Death Penalty: Applause for Rick Perry’s ‘Ultimate Justice’ at Republican Debate

[estesbob]

I think that’s a positive way to approach the topic.

Every candidate is pro-life in some way or another (and pro-death in other ways). The Catholic teaching is that when there are no purely pro-life candidates, then we have to choose the ones who we think (which includes our understanding of what they will actually do, and not just their platforms) will be the most pro-life and the least pro-death.

I w.

This is not what the Church teaches that all. Abortion is not merely another issue that we’re told weigh when considering whether or not we can vote for candidate . No issue or combination of issues trumps abortion. , not war, not the death penalty, not ones support of national healthcare, not one’s opinion on the proper level of social spending, not one’s opinion on affirmative action, etc. etc. etc.:

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

Archbishop Charles Chaput

*“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,” *

Cardinal Raymond Burke

While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope Benedict XVI

 

[_Abyssinia]

I think that’s a positive way to approach the topic.

Every candidate is pro-life in some way or another (and pro-death in other ways). The Catholic teaching is that when there are no purely pro-life candidates, then we have to choose the ones who we think (which includes our understanding of what they will actually do, and not just their platforms) will be the most pro-life and the least pro-death.

I like to make selections based on what I think the overall net results will be (most lives saved, least lives lost). Others do it according to some form of death/killing they especially detest, even if it means ultimately more lives are lost. A priest actually told me that I must vote for the candidate I thought would lead to the most deaths, including those of the unborn, because some important principles were involved in voting for him and against the one I thought would save the most lives. But I just couldn’t. Maybe I’ll go to hell for it, but I cannot vote against life. I just can’t. Whatever the consequences to me.

And then there is the issue of more souls saved, and less souls lost – another important factor. But I suppose I’d rather face hell than pull the executioners lever on life, innocent life, all life on earth. So I pray for my soul and for others’, and pray that God has mercy on the souls of those of us who wish to reduce death and harm to humanity and the rest of His good creation.

Some people look at the various ways they are harming and killing people, and extrapolate out to others, and focus on those issues. Others look at the various ways other people are killing people, without much concern about the ways they themselves are harming and killing people.

And then some put the economy before human life; but OTOH, economic problems can lead to loss of lives.

The most important thing, I guess, is to pray sincerely for God’s wisdom and guidance in these issues.

It’s really too bad that although all candidates are pro-life in some way or other, and to some extent, in my books they are all pretty much ultimately pro-death, whether they be Republican, Democrat, or any other party. We don’t have any really good choices, and perhaps that’s because the people themselve (from whom the candidates emerge) are on the whole into this death train, tho most obviously know not what they do. Or, they’re just evil. I don’t know.

Republicans have passed 80+ pro life laws this year, I don’t think Democrats have passed any, so they are not the same.

 

[lynnvinc]

Republicans have passed 80+ pro life laws this year, I don’t think Democrats have passed any, so they are not the same.

I know both parties are bad on things like climate change, but it seems Democrats are just a tad better on this issue, but still extremely bad on it. It’s like the choice between really bad (Dems) and extremely worse (Republicans).

Now I know climate change is not the only life issue, tho I consider it to be the mother of all life issues from my following the science like a hawk for over 20 years, and in 2008 hearing from a top climate scientist that we could push the system into a venus syndrome and end all life on earth, if we burn all the fossil fuels, including tar sands (and Obama has just given the go ahead for a pipeline for the tar sands oil to run thru my and others’ states). See esp pg 24 of columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf. And before that I had thought that the worst that could happen was loss of 95% of life on earth & an eventually rebound in 100,000s of years, as happened due to the great warming during the end-Permian extinction 251 mill. yrs ago.

I know having a single abortion is surely a far worse sinner than a person killing people through emitting greenhouse gases (and other pollutants that kill and cause miscarriages) through living a profligate lifestyle, the typical American lifestyle. We need to pray for the souls of those comtemplating abortion, and also those who would destroy life on earth through environmental and any other means.

However in my calculus, and considering that all life on planet earth may be a risk if we do not mitigate the serious environmental issues, I cannot vote for anyone who is a climate change skeptic or denialist – I think McCain and Huntsman are the only Republicans who believe climate change is real and think we should mitigate it. So I just hope that the programs pushed by the candidate I do vote for (whether it will be a Dem or Republican) will have the net effect of reducing abortion…as well as steering us away from total destruction of life on earth.

