My views

[churchmouse]

#3
Nope, don't want uranium fission technology operating on my planet for electric generating stations, not even a little bit.

OK. What then.

Fair question.

And it is "OUR" planet......

 

[Clay Pigeon]

A ton of stuff has been said, and feelings hurt, in this sub forum. I thought it time to lay out exactly where I stand and why.

1. I think abortion is killing babies. Period. A form of birth control, no way. All abortions illegal, no. There are times when taking a life is acceptable, and I would listen to those; but as a “woman’s right”? No. It is killing babies and I can’t and won’t budge from that.

So there you have it, this rednecks view. That is how I see it. I understand others view, but reject them as incompatible with my take on things. To each their own I guess, my opinion here, bu there will come a time when we all answer for what we did. I am okay with what I have done, minus some teenage years.......
s

Its a good thing that over 60 percent of the public disagree with you....
Fourty Seven years of Precedence, good luck in changing it...

 

[JCSR]

I fall in line with most in this thread. But after working at a Nuc powerplant for a couple of years I'm ok with them.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Its a good thing that over 60 percent of the public disagree with you....
Fourty Seven years of Precedence, good luck in changing it...

Slavery had a lot more than 47 years of precedence.... and it's gone. wrong is wrong.

I realize that others hold different views. Good people can disagree.

 

[johny5]

Slavery had a lot more than 47 years of precedence.... and it's gone. wrong is wrong.

I realize that others hold different views. Good people can disagree.

Exactly right! Also, 47 years represents less than 20% of our nation's history. Not a compelling argument.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Slavery had a lot more than 47 years of precedence.... and it's gone. wrong is wrong.

I realize that others hold different views. Good people can disagree.

It was fixed, just like the right to choose was fixed in 1973.

 

[JCSR]

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Exactly right! Also, 47 years represents less than 20% of our nation's history. Not a compelling argument.

But its the law... And Public Reliance and Settled Law say different...
Do you think abortion will disappear if the Supreme Court reverses Roe/Wade?

 

[wtburnette]

But its the law... And Public Reliance and Settled Law say different...
Do you think abortion will disappear if the Supreme Court reverses Roe/Wade?

No, but it sure as F won't be as prevalent.

 

[Ziggidy]

I agree with the OP, but I might go further with abortion, wrong in any situation. I find some comments interesting (i.e. gun rights are sacred); I find all life,in all stages, sacred. Socialism is wrong, period. Once they collect all the guns, socialism becomes communism.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

No, but it sure as F won't be as prevalent.

No need to curse at me.....
Dont kid yourself, if you think women will not drive to a state thats legal, you are mistaken.
Abortion isn't going anywhere...

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Well this is going about how I thought it would.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Well this is going about how I thought it would.

Yep me to, shower and bed here. 4:30 comes early...

 

[JCSR]

No need to curse at me.....
Dont kid yourself, if you think women will not drive to a state thats legal, you are mistaken.
Abortion isn't going anywhere...

 

[johny5]

Exactly right! Also, 47 years represents less than 20% of our nation's history. Not a compelling argument.

But its the law... And Public Reliance and Settled Law say different...
Do you think abortion will disappear if the Supreme Court reverses Roe/Wade?

I was responding to the argument that the 47 years of precedent make it unlikely that it will be overturned. It is not a compelling argument, given the small portion of our history that this period of time represents. The application of Sare Decisis to Roe is something that is vigorously debated by legal scholars. Doubtful that you and I will resolve what they have not.

I neither stated nor implied that abortion would disappear. That said, the implication that the legality of something ought be decided on the basis of universal compliance leaves me scratching my head. I've never before encountered this standard.

 

[wtburnette]

No need to curse at me.....
Dont kid yourself, if you think women will not drive to a state thats legal, you are mistaken.
Abortion isn't going anywhere...

Acceptable morals in society changed when Roe V Wade was rammed through. I feel that if it were repealed, over time acceptable morality would change. Part of the reason there are so many abortions is due to the ease of having one. You take that away and I guarantee the number of abortions would go down drastically.

