Global warming: New research emphasizes the role of economic growth

May 01, 2012

It's a message no one wants to hear: To slow down global warming, we'll either have to put the brakes on economic growth or transform the way the world's economies work.

That's the implication of an innovative University of Michigan study examining the of atmospheric CO2, the most likely cause of global climate change.

The study, conducted by José Tapia Granados and Edward Ionides of U-M and Óscar Carpintero of the University of Valladolid in Spain, was published online in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Policy. It is the first analysis to use measurable levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide to assess fluctuations in the gas, rather than estimates of CO2 emissions, which are less accurate.

"If 'business as usual' conditions continue, economic contractions the size of the Great Recession or even bigger will be needed to reduce atmospheric levels of CO₂," said Tapia Granados, who is a researcher at the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR).

For the study, the researchers assessed the impact of four factors on short-run, year-to-year changes in atmospheric concentrations of CO2, widely considered the most important greenhouse gas. Those factors included two natural phenomena believed to affect CO2 levels—volcanic eruptions and the El Niño Southern oscillation—and also world population and the world economy, as measured by worldwide gross domestic product.

Tapia Granados and colleagues found no observable relation between short-term growth of world population and CO₂ concentrations, and they show that incidents of volcanic activity coincided with global recessions, which brings into question the reductions in atmospheric CO2 previously ascribed to these volcanic eruptions.

In years of above-trend world GDP, from 1958 to 2010, the researchers found greater increases in CO2 concentrations. For each trillion in U.S. dollars that the world GDP deviates from trend, CO2 levels deviate from trend about half a part per million (ppm), they found. Concentrations of CO2 are estimated to have been between 200-300 ppm during preindustrical times. They are presently close to 400 ppm, and levels around 300 ppm are considered safe to keep a stable climate.

To break the economic habits contributing to a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels and global warming, Tapia Granados says that societies around the world would need to make enormous changes.

"Since the 1980s, scientists like James Hansen have been warning us about the effects will have on the earth," Tapia Granados said. "One solution that has promise is a carbon tax levied on any activity producing CO2 in order to create incentives to reduce emissions. The money would be returned to individuals so the tax would not mean any extra fiscal burden."

Explore further: Tropical storm batters southern Mexico coast, kills six

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Image: Carbon dioxide on the rise

Jun 28, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The SCIAMACHY sensor on ESA?s Envisat satellite has provided scientists with invaluable data on our planet, allowing them to map global air pollution and the distribution of greenhouse gases.

Plunge in CO2 put the freeze on Antarctica

Dec 01, 2011

Plunge in CO2 put the freeze on AntarcticaAtmospheric carbon dioxide levels plunged by 40% before and during the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet 34 million years ago, according to a new study. The finding helps solv ...

Carbon dioxide already in danger zone, warns study

Nov 18, 2008

A group of 10 prominent scientists says that the level of globe-warming carbon dioxide in the air has probably already reached a point where world climate will change disastrously unless the level can be reduced in coming ...

Recommended for you

Historian unearths origins of Mexico's water crisis

41 minutes ago

A historic three-year drought has left California bone dry. But the state, along with much of the Southwest, is not alone in its water crisis. Mexico, too, is facing a severe water shortage, and Stanford ...

Nepal to end rescue operation on trekking route

4 hours ago

Nepal was wrapping up rescue operations in its northern mountains Monday, saying all the hikers believed to have been stranded on a trekking route by a series of deadly blizzards are now safe.

Major breakthrough could help detoxify pollutants

19 hours ago

Scientists at The University of Manchester hope a major breakthrough could lead to more effective methods for detoxifying dangerous pollutants like PCBs and dioxins. The result is a culmination of 15 years of research and ...

User comments : 131

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

PeterD
2 / 5 (28) May 01, 2012
More human caused global warming nonsense. We went through the same thing a 1000 years ago, and the cause was the sun, as it is now.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (31) May 01, 2012
It should be clear by now to anyone that can read, that AGW is a foot-in-the-door for the far left socialists. If they gain power they WILL control every aspect of your lives.

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (26) May 01, 2012
Sounds like a cap and tax bait and switch scam.
powerup1
4.2 / 5 (19) May 01, 2012
It is sad to say, but the "global warming" situation has become so politicized in the US that it is almost impossible to address this important matter in a rational manner.
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (12) May 01, 2012
"Tapia Granados and colleagues found no observable relation between short-term growth of world population and CO concentrations, and they show that incidents of volcanic activity coincided with global recessions, which brings into question the reductions in atmospheric CO2 previously ascribed to these volcanic eruptions."
Does any one have a link for this? I thought Volcanos added 1-200 million tons of co2 to the atmosphere each year. Is this a mistake?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (22) May 01, 2012
It is sad to say, but the "global warming" situation has become so politicized in the US that it is almost impossible to address this important matter in a rational manner.

The AGWites first mistake was taking the political route. IPCC is purely political and so was AlGore.
AGWites outside the US are so used to being controlled by their govts they must have thought people in the US would bend over and grab their ankles, too.
axemaster
4.1 / 5 (16) May 01, 2012
AGWites outside the US are so used to being controlled by their govts they must have thought people in the US would bend over and grab their ankles, too.

Yeah, because conservatives aren't controlling at all. Oh wait, the Patriot Act, warrentless wiretapping, abortion, gay marriage, etc... Gay marriage being probably the worst, since the opposition to it is based purely on religious nonsense and it's nothing but systematic oppression of a minority.

Then when a real issue comes up that carries even the slightest inconvenience for those "tough guys", they immediately choose to ignore it. Meanwhile the problem festers for 20 years, and they act like it's not their fault when it's grown to a nearly intractable level. Yeah, it's socialism, it's the liberal's (and moderates) fault for trying to do something!

Such courage...
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (22) May 01, 2012
Fire all the climate scientists as a start.

In fact, they should all voluntarily resign and go live in a cave if they really think they ar causing a problem with their fat wasteful salaries.

Al Gore should sell off his 7 mansions and 3 private jets.

Go ahead cult leaders... lead!!! Resign. Live off the land.
axemaster
4.1 / 5 (17) May 01, 2012
Fire all the climate scientists as a start.

In fact, they should all voluntarily resign and go live in a cave if they really think they ar causing a problem with their fat wasteful salaries.

Really? How much money do you think climate scientists actually make? Because you see, scientists generally are given 2 big choices when they get out of college. They can work for the financial industry and make $200,000 or more per year, or they can work on things they love and make $60,000-100,000 per year. So when you go and claim that they're in climate science for the money, you should be aware that you're factually wrong. Also, you should be aware that scientists work damn hard to get their degrees, and they deserve to get paid for their effort and expertise.
ShotmanMaslo
3.4 / 5 (13) May 02, 2012
Antropogenic global warming is real and indeed it makes sense that CO2 emmisions are tightly correlated with economic growth in our fossil-powered world, which continue to rise quickly.

What this research really shows is that fight against global warming is futile. Because nobody is going to sacrifice economy to fight climate change.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (9) May 02, 2012
Not according to the PaleoClimate data.

