D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

1947 you are correct on your points. Bottom line - the decision to abort is the mother's decision, guided by applicable law. The mother will answer to her God, not the government or any of the condescending self-righteous posters on this thread.

---

Her god is self if she does that, she will answer to a God though, where objective truth is held accountable.

---

That's your god, but I recall God forgives our sin through the power of the cross. I Corinthians 1

---

If abortion is simply a choice that is no one else's business, there is no sin to forgive.

---

. I never said "it's 'simply' a choice." I said it's none of your business, but if it is a sin as you suggest then she is forgiven by the power of the cross.

Democrats should be able to be pro-life, just as Republicans should be able to be pro-choice.

My primary reason for supporting Democrats is that we need to take action to mitigate the worst effects of climate change and Republican leaders continue to either deny it's occuring, deny it's caused by human activity, or, if they acknowlege that it's happening, deny the possibility of doing anything to mitigate the worst effects.

I believe this issue is so serious and so pressing that all other issues rank far below it--I would vote for a "pro-life" candidate in a heartbeat if he or she advocated taking action to mitigate climate change and cooperating with other nationsl to do that.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Democrats should be able to be pro-life, just as Republicans should be able to be pro-choice.

My primary reason for supporting Democrats is that we need to take action to mitigate the worst effects of climate change and Republican leaders continue to either deny it's occuring, deny it's caused by human activity, or, if they acknowlege that it's happening, deny the possibility of doing anything to mitigate the worst effects.

I believe this issue is so serious and so pressing that all other issues rank far below it--I would vote for a "pro-life" candidate in a heartbeat if he or she advocated taking action to mitigate climate change and cooperating with other nationsl to do that.

---

What actions should be taken to mitigate climate change? What policies would your ideal candidate support?

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Democrats should be able to be pro-life, just as Republicans should be able to be pro-choice.

My primary reason for supporting Democrats is that we need to take action to mitigate the worst effects of climate change and Republican leaders continue to either deny it's occuring, deny it's caused by human activity, or, if they acknowlege that it's happening, deny the possibility of doing anything to mitigate the worst effects.

I believe this issue is so serious and so pressing that all other issues rank far below it--I would vote for a "pro-life" candidate in a heartbeat if he or she advocated taking action to mitigate climate change and cooperating with other nationsl to do that.

---

What actions should be taken to mitigate climate change? What policies would your ideal candidate support?

---

303, if I knew the answers to those questions, I'd be running for office.

My point is, we aren't even TALKING about this issue (at least not publicly). Because Republicans.

Jinx 2 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Democrats should be able to be pro-life, just as Republicans should be able to be pro-choice.

My primary reason for supporting Democrats is that we need to take action to mitigate the worst effects of climate change and Republican leaders continue to either deny it's occuring, deny it's caused by human activity, or, if they acknowlege that it's happening, deny the possibility of doing anything to mitigate the worst effects.

I believe this issue is so serious and so pressing that all other issues rank far below it--I would vote for a "pro-life" candidate in a heartbeat if he or she advocated taking action to mitigate climate change and cooperating with other nationsl to do that.

---

What actions should be taken to mitigate climate change? What policies would your ideal candidate support?

---

303, if I knew the answers to those questions, I'd be running for office.

My point is, we aren't even TALKING about this issue (at least not publicly). Because Republicans.

---

That seems disingenuous, there are weekly articles in major news publications about climate change. You yourself recently started a thread which was based on the premise that we have 10 years to act, if I remember correctly, you linked one such article. Climate change has appeared in political ads and campaign platforms for at least that last 10-15 years, and major scientific journals have had stories on it for decades.

Moreover, despite your claims, the US has toped all industrialized nations in reducing its carbon out put over the last 10 years, largely on the back of market forces and "republican" policies such as fracking and energy development.

To claim that Democrats are worth of support because they favor action to mitigate climate change, then in turn admit you do not have any ideas as to what those policies should be comes across as extremely partisan.

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Democrats should be able to be pro-life, just as Republicans should be able to be pro-choice.

My primary reason for supporting Democrats is that we need to take action to mitigate the worst effects of climate change and Republican leaders continue to either deny it's occuring, deny it's caused by human activity, or, if they acknowlege that it's happening, deny the possibility of doing anything to mitigate the worst effects.

I believe this issue is so serious and so pressing that all other issues rank far below it--I would vote for a "pro-life" candidate in a heartbeat if he or she advocated taking action to mitigate climate change and cooperating with other nationsl to do that.

---

What actions should be taken to mitigate climate change? What policies would your ideal candidate support?

---

303, if I knew the answers to those questions, I'd be running for office.

My point is, we aren't even TALKING about this issue (at least not publicly). Because Republicans.

---

That seems disingenuous, there are weekly articles in major news publications about climate change. You yourself recently started a thread which was based on the premise that we have 10 years to act, if I remember correctly, you linked one such article. Climate change has appeared in political ads and campaign platforms for at least that last 10-15 years, and major scientific journals have had stories on it for decades.

