Yes it's Science republicans

[Crick]

I wasn't looking for your opinion of Green opinions. I was looking for your opinion on hydroelectricity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's fine. Much better than wind and solar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My goodness how will the armadillo's ever survive this climate change?

Hey...........don't laugh..........we're 20 to 30 degrees above what we normally are this time of year.

Don't bang your head against a wall Republicans don't believe in science

This, from tardz who deny that a new child is a human being from the moment their life begins at and by conception.


Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

How many of those unwanted children have you adopted??

Aborted children can't be adopted.

Thank you for that perspective.

This is a question I regularly ask in the abortion debates....and never get an answer:

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

'cause....if there isn't, and one is murder, so, then, is the other.
That's called logic.

 

[Chuz Life]

Hey...........don't laugh..........we're 20 to 30 degrees above what we normally are this time of year.

Don't bang your head against a wall Republicans don't believe in science

This, from tardz who deny that a new child is a human being from the moment their life begins at and by conception.


Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

How many of those unwanted children have you adopted??

Aborted children can't be adopted.

Thank you for that perspective.

This is a question I regularly ask in the abortion debates....and never get an answer:

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

'cause....if there isn't, and one is murder, so, then, is the other.
That's called logic.

I don't see how anyone can argue (Constitutionally) that a woman must surrender her right to defend her own life - for the entire duration of a pregnancy. Especially, for the duration of a pregnancy that is forced upon her in an act of rape.

So, I believe that in extreme cases, the same rules would apply to a "life of the mother" type pregnancy that would apply to any other situation where she might have to use deadly force to defend herself.

It's important to note that it's the condition of the threatening "pregnancy" though - that she is defending herself against - and not the child.

I can think of no such similar physical relationship between a woman and a child she is breastfeeding.

Can you?

 

[Crick]

I believe you have the wrong forum here Mr Life.

 

[Chuz Life]

I believe you have the wrong forum here Mr Life.

My original comments were science related and my point in those comments remain unanswered. After that, I simply answered this young lady's question.

If you have a problem with that, her line of questioning. . . Perhaps you should take it up with her.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[PoliticalChic]

Don't bang your head against a wall Republicans don't believe in science

This, from tardz who deny that a new child is a human being from the moment their life begins at and by conception.


Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

How many of those unwanted children have you adopted??

Aborted children can't be adopted.

Thank you for that perspective.

This is a question I regularly ask in the abortion debates....and never get an answer:

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

'cause....if there isn't, and one is murder, so, then, is the other.
That's called logic.

I don't see how anyone can argue (Constitutionally) that a woman must surrender her right to defend her own life - for the entire duration of a pregnancy. Especially, for the duration of a pregnancy that is forced upon her in an act of rape.

So, I believe that in extreme cases, the same rules would apply to a "life of the mother" type pregnancy that would apply to any other situation where she might have to use deadly force to defend herself.

It's important to note that it's the condition of the threatening "pregnancy" though - that she is defending herself against - and not the child.

I can think of no such similar physical relationship between a woman and a child she is breastfeeding.

Can you?

Let's be clear about facts....then you can give an opinion based on same.



1. In just 12% of the cases were there concerns for the mother’s health; 1% for rape; and .5% incest.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf


2. "Mother's health" is ambiguous at best, as the vast majority of abortions are based on no more than "convenience."
a. The late Dr. James McMahon performed thousands of partial-birth abortions, and five women he had performed third-trimester abortions on appeared with President Clinton at his April 10, 1996, veto ceremony.
In June, 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to Congress a detailed breakdown of a “series” of over 2,000 of these abortions that he had performed. He classified only 9% (175 cases) as involving “maternal [health] indications,” of which the most common was “depression.”
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/09/2...rtion-at-the-very-end-of-3rd-trimester-video/

3. The vast majority of abortion performed in the United States are carried out for reasons that can be broadly categorized as “matters of convenience.” In a study of 27 nations, reasons for abortion services were found to be the following:

a. “Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.” http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

b. A 2004 study of American women yielded similar results: “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.” http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

I reject the view that inconvenience of a mother’s informed choice outweighs the unalienable right to life of the child she bears by virtue of that choice.



And you say....what?

 

[Chuz Life]

This, from tardz who deny that a new child is a human being from the moment their life begins at and by conception.


Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

How many of those unwanted children have you adopted??

Aborted children can't be adopted.

Thank you for that perspective.