"We went through the same thing a 1000 years ago" - PeTard

Who told you so? Rush Limbaugh? Faux news?

You do realize don't you, that those sources of nonsense, make their living by lying to you?

https://docs.goog...NGc/edit
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (9) May 02, 2012
We did?

"We went through the same thing a 1000 years ago" - PeTard

Not according to the Paleoclimate data.

https://docs.goog...vbUxuNGc

Who told you we had? Rush Limbaugh? Faux news?

You do realize don't you, that those sources of nonsense make their living by lying to you.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (10) May 02, 2012
The alternative is to have mother nature reduce the economy for us.

"Because nobody is going to sacrifice economy to fight climate change." - Shotman

She won't be very discerning or convenient.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (10) May 02, 2012
NeumenTard will claim to his dying day that the globe can't be warming because he fears the only solution is socialism.

"It should be clear by now to anyone that can read, that AGW is a foot-in-the-door for the far left socialists" - NeumenTard

Fear and Greed are the only two motivating factors that Conservatives comprehend.

I also recognize, logic, morality, and necessity among other factors.

Origin
1 / 5 (4) May 02, 2012
IMO the economical growth can be provided only with finding of new raw sources at colonies and asteroids and with implementation of new energy sources by application of new findings. The cold fusion seems the only viable alternative to the classical sources of energy in this moment and it can lead to the end of economical crisis soon. Without it the human civilization will be seriously doomed with impacts of global warming and energetic and subsequent geopolitical crisis. Without introduction of cold fusion and subsequent fall of oil prices we can even expect the nuclear war at the end of year 2012.

http://www.pakale...a-china/
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (12) May 02, 2012
Everything sounds like a tax scam to mindless Libertarians, even though it was Libertarian economists who insisted that taxing Carbon Consumption was the proper way to proceed.

"Sounds like a cap and tax bait and switch scam." - RyggTard

And I still haven't seen RyggTard explain why his hero - Ayn Rand - decided to become a welfare queen.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) May 02, 2012
Isn't it a Shame that Martini&Rossi's E-Cat has turned out to be such a spectacular fraud?

"Without introduction of cold fusion and subsequent fall of oil prices we can even expect the nuclear war at the end of year 2012." - Orion
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (11) May 02, 2012
Net Volcanic flux is zero. Volcanic emissions are roughly 1 percent of human emissions.

"I thought Volcanos added 1-200 million tons of co2 to the atmosphere each year" - GregorTard
Origin
1 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
Isn't it a Shame that Martini&Rossi's E-Cat has turned out to be such a spectacular fraud?
It didn't - the E-cat factories are being developed. Without large scale factory you cannot get rich from E-Cat finding, because the first E-Cat unit will be reverse engineered with Chinese and sold at much lower prices. Therefore the strategy of Andrea Rossi is quite clear: not to release any info about his finding, until large scale factory will not be ready to go and produce the E-Cat units at the price, which the East Asia competition cannot beat with its cheap labour force.

You apparently don't understand capitalism and principles of free market at all.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (10) May 02, 2012
Opposition in the U.S. started long before Al-Gore took up the mantle, and long before the IPCC existed.

Corporations cut their denialist teeth with their "Tobacco is good for you" campaigns and later with their "Acid Rain is good for you" campaigns, and then with their "CFC's don't damage the ozone layer" campaigns.

Lying to the American public is Job Number 1 for Libertarian propaganda groups like the Heritage Foundation.

"The AGWites first mistake was taking the political route." - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) May 02, 2012
Wow, a true member of the faithful.

"It didn't - the E-cat factories are being developed." - Origin

Yup, and they are made from invisible pixie dust.
Origin
1 / 5 (5) May 02, 2012
@Vendicar_Decarian You're occupying apparently conservative stance with your dismissive attitude toward cold fusion, because just the conservatives (members of fossil fuel lobby) are most reluctant against cold fusion and they're responsible for its twenty years standing ignorance.
Yup, and they are made from invisible pixie dust.
They're made from huge investments of private investors, because A. Rossi sold his private company Leonardo Corp. already. He wasn't able to finance the building of factories from his private money.

http://energycata...for-sale
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (9) May 02, 2012
Then why do 98 percent of the worlds scientists agree with and accept the IPCC's assessments?

"IPCC is purely political and so was AlGore." - RyggTard

"AGWites outside the US are so used to being controlled by their govts" - RyggTard

I see. So only American Free Thinkers see the light. Even though they have the worst scientific education in the world.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
Quite the contrary. It should be looked into by some competent scientists with some real equipment.

But Martini & Rossi are clearly scam artists.

"You're occupying apparently conservative stance with your dismissive attitude toward cold fusion" - Origin

And you are a fool for having such faith in the unseen.
Origin
2.1 / 5 (7) May 02, 2012
Then why do 98 percent of the worlds scientists agree with and accept the IPCC's assessments?
They don't. Global warming is fucking real, but do we have evidence, it's the result of carbon dioxide released with humans? Nope. After all, this question is irrelevant: if the prices of oil will rise with contemporary speed, we will face the global nuclear war for the oil sources anyway. http://inflationd...t_sm.jpg
Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2012
And you are a fool for having such faith in the unseen.
Cold fusion is routinely demonstrated at MIT for students. We don't know, what this reaction is all about, but we can be perfectly sure, it's real in the same way, like the HT superconductivity (which still has no theory developed in the same way).
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
Conservatives have a strong propensity to bury any truth that is incompatible with their extremist and dishonest ideology.

"Fire all the climate scientists as a start." - ParkerTard

"Al Gore should sell off his 7 mansions and 3 private jets." - ParkerTard

Why? Those "mansions" - really office and production facilities for his various businesses - have done more to improve the human condition than virtually any other.

I love it when Conservatives like ParkerTard show their jealousy at Gore's fantastic success, while ignoring the fact that they voted twice for Bushie's fantastic failure.

Well done ConservaTards.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) May 02, 2012
If so, then they should patent the process.

"Cold fusion is routinely demonstrated at MIT for students." - Origin

Why haven't they? Are magic moon beams preventing it?
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (5) May 02, 2012
Hmmm let's see. The warming is real, the CO2 is real, the CO2 captures heat, but we have no evidence that CO2 is causing warming.

"but do we have evidence, it's the result of carbon dioxide released with humans?" - Origin

You have some major brain disconnect there boy. A substantive wiring defect.

Origin
1.8 / 5 (5) May 02, 2012
If so, then they should patent the process.
LOL, patent for Chinese? They will imitate everything. What planet are you coming from?
The warming is real, the CO2 is real, the CO2 captures heat, but we have no evidence that CO2 is causing warming.
It depends on the height, where the heat capturing is occurring. And the greenhouse effect of CO2 is negligible with compare to water vapour effect, whose concentration is much higher and less stable. I've no problem with Arrhenius model, but I don't think it's the main reason of global warming (which occurs at the another planets of solar system too, after all).

http://news.natio...ing.html
http://www.abovet...1608/pg1
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) May 02, 2012
"LOL, patent for Chinese?" = Origin

I had no idea that MIT was Chinese.