Moreover, despite your claims, the US has toped all industrialized nations in reducing its carbon out put over the last 10 years, largely on the back of market forces and "republican" policies such as fracking and energy development.

To claim that Democrats are worth of support because they favor action to mitigate climate change, then in turn admit you do not have any ideas as to what those policies should be comes across as extremely partisan.

---

I didn't say I didn't have any ideas as to what those policies should be.

Here are a few:

- Start funding scientific research about actions we can take to mitigate climate change by removig carbon from the atmosphere (rather than changing government scientific reports that demonstrate that clmate change is real to eliminate inconvenient facts)
- Clean energy, NOT coal. We were already moving in that direction. Trump has unwisely tried to reverse course.
- A carbon tax (fire away) - economic incentives seem to be among the most powerful incentive we have, and I believe we will either figure out how to do this ourselves or face economic sanctions levied against us by other nations on the planet that will force our hand. Rather than leaders, we will be led.
- Require greater energy efficiency in consumer products, cars, planes, etc.
- Incentivize home solar systems
- Stop paying to rebuild communities in flood plains; start relocating people

To claim that Republicans are worthy of support when they won't even acknowledge that climate change is a thing and acknowledge that human activity is causing it is a head-in-the-sand approach. Blaming ME for not having an answer to a truly daunting problem with moving parts we don't know about (because our government won't ackowledge there's a problem so we can even seriously study it) is ridiculous.

I want to start a conversation that it appears you and other Republicans don't want to have.

Emotional knee-jerk reactions are nowhere near the same thing as actual solutions.

I'd say we all agree climate changes, but let's all be honest and admit a lot of the noise is based on spin. The IPCC is no more credible than Breitbart, and the 'science is settled' lie is just another attempt to shut down real discussion.

First, we need to establish real, valid causes for what we see, not try to blame the 'other' party for everything we don't like.

There is absolutely no reason to punish industries with new taxes or regulations that have no documented effect on the environment.

Stop pretending you have the authority of God, and stop demanding you get to control everyone else, until and unless you have real, actual empirical proof that is confirmed by reproducible experiments and valid predictions.

Jinx 2 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Democrats should be able to be pro-life, just as Republicans should be able to be pro-choice.

My primary reason for supporting Democrats is that we need to take action to mitigate the worst effects of climate change and Republican leaders continue to either deny it's occuring, deny it's caused by human activity, or, if they acknowlege that it's happening, deny the possibility of doing anything to mitigate the worst effects.

I believe this issue is so serious and so pressing that all other issues rank far below it--I would vote for a "pro-life" candidate in a heartbeat if he or she advocated taking action to mitigate climate change and cooperating with other nationsl to do that.

---

What actions should be taken to mitigate climate change? What policies would your ideal candidate support?

---

303, if I knew the answers to those questions, I'd be running for office.

My point is, we aren't even TALKING about this issue (at least not publicly). Because Republicans.

---

That seems disingenuous, there are weekly articles in major news publications about climate change. You yourself recently started a thread which was based on the premise that we have 10 years to act, if I remember correctly, you linked one such article. Climate change has appeared in political ads and campaign platforms for at least that last 10-15 years, and major scientific journals have had stories on it for decades.

Moreover, despite your claims, the US has toped all industrialized nations in reducing its carbon out put over the last 10 years, largely on the back of market forces and "republican" policies such as fracking and energy development.

To claim that Democrats are worth of support because they favor action to mitigate climate change, then in turn admit you do not have any ideas as to what those policies should be comes across as extremely partisan.

---

I didn't say I didn't have any ideas as to what those policies should be. Forgive me if I read read too much into your response which came across as curt and dismissive given my fairly benign request. I appreciate your thoughts below, and I have responded in kind.

Here are a few:

- Start funding scientific research about actions we can take to mitigate climate change by removig carbon from the atmosphere (rather than changing government scientific reports that demonstrate that clmate change is real to eliminate inconvenient facts) Massive amounts of research already ongoing. Cannot remove government money from the equation given current grant and funding structure of research and universities. Would have to be a world wide shift to make a difference.
- Clean energy, NOT coal. We were already moving in that direction. Trump has unwisely tried to reverse course. What has Trump actually done to revitalize coal? He is long on rhetoric but short on action in this regard. Coal is going away on its own thanks to natural gas and the slow re-emergence of atomic energy.
- A carbon tax (fire away) - economic incentives seem to be among the most powerful incentive we have, and I believe we will either figure out how to do this ourselves or face economic sanctions levied against us by other nations on the planet that will force our hand. Rather than leaders, we will be led. California has had carbon credit requirements for over a decade now, its been at best, a mixed bag of confusion, costs and some movement toward more efficiency. It is unclear whether the moves are fostered by the credit requirements, or necessity and market forces. Additionally, the state is still years away from hitting its hard "cap" at which point there will only be a limited number of credits available in a given year. Will not be able to say for certain what the overall impact on either emissions or the economy is until that happens. Fully support a state trying something like this before it goes national and California is 100% within their right as a state to do so.
- Require greater energy efficiency in consumer products, cars, planes, etc. Already done (e.g. CAFE standards for autos, modern passenger jets are 15-40% more efficient on a per passenger mile basis than ones built just 15-20 years ago - cost of fuel drove many carriers to upgrade fleets.
- Incentivize home solar systems Already done.
- Stop paying to rebuild communities in flood plains; start relocating people How, and to where? Who will pay for the tens of millions of takings cases that will be filed? What if people refuse to leave? How do you define "flood plain"? What about communities not in any type of flood zone that flood due to a freak weather occurrence or accident?