This is a question I regularly ask in the abortion debates....and never get an answer:

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

'cause....if there isn't, and one is murder, so, then, is the other.
That's called logic.

I don't see how anyone can argue (Constitutionally) that a woman must surrender her right to defend her own life - for the entire duration of a pregnancy. Especially, for the duration of a pregnancy that is forced upon her in an act of rape.

So, I believe that in extreme cases, the same rules would apply to a "life of the mother" type pregnancy that would apply to any other situation where she might have to use deadly force to defend herself.

It's important to note that it's the condition of the threatening "pregnancy" though - that she is defending herself against - and not the child.

I can think of no such similar physical relationship between a woman and a child she is breastfeeding.

Can you?

Let's be clear about facts....then you can give an opinion based on same.



1. In just 12% of the cases were there concerns for the mother’s health; 1% for rape; and .5% incest.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf


2. "Mother's health" is ambiguous at best, as the vast majority of abortions are based on no more than "convenience."
a. The late Dr. James McMahon performed thousands of partial-birth abortions, and five women he had performed third-trimester abortions on appeared with President Clinton at his April 10, 1996, veto ceremony.
In June, 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to Congress a detailed breakdown of a “series” of over 2,000 of these abortions that he had performed. He classified only 9% (175 cases) as involving “maternal [health] indications,” of which the most common was “depression.”
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/09/2...rtion-at-the-very-end-of-3rd-trimester-video/

3. The vast majority of abortion performed in the United States are carried out for reasons that can be broadly categorized as “matters of convenience.” In a study of 27 nations, reasons for abortion services were found to be the following:

a. “Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.” http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

b. A 2004 study of American women yielded similar results: “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.” http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

I reject the view that inconvenience of a mother’s informed choice outweighs the unalienable right to life of the child she bears by virtue of that choice.



And you say....what?

I say that I agree! That is the child's right to its life far outweighs anyone else's right to "convenience"

So, what about those cases which are far more than just a mere inconvenience?

Please join me in a discussion of that in the CDZ.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[talksalot]

No matter what you and the morons leading you say
Temperatures in the Arctic are predicted to rise nearly 50 degrees above normal from Thursday under the spell of a pre-Christmas heat wave. It means the frozen tundra is racing close to a melting point.

The surging warmth in the past two months has already left scientists jittery, as escalating temperatures are feared to hit ice formation or coverage next summer and bring it down to record low levels. More warming trends are hitting the region as a result of climate change effects.

Walt Meier, a NASA scientist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, said the current warmth is an offshoot of fluctuations in the jet stream that is passing frigid air to North America and parts of the Arctic.

Alarming Indicators
However, stark climate change indicators are setting off alarm bells. The record low polar sea ice is a big concern and the heat wave of November has led to the region losing 19,000 square miles of sea ice in less than a week, which was described as "almost unprecedented occurrence" by the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

There is worry that despite the North Pole lying in darkness after the Sun left in late October, high temperatures are going to reign the Christmas season.

- See more at: Arctic Forecast To Warm By As Much As 50 Degrees This Week





Arctic Forecast To Warm By As Much As 50 Degrees Th...
The rising spell of high warmth in the Arctic has unnerved scientists, who fear the jumping temperatures may lead to record-low ice coverage next summer....

View on www.techtimes.com
Preview by Yahoo

Don't bother. These climate change deniers think climate change and global warming was invented by Al Gore to make money.

They're not thinking logically and will deny anything scientific.

I wonder how our country has become a cesspool for ignorance.

Again, this from those who DENY that a child's life begins at and by conception.

Nevermind the fact that we have infinitely more evidence to support the origin of a new human life than we do to support your claims about "man caused" global warming.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

You know, before 1900, you wouldn't have said that life begins at conception, because most people didn't have any idea what that was or how it happened, nor did they have much of an idea about the various stages an embryo goes through.

You can thank science for that.

Primitive people had a good understanding of pregnancy and birth way before 1900.

Really? You think so? I mean, the mechanics of giving birth were known, as well as what was supposed to be the normal term for pregnancy, but they sure as hell didn't understand about eggs and sperm very well, because there wasn't enough medical research on it yet. Nor did they understand the various stages that the embryo goes through in it's development towards becoming fully grown.

