When it comes to abortion on demand, we can all surely agree that it is an utterly polarizing policy. With Democrats, it is a litmus test. You seemingly cannot be a Democratic elected politician without being ready to forcibly enforce the notion that abortion should be legal in all manners and forms at all times. It is the #1 idol for Democrats to worship. They won’t even allow for abortion facilities to have the same medical standards as veterinarian clinic. Now, though, anthropogenic climate change is supposedly more polarizing
(AP) Tempers are rising in America, along with the temperatures.
Two decades ago, the issue of climate change wasn’t as contentious. The leading U.S. Senate proponent of taking action on global warming was Republican John McCain. George W. Bush wasn’t as zealous on the issue as his Democratic opponent for president in 2000, Al Gore, but he, too, talked of regulating carbon dioxide.
Then the Earth got even hotter , repeatedly breaking temperature records. But instead of drawing closer together, politicians polarized.
Democrats (and scientists) became more convinced that global warming was a real, man-made threat . But Republicans and Tea Party activists became more convinced that it was – to quote the repeated tweets of presidential nominee Donald Trump – a “hoax.” A Republican senator tossed a snowball on the Senate floor for his proof.
Obviously, this AP “article” is written by an uber Warmist. You’ve seen the name Seth Borenstein before. He’s one of the chief cheerleaders for the AP and Washington Post. The big difference here is that Skeptics were willing to look at the evidence, the science, the facts, and realized that there isn’t any, or at least enough, evidence of anthropogenic causation to implement massive tax schemes and economy damaging policies while also increasing the size and power of the central government over the economy, private entities, and citizen’s lives.
On the flip side, Warmists couldn’t care less about evidence, facts, or science, because this is all about increased taxation and government size and scope. All on Other People, of course. Warmists want all the supposed benefits and redistribution to come their own way will Other People pay the price for the Warmist’s beliefs.
But nothing beats climate change for divisiveness.
“It’s more politically polarizing than abortion,” says Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. “It’s more politically polarizing than gay marriage.”
Leiserowitz says 17 percent of Americans, the fastest-growing group, are alarmed by climate change and want action now, based on surveys by Yale and George Mason University.
Another 28 percent are concerned, thinking it’s a man-made threat, but somewhat distant in time and place. Twenty-seven percent are cautious, still on the fence, and 11 percent are doubtful. An often-vocal 10 percent are dismissive, rejecting the concept of warming and the science. And about 7 percent are disengaged, not even paying attention because they’ve got more pressing needs.
Of course, when stacked up on a list of Things That Matter To Americans, ‘climate change’ tends to come in last or next to last. No one really cares. And, of course, the article forgot to mention an statistics or polling that would show that climate change is more polarizing than abortion on demand.
But, that’s not the point. Read the rest of the article and you’ll see that the point her is to prop up the Cult of Climastrology, saying that if you refuse to believe that mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the small increase in global temperatures you don’t believe in science. It’s all standard Warmists claptrap, long on yammering and short on actual scientific evidence.
Overwhelmingly, scientists who study the issue say it is man-made and a real problem. Using basic physics and chemistry and computer simulations, scientists have repeatedly calculated how much extra warming is coming from natural forces and how much comes from humans. The scientists and their peer-reviewed research blame human activity, for the most part.
Dozens of scientific measurements show Earth is warming. Since 1997, the world has warmed by 0.44 degrees (0.25 degrees Celsius) and 51 monthly or annual global heat records were broken, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Arctic sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers are melting faster. The seas have risen and hot water has been killing coral in record numbers. Scientists have connected man-made climate change to extreme weather, including deadly heat waves, droughts and flood-inducing downpours. Allergies, asthma and pest-borne diseases are worsening public health problems, with experts blaming climate change.
None of those prove anthropogenic causation. And that is what the debate is about. Causation. Just saying “man is at fault, now sit down, shut up, and give us your money and liberty (while we refuse to practice what we preach)” is not science. Computer models and doomsaying are not proof. Hysterical articles saying that climate change is more polarizing than abortion is not proof.
Not as polarizing. Deniers have yet to start bombing climate research facilities.
Clearly, abortion invokes more visceral responses than global warming.
Abortion, though clearly the worst sin ever so blithely accepted by a political party, does not (personally) effect people not directly involved. Although the left would like to force everybody to pay for abortions, that hasn’t happened yet.