You apparently have no idea that the majority of science and engineering students at MIT are Chinese.

So why is MIT demonstrating "cold fusion" to them as you claim?

Why don't they patent the process?

Moebius
2.1 / 5 (8) May 02, 2012
We have a fatally flawed economic system based on growth. FUNDAMENTALLY FATALLY FLAWED. Growth can NOT go on forever and probably is a really bad idea even in the short term.

How so many people can buy into a system based on something that is, by definition, unsustainable is beyond my understanding. We aren't just stoopid monkey's, monkey's at least have a survival instinct.
dmmcmah
2.3 / 5 (3) May 02, 2012
"It is the first analysis to use measurable levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide to assess fluctuations in the gas, rather than estimates of CO2 emissions, which are less accurate."

Actually it's not true its the first analysis to assess fluctuations in the gas - Murray Salby has been doing that kind of research which he presented last year. His research shows there is zero correlation between human emissions and fluctuations in CO2 gas in the atmosphere. Google Salby online and you can watch his eye opening talk at the Sidney institute.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) May 02, 2012
Watching Faux News makes you stupid.

"How so many people can buy into a system based on something that is, by definition, unsustainable is beyond my understanding." = Moebius

http://www.cato.o...2-1.html
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) May 02, 2012
Growth can NOT go on forever and probably is a really bad idea even in the short term.

Why not?
Until a Dyson's sphere is built around the sun, growth potential is high.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (9) May 02, 2012
Possibly because you are an idiot.

"Why not?" - RyggTard
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) May 02, 2012
[Noumenon] will claim to his dying day that the globe can't be warming because he fears the only solution is socialism.

"It should be clear by now to anyone that can read, that AGW is a foot-in-the-door for the far left socialists" - Noumenon


As expected VD misrepresents an argument, because it finds it easier to argue against a straw-man.

I think artificially putting CO2 into the atmosphere will have an effect on climate. I don't believe man has a handle on how much, to the accuracy claimed, and I reject hysterical cataclysmic AGW.

Global control of energy use, and changing the form of gov in free nations to socialism WILL NOT HAPPEN. Therefore it is pointless to put forth such "final solutions'.

Socialism is ad-hoc and is counter to the nature of man, while free-market capitalism is purely natural and therefore the more scientific approach, as it uses nature rather than fights it.

Which will be accepted and have more power. History has answered this question.
rubberman
4.4 / 5 (7) May 02, 2012
"Actually it's not true its the first analysis to assess fluctuations in the gas - Murray Salby has been doing that kind of research which he presented last year. His research shows there is zero correlation between human emissions and fluctuations in CO2 gas in the atmosphere. Google Salby online and you can watch his eye opening talk at the Sidney institute.


Salby bases his entire goal of discounting human CO2 input on his theory that currently CO2 follows temperature, then he completely puts his foot in his mouth by, and get this, during the same lecture, saying that IPCC findings are bogus because although CO2 has continued to rise during the first decade of the 21st century, temperatures haven't. Dumbest professor EVER!
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) May 02, 2012
Fear and Greed are the only two motivating factors that Conservatives comprehend. - Venereal_Disease


But it is a different nature of fear than that put forth by the far left, of 'hysterical cataclysmic global warming'.

This "conservative fear", is based on what progressive liberalism and socialism IS as a matter of historical fact, ...while the fear mongering of the Algore's of the world are of unfounded speculation, unproven and unverified.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (11) May 02, 2012
This same group of far left progressives who feign scientifically minded enlightenment, fail to recognize that free-market economies operate on natural processes, not on button-pushing and dial-turning by nit-wits in the gov,... despite that the incompetence of gov in managing debt and spending is clear for all to witness.

This same group of profoundly naive twits, think they can ad-hoc'ily engineer economies and conform the egoistic nature of man, to obtain their utopian visions of an environmentally secure and perfect society. Yet trillions have been spent on Basic societal problems with very little or nothing, to show for it.

The profit potentials of new energy technology and the natural adaptation by the free market is a far more rational possibility than the subjection to socialistic governments.
ShotmanMaslo
1.6 / 5 (8) May 03, 2012
We have a fatally flawed economic system based on growth. FUNDAMENTALLY FATALLY FLAWED. Growth can NOT go on forever and probably is a really bad idea even in the short term.


At least as long as scientific and technological progress goes on, economical growth can go on sustainably. Growth is not an enemy, olny unsustainable growth is. Nor is our economical system based on growth.
ShotmanMaslo
1.8 / 5 (6) May 03, 2012
"Until a Dyson's sphere is built around the sun, growth potential is high."

Quoted for truth. Perhaps its a bit exagerrated, but I see it similarly. Until the whole solar system and ocean is colonised, we have a potential to grow. Infinite growth is indeed impossible, but we have still only scratched the surface (of the Earth, so literally) in possible *sustainable* growth.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) May 03, 2012
Infinite growth is indeed impossible,

Why?
Seriously, why?
Define your terms before making this assertion.
ShotmanMaslo
3.7 / 5 (6) May 03, 2012
Infinite growth is indeed impossible,

Why?
Seriously, why?
Define your terms before making this assertion.


Because heat death of the universe.
kaasinees
3.9 / 5 (7) May 03, 2012
Because there is an finite amount of resources(including life and labor).
axemaster
5 / 5 (7) May 03, 2012
Nor is our economical system based on growth.

I just choked on my coffee... I BLAME YOU!!!
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (10) May 03, 2012
Because there is an finite amount of resources(including life and labor).


I agree.

We only have a few years before this interglacial comes to an end killing most of the people.

And when the Sun becomes a red giant it will all burn up.

About 5,000,000,000 AD.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 03, 2012
Infinite growth is indeed impossible,

Why?
Seriously, why?
Define your terms before making this assertion.


Because heat death of the universe.

Will that kill the 'Q' or their equivalent?
Assuming humans keep evolving, what does 'the universe' mean?
Maybe there really is a place like heaven where a life force (soul) can exist forever.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) May 04, 2012
The same group of left wingers who appear so concerned about the environment and future humanity, don't even acknowledge that a fetus is a person, and readily support aborting existent humanity.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
The same group of left wingers who appear so concerned about the environment and future humanity, don't even acknowledge that a fetus is a person, and readily support aborting existent humanity.

Humans are parasites to the 'progressive'. Especially those who do not agree with them.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) May 04, 2012
One can no more "slow down the economy" or "change the way the economy works" than one can remove the circulatory system from a living being and not end up killing it, or at best reducing it to artificial life support.

The governments of the world are OBVIOUSLY incompetent wrt positive economic growth. Even the USA is $16 trillion in debt and didn't prevent the 2008 collapse,.. so while governments are imminently qualified to Damage economies and slow them down, they clearly have zero ability to control economies.

The progressive left actually think that social engineering of energy use and economic engineering is a viable solution. This is how dangerously moronic and naive these people are.

Slowing down economies is the exact wrong thing to do; We're not using alternatives now so why stay in this state, and further, less oil use means prolonged oil use. You want the economy full bore ahead so that alternatives have a chance at being adopted when the market is ready for them.
axemaster
5 / 5 (4) May 04, 2012
The same group of left wingers who appear so concerned about the environment and future humanity, don't even acknowledge that a fetus is a person, and readily support aborting existent humanity.

Wow, that's quite an attack. But let's examine things a bit more closely, shall we?

I guess the main question is when does a cluster of cells reach sufficient size and sophistication to be called a person? Actually, what constitutes a person, anyway? I doubt anyone thinks a cluster of cells is a person. Is a fish smart enough to be a person? No, we eat them. Is a bird a person? No, we eat them. We also eat deer, which are actually quite smart. And octopus, dolphin, cuttlefish, pigs, and plenty of other impressively intelligent animals.

None of them are "people" to us. Is this just because they don't look human to us? If so, then your "morality" is actually a very thin barrier between yourself and the reality surrounding you. The value of a mind is not based on the body it occupies.
axemaster
5 / 5 (3) May 04, 2012
I think this argument can be extended quite far. After all, we in the Western world have a horror around the idea of eating dogs. A dog isn't actually any more intelligent than the animals I listed previously, but we go out of our way to ascribe feelings and "humanity" to our dogs. But if you took the mind of that dog and put it in any other body it would become disposable. Your morality was just an illusion.

Of course, our lenses are thickest when it comes to our babies - we have evolved extremely strong feelings regarding for obvious reasons. But what is a fetus really? A cluster of cells is not a person - it has no mind. A curled up embryo doesn't have a mind either. Even a baby minutes before birth couldn't rationally be said to have anything even approaching the level of animals we eat every day. Realistically, a baby is just a piece of meat.
axemaster
3.7 / 5 (3) May 04, 2012
Perhaps this argument makes you queasy. I know it makes me queasy. After all, it reveals the shaky foundations underlying most of our moral life. But I guess the point is that you shouldn't assume you have the moral high ground on abortion when the fact is, there probably isn't ANY moral high ground to be found.

In which case, I would support the rights of individuals to reason it out in their own way, according to their own beliefs.

Oh, and before you go attacking moral relativism, perhaps you should examine yourself. Other cultures do things you'd never dream of, things you'd consider terribly sinful, but to them it's just life as usual. Everything you believe is a product of moral relativism - you've just been taught all your life that it isn't. That it's "sacred". And that's irony at its finest!

Have a nice day!
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 04, 2012
Everything you believe is a product of moral relativism

Which is why the axiom was declared that human right to life is inherent.
The alternative has been thousands of years of institutional slaughter.
But its all relative, right?
Whether one bets on roosters, or pit bulls or humans fighting to the death in a ring, its all relative.
axemaster
5 / 5 (1) May 04, 2012
Which is why the axiom was declared that human right to life is inherent.
The alternative has been thousands of years of institutional slaughter.

I think you'll find this to be an interesting read:

http://www.michig...wise.pdf

I guess the main point of the argument I was making was that you can't have rights for fetuses without also having rights for animals.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) May 04, 2012
@axemaster,

Why on earth would you bring up other animals, and attempt to reduce the point to "a few cells"? I'm not talking about a few cells or chipmunks,... I'm talking about a biological form obviously that of a human, that if LEFT ALONE to its own volition will develope into a person.

This isn't about religious viewpoint either, as I don't believe in god!

Such is the high regard one should have for humanity,... that even if it is "overkill" to regard the "bunch of cells" as a person, you do it the fu'k anyway, just out of sophistication and respect for life.

The progressive left wish to devalue human life even further. They are social engineers whom believe the masses need to be controlled. This is a fact.

The point above is that they're not competent to concern themselves with non-existent future generations, when they don't respect existing life, nor liberty.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
I guess the main point of the argument I was making was that you can't have rights for fetuses without also having rights for animals.


Humans are several orders of magnitude superior to animals. Even a retarded human is light-years beyond the most developed animal. Animals have the "right" only according to natures laws, to exist via survival of the fittest in the wild. Humans born into civilization have basic rights accorded them via a constitution and established laws.

Of course, your position that animals should have rights as humans, is laughable and quite absurd.

Realistically, a baby is just a piece of meat.


Statements like the above is why I hate liberals with a passion. The nazi's didn't think certain people were sufficiently human as well. It is unsophisticated and savagery to even begin to split hairs.
axemaster
5 / 5 (1) May 04, 2012
It's really very simple,... if one can pick it out of a line-up as being human, then it's a person, period. Why even bother splitting hairs over the issue?

I think it's very much worth examining. Let's imagine for a moment that personhood is defined as possessing the physical form of a human. That means that if a human mind were somehow transplanted into an nonhuman body, then they would become an object with no rights. Which is rather disturbing to our notions of justice.

On the other hand, let's define a "person" as "a being with intentions, feelings, memories, consciousness". That seems to make a lot more sense. But a problem comes up when you realize that fetuses don't have any of those things. They operate purely as automatons, arguably up to and even a bit after birth.

I think that these questions of what constitutes personhood are a real issue - over 10 billion farm animals are killed by the food industry each year to support our eating habits.
(continued next post)
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 04, 2012
It is interesting that some who support evolution don't want to recognize that a human embryo is of their species, homo sapiens and no other species so they feel better about killing it.

questions of what constitutes personhood are a real issue

Then genetics, species, doesn't matter so those humans that are declared not 'persons' can be treated as animals.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 04, 2012
Our ancestors fought and earned their place at the TOP of the food chain.
Why are so many ashamed of this?
axemaster
3 / 5 (2) May 04, 2012
I'm talking about a biological form obviously that of a human, that if LEFT ALONE to its own volition will develope into a person.

So a fetus could develop into a being that qualifies as a person given some time. Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument basically says that every object that could become a person in the future should be assisted in doing so. In other words, every egg should be fertilized and allowed to develop, since doing otherwise constitutes murder by negligence.

Clearly there is some difference in sophistication between a fetus and an egg, but to claim that one is a person while the other is not is to differentiate between two objects that are essentially the same. In other words, it's a way of thinking born out of convenience, not justice.

The progressive left wish to devalue human life even further. They are social engineers whom believe the masses need to be controlled. This is a fact.

No...

(continued next post)
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 04, 2012
a being that qualifies as a person

Who makes this qualification?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) May 04, 2012
So a fetus could develop into a being that qualifies as a person given some time. Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument basically says that every object that could become a person in the future should be assisted in doing so.


Your arguments are irrational and asinine. A baby is NOT assisted in developing into a person. The mother HAS to eat anyway if she wants to continue to live, in fact the baby causes HER to desire more food than usual.

Here is another group of far left progressives on the same subject. These people are self describe intellectuals without any of the qualifications. They are the wrong set of mentality to engineer society or design economies.

It is a gauge of their stupidity that they actually think that slowing or "redesigning" economies and social engineering, has any chance whatever of being realized.

http://newsbuster...aby-live
axemaster
3.7 / 5 (3) May 04, 2012
Even a retarded human is light-years beyond the most developed animal.

And yet typical legal practice around the world (USA included) is to give retarded people significantly decreased rights. Sufficiently disabled people often don't have the right to move outside certain physical boundaries, control their own medical treatment, or control their legal battles. Even the rights afforded to humans are scaled in accordance with their mental abilities, in standard practice.

Of course, your position that animals should have rights as humans, is laughable and quite absurd.

Given the previous factual statement, can you still claim that sufficiently intelligent animals should have no rights? And beyond the difference in physical form, what really is the difference between an animal and a young baby? You can't morally choose to protect the rights of one and not the other.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) May 04, 2012
what really is the difference between an animal and a young baby? You can't morally choose to protect the rights of one and not the other.

Of course you can. It is called NATURE.
What elevated modern man over animals and other hominids is the capability of abstraction. We can abstract into the future that an embryo, a baby, will, if cared for, become a full grown human capable of creating more humans.
The alternative is the Spartan way, kill all those children who won't qualify as living up to the 'human standard'.
axemaster
3.7 / 5 (3) May 04, 2012
a being that qualifies as a person

Who makes this qualification?

This is an objective qualification. There's a lot of legal literature concerning this sort of thing if you have the patience to parse through it.

It is interesting that some who support evolution don't want to recognize that a human embryo is of their species, homo sapiens and no other species so they feel better about killing it.

That's not the point at all. The real point is that species shouldn't matter in defining what a person is.

Statements like the above is why I hate liberals with a passion. The nazi's didn't think certain people were sufficiently human as well.

Just so you know, the Nazis were radical conservatives.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 04, 2012
Nazis were radical conservatives.

Just so you know, NAZIs were socialists, which is why it was so easy for them to follow Hitler. Germany was already socialist prior to 1932.
Read Mises and Hayek who were there at the time.
And Germans have had a superiority complex for hundreds of years, and it was somewhat deserved as they were never conquered by Rome and, in fact, sacked Rome.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
Given the previous factual statement, can you still claim that sufficiently intelligent animals should have no rights? And beyond the difference in physical form, what really is the difference between an animal and a young baby? You can't morally choose to protect the rights of one and not the other.


Of course I can, I'm human, not an animal. As I stated above there is no scientific comparison. Humans are light-years more intellectual than animals, period. I can morally deride one for having an abortion all the while eating a hamburger, because I'm not a PETA'esque 10 year old girl..

Just so you know, the Nazis were radical conservatives.


Just so you know, you don't know what you are talking about. Conservatism and liberalism are terms which have relative meanings wrt country and era. The NAZI's, obviously, were all about government control. Modern American conservatives are absolutely opposed to government control, and are for personal liberty,.. quite counter to NAZI
axemaster
5 / 5 (1) May 04, 2012
The Nazis were radical conservative socialists. Obviously things were a bit different 80 years ago. In any case, making this about liberals is just as bad. Let's keep the Nazis out entirely, ok?

Of course you can. It is called NATURE.
What elevated modern man over animals and other hominids is the capability of abstraction. We can abstract into the future that an embryo, a baby, will, if cared for, become a full grown human capable of creating more humans.

But a very young baby/fetus is not capable of abstraction. I can abstractly imagine that a rock is a person, but that doesn't make it so. Your abstract knowledge that a baby will grow up and eventually become a person doesn't make it a person in the present.
BIG COCK
May 04, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
axemaster
5 / 5 (2) May 04, 2012
The alternative is the Spartan way, kill all those children who won't qualify as living up to the 'human standard'.

And yet again you have missed the point. The point is this - if we afford a fetus/baby the rights of personhood, then we must also grant those right to animals of equivalent or superior intelligence (of which there are many).

Of course I can, I'm human, not an animal. As I stated above there is no scientific comparison. Humans are light-years more intellectual than animals, period. I can morally deride one for having an abortion all the while eating a hamburger, because I'm not a PETA'esque 10 year old girl..

Denying rights to another species simply because it is another species is not a supportable position. It has to be on the basis of physical or mental characteristics, otherwise it's just meaningless. And it's very hard to completely differentiate between humans and animals in a morally acceptable way based on those.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) May 04, 2012
"So I believe deeply that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history." - Barach H. Obama


Even Obama understands (or wants moderates to think so), that capitalistic free market, is a force for good.

If he equates "economic progress" with "improvement of the human condition", as is obviously a fact, then the morons in the above study are either not serious, or are just being typical radical progressives,.. just being intellectuals for the sake of being "intellectuals".
BIG COCK
May 04, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ShotmanMaslo
3.7 / 5 (3) May 04, 2012
Why should the question of personhood be based on the DNA sequence, and not on something other?

"Humans are light-years more intellectual than animals, period."

And sentient life is light-years more than unsentient life (such as embryos), period.

The whole personhood debate always boils down to subjective opinions and subjective value judgements.

IMHO, its the presence of mind which makes us valuable as persons, and so mindless life such as fetuses before the appearance of mind need not to be protected.
ShotmanMaslo
3.4 / 5 (7) May 04, 2012
The progressive left wish to devalue human life even further.


I think the notion that a microscopic fertilised egg or an unsentient embryo not larger or more complex than a worm deserves the same rights as you and me is what actually devalues human life. Humans are more than that.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) May 04, 2012
Humans are more than that.


But this is how they start:

microscopic fertilised egg or an unsentient embryo not larger or more complex than a worm


Kill all the caterpillars and there will be no butterflies.

Kill all the embryos and babies and their will be no 'persons'.
It's a systems thing.
axemaster
5 / 5 (3) May 04, 2012
Kill all the embryos and babies and their will be no 'persons'.
It's a systems thing.

Sure it's a systems thing. But in that case, why don't we afford the same right to life to all human eggs? If fertilizing an egg also enables it to become a fully-fledged human sometime in the future just like a fetus, then why are so many rights given to fetuses and not to eggs?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 04, 2012
But a very young baby/fetus is not capable of abstraction.

They will be. Mature humans have the ability to understand this.
Mature animals do not.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 04, 2012
Kill all the embryos and babies and their will be no 'persons'.
It's a systems thing.

Sure it's a systems thing. But in that case, why don't we afford the same right to life to all human eggs? If fertilizing an egg also enables it to become a fully-fledged human sometime in the future just like a fetus, then why are so many rights given to fetuses and not to eggs?

An unfertilized egg has half the chromosomes needed.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (4) May 04, 2012
Humans are more than that.


But this is how they start:

microscopic fertilised egg or an unsentient embryo not larger or more complex than a worm


Kill all the caterpillars and there will be no butterflies.

Kill all the embryos and babies and their will be no 'persons'.
It's a systems thing.


Kill all sperms and eggs, and there will be no persons.

I dont think mere future potential to turn into a person should be protected as if it was an actuality.

An embryo will be a person in the future. But its not at the moment of consideration. Only actual persons should be protected by law, not future potentials.

"An unfertilized egg has half the chromosomes needed."

And embryo does not have for example the needed nutrition in itself.

The potential is the same.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 04, 2012
The potential is the same.

No, it is not.
An embryo is a genetically unique human. No other human has the exact genetic match.
axemaster
5 / 5 (3) May 04, 2012
The potential is the same.

No, it is not.
An embryo is a genetically unique human. No other human has the exact genetic match.

So are you saying that a cloned human should not be given rights, because he/she is not genetically unique?
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) May 04, 2012
The potential is the same.

No, it is not.
An embryo is a genetically unique human. No other human has the exact genetic match.


Why should genetics even matter for personhood?
And, as said above, what about clones or identical twins, which are not unique?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
It's interesting how much effort some are willing to exert to legally murder.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2012
IMHO, its the presence of mind which makes us valuable as persons, and so mindless life such as fetuses before the appearance of mind need not to be protected.


The problem with your logic is that you don't know for certain when mind develops,... no one does. This is the point,... even by the far left's standards wrt this issue, ... it is ambiguous as to when mind becomes existent, when a baby becomes conscious and can be said to have an independent mind. No one knows. Therefore, rationality would dictate that one respect life when it appears human in form. This logical standard, would rule out most abortions.

I think the notion that a microscopic fertilised egg or an unsentient embryo not larger or more complex than a worm deserves the same rights as you and me is what actually devalues human life.


Irrelevant, as no one is going to abort a microscopic fertilized egg in any case.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) May 04, 2012
,... the only reason I brought this issue up , is because it is basically the same liberal "progressive" group who actively devalues life, liberty, and freedoms,.... that also wants to control the masses via social engineering, the design and control of economies, and redistribution of wealth, all to control the global climate. Read the above article.

These dolts have never been successful at anything in history, except massive deaths. There is still poverty, war, genecide, and crime,.. and yet they think they can control the climate?!
axemaster
5 / 5 (3) May 04, 2012
The problem with your logic is that you don't know for certain when mind develops,... no one does.

No, but you can make a very strong case that consciousness does not exist before around the 26th week since the thalamic brain connections haven't formed until then.

Therefore, rationality would dictate that one respect life when it appears human in form.

I agree that we should err on the side of caution in cases of high uncertainty. However, I think we do have enough knowledge, at least in the form of a minimum age limit.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) May 04, 2012
err on the side of caution in cases of high uncertainty.

Murder is acceptable then in cases of low uncertainty.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) May 04, 2012
Why do those who don't value human life value their own life so dearly? They must value their own life too much to practice what they preach.
How selfish!
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) May 04, 2012
The problem with your logic is that you don't know for certain when mind develops,... no one does.

No, but you can make a very strong case that consciousness does not exist before around the 26th week since the thalamic brain connections haven't formed until then.

Therefore, rationality would dictate that one respect life when it appears human in form.

I agree that we should err on the side of caution in cases of high uncertainty. However, I think we do have enough knowledge, at least in the form of a minimum age limit.


You don't get it. It's a human life struggling to exist. The epitome of devaluing human life is to equate it to a piece of meat no matter the development stage. Many far left support abortion right up to labour. See link above. "Scientific American" had a similar article, questioning 'when a person begins, even after birth.

This is the progressive left, who wants to fix the global climate, & control humanity to obtain utopian society. Dolts
axemaster
5 / 5 (3) May 04, 2012
Murder is acceptable then in cases of low uncertainty.

Yeah, except it doesn't qualify as murder if you've determined to high accuracy that the thing you're killing isn't capable of consciousness or any meaningful mental activity. You may as well call cooking an egg for breakfast murder.

This is the progressive left, who wants to fix the global climate, & control humanity to obtain utopian society. Dolts

But isn't it the opposite? People in favor of abortion want to allow women the right to choose based on their own beliefs, while people on the right want to take that choice away. So isn't the right controlling society here?

Also, I can't seem to find your link. Could you repost it?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 04, 2012
People in favor of abortion want to allow women the right to choose based on their own beliefs,

Except when the women choose life, then the pro-abortionists do all they can to discourage that choice.
axemaster
4.8 / 5 (4) May 04, 2012
People in favor of abortion want to allow women the right to choose based on their own beliefs,

Except when the women choose life, then the pro-abortionists do all they can to discourage that choice.

I've never noticed anything of the sort. In fact to my knowledge most pro-choice people greatly discourage abortion. They just think that the choice should exist. I suppose some weirdos might be out there, but they'd be few and far between, like always.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 04, 2012
"Medical professionals should not be forced to perform abortions against their conscience. Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and their pro-abortion allies are seeking to punish pro-life medical professionals for their beliefs, said Litigation Counsel Casey Mattox with CLSs Center for Law & Religious Freedom. Far from arguing for choice, these lawsuits seek to compel health care workers to perform abortions or face dire consequences."
http://www.allian...cid=4806
axemaster
5 / 5 (3) May 04, 2012
Ok, yeah that's very borderline. I would imagine that the motivation is coming from the fact that in some areas it would be very difficult on a practical level to get an abortion, and medical care is supposed to be reasonably available wherever you are in the US.

But keep in mind, that doesn't force anybody to get an abortion - it just tries to force doctors to make it available. So again it's about making the choice available.

But yeah, forcing doctors to do it when they don't want to is definitely a complicated moral issue.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) May 04, 2012
forcing doctors to do it when they don't want to is definitely a complicated moral issue.

But you claimed to be pro-choice. Doctors don't have a choice?
Citizens don't have a choice to try and persuade women NOT to kill their babies?
Free speech and right to assemble are curtailed when those who promote life attempt to persuade women NOT to murder.
If pro-abortionists wanted women to really have a choice, they would support all efforts to fully and completely educate and advise women on that choice.
axemaster
5 / 5 (3) May 04, 2012
It's hard to tell if doctors should have a choice. If no other doctors are around for a hundred miles, then the refusing doctor is effectively denying medical care to someone if they can't travel that far. In an ideal world doctors would have the choice, but in practical terms letting them choose would be to deny the choice to everyone else. Hence why it's complicated.

I don't think there's a problem with the doctor trying to persuade the woman not to have an abortion, but there's definitely a point beyond which that would go too far, don't you think?

And yeah, education is important. But I would imagine women probably educate themselves pretty well already, given that they're the ones taking the risk. And in any case, I doubt education would have much effect - women certainly think about it quite a lot before making the decision anyway.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 04, 2012
It's hard to tell if doctors should have a choice.

Doctors should be slaves, forced to kill babies if the mother asks and the state demands?
China is expert at forced abortions. China could open clinics and pro-abortionists could fund the flights.
ShotmanMaslo
2.8 / 5 (4) May 05, 2012
It's hard to tell if doctors should have a choice.

Doctors should be slaves, forced to kill babies if the mother asks and the state demands?
China is expert at forced abortions. China could open clinics and pro-abortionists could fund the flights.


Yes, doctors should be forced to provide basic medical care *if no other doctor around is available to willingly do so*. Or are you saying a doctor which refuses to treat a patient in ER, and the patient dies, should not be punished?

