WARNING!!! LONG POST ALERT!!!
It started with this, posted at a “politically open” website that I used to support.
Let’s say it is true, that abortion is not the greatest idea in the world, and that a majority of Americans want to reduce abortion to the greatest extent possible. After all, looking at the stats provided by the CDC, several things are painfully obvious:
- An overwhelming majority of abortions – almost 80% occur out of wedlock.
- Among those 19 years and under, abortion is decreasing significantly; however, almost 50% of all women having abortions are over 25. In other words, they are likely not women who didn’t know better. They weren’t drunk at a college dorm, getting high behind the high school, or anything like that; they were already integrated into the responsible, adult world.
- An underwhelming percentage occurred after 21 weeks of gestation.
- The change in percentage of abortions by race says that, yes, abortion among black women is increasing, but white women are by no means absolved from the problem.
These numbers can’t be false, they come from the government. Can they? These numbers are generally accepted, and they point out a huge number of societal, economic, and political issues.
THIS IS HUGE! It’s obvious that, whether we have a consensus opinion or not, it’s worth spending time and money to make sure the problem doesn’t get any worse. We know the facts – they really aren’t even up for discussion. We know the impact – look at the broken homes, stigma to society, and loss of life. We know the resolution, but we’re not doing enough about it. Sexual expression is the start and end of the biggest cause of abortion: conception.
Conception is the new Global Warning. Consensus says conception is wrong. Consensus says we MUST act, even if the stats and forecasts are askew. Consensus says our world will fall apart if we don’t fix it. The media say it disproportionately affects the poor. Critics aren’t really arguing about it that much. Even Hillary Clinton
wants to minimize the rate of abortion, which can only be done by minimizing conception.
Conception is the new Global Warming…but only if you’re willing to pass out condoms. There is no need for behavior modification, even though it would reduce medical costs and alleviate societal issues, let alone stop freaking out every adult female who is three days late.
So, why do we want to put all the taxpayers’ money behind every potential cure for global warming, when we won’t know for years whether the potential cures will work, but won’t pursue every avenue with conception, when we know what the results will be?
I was ostracized for using satire to make a point, and for trying to manipulate people into believing that abortion was on the same plane of problems as global warming.
It went to this, as comments posted to the same website, but to a different post, searching for some pointed clarification:
There are several elements of your response that raise more issues for me
than they answer.
1. Textbook definitions of ‘consensus’, are: “agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole”. (WorldNet) Or, “an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole”. (American Heritage Dictionary) Or, “majority of opinion”. (Dictionary.com) The first two definitions were the ones I learned throughout my schooling years. I would surmise that the community of believers of the church of Global Warming use the word ‘consensus’ instead of ‘majority opinion’ because they, too, are well aware of what definition we all learned for the word ‘consensus’. This is not honest.
2. You didn’t respond to my charge of blacklisting non-believers and heretics. No one ever does. To me, lack of response on this charge is up there with the non-response the panel gave to the caller. It’s swept under the rug. Prove to me that the heretics aren’t persecuted, and we may have reason to come to the table together.
3. Organizationally, the community of believers looks to be more like a single, non-reproducing amoeba, than it does an emanating group of concentric circles. The former looks like it’s growing because it changes shape, but really doesn’t grow. The latter grows, and its growth is obvious because you have an origin from which you can measure the growth. a) IPCC members have left the GW table over everything from differences of outcome to differences of approach to disagreements about the use of political strong-arming. b) A significant number of scientists that signed the UN report on global warming are not meteorologists or climatologists. That’s like me, as a project manager, signing onto a report on electrical engineering. Here, the community of believers is continually redefined to make it look like we have majority of opinion.
4. Many businesses and industry leaders fail – and bring down their entire enterprise - because they say “we believe it’s true, so we HAVE to do it”. Good people are martyred for having different opinions and approaches, even if they agree with the premise. I’ve been on the wrong side of this by-product of groupthink a number of times. I’m used to it. People become blinded when they are in the “in” group, and regularly lead their projects or movements to dismal failure.
All I’m asking for is intellectual honesty. What I see is folks saying, “so what, we need to do something anyway.” That’s not honest.
The response I received was pointed alright, and ended with me asking to have my name pulled off the contributor’s list. The “science/academic guy” in the group didn't address my issues – that is, educate me – but rather scolded me. (He didn’t like my using religious metaphors to describe the movement, either. Go figure.) Again, he didn’t refute any of my issues, as I was mostly looking for an honest answer to #2, and some discussion of terms and the true population of the community of believers, er, proponents of global warming. Never got it. Hmm.
I don’t believe global warming is a legitimate issue. I’ve seen enough to believe it’s possible, but not enough to believe man has anything to do with it, and definitely not enough to believe that indulgences…er, carbon credits…will make any difference other than making green politicians and green companies rich. (Geez, and they hate Halliburton’s ties to the Bush administration. If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, what is?)
All that premise to get to this: the libs who are pro-global warming are really missing the boat. There is a common area of concern for all political types, and it is reliance on foreign oil. Libs don’t want to rely on any oil because of the global warming issue. They myopically forget that many conservatives don’t want foreign reliance for anything we do, including our accumulation of energy sources. So, if we could only reduce oil consumption, we’d all be better off, right?
Well, not so fast here. As easy as I believe it would be for the green left to say, “Hey, America, if we work to change our habits, and change the way we create and consume resources, in ‘x’ years we can eliminate our reliance on foreign countries that want us dead!” Sounds good, right? Lefties would get their way without freaking people out. Other energy sources would not only be considered, but pursued with vigor. Righties concerned with protecting their country would tell their politicians that we should no longer rely on Saudis and other Middle Eastern countries – or Venezuela, for that matter – to provide our oil. Russia would lose a trump card, because we could export our new technologies and take away one of their prime exports. How’s that for socking it to ‘em?
Oops, I forgot about the problem with that method. That would put America on top again. Can’t do that now, can we? That would kill everything the lefties are working for.
Instead, the libs continue to shoot themselves in the foot with global warming. They use scare tactics, and won’t answer legitimate concerns from righties because they see only political questions instead of the opportunity to educate. And they fly a quarter of a million miles in jets to play music – music! I say! – to show that global warming is bad.
I…uh…I see dumb people. D'oh!
Instead of conceding to righties a bit and protecting the country that lets them be bozos, they have to have their cake and eat it, too, all to the detriment of their own causes.
Some people never learn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and didja know that Gulliver took four journeys in
Gulliver's Travels? When I read it in high school, the teacher had us read about the Lilliputians, the Brobdingnagians and the Houyhnhnms, but said it wasn't worth reading about the fourth journey (actually, in sequence it was the third). What was it about? Here's the summary from
SparkNotes (
emphasis mine):
Next, Gulliver sets sail again and, after an attack by pirates, ends up in Laputa, where a floating island inhabited by theoreticians and academics oppresses the land below, called Balnibarbi. The scientific research undertaken in Laputa and in Balnibarbi seems totally inane and impractical, and its residents too appear wholly out of touch with reality. Taking a short side trip to Glubbdubdrib, Gulliver is able to witness the conjuring up of figures from history, such as Julius Caesar and other military leaders, whom he finds much less impressive than in books. After visiting the Luggnaggians and the Struldbrugs, the latter of which are senile immortals who prove that age does not bring wisdom, he is able to sail to Japan and from there back to England.
Why do I feel like America is turning into Laputa and Balnibarbi?
