Your failure of imagination, in considering how your stance can ultimately affect the actualization of control over women’s own reproduction, is the “thinking” that is missing.
Why protect the fetus if it is not a human life, or baby? You sentences make no sense either individually or in combination, which is why I did not bother to respond to them all.
ou also admit that NOW it is competitive or maybe cheaper than fossil fuels. So MAJOR advances in technology and innovation are not necessary.Marginally, because of increased fossil fuel costs, not some terrible hampering of technological advancement by conspiracy.
AND STILL YOU FAIL to figure in the titanic hidden subsidies for fossil fuelsThose costs are, as you say, hidden. And you can't put a wind turbine on your car.
We don’t go to war for coal or gas, but for oil, for which we have no economical alternative.
But you still hold open the door for those who sincerely believe their demarcation for when human life begins.I am not going to join CC and his hateful ilk, no.
punish the baby murders.Don't you realize that is already the law in the US? Most states ban abortion after viability and have fetal homicide laws.
You don’t even need to hold the door open for those folks,Exactly
Ok mostly u r just repeating your points. A new stupid point u made however was “you can’t put a wind turbine on your car.” U can run cars on electricity or hydrogen, both of which can be produced using wind power.
A prime reason that we haven’t had more substantial economic alternatives to oil, is that we have chosen not to develop alternatives and to make those alternatives economical, except VERY gradually so. It is not a conspiracy theory to say that the fossil fuel industry has invested mightily and successfully in lobbying the govt for many decades. This is just straightforward history. It happened. It is still happening.
Oh, re: your not understanding my sentences. I think I see the problem. You seem to have a one track thinking mind. You are pretty good at that one track and you thus feel that you are a great and mighty thinker. But your thinking skills are really pretty linear. When it comes to imagination, vision, looking at the big picture, deductive reasoning… all important auxiliary thinking skills, – not so great and mighty.
Let’s bring it back to basics:
Star, can you explain why a woman and her existing family is less important, I mean sacred, that an unborn fetus?
What if that unborn fetus endangers the lives of the living?
Why can’t you abide a woman having The Right to Self Defense and self determination?
Why do you hate living woman and children so much?
Why aren’t you upset that we sell more weapons of mass destruction to the world than anyone else.
Where’s your concern for the innocent woman and children victims of our Made In America weapons of mass destruction?
How in fuk’s name can you separate those two???
What makes the legal homicide of an unborn fetus the worst crime of all?
"A new stupid point u made however was “you can’t put a wind turbine on your car.” U can run cars on electricity or hydrogen, both of which can be produced using wind power."Both of which were much more expensive and impractical than petroleum until gas hit $4.00/gal in the US, or $1.50/L in Oz. Not because of some terrible conspiracy to hinder development, just that fact it is a lot easier to pump fuel out of the ground.
Scientists and engineers have been working to improve battery technology for over a century. It is just a very difficult problem to solve, as is handling hydrogen.
Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. You don’t save fossil fuels by burning hydrogen. In principle we could use wind generated electricity to make hydrogen from water to fuel cars, but that turns out to be way more expensive than petroleum too, not because of some conspiracy by the military industrial complex, just because fossil fuels are just that, fuels, almost ready made, all we have to do is dig them up or pump them out, process them a little, and get a lot of energy, so that has made fossil fuels by far the cheapest source of energy for the last century.
So, yeah, you can’t economically put a windmill on a car, literally or figuratively.
It is not a conspiracy theory to say that the fossil fuel industry has invested mightily and successfully in lobbying the govt for many decades.Thomas Edison worked on improving batteries. There is a huge financial incentive to build better batteries. What makes you think lack of government funding at the hands of the fossil fuel industry is somehow holding back battery development?
When it comes to imagination, vision, looking at the big picture, deductive reasoning… all important auxiliary thinking skills, — not so great and mighty.It is pretty easy to see that the US is only 15% of a problem that will manifest itself slowly on a timescale of centuries to come
Alternative energy development is good and necessary for a lot of reasons, including mitigating global warming, energy independence, reducing other poisonous emissions, and the simple fact that the oil is not going to last all that much longer before we have simply pumped out all that is in the ground.
Since we in the US are such a small part of a long term problem it makes no sense for us to unilaterally kneecap ourselves economically in a panic reaction to something we have little global control over and isn’t going to be a big problem for a long time to come.
@CC
Star, can you explain why a woman and her existing family is less important, I mean sacred, that an unborn fetus?I never said that, in fact I have said otherwise many times, and I have repeatedly corrected this false attribution, so, stupid question.