To claim that Republicans are worthy of support when they won't even acknowledge that climate change is a thing and acknowledge that human activity is causing it is a head-in-the-sand approach. Blaming ME for not having an answer to a truly daunting problem with moving parts we don't know about (because our government won't ackowledge there's a problem so we can even seriously study it) is ridiculous. Please show me where I blamed you for anything. I wont bother waiting, because I did not. In fact I don't even know what that actually means in this context. I never said either Republicans or Democrats are worthy of any kind of support based on this, I merely questioned your stated support of the Democrats and pointed out that certain generally "Republican" policies have played a major role in the nation's greenhouse reduction do date. As you point out, due to the nature of the funding for the research, it is difficult to put much stock in ANY of the research done to date, and this is not helped by the various grandiose proclamations of doom which repeatedly prove false. With so little impractical evidence of any negative impacts, or even consistent conclusions of the scope of any warming or cooling, I think it is reasonable to take a position which avoids whole sale restructuring of regulations and possibly the economy.

I want to start a conversation that it appears you and other Republicans don't want to have. Again, you responded with two throw away lines to a benign question based on your original statement, pointing the finger at republicans the whole while. I do not find that to be a genuine position from which to start a conversation, and please do not accuse me of avoidance when your first response to my question was pure deflection with no substance.

Finally, get your mind reader fixed, as I am not registered as a republican, did not vote for Trump and I take exception to your attempt to lump me into a group which, based on your posts, you view as "bad" in an attempt to devalue what I say.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

1947 you are correct on your points. Bottom line - the decision to abort is the mother's decision, guided by applicable law. The mother will answer to her God, not the government or any of the condescending self-righteous posters on this thread.

---

Her god is self if she does that, she will answer to a God though, where objective truth is held accountable.

---

That's your god, but I recall God forgives our sin through the power of the cross. I Corinthians 1

---

If abortion is simply a choice that is no one else's business, there is no sin to forgive.

---

. I never said "it's 'simply' a choice." I said it's none of your business, but if it is a sin as you suggest then she is forgiven by the power of the cross.

---

Ok, take out the would simply if you don't like it. The meaning is essentially unchanged.
If abortion is a choice that is no one else's business, there is no sin to forgive.

You still haven't told me when, in your world, a human fetus becomes human. Why do you refuse to answer what is such an essential question?

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Democrats should be able to be pro-life, just as Republicans should be able to be pro-choice.

My primary reason for supporting Democrats is that we need to take action to mitigate the worst effects of climate change and Republican leaders continue to either deny it's occuring, deny it's caused by human activity, or, if they acknowlege that it's happening, deny the possibility of doing anything to mitigate the worst effects.

I believe this issue is so serious and so pressing that all other issues rank far below it--I would vote for a "pro-life" candidate in a heartbeat if he or she advocated taking action to mitigate climate change and cooperating with other nationsl to do that.

---

What actions should be taken to mitigate climate change? What policies would your ideal candidate support?

---

303, if I knew the answers to those questions, I'd be running for office.

My point is, we aren't even TALKING about this issue (at least not publicly). Because Republicans.

---

That seems disingenuous, there are weekly articles in major news publications about climate change. You yourself recently started a thread which was based on the premise that we have 10 years to act, if I remember correctly, you linked one such article. Climate change has appeared in political ads and campaign platforms for at least that last 10-15 years, and major scientific journals have had stories on it for decades.

Moreover, despite your claims, the US has toped all industrialized nations in reducing its carbon out put over the last 10 years, largely on the back of market forces and "republican" policies such as fracking and energy development.

To claim that Democrats are worth of support because they favor action to mitigate climate change, then in turn admit you do not have any ideas as to what those policies should be comes across as extremely partisan.

---

I didn't say I didn't have any ideas as to what those policies should be. Forgive me if I read read too much into your response which came across as curt and dismissive given my fairly benign request. I appreciate your thoughts below, and I have responded in kind.

