaic-Aristotelean geocentric view of the universe). Moreover, many so called consensuses have turned out to be little more than ideologies dressed up in scientific garb. Consider, in this regard, the eugenics movement of the last century. Pro-abortionists like to say that prolife claims are nothing more than religious dogmas. That, of course, is not true. But what about pro-abortion dogma: is that anything more than "science" dressed up in political and social ideology?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete