Hatred saturated GOP absolutists - Fetal Heart Beat Laws

Politics and Social Issues
201

@PatrickD

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.
Yes, that was the situation in 1973. Over the years various rulings have replaced the trimester framework with the viability standard, with 20 weeks allowed as a proxy for viability.

So, right now a number of states have passed laws prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks, or about half way through a normal pregnancy.

 

 

 

 

 

202

@TimB

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.
Really? How? The US accounts for about 15%, so 85% is non-US. Do you really think the Chinese dictatorship is going to stop its rampant expansion fueled by fossil fuels?

How do you propose to get to work and school, keep your home warm or cool, make the products you buy, grow the food, and on and on without the energy sources we do in fact use?

Wind works, except the turbines are costly and the air is thin so there just is not all that much energy available to capture in the volume of air that passes by a turbine.

Solar is ok but they require toxic chemicals to produce, cost a lot of money and then there are those pesky clouds, rain, snow, and a thing we call night.

Fusion is the technology that has been 20 years away every year for the last 50 years.

Nuclear works but the waste is ultra poisonous and is presently stored on site with no long term solution yet found by anybody in the world despite a half century of research. Plus, nuclear reactors can provide material for nuclear bombs.

Hydro works but the major rivers have already been dammed, the reservoirs destroy land, and they hinder fish migration.

But, somehow, this all would be made ok if only some people would shut up. How idiotic.

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.
You obviously would not get far as a thinkers contestant with your inability to make distinctions between something that has both major problems and also some benefits, as opposed "actually a good thing".
203
Shrieking hysterically on a blog about it is a pathetic spectacle, CC and such ilk.
Love it - writing about physical facts and about the importance of not lying about physical reality - that is "Shrieking hysterically" according to the GOP's right wing types.

Of course this is the same poster who posits utterly ignorant stupid shit like: well sea level only goes up by millimeters, we can build around that, no biggie. Guess the poster doesn’t know about intensifying storm systems and extreme winds or storm surges - and how that impacts coastal cities.

The same poster posits, “CO2 concentrations rise some vegetation will flourish …, but marine life will flourish in the new shallows.” Apparently poster is ignorant of ocean acidification and what it’s already doing to our oceanic food web, and its implications for the not so distant future and beyond.

The poster also seems to be totally clueless regarding evolutionary processes and the time spans involved in recovering from global catastrophic events. Oh but poster seems to believe we can ignore trends since only a hysterical would believe that 2+2+2=6.

“cities get built a lot faster” But the silly ass, never thinks about how much construction depends on benign weather conditions. Or how different things are today from a century ago.

Oh hell for that matter the poster seems to think cities get built out of magic or something. I say that because he imagines the massive building we’ve seen in the past century is no big deal - has nothing to do with the cornucopia of resources we had at hand - that we’ve been consuming and burning up or landfilling fast just as we can.

Seems the poster also possesses no appreciation for interdependent complex natural systems - instead simply seeing the facades and being convinced in humanity’s entitlement. It would be hysterical to imagine those complex natural systems are composed of complex networks and balances with breaking points that we are pushing them towards.

 

Then to make himself feel better the poster’s got to label his ‘enemies’ hysterical and all sorts of nasty thing - intent on dehumanizing the person and dismissing the message - it’s been the Right Wing tactic for quite some time now - ridicule, demean, misrepresent all your opponents, don’t give one inch - even if it means drifting into a mindscape devoid of the guard rails of physical reality and respect for honesty or even ethical scruples when it come to dealing with their opponents.

 

Oh yeah, I’m also hysterical because I’m the one ready and willing to have a constructive fact based debate regarding climate science and what we are doing to our planet with any climate science contrarian willing to stand up. (Only a truly crazy person would hold out hope for an intelligent conversation with the climate science disbelievers. So call me a dreamer.)

Yet, beyond the opening volley of transparent misrepresentations that are easily explainable, I get slammed doors and silence. Guess it’s all you can muster name calling and running home to the echo-chamber for refortification - since you don’t have genuine facts or logic on your side. https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/p/hall-of-shame.html

204
How do you propose to get to work and school, keep your home warm or cool, make the products you buy, grow the food, and on and on without the energy sources we do in fact use?
What the fuk does any of that have to do with honesty absorbing the indisputable science???????