As a young person in the 60s (when abortions were illegal) I know that lots of women were having abortions (whether in the U.S., going down to Mexico, or some form of self-abortion). There probably aren’t any reliable stats for that, since it was illegal and no one would admit to it, but I heard of plenty of cases thru the grapevine (and regretted I heard afterwards, after it was too late to dissuade the women). And that was a time when culture was against sex before marriage – and now it seems there are very few cultural restraints on people’s passions. They openly co-habit, etc. So I think if abortion were to be made illegal, it may not reduce abortion much, maybe not as much as, say, universal health care, free/cheap professional childcare (as they have in France), and other safety net programs for pregnant women and mothers/children in trouble. I do know abortion is lower in Europe (where it is still legal) than in the U.S., so they are doing something right. At least now we can go and protest at abortion clinics … which I’ve done (one year we did a special Stations of the Cross on the sidewalk next to the town’s abortion clinic on Good Friday); and we can donate baby things to the “pregnancy help centers” that are usually located across the street from the abortion clinics, or engage in sidewalk counseling.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t make abortion illegal – we should, and I campaigned vigorously against its legalization in 70s – only that doing so will not solve (or completely solve) the problem. In addition to sticks, we also need carrots, and compassion not only for the unborn babies, but also for their mothers-to-be. I don’t hear Republicans talking about instituting free/cheap professional childcare, or other programs like they have in Europe. It does seem to me they don’t really care about life on earth – since nearly all are against protecting us from environmental harms – and this fits with their refusal to consider some “carrot” measures to reduce abortion.

But like I said the Dems are just a tad better than the Republicans on life issues – they are both pro-death, with the Dems being slightly less pro-death than the Republicans.

 

[lynnvinc]

I know that politicians have to compromise and do what they can, and are never really able to effect the complete changes they would want, even if they truly believe in goodness and holiness, and would want to bring these about in our society.

However – without knowing a whole lot about him – I think Jerry Brown would make a great pro-life candidate. Now bec he is a Dem, he sort of has to tow the line re not making abortion illegal (bec of those yapping pro-choicers), but I think he would do all he could to make abortion unnecessary and rare. I think he values life. He would try his hardest to prevent us from going into a venus syndrome (which would end all life on earth). I spoke about global warming, but there are some 9 or 10 other extremely serious environmental problems threatening life on earth as well. He would try to halt these. I was very much for him and against Clinton back in 1992.

If someone like him (but maybe I’m imputing too much goodness into him) would have been president in the 60s, he would not have authorized the use of Agent Orange, resulting in so many birth defects and miscarriages (abortions) – in Viet Nam where it was sprayed, in Mission, TX (close to where I live) where it was manufactured (one year there were 30 consecutive stillbirths) and people are still dying from the contamination, or in Puerto Rico where it was tested. I have a very good Catholic friend up north, never used artificial birth control, had six children, is very much againt abortion, but one year she had a miscarriage, and she asked me if it could have been due to her heavy spraying of her yard that summer with pesticides. I said yes possibly, that’s one of the effects of pesticides. If a person like Jerry Brown had been president, then the American people would know about environmental hazards that can kill their babies, and at least avoid close use of such products while pregnant.

Again, maybe I’m imputing too much goodness to Brown that isn’t there. I don’t know a lot about him, but I’ve heard stories about how he tried to stop inordinate pesticide spraying in California. And I think I heard that he is in favor of reducing abortion by whatever programs can help pregnant women in trouble.

If a candidate says they are pro-life, but are in favor of risking the annihilation of all life on earth through global warming (by rejecting what the real & top scientists have to say on the matter), then one cannot really believe they are pro-life by any stretch of the imagination at all. Period. They are fakes.

Now, it is possible for a person to be for mitigating global warming, but okay with abortion…of other people’s children…bec he/she is mainly concerned about ensuring a viable world for his/her own children, and couldn’t care less about other people’s children. However, it is impossible for a person to be anti-abortion (re other people’s children), but against mitigating global warming. They are just lying about being pro-life. It doesn’t cost them or the gov anything to pass laws against abortion (esp since they are against any programs to help those children once they are born), but they really don’t care about the lives of the children and future generations. I think Jesse Jackson said it well – that he has problems with politicians who claim they are so concerned about unborn children in the womb, but as soon as they are born, they care nothing about them at all. In other words, their concern for the unborn must be totally fake, just a political ploy to get votes.