Here are a few:

- Start funding scientific research about actions we can take to mitigate climate change by removig carbon from the atmosphere (rather than changing government scientific reports that demonstrate that clmate change is real to eliminate inconvenient facts) Massive amounts of research already ongoing. Cannot remove government money from the equation given current grant and funding structure of research and universities. Would have to be a world wide shift to make a difference.
- Clean energy, NOT coal. We were already moving in that direction. Trump has unwisely tried to reverse course. What has Trump actually done to revitalize coal? He is long on rhetoric but short on action in this regard. Coal is going away on its own thanks to natural gas and the slow re-emergence of atomic energy.
- A carbon tax (fire away) - economic incentives seem to be among the most powerful incentive we have, and I believe we will either figure out how to do this ourselves or face economic sanctions levied against us by other nations on the planet that will force our hand. Rather than leaders, we will be led. California has had carbon credit requirements for over a decade now, its been at best, a mixed bag of confusion, costs and some movement toward more efficiency. It is unclear whether the moves are fostered by the credit requirements, or necessity and market forces. Additionally, the state is still years away from hitting its hard "cap" at which point there will only be a limited number of credits available in a given year. Will not be able to say for certain what the overall impact on either emissions or the economy is until that happens. Fully support a state trying something like this before it goes national and California is 100% within their right as a state to do so.
- Require greater energy efficiency in consumer products, cars, planes, etc. Already done (e.g. CAFE standards for autos, modern passenger jets are 15-40% more efficient on a per passenger mile basis than ones built just 15-20 years ago - cost of fuel drove many carriers to upgrade fleets.
- Incentivize home solar systems Already done.
- Stop paying to rebuild communities in flood plains; start relocating people How, and to where? Who will pay for the tens of millions of takings cases that will be filed? What if people refuse to leave? How do you define "flood plain"? What about communities not in any type of flood zone that flood due to a freak weather occurrence or accident?

To claim that Republicans are worthy of support when they won't even acknowledge that climate change is a thing and acknowledge that human activity is causing it is a head-in-the-sand approach. Blaming ME for not having an answer to a truly daunting problem with moving parts we don't know about (because our government won't ackowledge there's a problem so we can even seriously study it) is ridiculous. Please show me where I blamed you for anything. I wont bother waiting, because I did not. In fact I don't even know what that actually means in this context. I never said either Republicans or Democrats are worthy of any kind of support based on this, I merely questioned your stated support of the Democrats and pointed out that certain generally "Republican" policies have played a major role in the nation's greenhouse reduction do date. As you point out, due to the nature of the funding for the research, it is difficult to put much stock in ANY of the research done to date, and this is not helped by the various grandiose proclamations of doom which repeatedly prove false. With so little impractical evidence of any negative impacts, or even consistent conclusions of the scope of any warming or cooling, I think it is reasonable to take a position which avoids whole sale restructuring of regulations and possibly the economy.

I want to start a conversation that it appears you and other Republicans don't want to have. Again, you responded with two throw away lines to a benign question based on your original statement, pointing the finger at republicans the whole while. I do not find that to be a genuine position from which to start a conversation, and please do not accuse me of avoidance when your first response to my question was pure deflection with no substance.

Finally, get your mind reader fixed, as I am not registered as a republican, did not vote for Trump and I take exception to your attempt to lump me into a group which, based on your posts, you view as "bad" in an attempt to devalue what I say.

---

---

The fact that Trump's emphasis on coal has been a fail -- and it has - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/04/president-trump-has-yet-save-struggling-coal-industry-numbers-show/479587002/ - doesn't counter my point that he is trying to move the wrong way on this issue.

The market may ensure he doesn't succeed. But a guy who is trying to bring back coal isn't going to lead us toward any meaningful work on this issue; he's trying to do the opposite, and he's fanning the flames of denial. It's certainly worked on this site.

And how much money and time do we get to waste on this before we acknowledge climate change isn't a "hoax" and start working to address it?

You are also taking my points that Republican leadership has totally failed on this issue as a personal attack. it's not.

I'm not trying to "devalue what [you] say." But it seems a silly arguing tactic to claim that, because I don't have all the answers (when no one does and when the Trump administration isn't seeking them in any meaningful way) that there's nothing more we can do. And some of the things you say we've "already done" I'm not seeing any results from. I've heard absolutely NOTHING about incentives for people to put up solar. I heard a lot about it 15 years ago; it seems that move should have acclerated rather than died down.

This is a really daunting problem, as the issues you accurately identified about rebuilding in flood plains indicate. People are going to be hurt and sustain economic damage and displacement. But, unless we start taking action, that number will be much greater than it might be if we start looking, carefully, at our vulnerabilities and at ways to reduce carbon emissions.

Finally, I don't see how the Republican policy of climate change as a hoax has done anything to reduce the nation's greenhouse gases. Thanks in part to the GOP's lack of leadership on this issue, we are on target for a 2-C increase in global temperature sooner rather than later. The U.S. withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord almost as soon as Trump got into office. We are going to see bad results within my lifetime--and I only have 25 to 35 years left.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

1947 you are correct on your points. Bottom line - the decision to abort is the mother's decision, guided by applicable law. The mother will answer to her God, not the government or any of the condescending self-righteous posters on this thread.

---

Her god is self if she does that, she will answer to a God though, where objective truth is held accountable.