Yes, there are uncertainties, yes there will be unanticipated surprises (though so far, for the most part in the ‘bad news’ category) - still when you line up the known certainties with the remaining uncertainties, the uncertainties add up to chump change - Climate Science certainties, GHG impacts on our insulating atmosphere, human burning of fossil fuels, cement making, etc, Our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine, our planet’s past history - all point towards profound unprecedented catastrophe on the horizon.

And the only arguments to counter all the physical evidence pointing towards a profound breakdown in Earth’s biosphere thanks to our spendthrift ways - are built around rhetorical games of transparent lies, followed by bullying and name calling. But, never a sober assessment of the scientific and observational evidence at hand.

====================================================

I don’t pretend to know about China, so I googled: “China takes global warming seriously.”

It was really rather eye opening - they appear to be more respectful of scientific realities than our Grand Old Party in the US. Not that I would expect the poster to take that into account and change his song.

205

@CC

according to the GOP’s right wing types.
What does that have to do with me?
Guess the poster doesn’t know about intensifying storm systems and extreme winds or storm surges – and how that impacts coastal cities.
Coastal cities already get hit by storms and surges that do damage, pushing development back. As ocean levels slow rise over the decades the storms will push in progressively farther.

How does that somehow mean the world is falling apart all around your children and will remain in a horrible state for millennia? There is your shrieking hysteria.

But the silly ass, never thinks about how much construction depends on benign weather conditions.
You apparently are not familiar with the construction industry and how it persists in harsh weather.
I say that because he imagines the massive building we’ve seen in the past century is no big deal – has nothing to do with the cornucopia of resources we had at hand – that we’ve been consuming and burning up or landfilling fast just as we can.
So now we are going to run out of building materials? More hysteria.

Buildings are made out of things like stone, wood, and iron. We have a lot of stone left, honest, I am not making this up, really, maybe you could find some, give it a go, eh? Wood is an agricultural product, homes are not built from old growth wood anymore, it comes from harvesting in patches and re-planting. Iron is a very abundant metal. You don’t know much about how things are made, do you?

intent on dehumanizing the person and dismissing the message
Internet psychoanalysis is so dumb. You know nothing about my intent.
ridicule, demean, misrepresent all your opponents, don’t give one inch – even if it means drifting into a mindscape devoid of the guard rails of physical reality and respect for honesty or even ethical scruples when it come to dealing with their opponents.
More CC shrieking hysteria.
So call me a dreamer.
More like a nightmare-er.
running home to the echo-chamber for refortification
You have a wild imagination. You have constructed an elaborate set of fantasies in your mind about me.
206

@CC

What the fuk does any of that have to do with honesty absorbing the indisputable science???????
Try reading and thinking before you go half wacko over one question. The assertion had been that absent climate deniers solutions would already have been found. Wrong. Solutions have not been found because fossil fuels are cheap and alternatives are expensive and technology takes a long time to develop and there are fundamental limits in energy production that are very technically difficult to overcome.
Climate Science certainties, GHG impacts on our insulating atmosphere, human burning of fossil fuels, cement making, etc, Our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine, our planet’s past history –
Ok
all point towards profound unprecedented catastrophe on the horizon.
There is your hysteria. No, the facts cited point to significant changes to come gradually on a time scale of a century or two.

How many buildings standing today are more than 100 years old? How long do buildings typically last before they wear out or are damaged and then torn down?

What percentage of buildings in the US are at risk of coastal flooding?

What can people do in just 50 years, or less? Consider Japan and Germany after WWII. Whole cities burned to the ground, millions killed, food production cut to a fraction. In Japan we even nuked 2 cities, yet today they are completely rebuilt, and far more than they were at the time.

You are just another doomsday crackpot, except you have a real problem to yell your hysterical nonsense about, because the climate really is changing and coastal land and buildings really will be lost.

207

Oh Stardust, great and mighty judge of who can think properly. Think! Had we moved up our timetable for establishing alternative energies, instead of having them blocked every which way but loose, by fossil fuel industry exploiters, how much further would the solar and wind energy fields have advanced. As it is wind produces 7% of our power, and is expected to produce over 1/3 by 2050. Solar power is just now achieving grid parity in most of the country. That means it can be competitive with non-renewable sources without subsidies. Since the capacity of solar panels to produce energy continues to improve every year, we will finally, now, and in the ensuing years be at the point where it will become economically stupid to pay more for fossil fuel energy than for solar power.