So if one has to vote Republican, then perhaps Huntsman is your man. I don’t know about his other positions (apparently he has passed some anti-abortion laws in his state), but I did hear that he believes global warming is real and needs to be mitigated. As for the Dems, I’m not happy with Obama, esp after this Keystone XL tar sands pipeline thing, but it doesn’t look like there are any other possibilities for this next election, except maybe Huntsman.

I know we environmentalists are pretty much opposed to Obama right now, but since most of the Republican candidates are extremely worst on these very important, fundamental life issues, we have nowhere to turn, but I think Huntsman could get our votes. One has to understand that the environment is fundamental to life; the economy merely instrumental and contingent. I know people think the environment is the wilderness spaces far from human civiliation – the rainforests and polar bears – but the environment is in fact the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the chemicals that permeate through our skin, the materials with which we build our homes and products, and the climate in which we survive and thrive. It is God’s creation, His providence. Without these things our money is worthless toilet paper, and our children cannot possibly be born or survive.

 

[estesbob]

But like I said the Dems are just a tad better than the Republicans on life issues – they are both pro-death, with the Dems being slightly less pro-death than the Republicans.

To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred ‘‘prolife’’ option is** to subvert what the word ‘‘prolife’’ means.*** Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, ‘‘Obama’s Abortion Extremism,’’ and his follow-up article, ‘‘Obama and Infanticide.’’ They say everything that needs to be said. *

Archbishop Charels Chaput

At this point, the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitively into a “party of death” due to its choices on bioethical issues, as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book “The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life.”

Cardinal Raymond Burke

 

[estesbob]

I know that politicians have to compromise and do what they can, and are never really able to effect the complete changes they would want, even if they truly believe in goodness and holiness, and would want to bring these about in our society.

However – without knowing a whole lot about him – I think Jerry Brown would make a great pro-life candidate. Now bec he is a Dem, he sort of has to tow the line re not making abortion illegal (bec of those yapping pro-choicers), but I think he would do all he could to make abortion unnecessary and rare. I think he values life. He would try his hardest to prevent us from going into a venus syndrome (which would end all life on earth). I spoke about global warming, but there are some 9 or 10 other extremely serious environmental problems threatening life on earth as well. He would try to halt these. I was very much for him and against Clinton back in 1992.

If someone like him (but maybe I’m imputing too much goodness into him) would have been president in the 60s, he would not have authorized the use of Agent Orange, resulting in so many birth defects and miscarriages (abortions) – in Viet Nam where it was sprayed, in Mission, TX (close to where I live) where it was manufactured (one year there were 30 consecutive stillbirths) and people are still dying from the contamination, or in Puerto Rico where it was tested. I have a very good Catholic friend up north, never used artificial birth control, had six children, is very much againt abortion, but one year she had a miscarriage, and she asked me if it could have been due to her heavy spraying of her yard that summer with pesticides. I said yes possibly, that’s one of the effects of pesticides. If a person like Jerry Brown had been president, then the American people would know about environmental hazards that can kill their babies, and at least avoid close use of such products while pregnant.

Again, maybe I’m imputing too much goodness to Brown that isn’t there. I don’t know a lot about him, but I’ve heard stories about how he tried to stop inordinate pesticide spraying in California. And I think I heard that he is in favor of reducing abortion by whatever programs can help pregnant women in trouble.

If a candidate says they are pro-life, but are in favor of risking the annihilation of all life on earth through global warming (by rejecting what the real & top scientists have to say on the matter), then one cannot really believe they are pro-life by any stretch of the imagination at all. Period. They are fakes.

Now, it is possible for a person to be for mitigating global warming, but okay with abortion…of other people’s children…bec he/she is mainly concerned about ensuring a viable world for his/her own children, and couldn’t care less about other people’s children. However, it is impossible for a person to be anti-abortion (re other people’s children), but against mitigating global warming. They are just lying about being pro-life. It doesn’t cost them or the gov anything to pass laws against abortion (esp since they are against any programs to help those children once they are born), but they really don’t care about the lives of the children and future generations. I think Jesse Jackson said it well – that he has problems with politicians who claim they are so concerned about unborn children in the womb, but as soon as they are born, they care nothing about them at all. In other words, their concern for the unborn must be totally fake, just a political ploy to get votes.

