So I was watching the Democratic candidates on the Fox News town hall and I have to say I was shocked at both Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton’s stance on abortion.  I’m also shocked that there appears to be no one else upset about it – at least judging by media coverage and the lack of a response.  Both Bernie and Hillary – seemed to say or support no limits on abortion, “it’s a woman’s body and therefore her right to choose.  I interpreted this as them supporting a woman’s right to have an abortion up to the day before delivery.  I assumed that they’d mention or support at least no abortion after viability or after 30 weeks or something.

Democrats would probably say that isn’t what they were saying, they’re merely supporting abortion as it is now, legal based on Roe v Wade with whatever those restrictions and qualifiers are.  I thought they left that vague.

On the note of healthcare, a member of FOCM Political group postulated this: When Bernie was asked about why he felt that health care is a right, he replied with something like – because we are human beings.  Which begs the question:  when does he believe we become human beings?  Apparently that happens at birth.  Until then, there’s only one form of Democrat healthcare available for a pre-born infant and that is ABORTED!

It’s always been an interestingly inconsistent position of Democrats and Republicans:

Democrats: pro-abortion and against the death penalty (in favor of death for unborn babies and leniency for murderers – zero tolerance for putting to death the wrong person)

Republicans: pro-life and in favor of the death penalty (in favor of life saving for unborn babies and death for murderers – accepting that despite best efforts of cops, lawyers and judges some people wrongly convicted may be put to death)

Why can’t we agree to end the death penalty and have mandatory sentences: first degree murder – life imprisonment with absolutely no chance of parole or life imprisonment for 100 years?
And then we should be able to agree that since babies born at 26 weeks have a survival rate of 75% – 85% that abortions cannot occur after that point unless the life of the mother is at risk.

Not having ever been a woman and thusly not able to be pregnant, is it unreasonable to think a woman can make up her mind (choose) within 25 weeks if she wants to have a baby or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spotted this on a FOCM member’s Facebook page:

Hillary Clinton says it is dangerous to insult Muslims. I wonder if ISIS leaders think it is dangerous to cut off the heads of Christians?

Apparently not.

Looks like Ronald Reagan’s statement may not have been so wrong when he said: “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” — Ronald Reagan, 1981

The assumption that planting new forests helps limit climate change has been challenged by a new study.  Researchers found that in Europe, trees grown since 1750 have actually increased global warming.  The scientists believe that replacing broadleaved species with conifers is a key reason for the negative climate impact.  Conifers like pines and spruce are generally darker and absorb more heat than species such as oak and birch.  The authors believe the work has implications for current efforts to limit rising temperatures through mass tree planting.

The research team reconstructed 250 years of forest management history in Europe – and found that the way forests are controlled by humans can lead to far less carbon being stored than would have been the case when nature was in charge.  Removing trees in an organised fashion tends to release carbon that would otherwise remain stored in forest litter, dead wood and soil.  Choosing conifers over broadleaved varieties also had significant impacts on the albedo – the amount of solar radiation reflected back into space.  “Even well managed forests today store less carbon than their natural counterparts in 1750,” said Dr Kim Naudts who carried out the study while at the Laboratory of Climate Science and Environment in Gif-sur-Yvette, France.

Speaking to Science in Action on the BBC World Service, she said: “Due to the shift to conifer species, there was a warming over Europe of almost 0.12 degrees and that is caused because the conifers are darker and absorb more solar radiation.”  The researchers say that the increase in temperature equates to 6% of the global warming attributed to the burning of fossil fuels. They say that is a significant amount and believe that similar impacts are likely in regions where the same type of afforestation has taken place.  Many governments have made planting trees a key part of their plans for dealing with climate change; China is building a “great green wall” of trees, set to cover around 400 million hectares when complete.  The authors suggest the world should look carefully at both the types trees that we are planting and the ways in which they are managed.

Trees’ Role in Global Warming