Oh great and mighty judge of thinkers, did u not think about the trillions of dollars worth of damages that the fossil fuel industry are subsidized for, by our simply not holding them accountable, ever, for their damage to land, water and atmosphere? They have gotten and still get to do this for free at the expense of every human on earth. It is hardly worth mentioning that the US subsidizes the oil industry another 81 Billion $ a year by using our military to protect oil assets.

A small fraction of that subsidy to the fossil fuel industry could have run up the timeline for wind and solar energy. But instead the Koch brothers and others have successfully gotten great and mighty judges of thinkers to join them in holding back a saner future

Instead we TODAY have a POTUS who wants to further subsidize the dying industry of coal production. A POTUS wh0 assures us that Wind Turbine noise may very well cause cancer, while also producing graveyards full of dead birds.

Instead, fossil fuel producers continue to profit extraordinarily while still not having to pay for the damage they are causing.

So instead of being maybe 30 years from needing VERY little fossil fuel energy at all, we are probably more like 50 yrs away. Longer if the climate change advocates continue to hold sway.

 

208

As far as ur service to Pro-Lifers, u are establishing that a fetus is, at some point, in the womb, a live human being with all the rights of a separate live human being (even tho it is still inside a special kind of human being, a pregnant woman). This stance serves the Pro-Lifers because it gives an inroad to claim, as u do, that the fetus human’s right to life pre-empts the pregnant woman’s control of her own body. In effect, the govt controls her body. Furthermore, the Pro Lifers will not hesitate to degrade ur definition of when the fetus becomes human. Since ur demarcation is the brain developed (to some still undefined level) , if that were accepted, the Pro Lifers would no doubt argue that the 1st detection of a synapse firing is the start of human life.

You are an advocate in the service of the Pro Lifers, whether you mean to be or not. The end result is the control of women. You probably mean well, as u wish to protect the fetuses with, a partially functioning brain. That seems truly admirable on the face of it. But screwing over women of child bearing age, keeping them down socio-economically, when they are still behind re: equality of privileges compared to men, that is not admirable.

 

209
@CC

according to the GOP’s right wing types.
What does that have to do with me?


If you’re parroting their song, you’re one of them in my eyes. :wink:

I don’t pretend to know anything about anyone here, except for what they write, and its what they write that I respond to.

210
There is your hysteria. No, the facts cited point to significant changes to come gradually on a time scale of a century or two.
Beautiful, then you tell me about the miracle post WWII recovery, as if that global situation relates to today's global situation, though I imagine you might imagine nothing has changed. Is that it? You thump your chest trying to convince yourself I know nothing. How much to you know about Earth's history.

A century moves pretty fast and we’ve already witnessed some significant changes in this past half century, all pointing to a rough ride ahead. Does the California situation worry you at all? Think that could have massive implications far outside of the state. Are you asking what situation? How familiar are you with the interconnections and infrastructure required to keep today’s global economy running?

I keep trying to figure out how people can be so glib and so belligerently dismissive of our global weather engine which determines the type of biosphere that exists on Earth - and that we are energizing a bit more every day?

How about Earth’s cryosphere which is literally starting to rot around all its edges (Think permeating heat - like the next time you’re watching the ice cubes slowly melt in your empty cocktail glass.) right before our eyes and instruments.

Do you see a melting Arctic Ice Cap as a financial gold rush of opportunities, never thinking of the cascading consequences of Atlantic and Pacific waters and currents directly mingling with each other? No concerns that our Arctic Ice Cap is evolving from a huge solar reflector into a huge solar heat collector straight into our oceans. Doesn’t worry you in the least, only a hysteric would worry about ocean currents and our oceanic food web and ocean acidification and all that other crazy spooky shit.

You write: "The facts cited point to ..."

Pray tell, what fact would these be? Please do share some links to show us where you get your facts come from and what those facts actually are.


 

211

It’s our physical Earth that holds all the sway in this grand geophysical experiment.

212

@TimB

Think! Had we moved up our timetable for establishing alternative energies, instead of having them blocked every which way but loose, by fossil fuel industry exploiters, how much further would the solar and wind energy fields have advanced.
Conspiracy theory nonsense. Wind power has been around for centuries. There are no great advances to be made. You build a turbine and the wind makes it go round and round. The turbines are costly machines relative to the amount of energy they produce because air is thin and carries little harvestable energy in the volume of air that passes a turbine.

