Stardust, CC and I can comprehend your claim about a fetus being a live human at some (not yet defined) point of its brain development. What you don’t seem to get is that your arguments are in service to the larger movement of Pro Life advocates who will not rest until women are back under control of the govt’s dictations re: their reproductive function.
I think I understand why argument abortion continues to exist: The pro life position is based on religious belief. As such, it is impervious to reason or science.
The pro choice position is based one reason and science, in terms of what can and cannot be proved. Pro lifers claim life begins at conception, which is when I assume the soul is believed to arrive. Consequently a foetus is a human being from the moment of conception. This claim has not been proved.
My position ; a foetus becomes a human being when it is viable ex utero. My understanding is that this point is reached at the end of second trimester.I’m not a scientist, so can’t proof the six month claim. Might be earlier, or later. I accept the medical consensus, but not religious claims not based on evidence.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
I’m kinda stunned that there are still individuals possessing at least an average IQ who who deny or simply misunderstand climate change and its effects. Is this fear driven ignorance or bloody minded contrarianism? Are such people really as immune to reason and evidence as any blindly believing religionist?
I did a bit of looking on Youtube for something credible and rational. I found this clip with Adam Sobel on TED
"Adam H. Sobel (born 1967) is a Professor of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics and of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. He directs its Initiative on Extreme Weather and Climate. His research area is meteorology with a focus on atmospheric and climate dynamics, tropical meteorology, and extreme weather.
He obtained his PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1998 and won the American Geophysical Union Atmospheric Science Section Ascent Award in 2014.
Along with Tapio Schneider, he co-edited the review book The Global Circulation of the Atmosphere (2007).[1] He was also featured in the 2012 NOVA documentary “Inside the Megastorm”[2] about Hurricane Sandy, and later published the book Storm Surge: Hurricane Sandy, Our Changing Climate, and Extreme Weather of the Past and Future (2014).[3] Overall his publications have been cited close to 5,000 times, and he has an h-index of 38 as of November 5, 2015.[4]"
“The soul enters the foetus at 120 days (4 months), as established by the Hadith.” (Radd al-Muhtar ala Durr al-Mukhtar 1/202)
(Everybody’s got an opinion.)
I didn’t know that.,an improvement on conception.
However, I think the pragmatic Chinese take the biscuit. In traditional Chinese belief, the soul is not fixed in a child until 9 months after birth. Very sensible in a society with a high rate of infant mortality. They also taught that a child is a year old at birth. Go figure.
The Chinese have been around awhile, for that, if nothing else, they deserve a bit of respect, so who knows?
Very true. Incredible civilisation . Have been fascinated with China all of my adult life. Read some books. Actually going is a far greater experience. I recommend it to anyone capable of saying only positive things about the place while there.
yes its not the chinese fault we have climate change
@CC
Unborn babies are the most precious thingSo the Alabama bill was passed because people love precious unborn babies and you are therefore the hater.
What you think that melting tundra is going to be ready for plowing in a couple years – ever actually think that one through?Strawman, your words, learn how to make an actual argument. The Earth is complex with deserts, grasslands, forests, rocky mountains, ice caps, and many more sorts of geological and biological zones.
Over time as climate changes some zones will become more habitable and some will become less habitable.
Nothing convinces me that we truly heading for a complete catastrophic breakdown,You are so convinced the world is falling apart you mourn the birth of your own child. I pity that child being exposed to such pervasive apocalyptic hysteria.
@CC
Where’s those concern for precious life there Mr. GOP?You just make stuff up out of your own prejudices. Learn how to think.
So, the barren rock of Antarctica formerly buried under ice that has had nothing grow on it for millions of years is going to be the Utopian home for the future of humanity? Do I get that right?No, you got that wrong, so very apparently, you are not much a thinker either.
@pi rat
The biggest mystery in the universe is how two ‘good’ people can be working towards what they each think is the best world for everyone, yet the features of those two worlds are mutually exclusive in almost every way.I think empathy and rationality are largely separate functions of the human brain, interconnected, but also largely separated.
The average voter who wants to ban abortion has great empathy for human kind and wants to preserve human life, but lacks rationality and thus believes in ancient superstitions like a soul that enters a microscopic set of cells.
Stardust, Are you the Simon Cowell type judge on “America’s Got Thinkers”? I never watch that show.
@pi rat
That attitude is pretty cold and callous.If I were s0mehow advocating for change I would agree with you. Climate change is already here and there is not a whole lot you or I can do to stop it from getting worse.