People knew it took a male and female engaging in sexual intercourse to create a life and miscarriage at different stages of pregnancy provided insights into the growth of human beings in the womb.....well before 1900. Science has provided many of the details of the workings of the human body, but people already knew "where babies come from."
Television documentaries show the growth of a human being from the moment sperm and egg unite.... to birth, yet pro-abortionists deny that the unborn are human beings to further their agenda. Medical science has provided proof of life; and ways to prevent the creation of human life but we still have the slaughter of the unborn. Climate scientists cannot and never could influence any geological or climate-related event; they're not even all that good at predicting the weather!

Everyone needs to promote a clean world and preservation of natural resources just because it's the right thing to do not because of climate change hysteria.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Don't bother. These climate change deniers think climate change and global warming was invented by Al Gore to make money.

They're not thinking logically and will deny anything scientific.

I wonder how our country has become a cesspool for ignorance.

Again, this from those who DENY that a child's life begins at and by conception.

Nevermind the fact that we have infinitely more evidence to support the origin of a new human life than we do to support your claims about "man caused" global warming.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

You know, before 1900, you wouldn't have said that life begins at conception, because most people didn't have any idea what that was or how it happened, nor did they have much of an idea about the various stages an embryo goes through.

You can thank science for that.

Primitive people had a good understanding of pregnancy and birth way before 1900.

Really? You think so? I mean, the mechanics of giving birth were known, as well as what was supposed to be the normal term for pregnancy, but they sure as hell didn't understand about eggs and sperm very well, because there wasn't enough medical research on it yet. Nor did they understand the various stages that the embryo goes through in it's development towards becoming fully grown.

People knew it took a male and female engaging in sexual intercourse to create a life and miscarriage at different stages of pregnancy provided insights into the growth of human beings in the womb.....well before 1900. Science has provided many of the details of the workings of the human body, but people already knew "where babies come from."
Television documentaries show the growth of a human being from the moment sperm and egg unite.... to birth, yet pro-abortionists deny that the unborn are human beings to further their agenda. Medical science has provided proof of life; and ways to prevent the creation of human life but we still have the slaughter of the unborn. Climate scientists cannot and never could influence any geological or climate-related event; they're not even all that good at predicting the weather!

Everyone needs to promote a clean world and preservation of natural resources just because it's the right thing to do not because of climate change hysteria.

"Medical science has provided proof of life; and ways to prevent the creation of human life but we still have the slaughter of the unborn."

And that unborn, let's remind all, is a unique, separate individual...in the mother's body but not a part of.

When within the mother she is feeding the individual in the same sense as when breastfeeding a one year old.

There is no 'right' to kill either one.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hydroelectric power is only available in a limited number of locations. So I guess we shouldn't develop it.

Greens want to eliminate dams, so yes.

If they build the dams without thought of the migratory fish, yes, eliminate them. However, wiser course would be to fix it so the fish run can get around the dam. And replace the spawning beds drowned by the dams with manmade spawning beds. And charge the users of the electricity for the improvements.

 

[Old Rocks]

Don't bother. These climate change deniers think climate change and global warming was invented by Al Gore to make money.

They're not thinking logically and will deny anything scientific.

I wonder how our country has become a cesspool for ignorance.

Again, this from those who DENY that a child's life begins at and by conception.

Nevermind the fact that we have infinitely more evidence to support the origin of a new human life than we do to support your claims about "man caused" global warming.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

You know, before 1900, you wouldn't have said that life begins at conception, because most people didn't have any idea what that was or how it happened, nor did they have much of an idea about the various stages an embryo goes through.

You can thank science for that.

Primitive people had a good understanding of pregnancy and birth way before 1900.

Really? You think so? I mean, the mechanics of giving birth were known, as well as what was supposed to be the normal term for pregnancy, but they sure as hell didn't understand about eggs and sperm very well, because there wasn't enough medical research on it yet. Nor did they understand the various stages that the embryo goes through in it's development towards becoming fully grown.

People knew it took a male and female engaging in sexual intercourse to create a life and miscarriage at different stages of pregnancy provided insights into the growth of human beings in the womb.....well before 1900. Science has provided many of the details of the workings of the human body, but people already knew "where babies come from."
Television documentaries show the growth of a human being from the moment sperm and egg unite.... to birth, yet pro-abortionists deny that the unborn are human beings to further their agenda. Medical science has provided proof of life; and ways to prevent the creation of human life but we still have the slaughter of the unborn. Climate scientists cannot and never could influence any geological or climate-related event; they're not even all that good at predicting the weather!

Everyone needs to promote a clean world and preservation of natural resources just because it's the right thing to do not because of climate change hysteria.