---

That's your god, but I recall God forgives our sin through the power of the cross. I Corinthians 1

---

If abortion is simply a choice that is no one else's business, there is no sin to forgive.

---

. I never said "it's 'simply' a choice." I said it's none of your business, but if it is a sin as you suggest then she is forgiven by the power of the cross.

---

Answer the question: "When does a human fetus become human?"

Jinx 2 said:

---

The fact that Trump's emphasis on coal has been a fail -- and it has - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/04/president-trump-has-yet-save-struggling-coal-industry-numbers-show/479587002/ - doesn't counter my point that he is trying to move the wrong way on this issue.

The market may ensure he doesn't succeed. But a guy who is trying to bring back coal isn't going to lead us toward any meaningful work on this issue; he's trying to do the opposite, and he's fanning the flames of denial. It's certainly worked on this site.

And how much money and time do we get to waste on this before we acknowledge climate change isn't a "hoax" and start working to address it?

You are also taking my points that Republican leadership has totally failed on this issue as a personal attack. it's not.

I'm not trying to "devalue what [you] say." But it seems a silly arguing tactic to claim that, because I don't have all the answers (when no one does and when the Trump administration isn't seeking them in any meaningful way) that there's nothing more we can do. And some of the things you say we've "already done" I'm not seeing any results from. I've heard absolutely NOTHING about incentives for people to put up solar. I heard a lot about it 15 years ago; it seems that move should have acclerated rather than died down.

This is a really daunting problem, as the issues you accurately identified about rebuilding in flood plains indicate. People are going to be hurt and sustain economic damage and displacement. But, unless we start taking action, that number will be much greater than it might be if we start looking, carefully, at our vulnerabilities and at ways to reduce carbon emissions.

Finally, I don't see how the Republican policy of climate change as a hoax has done anything to reduce the nation's greenhouse gases. Thanks in part to the GOP's lack of leadership on this issue, we are on target for a 2-C increase in global temperature sooner rather than later. The U.S. withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord almost as soon as Trump got into office. We are going to see bad results within my lifetime--and I only have 25 to 35 years left.

---

I think we are talking past each other. I do not take anything regarding what any political party has or has not done as an insult. I take your labeling me as a republican because I disagree with you on this as an insult, because I know what you think of "republicans" based on your posts. Trump used coal as a campaign tactic in the rust belt, and that worked, but what policy has he advocated for since his election to "bring back coal", specifically? Has the administration actively stopped research on climate change? Have grants dried up or been revoked? If no, then you cannot credibly make the claims you make.

As for not seeing results, you are not looking, at least domestically. I am not yet 30 and cars are, on average, 25-40% more fuel efficient than when I was born. The air in American cities and the waterways are cleaner than they have been in over 100 years. The federal government and many states offer tax incentives for solar installation. The problem with solar is it is EXPENSIVE, and subsidies have not made it cheaper. It also only works in certain areas (SoCal, Colorado). We just went 6 days with no sun in Houston. No one with solar got any benefit from it and the power grid still needed to generate the capacity to ensure everyone had power. Some older homes are not built to support the weight, and storms can destroy them quickly. Thats a good if you have a newer home and the means to replace or pay the higher insurance premiums, but an average middle class family in Kansas City isn't going to realize enough benefit to offset the costs.

You aren't seeing results worldwide because we don't control the world. China, India and other developing countries don't give a damn, they want prosperity and power. The USA could emit 0 greenhouse gases for the next decade and the overall worldwide emissions would still rise if current trends continued. We have not authority to force them to change and they wont. Any one of the hundreds of small "tea pot" refineries in china emit roughly as much greenhouse gas as every refinery on the Houston ship channel, to refine about .05% as much product. And there are dozens, if not hundreds of those.

As for the rest, it is largely hyperbole at this point. We don't know what climate change will do, or even how much (or in what direction) it will change. There is no consensus on the impacts, or what should be done to fix it (which was my original point), the only consensus is that we must do "SOMETHING" and it has to be done "IMMEDIATELY". Well, "something" isn't a policy. Come with specifics and and idea as to how to implement them and we can talk. Otherwise, I have a sneaking suspicion that in 20-30 years, when little to nothing has changed, we will be listening to the latest doomsday prediction after another dozen have not come true.

Gunny Hartman said:

---

Last post I'll probably make in this braindamaged thread.

Under Texas' wrongful death statute, a person who causes the death of a fetus is liable in damages. It's not surprising that Texas' conservative legislature in 2003 would define an "individual" as including a fetus at inception.





But it is ironic to me that plaintiffs' lawyers, almost all of whom are liberal Democrats, have no qualms about suing people for killing a fetus under the theory that the fetus is an "individual." I would think intellectual honesty would lead a true liberal plaintiffs' attorney to refuse to bring such a cause of action as it is inconsistent with their belief that a fetus is not a person.

That's what you call an Inconvenient Fact.