What if that unborn fetus endangers the lives of the living?Even those superstitious fruitcakes with the soul in the cell law in Alabama have a maternal self defense exception. Everybody agrees with a maternal self defense exception. Self defense is a well established principle. Asked and answered previously.
Why can’t you abide a woman having The Right to Self Defense and self determination?Your right to self determine where to wave your fist around ends at the tip of my nose. Parents do not have the right to kill their children in order to exercise their right to self determination because that violates the right to life of the child. Learn How To Think.
Why do you hate living woman and children so much?Why are you such a living idiot?
Why aren’t you upset that we sell more weapons of mass destruction to the world than anyone else.We don't sell biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. You don't even know what the terms mean.
Where’s your concern for the innocent woman and children victims of our Made In America weapons of mass destruction?Since we don't sell WMD your question is, well, stupid.
How in fuk’s name can you separate those two???Because I learned how to think, you have not, so rational distinctions confuse, befuddle, and frustrate you into cursing and asking stupid questions and making inane assertions.
What makes the legal homicide of an unborn fetus the worst crime of all?Another stupid question, since there are many other crimes on the books that carry a more severe penalty, in many states, including death. Even the religious airheads in Alabama stopped at 99 years for doctors, as opposed to the death penalty, which they carry out several times per year for other cases.
Stardust. No citations. Youre a Poe
“Everybody agrees with a maternal self defense exception.”
Not Catholics. Their position is that life of the foetus is more important than the life of the mother. Neither rape nor incest are excepted either. My very devout Catholic mother told me when I was a teenager that she refused to go to a Catholic hospital to give birth for that reason.
“Why aren’t you upset that we sell more weapons of mass destruction to the world than anyone else.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that’s a straw man fallacy. We’re discussing abortion, I blink, and it’s weapons
There is also a problem with the wording of the question. It’s ‘loaded’, with the ‘correct’ answer implied in the question. IE that the person being questioned SHOULD be upset, which has not been established.
Am I upset about what the US does? In principle, couldn’t care less. In practice, yes, sometimes, because much of what US does effects my country. But for no other reason.
I do not have the arrogance to presume to tell another adult about what he/she should care about or by what he/she should be upset.
“What makes the legal homicide of an unborn fetus the worst crime of all?”
A foetus is not a human being until it viable ex utero. To kill one before then is not homicide, by definition. IE ‘homicide’ refers to the killing of a person. Calling a foetus a human being before that time is a religious belief which is not evidence based.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
@Stardust ‘a poe’? He/she’s s fracking hopeless isn’t he/she. I pretty much tend to ignore him/her
@PatrickD
Neither rape nor incest are excepted eitherWhy should they be? Punishing the child for the sins of the father is more ancient stupidity.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that’s a straw man fallacy. We’re discussing abortion, I blink, and it’s weaponsYou can thank CC for that. Yes, you blinked, and I don't blame you, that is about as much as his posts warrant, but, CC is the one who brought up WMD when he doesn't even know what the term means. You can wade back through his posts to verify, if you have the stomach for it, if not, like I said, I don't blame you.
We’re talking justified killing aren’t we boys?
Right to self-defense, right to protect oneself and one’s family, right to self determination.
Why doesn’t that apply to woman?
The fuk WMD are a straw man - it’s a mirror to your hubristic blindness!
How many innocent children and innocent woman, not to mention innocent men, do USA made WMD destroy?
Oh, yeah please help clarify for me what does Weapon of Mass Destruction mean, it is possible I don’t get the fine points.
What child? It’s a fetus! There is a difference.
@CC
Oh, yeah please help clarify for me what does Weapon of Mass Destruction meanRemember Iraq, the lies told to hoodwink the world into supporting the invasion? Saddam had WMD, the administration told us.
Well, we invaded, but no WMD, the administration lied. Saddam had rockets, bombs, jet aircraft, machine guns, mines, tanks, rifles, and torture chambers, but no WMD.
A bullet rarely kills more than 1 person. A bomb can kill multiple people, but even the largest conventional bomb affects a fairly small area for a short time and can be fairly accurately aimed against specific targets.
Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are not like that. They spread out over large areas, have long lasting effect, and are largely indiscriminate and somewhat unaimed.
The US does not sell WMD, and so far no terrorist organization has been able to deploy substantial amounts, although there have been a few subway gas attacks, but fortunately, gas is very difficult for a non-state actor to deploy in large quantity.