How many bastard have you adopted in the last 20 years? Are you against teaching young people how to use contraceptives?

 

[Old Rocks]

This, from tardz who deny that a new child is a human being from the moment their life begins at and by conception.


Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

How many of those unwanted children have you adopted??

Aborted children can't be adopted.

Thank you for that perspective.

This is a question I regularly ask in the abortion debates....and never get an answer:

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

'cause....if there isn't, and one is murder, so, then, is the other.
That's called logic.

I don't see how anyone can argue (Constitutionally) that a woman must surrender her right to defend her own life - for the entire duration of a pregnancy. Especially, for the duration of a pregnancy that is forced upon her in an act of rape.

So, I believe that in extreme cases, the same rules would apply to a "life of the mother" type pregnancy that would apply to any other situation where she might have to use deadly force to defend herself.

It's important to note that it's the condition of the threatening "pregnancy" though - that she is defending herself against - and not the child.

I can think of no such similar physical relationship between a woman and a child she is breastfeeding.

Can you?

Let's be clear about facts....then you can give an opinion based on same.



1. In just 12% of the cases were there concerns for the mother’s health; 1% for rape; and .5% incest.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf


2. "Mother's health" is ambiguous at best, as the vast majority of abortions are based on no more than "convenience."
a. The late Dr. James McMahon performed thousands of partial-birth abortions, and five women he had performed third-trimester abortions on appeared with President Clinton at his April 10, 1996, veto ceremony.
In June, 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to Congress a detailed breakdown of a “series” of over 2,000 of these abortions that he had performed. He classified only 9% (175 cases) as involving “maternal [health] indications,” of which the most common was “depression.”
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/09/2...rtion-at-the-very-end-of-3rd-trimester-video/

3. The vast majority of abortion performed in the United States are carried out for reasons that can be broadly categorized as “matters of convenience.” In a study of 27 nations, reasons for abortion services were found to be the following:

a. “Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.” http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

b. A 2004 study of American women yielded similar results: “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.” http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

I reject the view that inconvenience of a mother’s informed choice outweighs the unalienable right to life of the child she bears by virtue of that choice.



And you say....what?

Fact #1. You are in the wrong thread. So hie your silly ass to the proper one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hydroelectric power is only available in a limited number of locations. So I guess we shouldn't develop it.

Greens want to eliminate dams, so yes.

If they build the dams without thought of the migratory fish, yes, eliminate them. However, wiser course would be to fix it so the fish run can get around the dam. And replace the spawning beds drowned by the dams with manmade spawning beds. And charge the users of the electricity for the improvements.

Sounds good. They should use the money wasted on "green" subsidies to pay for the changes.

 

[talksalot]

Again, this from those who DENY that a child's life begins at and by conception.

Nevermind the fact that we have infinitely more evidence to support the origin of a new human life than we do to support your claims about "man caused" global warming.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

You know, before 1900, you wouldn't have said that life begins at conception, because most people didn't have any idea what that was or how it happened, nor did they have much of an idea about the various stages an embryo goes through.

You can thank science for that.

Primitive people had a good understanding of pregnancy and birth way before 1900.

Really? You think so? I mean, the mechanics of giving birth were known, as well as what was supposed to be the normal term for pregnancy, but they sure as hell didn't understand about eggs and sperm very well, because there wasn't enough medical research on it yet. Nor did they understand the various stages that the embryo goes through in it's development towards becoming fully grown.

People knew it took a male and female engaging in sexual intercourse to create a life and miscarriage at different stages of pregnancy provided insights into the growth of human beings in the womb.....well before 1900. Science has provided many of the details of the workings of the human body, but people already knew "where babies come from."
Television documentaries show the growth of a human being from the moment sperm and egg unite.... to birth, yet pro-abortionists deny that the unborn are human beings to further their agenda. Medical science has provided proof of life; and ways to prevent the creation of human life but we still have the slaughter of the unborn. Climate scientists cannot and never could influence any geological or climate-related event; they're not even all that good at predicting the weather!

Everyone needs to promote a clean world and preservation of natural resources just because it's the right thing to do not because of climate change hysteria.

How many bastard have you adopted in the last 20 years? Are you against teaching young people how to use contraceptives?

My post is about how pro-abortionists are more "science deniers" than those who are unwilling to jump on the global warming bandwagon....and my family has adopted members and many fosters.....not that it's any of your business.

Your post is completely unrelated to the topic.