---

Hmmm, kinda puts a dent in Quash's definition quibbling.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

1947 you are correct on your points. Bottom line - the decision to abort is the mother's decision, guided by applicable law. The mother will answer to her God, not the government or any of the condescending self-righteous posters on this thread.

---

Her god is self if she does that, she will answer to a God though, where objective truth is held accountable.

---

That's your god, but I recall God forgives our sin through the power of the cross. I Corinthians 1

---

If abortion is simply a choice that is no one else's business, there is no sin to forgive.

---

. I never said "it's 'simply' a choice." I said it's none of your business, but if it is a sin as you suggest then she is forgiven by the power of the cross.

---

Answer the question: "When does a human fetus become human?"

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

1947 you are correct on your points. Bottom line - the decision to abort is the mother's decision, guided by applicable law. The mother will answer to her God, not the government or any of the condescending self-righteous posters on this thread.

---

Her god is self if she does that, she will answer to a God though, where objective truth is held accountable.

---

That's your god, but I recall God forgives our sin through the power of the cross. I Corinthians 1

---

If abortion is simply a choice that is no one else's business, there is no sin to forgive.

---

. I never said "it's 'simply' a choice." I said it's none of your business, but if it is a sin as you suggest then she is forgiven by the power of the cross.

---

Answer the question: "When does a human fetus become human?"

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Is there a "right" to kill another human (who feels, has a heart beat, brain activity) because their life is inconvenient to you?

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

1947 you are correct on your points. Bottom line - the decision to abort is the mother's decision, guided by applicable law. The mother will answer to her God, not the government or any of the condescending self-righteous posters on this thread.

---

Her god is self if she does that, she will answer to a God though, where objective truth is held accountable.

---

That's your god, but I recall God forgives our sin through the power of the cross. I Corinthians 1

---

If abortion is simply a choice that is no one else's business, there is no sin to forgive.

---

. I never said "it's 'simply' a choice." I said it's none of your business, but if it is a sin as you suggest then she is forgiven by the power of the cross.

---

Answer the question: "When does a human fetus become human?"

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Simple existence as opposed to complex existence? Existence as a human is sufficient to be human.

Of course women are human and have rights. Those rights just don't extend to killing other humans because those other humans have rights, and the rights don't vanish just because you find them inconvenient.

Is a woman not human if someone with the power to kill her decides she should die?

Answer the question: "when does a human fetus become human?"

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Rev. Dr. Elmer Gantry said:

---

1947 you are correct on your points. Bottom line - the decision to abort is the mother's decision, guided by applicable law. The mother will answer to her God, not the government or any of the condescending self-righteous posters on this thread.

---

Her god is self if she does that, she will answer to a God though, where objective truth is held accountable.

---

That's your god, but I recall God forgives our sin through the power of the cross. I Corinthians 1

---

If abortion is simply a choice that is no one else's business, there is no sin to forgive.

---

. I never said "it's 'simply' a choice." I said it's none of your business, but if it is a sin as you suggest then she is forgiven by the power of the cross.

---

Answer the question: "When does a human fetus become human?"

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Simple existence as opposed to complex existence? Existence as a human is sufficient to be human.

Of course women are human and have rights. Those rights just don't extend to killing other humans because those other humans have rights, and the rights don't vanish just because you find them inconvenient.

Is a woman not human if someone with the power to kill her decides she should die? -Huh?

Answer the question: "when does a human fetus become human?"

---

. So yes it is a human. Now who are you going to rescue in the fertility clinic 1,000 human embryos or a single 5 yr old? You want to play God on that one. You might as well you are playing God with Womens' health Decisions.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Is there a "right" to kill another human (who feels, has a heart beat, brain activity) because their life is inconvenient to you?

---

Still waiting for Waco to answer this very important question.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Is there a "right" to kill another human (who feels, has a heart beat, brain activity) because their life is inconvenient to you?

---

Still waiting for Waco to answer this very important question.

---

. Of course it's wrong but it is also morally complex. But murder is always a complex moral decision which we have degrees of murder.
But, ultimately,it's none of my business nor yours because it's not your body or your reproductive health decision. One cannot take every woman to trial and have her "prove" the validity of her decision. First and foremost it's her body.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Is there a "right" to kill another human (who feels, has a heart beat, brain activity) because their life is inconvenient to you?

---

Still waiting for Waco to answer this very important question.

---

. Of course it's wrong but it is also morally complex. But murder is always a complex moral decision which we have degrees of murder.
But, ultimately,it's none of my business nor yours because it's not your body or your reproductive health decision. One cannot take every woman to trial and have her "prove" the validity of her decision. First and foremost it's her body.

---

Not entirely. The life she takes through abortion is not her own. Who speaks for that life?

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Is there a "right" to kill another human (who feels, has a heart beat, brain activity) because their life is inconvenient to you?

---

Still waiting for Waco to answer this very important question.