As far as I know, the exception to abortion you cite above would also rule out forcing the doctors to perform abortions in case of life threatening pregnancy, so it falls under this category.

It also amounts to a fraud, when you sign a contract to perform abortions with a hospital, and then refuse to do so, and the exception as it is worded would allow such a fraud. So I have no problem with such exception in principle, but the specific implementation is awful.
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) May 05, 2012
As far as the appearance of mind goes, we know for certain there can be no mind before 20 weeks, since no brainwaves are present before this time. I do not agree with legal abortion after this term (only if the pregnancy is life threatening), but before it should be legal, as there is no person harmed.
ShotmanMaslo
3.7 / 5 (3) May 05, 2012
Many far left support abortion right up to labour.


Yep, you get nuts in every area, and I disagree with those even more strongly than I disagree with pro-life side. Most pro-choice support bans on late-term abortions.
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2012
It's symptomatic, just the conservatives, who are opposing the anthropogenic global warming are opposing the implementation of cold fusion too. It just illustrates, their motivation is not economical growth and future progress of civilization, but the maintaining power of fossil fuel lobby and status quo in exploitation of fossil fuel sources - which I personally consider as a unsustainable strategy with respect to steadily increasing cost of fossil fuel production.
ShotmanMaslo
2.6 / 5 (5) May 05, 2012
Why do those who don't value human life value their own life so dearly? They must value their own life too much to practice what they preach.
How selfish!


Not really. I would not care one bit if *my foetus* (not me) was aborted before third trimester, in the same way that I would not care if I was "contracepted". So even according to golden rule, abortion is OK. Because golden rule requires empathy, and it is hard to be empathetic with something less developed than a worm...

Human life deserves protection since "brain birth" to brain death. Biologically, humans are alive both before and after this time (look into brain dead pregnant people for interesting cases), but those are not persons, just human biological material.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) May 05, 2012
But isn't it the opposite? People in favor of abortion want to allow women the right to choose based on their own beliefs, while people on the right want to take that choice away. So isn't the right controlling society here?


No, taking choice away is not the motivation of people on the right,.. the motivation is to protect an innocent life. You have no right to harm another even though it may be your choice to do so.

I maintain, a fetus is a separate life once it appears in human form. It is developing on its own accord and with great probability WILL become a person in mere months time. That is enough reason to respect it as such.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (8) May 05, 2012
It's symptomatic, just the conservatives, who are opposing the anthropogenic global warming are opposing the implementation of cold fusion too. It just illustrates, their motivation is not economical growth and future progress of civilization, but the maintaining power of fossil fuel lobby and status quo in exploitation of fossil fuel sources - which I personally consider as a unsustainable strategy with respect to steadily increasing cost of fossil fuel production.


I would say most liberals as well would not waste money on cold fusion, because it is unfounded.

Also, there are conservatives, like me, who would even establish a Manhatten'esque project to develope viable alternatives. Conservatives enmass would be on board wrt doing something about AGW, but the issue is dressed in leftist politics so much that the entire idea is rejected out of hand. Just read the above article. The far left want massive redistribution of wealth, and massive social engineering to control energy.
Terriva
2 / 5 (4) May 05, 2012
I would say most liberals as well would not waste money on cold fusion, because it is unfounded.
Why it is unfounded? We have thousands of experiments supporting it well. And does it matter so much? High temperature superconductivity is unfounded as well (in the sense, we still have no theory for its description)...
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) May 05, 2012
Yes, doctors should be forced to provide basic medical care

So much for choice.

But that is quite typical of 'progressives'. They selectively choose what choices to grant to those they rule.
They support the choice to kill babies and do not support the choice to wear seat belts.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (4) May 05, 2012
Yes, doctors should be forced to provide basic medical care

So much for choice.

But that is quite typical of 'progressives'.


Lets cut the chase and buzzwords.
Are you saying a doctor should have a right to refuse to treat a patient in life threatening condition, and not be prosecuted if said patient dies?

So much for right to live you wave around..
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) May 05, 2012
Not really. I would not care one bit if *my foetus* (not me) was aborted before third trimester, in the same way that I would not care if I was "contracepted". So even according to golden rule, abortion is OK. Because golden rule requires empathy, and it is hard to be empathetic with something less developed than a worm...


You mean to say, it is easier to be unempathetic by referring to it as a "worm", rather than as a human. Employing any analogy to avoid referring to it as it is, is telling.

Actually, for a thinking unselfish person, it is extremely easy to be empathetic to an unborn human,.. merely by the understanding that through its own volition and life force it will become a thinking person with thoughts it's own. You don't know why a consciousness attaches itself to a particular human rather than another. No one does.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) May 05, 2012
Yes, doctors should be forced to provide basic medical care

So much for choice.

But that is quite typical of 'progressives'. They selectively choose what choices to grant to those they rule.
They support the choice to kill babies and do not support the choice to wear seat belts.


They also make arbitrary exceptions to fit their convenience and incomoetence. Public school busses have NO seat belts. No choices for kids, just to be ruled and indoctrinated. This is glaring progressive big government incompetence.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) May 05, 2012
Are you saying a doctor should have a right to refuse to treat a patient in life threatening condition,

Yes.
"At common law, a physician did not have a duty to treat any patient as long as a relationship between the physician and patient did not exist. This so called "no duty rule" extended to a physicians right to refuse to treat an individual in need of emergency care as long as there was no prior relationship between the physician and the patient. From a legal perspective, physicians were free to decline to treat an individual under circumstances that prevented a physician/patient relationship from coming into existence. "
"A physician is not required to prescribe or render medical treatment that the physician deems ethically inappropriate or medically ineffective. A physician may refuse to treat a patient when the physician has a moral or religious objection to the care that is sought by the patient."
http://www.physic...202.html
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) May 05, 2012
Are you saying a doctor should have a right to refuse to treat a patient in life threatening condition, and not be prosecuted if said patient dies?


Why make that argument? It is false and entirely dishonest. The vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with the mothers life being threatened. The vast majority of abortions as desired by progressive liberals, it purely for CHOICE. The word choice inplies zero life threatening circumstance, so your argument is still born.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) May 05, 2012
But when the 'progressive' govt run health care is put into place, doctors will be slaves to the state.
What will a 'progressive' do when people refuse to be slaves and either leave the profession or never enter the profession?
Why to 'progressives' assume people will bend over and grab their ankles when their policies are implemented?
What will they do when Atlas shrugs?
kochevnik
2.2 / 5 (5) May 05, 2012
You don't know why a consciousness attaches itself to a particular human rather than another. No one does.
Or even if it does, in the case of conservatives.
ShotmanMaslo
3.4 / 5 (5) May 05, 2012
"Actually, for a thinking unselfish person, it is extremely easy to be empathetic to an unborn human"

Its an oxymoron to be empathetic with something that does not have any feelings. Look up the definition of empathy.