 

[NKBJ]

Hey CM.
By what then you mean what to replace it with? OK.

First though, I'm gonna preface my answer with why I'd say such a thing. I got into being part of the nuclear electric generating station equipment business in '74 (a huge company involved with fabrication, machining, forming, turbine and boiler works). A few years later I went to work for an architect-engineering company that had been in the business quite a while. Usually my scope was checking out equipment before it got sent to projects. Sometimes I was at projects during construction but mostly I didn't go into the field, just to manufacturers. And over the years I learned the frightful truth behind the saying that you cannot inspect quality into a job. I've seen too much. Nuclear fission to me is not justifiable as a means of boiling water. OK, enough of that. But I'm gonna throw a curve ball* later.

As bad as the present alternatives are (big giant expensive wind mills, solar farms, hydro, geothermal, microwave power beamed down from orbit, coal, synthetic fuels), I'd suck it up and go with them over fission reactors. Yeah, I know the arguments about efficiency and about costs and about not really being "green" but that doesn't matter when you compare it to spewing long term radioactive contamination into our air, water, soil and us.
I'd go with as much conservation as practical and that's the natural process of the market place. In other words, we the people do what we have to in getting by. Meanwhile, the worlds first fusion plant is supposed to come on line soon (I worked on the giant stainless steel donut tokamak containment vessel in the 70's for crying out loud. Wrote a nonconformance report on the laser ports' tolerances screwed up by weld shrinkage as I recall.) so maybe we'll get lucky and that tech will stop being delayed.

On a side note, there's something else out there that I'd mentioned before. There are many areas of the country that have plentiful sunshine and water, most notably of course the coastal cities that are some of our biggest consumers of electricity. Put those together and you get plentiful hydrogen to burn. Not having that up and running supplying fuel to electric power generating stations is just simply criminal, as bad as the electric utilities lobbying over the years to not install EMP protection.

So OK, my answer boils down to suck it up, use the means of production we currently have except fission reactors, barnstorm on getting fusion and other tech on line. And yeah sure, I got no doubts about there being other tech sitting in a box ready to go, when it's time.

*Concerning the use of fission reactors, yeah the wastes are difficult to deal with and as Fukushima demonstrated to the world, the financial incentives have been present to not really deal with them properly. And, the reactors can go irretrievably bad on us because the emergency shut down process gets interfered with by nature not following the assumptions made during design. At some point we going to enjoy the New Madrid and it's associated faults turning loose again. Those fission reactors need to be safed before we get there.

Sorry if I waxed eloquent there but that's my thinking on the matter.
And there's still time to dish up ice cream before the debate!

 

[churchmouse]

I understand but you basically verified my statement up thread. Quality. Ding it right would save so many issues.

No Solar will no even begins to support society as it exists right now. We are to spoiled to shut anything off. Heck CKW (spouse) has been driving me nuts leaving any and everything on all the time. She was just never taught that a light switch goes both ways...."ON"....."OFF". Easy peasy.
I see vast real estate covered in panels. I have seen the buildings that hold the switch gear and controls for these fields. The "Miles" of wire involved and for how much output. Not wanting to start an argument as you have seen it 1st hand on your end and I have out here as well. Solar is not the answer. Nor yet.

 

[NKBJ]

Agreed, solar power isn't "the answer" for producing electricity, turning out DC to be converted to AC. Gaahhh! That's only a small part at best.

As said, I'd really love to see the tech run for converting seawater to hydrogen to burn, using the solar power to run it. Grossly inefficient? Yep. But if it's run using sunlight it doesn't have to be efficient.

And walking through the house turning those light switches off, yeah, me too!

 

[bwframe]

Abortion has no business being federal law. It was railroaded in by activist judges.

It can and should be sent back to the states. It's likely not going away, but needs to be out of federal political control.

Our tax dollars should not support murdering babies.