Do you disagree? Fine, vote green and go off grid and tell me if things get measurably better after that. Unfortunately, you can’t stop it, and most especially indignant hateful preachy self righteous hysterical blogging will not stop it.
I bet that the millions of people who are killed, displaced, suffer starvation, etc., will disagree (well, maybe not the dead ones.)True, change brings a lot of suffering, but on the bright side, also a lot of new opportunities.
Stardust, of climate change deniers u r just the latest version. For decades, it has been, 1st it’s a hoax, no such thing. Later the denial became well maybe there is warming but it is natural, not human caused. Later the denial is maybe there is climate change, caused by humans, but there’s nothing anyone can do about it. Now maybe there is human caused climate change that we can’t do anything about but it’s fine cuz it’s actually a good thing.
If the deniers had just shut the F___ up decades ago, we probably would already have dealt with the bulk of the problem by now.
Would it be 1 for 1? 1 metre gained vs 1 metre lost? What do you think?I think that is a good, but very complicated question that we will in fact have answered for us because climate change is real and it is already happening and there are no mechanisms in place to stop it and there are no mechanisms forthcoming that are likely to do much to even slow it down for many decades to come.
New lands will be opened up as ice melts and the temperate zones move toward the poles. As weather patterns shift some arid regions will get wetter and in some areas desertification will increase. As temperatures rise and CO2 concentrations rise some vegetation will flourish in a warm high CO2 environment. Coastal land will be flooded with great loss to human property and all land life will be extinguished in those regions, but marine life will flourish in the new shallows.
Cities get built a lot faster than one might realize. For a great many Americans if you look at a picture of your community 100 years ago it was likely open fields or woodland. It seems pretty terrible to think of Manhattan or Florida under water but this is going to happen slowly on the human timescale, so people will in fact move inland over the centuries to come. At a few mm per year the buildings are going to go bit by bit, on the scale of a human lifetime.
Happily, the potential encroachment of the global ocean is finite, and only a small percentage of present land area. Once all the ice is melted that’s it, the encroachment stops, and the spread of life onto the newly uncovered lands will proceed apace.
But maybe, just maybe, we can stop this before all the ice melts. Maybe fusion will become practical eventually. Maybe some means of handling fission waste will be devised and we will build 10 times the number of reactors we now have. Maybe some solar technology that does not require vast amounts of toxic chemicals to produce and toxic material to dispose of will be developed. Maybe maybe maybe.
So, your question is a very good one, fundamentally. The answer is very complicated globally. Shrieking hysterically on a blog about it is a pathetic spectacle, CC and such ilk.
What you don’t seem to get is that your arguments are in service to the larger movement of Pro Life advocatesBullshit, don't tell me I am in the service of superstitious airheads who think a ghost jumps into a microscopic cell.
A cell does not have a brain, hopefully you can understand that.
Unless you advocate for abortion up to the day prior to a term babie’s birth then you must define when the non-human becomes human. Can you do that? Can you present a solid rational argument for your proposed demarcation?
“yes its not the chinese fault we have climate change”
Well, certainly not by themselves, but they are currently the world’s biggest polluter:
“China
China emits almost twice the amount of greenhouse gases as the US, which it surpassed in 2006 as the world’s top contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Today, the country accounts for approximately 23 percent of all global CO2 emissions. The United States government estimates project that, barring major reform, China will double its emissions by 2040, due to its heavy reliance on fossil fuels for steel production and electricity. Until recently, China was hesitant to establish targets for emissions, which continue to increase, although at a slower rate.”
Biggest Contributors To Global Warming In The World By Country
1
China
23.43 %
2
U.S.
14.69 %
3
India
5.70 %
4
Russian Federation
4.87 %
5
Brazil
4.17 %
6
Japan
3.61 %
7
Indonesia
2.31 %
8
Germany
2.23 %
9
Korea
1.75 %
10
Canada
1.57 %
11
Iran
1.57 %
Australia is certainly not innocent EG; Global warming, together with our use of coal are killing the great barrier, one of our most stunningly beautiful national treasures.
The article is worth reading.
'Great Barrier Reef
Stretches about 2,500 km (1,553 miles) along the eastern Queensland coast, covering an area the size of Great Britain, Switzerland and the Netherlands combined.
Made up of a network of 3,000 individual reef systems, islands, islets and sandbars
Home to more than 1,500 different species of fish, 400 species of coral, 4,000 species of mollusc and hundreds of bird species.
Considered one of the seven natural wonders of the world and the only living thing on earth visible from space.
A Unesco World Heritage site - Unesco is also considering listing it as endangered."
1800 to 2005? Who is responsible?
Stardust. Can you please provide citations?