I maintain that mere future potential to become a person is not enough to warrant the same protections applied to actual already existing persons. It makes no sense. Potential is not the same as actuality.

ryggesogn2 - I dont care about ancient "common law", we are in 21st century. A doctor should not have a right to refuse to treat a patient in life threatening condition, and I am saying it as a medic, so I am not a hypocrite, it should also apply to me.
ShotmanMaslo
4 / 5 (4) May 05, 2012
"Why make that argument? It is false and entirely dishonest. The vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with the mothers life being threatened."

Would the law, as it is worded, allow the doctor to refuse abortion even in the case of threat to mothers life or health? If yes, then my argument applies. If no, then my second argument applies - if the doctor is employed, it is a fraud against his employer, unless he specified it in a contract before. And all doctors have this option if they want, so dedicated law is not needed.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) May 05, 2012
something that does not have any feelings.

Babies in the womb don't feel pain?
I think they do.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) May 05, 2012
A doctor should not have a right to refuse to treat a patient in life threatening condition,

Then he and you are slaves.
"No one is obligated to stop and render aid. Likewise, no one is obligated to render aid even if they do stop. "
"California law does not preclude a licensed physician from rending patient care at the scene. When a physician at scene chooses to assume or retain responsibility for medical care of a patient, pursuant to Reference No. 816, Physician At Scene, such physician must take total re­sponsibility for the care given. "
http://nixwebs.co...duty.htm
Not just 'common' law.
axemaster
5 / 5 (3) May 05, 2012
something that does not have any feelings.

Babies in the womb don't feel pain?
I think they do.

Well, that's factually wrong, at least before the third trimester.

Seems to me that if a doctor doesn't want to do abortions, he should go to his employer and get his contract modified. And if the employer doesn't like that, then at least he's hitting the stumbling block earlier rather than later. As far as I remember, part of the debate does concern doctors who said they would perform abortions and then changed their minds later on without telling anybody, which is pretty bad. I'm sure they could find plenty of other places that would agree with their beliefs - it's not like they aren't in high demand anyway.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 05, 2012
As far as I remember, part of the debate does concern doctors who said they would perform abortions and then changed their minds later on without telling anybody,

No, you asserted a doctor MUST kill babies because he is a doctor and is not allowed to refuse any patient's request regardless of any prior contract.
In the US, most doctors are independent professionals, working for themselves and have the choice in what they will and will not do.
Some here seem to believe doctors should be slaves to 'society' and do whatever 'society' demands of them.
axemaster
3.7 / 5 (3) May 05, 2012
No, you asserted a doctor MUST kill babies because he is a doctor and is not allowed to refuse any patient's request regardless of any prior contract.

I asserted that one could argue that a doctor could be forced to do so. I actually don't support it, I was just saying that there are plausible reasons to consider it.
ShotmanMaslo
3.7 / 5 (3) May 05, 2012
something that does not have any feelings.

Babies in the womb don't feel pain?
I think they do.


Impossible before 20 weeks.
kochevnik
not rated yet May 05, 2012
something that does not have any feelings.
Babies in the womb don't feel pain?
I think they do.
Perhaps in your case.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) May 05, 2012
No, you asserted a doctor MUST kill babies because he is a doctor and is not allowed to refuse any patient's request regardless of any prior contract.

I asserted that one could argue that a doctor could be forced to do so. I actually don't support it, I was just saying that there are plausible reasons to consider it.

Sure.
axemaster
5 / 5 (4) May 06, 2012
No, you asserted a doctor MUST kill babies because he is a doctor and is not allowed to refuse any patient's request regardless of any prior contract.

I asserted that one could argue that a doctor could be forced to do so. I actually don't support it, I was just saying that there are plausible reasons to consider it.

Sure.

Well, if this argument is going to turn into "hey I think you're bad and I'm gonna prove it", then I will respectfully bow out. I was interested in a discussion, not a trading of barbs.
gregor1
2.7 / 5 (7) May 06, 2012
I think this quote from Maurice Strong is pertinent to this story
Maurice Strong, first director of UNEP, said (Wood. 1990) and 1992 in Rio: Isnt the only hope for this planet the total collapse of industrial civilisation? Is it not our responsibility to ensure that this collapse happens?
Here's how they're going to go about it
Prof. Dr H. Stephen Schneider, lead author in Working Group II of the IPCC (said in 1989): For these reasons we have to announce terrifying scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements with no mention of any doubts whatever which we might have. In order to attract attention, we need dramatic statements leaving no doubt about what is said. Every one of us researchers must decide how far he would want to be honest rather than effective.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 06, 2012
No, you asserted a doctor MUST kill babies because he is a doctor and is not allowed to refuse any patient's request regardless of any prior contract.

I asserted that one could argue that a doctor could be forced to do so. I actually don't support it, I was just saying that there are plausible reasons to consider it.

Sure.

Well, if this argument is going to turn into "hey I think you're bad and I'm gonna prove it", then I will respectfully bow out. I was interested in a discussion, not a trading of barbs.

That's one way to weasel out.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) May 06, 2012
we have to announce terrifying scenarios,

James Anderson from the Anderson Group at Harvard made such a presentation at a remote sensing conference in 2008. You should have seen his eyes. He was almost frothing.
I wonder where and how his research group is funded?
http://www.arp.ha...about-us
Anita_Handle
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2012
Opposition in the U.S. started long before Al-Gore took up the mantle, and long before the IPCC existed.

Corporations cut their denialist teeth with their "Tobacco is good for you" campaigns and later with their "Acid Rain is good for you" campaigns, and then with their "CFC's don't damage the ozone layer" campaigns.

Lying to the American public is Job Number 1 for Libertarian propaganda groups like the Heritage Foundation.

"The AGWites first mistake was taking the political route." - RyggTard

You are one of the authors of this study, aren't you? I am blinded by your brilliance!
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) May 06, 2012
Opposition in the U.S. started long before Al-Gore took up the mantle, and long before the IPCC existed.

Corporations cut their denialist teeth with their "Tobacco is good for you" campaigns and later with their "Acid Rain is good for you" campaigns, and then with their "CFC's don't damage the ozone layer" campaigns.

Lying to the American public is Job Number 1 for Libertarian propaganda groups like the Heritage Foundation.

"The AGWites first mistake was taking the political route." - RyggTard

You are one of the authors of this study, aren't you? I am blinded by your brilliance!

Enron was a major corporate cheerleader for Kyoto.
unknownorgin
3.7 / 5 (3) May 07, 2012
This study has no independant thought and copys the last 500 studys before it. The part about the carbon tax not costing the people anything shows a compleat lack of understanding concerning economics. The main point of the study is that everyone should live at a stone age level but in spite of all the talk no one doing the talking is willing live that way.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
Exactly correct.

This is why "progressive" liberals desire full government control, to design and engineer societies and human behavior, to achieve their fantasy utopian society, no one will ever want to end up living in.

They are counter to the capitalistic free market, free choice, and the natural and intrinsic individualistic nature of man.

Governments around the world including the USA have demonstrated fiscal incompetence, so "designing" an unnatural and artificial economic framework, is pure non-sense.

That they want to slow down world economies demonstrates they're in fact counter to progress as well and have no ideas.

We see an endless barrage of these politicized propagandist climate "studies", over and over again.