Fossil fuels are cheap because they are vast stores of solar energy stored as chemical potential energy. All we have to do is dig it out and burn it, which is a lot cheaper than building a gazillion wind turbines.

We are building more turbines now because the cost of fossil fuel is going up making wind economically viable, not because we are overcoming a great oil company conspiracy.

213

@TimB

As far as ur service to Pro-Lifers, u are establishing that a fetus is, at some point, in the womb, a live human being with all the rights of a separate live human being (even tho it is still inside a special kind of human being, a pregnant woman). This stance serves the Pro-Lifers because it gives an inroad to claim, as u do, that the fetus human’s right to life pre-empts the pregnant woman’s control of her own body.
What a convoluted mess of pretzel logic.

I am not giving anybody any inroads, how absurd. What, if only I had kept my mouth shut they never would have thought of this?

Of course the right to life of a child pre-empts the right to bodily control of the parent. Parenthood can be very restrictive and dictates that the parent go places and do things they very much might not want to do but now must, lest they be guilty of criminal homicide by neglect.

In effect, the govt controls her body.
The government is empowered by the consent of the governed to defend the defenseless. Women are not gods who can kill their babies by divine command theory.
Since ur demarcation is the brain developed (to some still undefined level) , if that were accepted, the Pro Lifers would no doubt argue that the 1st detection of a synapse firing is the start of human life.
They can argue whatever they wish, as is their right as American citizens.

My proposed criteria is that human life begins when fetal brain activity reaches a level analogous with a minimally live born human being.

You are an advocate in the service of the Pro Lifers, whether you mean to be or not.
They don't need me to come up with their ghost story about a soul in the test tube.
The end result is the control of women.
A baby killer woman needs to be controlled.
But screwing over women of child bearing age, keeping them down socio-economically, when they are still behind re: equality of privileges compared to men, that is not admirable.
So killing babies is justified as a means to escape socio-economic status and gain privileges? Learn How To Think.
214

@CC

If you’re parroting their song, you’re one of them in my eyes
Because you are blind.
215

Not sure there has ever been a large covert conspiracy of oil producers. However, I think there always has been the collusion one can expect from vested interests. That also applies to the car industry. The effects seem to be the same is as they would be with a conspiracy.

Examples; oil pricing here in Oz.in a 10 day cycle, the cost of unleaded petrol went from 41.60 to $1.23 a litre. The current cycle reached $1.60 a litre, yesterday, $1.41. Prices are always the same or very close at all petrol stations. Is that collusion or competition?

Cars: The internal combustion engine is inefficient, with a four stroke motor being about 43% efficient. Steam is at least as efficient, and can reach 60%. Today’s steam cars require a boiler a fraction of the size of early steam cars, such as “The Stanley Steamer”.Steam is safe ,clean way to produce energy, depending on what is used to heat the boiler. Its emission is water. Wouldn’t be surprised to see steam driven cars become common on the market in the next few years. No expensive batteries.

Renewable energy has become profitable because the world is running out of oil. If oil were still abundant and cheap, there would be no fracking. The concept of fracking has been around since the American Civil. The current method has been around since 1949. Fracking on the current scale did not begin until the late 1990’s

216

@PatrickD

Steam is safe ,clean way to produce energy, depending on what is used to heat the boiler. Its emission is water. Wouldn’t be surprised to see steam driven cars become common on the market in the next few years. No expensive batteries.
Well, water is emitted, but so are the products of combustion, although, it is generally easier to ensure complete and less polluting combustion in a boiler burner than in a combustion chamber of a reciprocating engine.

I don’t know that the warm up time will be solved, and then there is the wasted heat of cooling down, and I am not so keen on parking a steam car in my garage, plus we still need a chemical fuel to burn.

For myself, I love my ebike. It consumes about 2kwh per day for me, so less than 20 cents. It has zero local emissions, although there are still emissions at the coal fired plants, but not the wind, solar, and nuclear plants.

$1.60 to $1.23 a litre. The current cycle reached $1.60 a litre, yesterday, $1.41. Prices are always the same or very close at all petrol stations. Is that collusion or competition?
Mostly competition at the retail level, but corporations sometimes are guilty of price fixing at the wholesale level. Taxes apply across the board. Most brands take their gasoline from a common distribution system, then possibly mix in very small amounts of additives for brand differentiation, but they get the gas essentially from the same pipe.