If/when a terrorist gets an effective biological agent or a nuclear bomb we are going to have a much bigger problem than a couple buildings going down.
@CC
What child? It’s a fetus! There is a difference.Then no rape or incest exception is rational.
If the fetus is not a human being it can be electively disposed of, so an exception makes no sense.
If the fetus is a human being then he/she has a right to life that supersedes all other rights except somebody else’s right to life, so a rape or incest exception makes no sense.
Either way, the rape-incest exception is incoherent babble nonsense.
No rational person seeks to punish the child for the crimes of the father, so the rape-incest exception is one of the dumbest ideas out there.
Yet you think it is rational to punish the mother for the sins of the rapist/incestuous father by controlling her personal choice over her own body and by jailing her or perhaps even putting her to death.
We currently have 30 of our states involved in the process of making or having made highly restrictive anti abortion bills. They have orchestrated this, precisely in order to get a bill/s to the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS takes the case, it may well overturn Roe v. Wade. Lots of punishment can then ensue.
Yet you think it is rational to punish the mother for the sins of the rapist/incestuous father by controlling her personal choice over her own bodyHow many brains do you have in your body? What is the maximum number of brains per person? What is the minimum number of brains per person?
Can you count to 1?
Is the number 1 an excessively difficult concept for you?
Do you have the mental capacity to differentiate between 0 versus 1 versus 2?
No woman can rationally claim a second brain is a part of her body. She has no right to electively kill somebody elses functioning brain because she was attacked by a 3rd person. She can defend herself against that 3rd person. That 3rd person is to blame for her suffering, not the human being she seeks to kill.
What part of this don’t you get?
Stardusty
What right do you say she has no right??
CC: What if that unborn fetus endangers the lives of the living?
Star: Even those superstitious fruitcakes with the soul in the cell law in Alabama have a maternal self defense exception. Everybody agrees with a maternal self defense exception. Self defense is a well established principle. Asked and answered previously.
==============================
CC responds: Star please provide a quote from your law.
>>> WOMEN WHO MISCARRY COULD BE CRIMINALLY INVESTIGATED UNDER GEORGIA’S NEW ABORTION LAW
If you think that the idea of police investigating miscarriages seems outlandish, you may be surprised to learn it already happens.
BY JENNIFER WRIGHT | MAY 15, 2019
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a27454956/what-does-georgias-abortion-law-mean-women-who-miscarry/
———
>>> What Do New State Abortion Laws Really Mean for Women?
The so-called fetal "heartbeat" laws ban abortion before many women even know they're pregnant.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/health/state-abortion-laws.html
CC: Why aren’t you upset that we sell more weapons of mass destruction to the world than anyone else.
Star: We don’t sell biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. You don’t even know what the terms mean.
==============================
CC responds: Love how easy it is to compartmentalize.
Self-certain and absolute. If it’s the other guys using it, it’s WMD, if it’s us, free pass.
fyi >>> “5 Weapons of Mass Destruction the U.S. Military Uses Every Day”
Michael Peck | April 29, 2013,
When most of us think of weapons of mass destruction, we think of nuclear bombs, or nerve gas, or biological agents. So it wassurprising to see accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev charged with using a weapon of mass destruction …
Heinous as the Boston bombing is, a pressure cooker does not fit the commonly used definition of a WMD. In fact, by its own definition, the U.S. government is using WMDs every day. There appear to be two relevant laws here. The first is found in Title 18 USC § 2332a, which defines weapons of mass destruction as …<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2013/04/29/974/#482c48e1aab3">https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2013/04/29/974/#482c48e1aab3</a> …
So far, so good. Beneath the legalese, this mostly fits the common definition of WMDs. However, Section 921, the part that defines WMDs as destructive devices is where the law gets interesting. For purpose of a WMD, a destructive device is defined as a …
Take a look. Live and learn.
----------------------------------
>>> We’re number one, Weapon’s Sales.
Daniel Brown | March 16, 2018
https://www.businessinsider.com/top-countries-exporting-weapons-arms-sales-2018-3
The US sold weapons to at least 98 countries between 2013 and 2017.
Its largest clients were: Saudia Arabia (18% of all sales), UAE (7.4% of all sales), and Australia (6.7% of all sales).
The US accounted for 34% of all exports and its exports increased by 25% compared to 2008-2012.
The US continues to export weapons to Saudi Arabia, despite its controversial war in Yemen.