---

. Of course it's wrong but it is also morally complex. But murder is always a complex moral decision which we have degrees of murder.
But, ultimately,it's none of my business nor yours because it's not your body or your reproductive health decision. One cannot take every woman to trial and have her "prove" the validity of her decision. First and foremost it's her body.

---

It isn't a reproductive health issue. It is taking another human's life. In every other situation, we call that murder. Calling it a reproductive health choice is the same as when slave owners called slaves property - it made it easier for them to trample on the rights of other humans because if you were to call a slave a human, instead of property, it would be disgusting to treat them that way. Same goes for unborn humans.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Is there a "right" to kill another human (who feels, has a heart beat, brain activity) because their life is inconvenient to you?

---

Still waiting for Waco to answer this very important question.

---

. Of course it's wrong but it is also morally complex. But murder is always a complex moral decision which we have degrees of murder.
But, ultimately,it's none of my business nor yours because it's not your body or your reproductive health decision. One cannot take every woman to trial and have her "prove" the validity of her decision. First and foremost it's her body.

---

You keep on saying that killing of an unborn human offspring is none of my business or yours, but you have yet to provide a reason why an unborn human off spring at 30 weeks is really any different from a newborn at 30 weeks. Until you can successfully make the argument that the unborn person is different in a real, substantive way, your mere assertion is meaningless.

Also, you have yet to say when, by any particular definition of human, a fetus becomes a human, even though you have asserted that a fetus is NOT human. Answer the question.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Is there a "right" to kill another human (who feels, has a heart beat, brain activity) because their life is inconvenient to you?

---

Still waiting for Waco to answer this very important question.

---

. Of course it's wrong but it is also morally complex. But murder is always a complex moral decision which we have degrees of murder.
But, ultimately,it's none of my business nor yours because it's not your body or your reproductive health decision. One cannot take every woman to trial and have her "prove" the validity of her decision. First and foremost it's her body.

---

Not entirely. The life she takes through abortion is not her own. Who speaks for that life?

---

it is her life, not yours and your moral compass. Are you God?.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Is there a "right" to kill another human (who feels, has a heart beat, brain activity) because their life is inconvenient to you?

---

Still waiting for Waco to answer this very important question.

---

. Of course it's wrong but it is also morally complex. But murder is always a complex moral decision which we have degrees of murder.
But, ultimately,it's none of my business nor yours because it's not your body or your reproductive health decision. One cannot take every woman to trial and have her "prove" the validity of her decision. First and foremost it's her body.

---

Not entirely. The life she takes through abortion is not her own. Who speaks for that life?

---

it is her life, not yours and your moral compass. Are you God?.

---

A person cannot own another person. The unborn human offspring is not "her life."

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Is there a "right" to kill another human (who feels, has a heart beat, brain activity) because their life is inconvenient to you?

---

Still waiting for Waco to answer this very important question.

---

. Of course it's wrong but it is also morally complex. But murder is always a complex moral decision which we have degrees of murder.
But, ultimately,it's none of my business nor yours because it's not your body or your reproductive health decision. One cannot take every woman to trial and have her "prove" the validity of her decision. First and foremost it's her body.

---

Not entirely. The life she takes through abortion is not her own. Who speaks for that life?

---

it is her life, not yours and your moral compass. Are you God?.

---

No, the life she takes is not hers. That is the point, anyone choosing to kill is playing God.

And no minister with a conscience would promote killing another person.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Is there a "right" to kill another human (who feels, has a heart beat, brain activity) because their life is inconvenient to you?

---

Still waiting for Waco to answer this very important question.

---

. Of course it's wrong but it is also morally complex. But murder is always a complex moral decision which we have degrees of murder.
But, ultimately,it's none of my business nor yours because it's not your body or your reproductive health decision. One cannot take every woman to trial and have her "prove" the validity of her decision. First and foremost it's her body.

---

Not entirely. The life she takes through abortion is not her own. Who speaks for that life?

---

it is her life, not yours and your moral compass. Are you God?.

---

Who's life is the unborn kid she's carrying?

That kid would be just like us if not murdered!

What the difference between that kid having the choice to live? What gives Mom the right to murder that?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Is there a "right" to kill another human (who feels, has a heart beat, brain activity) because their life is inconvenient to you?

---

Still waiting for Waco to answer this very important question.

---

. Of course it's wrong but it is also morally complex. But murder is always a complex moral decision which we have degrees of murder.
But, ultimately,it's none of my business nor yours because it's not your body or your reproductive health decision. One cannot take every woman to trial and have her "prove" the validity of her decision. First and foremost it's her body.

---

Not entirely. The life she takes through abortion is not her own. Who speaks for that life?

---

So that life is in a test tube in a burning building. Do you run in and save it?

Florda_mike said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Is there a "right" to kill another human (who feels, has a heart beat, brain activity) because their life is inconvenient to you?

---

Still waiting for Waco to answer this very important question.

---

. Of course it's wrong but it is also morally complex. But murder is always a complex moral decision which we have degrees of murder.
But, ultimately,it's none of my business nor yours because it's not your body or your reproductive health decision. One cannot take every woman to trial and have her "prove" the validity of her decision. First and foremost it's her body.