 

217

It is not a conspiracy theory that the fossil fuel industries and their owners have lobbied against alternative fuels for decades. It is common knowledge, Stardust. Your talking point about wind turbines being inefficient and not cost effective, is belied by your own subsequent statement that wind turbines are economically viable. Also there have been advances in the efficiencies of wind turbines, developed in the past 30 years, that u ignore. If investment in that had been done earlier, the advances would probably have come earlier. How is it that the great and mighty judge of thinkery, couldn’t think that out?

You also ignore the horrendous cost of damages that the oil industry has done and will probably NEVER have to pay for. Figure those trillions into the cost and let’s see whether renewable energies don’t kick ass, hands down.

 

On the pro choice debate, yes you are an advocate for the Pro Lifers, the people who want women of child bearing age to have their pregnant bodies monitored and to be punished for “baby murder” if they make a choice about their own body, if it involves aborting a fetus that you declare is a live human baby. As long as it’s inside a pregnant woman, it is a fetus, not a baby. The laws of the land already protect these fetuses from late term abortion. But that is not enuf control over the women for you. You want the time that they have to make a choice, to be more limited, and for them to otherwise be convicted of murder. You are an advocate for those who would push the control and potential punishment of the woman back to the moment of conception.

218

@TimB

Your talking point about wind turbines being inefficient and not cost effective, is belied by your own subsequent statement that wind turbines are economically viable.
Learn the difference between the past, present, and future tenses. Basic reading skills.

Turbines were not cost effective when fossil fuels were cheaper. Turbines are becoming cost effective as fossil fuels get more expensive.

Also there have been advances in the efficiencies of wind turbines, developed in the past 30 years, that u ignore.
A little. Some improvement to blade shape, moderately improvements in generator efficiency. But the problem is fundamental to the physics of the kinetic energy content of air.

Wind turbines are conventional electromechanical machines. There is nothing like Moore’s Law or anything like the exponential growth of computer technology on the horizon for wind.

As long as it’s inside a pregnant woman, it is a fetus, not a baby
Really? So one day before a normal full term birth it is OK to just rip the fetus apart and throw it in the trash?
You are an advocate for those who would push the control and potential punishment of the woman back to the moment of conception.
Really? Is there a brain at conception?

 

I am tempted by your last two absurdities to ask if you have a brain yet, but of course you must in order to be writing these messages, yet it is clearly a brain suffering from a case of badly disjointed and scattered reasoning.

219

Oh great and mighty judge of thinkery, I said “As long as it’s inside a pregnant woman, it is a fetus, not a baby.” Followed by the VERY NEXT SENTENCE: “The laws of the land already protect these fetuses from late term abortion.”

Your comeback was “Really? So one day before a normal full term birth it is OK to just rip the fetus apart and throw it in the trash?”

So I ask, who here has the reading comprehension problem.

Re: Wind turbines economic viability. You at least admit the reality that there has been some advancement in the efficiency of wind technology. You also admit that NOW it is competitive or maybe cheaper than fossil fuels. So MAJOR advances in technology and innovation are not necessary. As wind energy becomes more and more prevalent, there will no doubt be more minor advances and perhaps even major innovations. Certainly, with more mass production, costs tend to go down. AND STILL YOU FAIL to figure in the titanic hidden subsidies for fossil fuels of ignoring the cost of damages by the industry. If the fossil fuel had to pay for the actual damages to the environment that they have done and continue to do, they would be a tertiary source of energy production , by now.

220

You can be avidly against the idea that a freshly fertilized human egg is a live human baby, whose destruction should be accompanied by punishment of its host. But you still hold open the door for those who sincerely believe their demarcation for when human life begins. Your advocacy is for a certain level of brain development. But otherwise you have the same advocacy - punish the baby murders. You hold open the door to those who think the most minimal amount of brain development indicates a live human baby. And the door is then still open for those who think it is not low level brain activity, but a heartbeat that indicates a live human baby who would be a murder victim by abortion. You don’t even need to hold the door open for those folks, they already have bills in LOTS of states, to punish women for that.

And with our current SCOTUS, it is not a zero possibility that they will decide that a zygote inside of a human woman is a live human being.