But the ‘solutions’ proposed for
global warmingclimate change? Those would hit every one of us in our wallets, whether we believe it exists, believe that it is caused by human activity if it does exist, or could be reduced by the policies the government proposes, or not. If the left get their way, we will all be forced to live poorer, today, for a possible gain a hundred years from now.This is just another reason why the Democrats have lost the white working class voter. The elites have forgotten, if they ever even knew, what it is like to have to live from paycheck-to-paycheck, and how just small increases in costs can have big impacts in how some families have to live. If you are solidly middle class, and can stand another $50 a month coming out of your paychecks without it really bothering you, then you can afford to be concerned about
global warmingclimate change; if you have to pinch pennies to make it until next payday, well maybeglobal warmingclimate change isn’t quite as high up on your priority list as making sure your clunker — the one you couldn’t afford to replace even with Cash for Clunkers, because you couldn’t afford to buy a new car — makes it through the next season.Jeffrey, on the other hand, sees absolutely nothing wrong with the logic of the abortionists, that declaring one class of human beings, the unborn, to not be actual persons.
After all, we’ve done that in so many other cases, such as slavery, and the Final Solution.
Those who support abortion had really better hope that Hell is just a myth; if Hell is real, they will all find out about it, first hand.
about 3/4 of all Republicans believe that illegals should have a path to citizenship, that abortion should be legal and that AGW is real
The party has been hijacked by extremists who threaten regular GOP with terms like RINO and squishy and moderate. And that is how you ended up with Trump
Those thongs you list in #4 John depend exclusively on how the questions are phrased. You know that, you know we know that, and you know we know you know that so stop the nonsense.
Abortion? please tell me where in the christian Bible that is forbidden http://reverbpress.com/religion/bible-supports-abortion/
My fav is Numbers5:27 The Ordeal of Bitter Waters
often used when your sex slave (handmaiden) becomes pregnant and you suspect another is the father
Numbers 5:27 – Abortion Is Okay, If The Mom Doesn’t Approve
“If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.â€
This is a fun one. Earlier in Numbers, it’s stated that, if a man suspects his wife of sleeping with another man, he may bring her to a priest who will create some sort of magic potion with water and dirt. The woman is then made to drink said magic potion. If she has not cheated on her husband, nothing will happen.
If the woman has cheated and is carrying another man’s child, though, the mystical dirt water — we can call it magic mud — will cause her to immediately miscarry. This is a directive coming straight from God himself to Moses. So even if pro-lifers can dodge all these other verses, they can’t deny that this one essentially says, “Abortion is okay as long as it’s forced upon a woman, against her will, for cheating on her husband.â€
Yeah… that’s way more acceptable than what pro-choice advocates are going for…
Our 51st State Israel seems to have no problem with abortion, and didn’t they write that Book?
Dana
Christianity has had a long and conflicted history with abortion
Dana are you condeming all those Jews who use abortion to your Hell also ?
And of course no “climate truthers” have ever been assassinated like doctors who have performed abortions
dana,
The “unborn” are not persons. Many fold more (135 million) fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses are expelled from the womb each year by natural processes than by therapeutic abortions.
It would seem an ardent supporter of the rights of the “unborn” would be working to do something about this!! You don’t refer to the over 100 million embryos and fetuses lost each year to natural abortion as persons dying.
It’s become quite clear that the anti-abortion movement has little to do with saving the “unborn” and a lot to do with controlling women. “So you got knocked-up, bitch? Tough shit.”
Does your god(s) oppose abortion? How do you know? If your god reasonable? Perhaps she would answer why she didn’t make her desires more clear vis a vis abortion. Perhaps she could answer why she kills 135 million “unborn” each year “naturally”?
Jeffrey wrote:
Chief Justice Taney delivered the Opinion of the Court:
It is good to know that you stand with the decision in Dred Scott v Sandford.
As nearly as I could find, the Nazis did not define Jews as not being legal persons, but simply segregated them as a different kind of person, one whose rights were slowly whittled away before the war began, whittled away to the virtually complete exclusion from public life. Naturally, after the war, Jews had no rights at all, not even the right to life. It’s good to know that you stand with der Führer on the classification of Jews.
In the end, the pro-abortionists are philosophically indistinguishable from slave owners and from the Nazis. Both, for their own convenience and economic advantage, classified certain people as not being legal persons, as not having the rights of ‘real’ people. For the pro-abortionists, the unborn are treated the same: they have no rights, and are treated, effectively as property, as Chief Justice Taney held to be the case with black slaves. For the economic advantage of the ‘parents,’ the unborn can simply be disposed of.
Your philosophical problem is huge: you can, and most assuredly will, argue as to why the unborn should not be considered legal persons, something you’ve already done, but hovering in the background is the specter of Roger Taney and Adolf Hitler, arguing the same thing, simply concerning different groups of human beings.