---

Not entirely. The life she takes through abortion is not her own. Who speaks for that life?

---

it is her life, not yours and your moral compass. Are you God?.

---

Who's life is the unborn kid she's carrying?

That kid would be just like us if not married!

What the difference between that kid having the choice to live? What gives Mom the right to murder that?

---

Give her the right? She an American citizen with that choice.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Is there a "right" to kill another human (who feels, has a heart beat, brain activity) because their life is inconvenient to you?

---

Still waiting for Waco to answer this very important question.

---

. Of course it's wrong but it is also morally complex. But murder is always a complex moral decision which we have degrees of murder.
But, ultimately,it's none of my business nor yours because it's not your body or your reproductive health decision. One cannot take every woman to trial and have her "prove" the validity of her decision. First and foremost it's her body.

---

Not entirely. The life she takes through abortion is not her own. Who speaks for that life?

---

it is her life, not yours and your moral compass. Are you God?.

---

A person cannot own another person. The unborn human offspring is not "her life."

---

And you don't "own" the woman's life and its's none of your business

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Is there a "right" to kill another human (who feels, has a heart beat, brain activity) because their life is inconvenient to you?

---

Still waiting for Waco to answer this very important question.

---

. Of course it's wrong but it is also morally complex. But murder is always a complex moral decision which we have degrees of murder.
But, ultimately,it's none of my business nor yours because it's not your body or your reproductive health decision. One cannot take every woman to trial and have her "prove" the validity of her decision. First and foremost it's her body.

---

Not entirely. The life she takes through abortion is not her own. Who speaks for that life?

---

So that life is in a test tube in a burning building. Do you run in and save it?

---

There was an entire thread with answers given, opinions posted and links posted criticizing the poor logic of that ridiculous scenario.

The fact that you won't answer the question yourself with simple variable changes (son vs daughter, spouse vs child, woman vs man, elderly vs young, martian vs venetian, etc.) is the exact reason you need to just stop trying to use it as if it is some all-powerful gotcha question in regards to abortion.

You want it to be so you can avoid the topic and other questions posed to you. That is its only purpose for you.

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Is there a "right" to kill another human (who feels, has a heart beat, brain activity) because their life is inconvenient to you?

---

Still waiting for Waco to answer this very important question.

---

. Of course it's wrong but it is also morally complex. But murder is always a complex moral decision which we have degrees of murder.
But, ultimately,it's none of my business nor yours because it's not your body or your reproductive health decision. One cannot take every woman to trial and have her "prove" the validity of her decision. First and foremost it's her body.

---

Not entirely. The life she takes through abortion is not her own. Who speaks for that life?

---

So that life is in a test tube in a burning building. Do you run in and save it?

---

There was an entire thread with answers given, opinions posted and links posted criticizing the poor logic of that ridiculous scenario.

The fact that you won't answer the question yourself with simple variable changes (son vs daughter, spouse vs child, woman vs man, elderly vs young, martian vs venetian, etc.) is the exact reason you need to just stop trying to use it as if it is some all-powerful gotcha question in regards to abortion.

You want it to be so you can avoid the topic and other questions posed to you. That is its only purpose for you.

---

Look at Bearass' answer. It's honest. See my response.

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Define "human ". Simple existence, the power to think, to feel emotion, to communicate, heart beat, brain activity.. Are women human? Do they have rights?

---

Is there a "right" to kill another human (who feels, has a heart beat, brain activity) because their life is inconvenient to you?

---

Still waiting for Waco to answer this very important question.

---

. Of course it's wrong but it is also morally complex. But murder is always a complex moral decision which we have degrees of murder.
But, ultimately,it's none of my business nor yours because it's not your body or your reproductive health decision. One cannot take every woman to trial and have her "prove" the validity of her decision. First and foremost it's her body.

---

Not entirely. The life she takes through abortion is not her own. Who speaks for that life?

---

So that life is in a test tube in a burning building. Do you run in and save it?

---

There was an entire thread with answers given, opinions posted and links posted criticizing the poor logic of that ridiculous scenario.

The fact that you won't answer the question yourself with simple variable changes (son vs daughter, spouse vs child, woman vs man, elderly vs young, martian vs venetian, etc.) is the exact reason you need to just stop trying to use it as if it is some all-powerful gotcha question in regards to abortion.

You want it to be so you can avoid the topic and other questions posed to you. That is its only purpose for you.

---

Look at Bearass' answer. It's honest. See my response.

---

And my response was "where is the mother's life at stake 99% of the time with abortion?"

The reality is the absolute vast majority of women do not get an abortion because their lives are at stake as it is stated in your horrible scenario. The closest real world scenario to your example would be an unconscious pregnant woman on an operating table and the doctor asking the father, "Your wife's life or your child's?"

That scenario is a very small percentage of abortions.

99%? You have no idea. It's a lie. You can't back it up.