1 2 3 4
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
babies give a very poor EROEI but they do smell delicious!
2/18/2012 4:32:11 AM
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
The gas emissions from fundies would cancel out any savings on fossil fuels.
2/18/2012 4:53:06 AM
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
But... But where will I get my lunch, then?
2/18/2012 5:20:10 AM
Reads like dead baby comedy. Poe's law, I reckon.
2/18/2012 5:26:20 AM
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
Raised by Horses
Got 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
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
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
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
No, I prefer stem cell research. Hell, we aren't using them for anything else anyway.
2/18/2012 7:04:24 AM
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
Percy Q. Shunn
2/18/2012 7:28:58 AM
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
Sweet Fancy Moses
That's a brilliant idea, but as Mudak said we gotta eat.
2/18/2012 7:47:21 AM
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
What, and waste all those valuable stem cells?
2/18/2012 8:02:33 AM
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
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
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
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
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.
2/18/2012 9:20:38 AM
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