You are known by the company you keep, and the company you keep is somewhat unsavory.
As usual john, you read something and apply it wrongly.
The bitter waters is not what you believe it to be. It never was. Yet for a religion hating, anti Christian, you think that you know all about what Christians think and believe.
You once tried to say that there was no support in the Bible against abortion and when I quoted chapter and verses to you, you ran away.
There is therefore no point in repeating over and over again what you refuse to discuss or address. Wallow in your ignorance.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, – Romans 1:22
dana,
That’s your argument? Name calling in support of your religion? People who support choice for women are the same as Nazis and slavers?
In your personal opinion, at what point in development does a fertilized egg gain personhood? One second? A minute? An hour? When?
You didn’t answer my query about the 100 million+ “persons” killed in utero by nature each year. Are you interested in stopping these abortions? Or just those of poor American women?
If 100 million+ children died each year from disease we as a people would work to prevent it, don’t you think? Yet it seems that humankind disagrees with you that embryos are persons. Do you fight to save the 100+ million embryos? If not, why not? Do you consider these 100 million embryos less worthy than the fewer than 1 million embryos from therapeutic abortions? You sound like a Nazi to me.
The bible doesn’t even consider a baby a person until one month of age.
And kind of shit is this?
Oh look. Jeffery decides to try and quote the Bible and instead, displays his ignorance.
The Numbers and Leviticus passage is about a census on one tribe of the Israelites. To be counted as a member of the tribe of priests, one must have been consecrated which could take place any time up to 30 days, or a month. The passage is not about the value of the child or whether they were a personh, but his or her place in the tribe.
Most intelligent people call it a prophecy. I have no idea what you call it.
The context is that the City of Samaria had turned away from God. The Assyrians later came and destroyed the city.
So once again, you try to make one point and show that in fact, you are quite ignorant.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, – Romans 1:22
I didn’t try to quote the bible, I quoted the bible.
The quotes were accurate, right?
Now you add “context”, LOL.
Spin, spin, spin all you want. I thought your bible was the word of your god(s)?
Jeffrey laughably wrote:
[Guffaws!] My argument made no reference to religion at all, but, having no argument of his own, Jeffrey tries to claim that I was making an argument in support of my religion.
And, of course, he missed the point entirely, that the supporters of abortion, those who claim that an unborn child is not a ‘person,’ are using the same philosophical arguments as the slave owners and the Nazis. He responds only with snark, because that’s the only argument he has!
Tell me, Jeffrey, how does your argument that an unborn child is not a person differ from those of Roger Taney concerning blacks, how does it differ from the arguments used by the Nazis to take away the civil rights of Jews in Germany?
Of course, you will be unable to make such an argument, because there really isn’t one.
So only you know what the words of the bible mean? And the words can mean whatever you wish? That’s convenient for oppressing homosexuals and women.
Should adulterers be put to death?
nada,
The argument differs in that Jews and Blacks are actually persons. You know, born of a woman, breathing, outside the womb, thinking, reacting.
By all means make your case that fertilized eggs, 2, 4, 8 cell stages are persons with all rights and privileges of personhood. You’re in a minority, similar to the Nazi minority and the slaveholder minorities. The mass of humanity stood up against the Nazis and the slavers. Now, the mass of humanity stands on the side of a woman’s right to choose.
Is there a point in time after an egg intercepts a sperm that it becomes a person?
And what about those 135 million “persons” killed by nature each year in the womb or on their way to the womb?
And your argument is that the mass of humanity are Nazis and slavers.
I wrote:
To which Jeffrey responded:
Yup, as I predicted, Jeffrey would differentiate between people based upon their location and condition. It wasn’t sop very long ago that many people didn’t believe that blacks could really think.
Except, of course, that I am arguing for rights and for life, while the slaveholders and Nazis and pro-abortionists are arguing for death. I am arguing that the unborn should have rights, while the slave holders and Nazis and pro-abortionists are claiming that the classes of people they don’t like should have none.
Yes, of course there is: the moment of conception. You, on the other hand, are arguing that that a 32 week-gestation unborn child is not a person, and can be killed at will, when we have had children born at 24 weeks gestation, who have lived.
They weren’t murdered, Jeffrey; they simply didn’t survive. It happens.
It wasn’t that long ago that the majority of Americans supported slavery, and the majority of Germans appeared to support the anti-Semitic laws passed by the Third Reich.
How is it that the left are so very supportive of death?