1 2 3 4
#1375978
Clarker
No, no it couldn't. Anything that is burned isn't green. Anything that is burned will only increase CO2 output, as well as other noxious substances.
I also would not be happy because that would be a very powerful incentive for abortion, and there are already enough incentives as it is.
Also, seeing as I live in this reality, I might also add that burning the fetus/embryo (not baby as you imply) would not provide enough energy to compensate for the energy spent with the abortion itself. So I guess you don't have to worry about that.
2/18/2012 4:31:54 AM
#1375979
jesus-face tortilla
babies give a very poor EROEI but they do smell delicious!
2/18/2012 4:32:11 AM
#1375981
Colonel Boris
Not enough mass there to generate the energy needed to run the clinic. That's you off of the IPCC panel.
2/18/2012 4:35:24 AM
#1375994
Amadan
The gas emissions from fundies would cancel out any savings on fossil fuels.
2/18/2012 4:53:06 AM
#1375999
Reynardine
Exactly how much biomass does he think that is, anyhow? And why not fingernail clippings (a lot more biomass)?
2/18/2012 5:17:32 AM
#1376001
Mudak
But... But where will I get my lunch, then?
2/18/2012 5:20:10 AM
#1376008
Vegetius
Reads like dead baby comedy. Poe's law, I reckon.
2/18/2012 5:26:20 AM
#1376027
Robespierre
Not really, they are mostly water. Besides, they are awfully small, since most abortions involve a tiny clump of cells.
2/18/2012 6:05:59 AM
#1376037
Raised by HorsesGot to love it when fundies take a stab at satire. It's a lot like watching
Animal attempt to debone a chicken with a chainsaw, only messier.
My friend, you ain't no Jonathan Swift, that's for sure.
2/18/2012 6:24:22 AM
#1376039
Axel
Burned materials aren't green and, frankly, the energy density of a fetus is TERRIBLE. It'd be like burning a steak for fuel...
2/18/2012 6:30:29 AM
#1376046
tmarcl
I wonder where you get this idea that liberals are so callous when it comes to life? Who is it that wants to deny healthcare and other assistance to the poor (thus shortening their lifespans)? Who is it that's so eager to start war after war for resources that we don't even need? Do you think it's the liberals? Guess again.
The funny thing is that the question you were answering was worded so poorly that you missed the point (in other words, that op failed at satire as much as you did). The question was, for all the poor (as in financially not well off) children out there, would conservatives like to see them put to work as children in coal mines. The op was suggesting what I did above: That conservatives have a callous regard for human life - at least after they're born.
2/18/2012 6:48:50 AM
#1376051
Jesus Klingon
The original question was "Conservatives: Would you be happy if all the un-aborted babies were put to work in coal mines?" I don't blame anybody for responding to a stupid question in such a manner.
2/18/2012 7:01:35 AM
#1376054
Apatheist
No, I prefer stem cell research. Hell, we aren't using them for anything else anyway.
2/18/2012 7:04:24 AM
#1376057
Argle Bargle
To be fair, the original question was pure straw man bashing, and the "fundie" answer is in the same vein, only flipped. Meh'd.
2/18/2012 7:15:44 AM
#1376061
Percy Q. Shunn
I lol'd
2/18/2012 7:28:58 AM
#1376069
I think that's a rubbish idea, largely because of the difficulty in getting something so squishy to ignite.
Perhaps you would have done better referencing Swift's A Modest Proposal?
2/18/2012 7:43:09 AM
#1376072
Sweet Fancy Moses
That's a brilliant idea, but as Mudak said we gotta eat.
2/18/2012 7:47:21 AM
#1376077
Hugh G. Rection
Wait; shouldn't we squeeze the baby oil out of them first? It would make the procedure more green.
2/18/2012 7:55:00 AM
#1376080
Doubting Thomas
What, and waste all those valuable stem cells?
2/18/2012 8:02:33 AM
#1376084
Brendan Rizzo
First of all, not only is that NOT green (you are still burning organic matter) it is completely disgusting and immoral. Your stereotype about liberals and abortion is not in line with reality.
2/18/2012 8:14:15 AM
#1376105
Papabear
Though personally I have no reverence for dead tissue, I am sensitive to the emotional issues involved in the abortion decision, so no, I would not be happy with that. I think I might be happier with burning you though you wouldn't be "green energy."
2/18/2012 8:53:27 AM
#1376110
Beltaine
No, I'd be happier if the women had proper sex education and access to contaceptives so she didn't get pregnant in the first place.
2/18/2012 9:02:08 AM
#1376113
Agahnim
Fetuses, embryos, and blastocysts are not babies. If they are, then tree nuts are trees and eating them is causing deforestation.
2/18/2012 9:12:31 AM
#1376118
RoyToy
Perhaps the question should be: Conservatives: Would you be happy if all the poor people where burned as fuel instead of coal? It could be considered a new green energy.
FTFY
2/18/2012 9:20:38 AM
#1376124
TheLastCenturion
Actually, children has the same inherent problem as hydrocarbons. When we burn them, they break down into all sorts of nasty gasses. In fact, children would probably be worse than hydrocarbons because of all the trace elements they contain. Like sulfur, nitrogen, calcium, iron, to name a few.
And that is only when you COMPLETELY ignore everything else that is wrong with that statement
2/18/2012 9:33:39 AM
1 2 3 4