So if one has to vote Republican, then perhaps Huntsman is your man. I don’t know about his other positions (apparently he has passed some anti-abortion laws in his state), but I did hear that he believes global warming is real and needs to be mitigated. As for the Dems, I’m not happy with Obama, esp after this Keystone XL tar sands pipeline thing, but it doesn’t look like there are any other possibilities for this next election, except maybe Huntsman.

I know we environmentalists are pretty much opposed to Obama right now, but since most of the Republican candidates are extremely worst on these very important, fundamental life issues, we have nowhere to turn, but I think Huntsman could get our votes. One has to understand that the environment is fundamental to life; the economy merely instrumental and contingent. I know people think the environment is the wilderness spaces far from human civiliation – the rainforests and polar bears – but the environment is in fact the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the chemicals that permeate through our skin, the materials with which we build our homes and products, and the climate in which we survive and thrive. It is God’s creation, His providence. Without these things our money is worthless toilet paper, and our children cannot possibly be born or survive.

This is exactly the type of rationalizations for supporting evil Archbishp Chaput condemns:

*Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.
*

.

 

[ManOnFire]

Most of Europe has declining birth rates. 2 adult incomes can generate enough tax revenues to support childcare for 1 child, but the population slowly dies by 50% with every generation when 2 adults create only 1 child. I wouldn’t want to emulate a shooting star culture that is burning out. Some countries have resorted to paying adults to have kids because there won’t be enough young people to provide care for the masses of older people some day. The smart muslims are having many kids but too many catholics have become too engrossed in pop culture’s hedonism. The US is beginning to follow in the same footsteps according to plan. Happiness and peace can be found in innocence and romanticism, but the liberal culture has successfully removed those things in the media in favor of shallower amusements that are less likely to result in marriage and kids.

It’s funny how liberalism is causing less marriage and kids, then people act surprised by it, and worse, then try to blame it on conservative family values.

 

[lynnvinc]

This is exactly the type of rationalizations for supporting evil Archbishp Chaput condemns:

Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

.

You cannot be saying that the bishop is against abortion and yet in favor of annihilation of life on earth, or willing to sacrifice all life on earth just to end abortion. That would be a very heinous (tho effective) way to end abortion. Just kill off everyone. I guess there could be some bishops like that. It’s possible.

I am against abortion AND killing off all life on earth, including through anthropogenic global warming. You get me a candidate with that position & who is sincere about it, and I’ll vote for him or her. If he or she is also against the death penalty – esp when it is applied to innocent people – then you’ve really sold me.

Apparently you think Huntsman does not fit that. I actually don’t know much about him – he could be for abortion and for killing off life on earth through global warming, or one or the other. I only say my impression from what little I know is that he is against abortion AND that he takes global warming seriously and is in favor of mitigating it. Let me know if I’m wrong on that.

 

[estesbob]

You cannot be saying that the bishop is against abortion and yet in favor of annihilation of life on earth, or willing to sacrifice all life on earth just to end abortion. That would be a very heinous (tho effective) way to end abortion. Just kill off everyone. I guess there could be some bishops like that. It’s possible.

I am against abortion AND killing off all life on earth, including through anthropogenic global warming. You get me a candidate with that position & who is sincere about it, and I’ll vote for him or her. If he or she is also against the death penalty – esp when it is applied to innocent people – then you’ve really sold me.

Apparently you think Huntsman does not fit that. I actually don’t know much about him – he could be for abortion and for killing off life on earth through global warming, or one or the other. I only say my impression from what little I know is that he is against abortion AND that he takes global warming seriously and is in favor of mitigating it. Let me know if I’m wrong on that.

Talk about mental gymnastics.! We are not faced with a choice between one who favors unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand and one opposes abortion but wants to annihilate all life on earth. Such hyperbole is the refuge of those trying to defend the indefensible.

 

[lynnvinc]

Talk about mental gymnastics.! We are not faced with a choice between one who favors unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand and one opposes abortion but wants to annihilate all life on earth. Such hyperbole is the refuge of those trying to defend the indefensible.

I sincerely sincerely wish it were hyperbole. It’s not as if all life would end tomorrow; it would probably take 1000s of years to totally do all of life in. It’s just that we are triggering such an event right now (like poking a sleeping dragon – working hard to melt those frozen hydrates and permafrost to release all those gigatons of methane waiting there to send us to hell on earth), and it doesn’t look like we have much time to reverse this (halt the Titantic before it hits the ice berg, so to speak). We really should have started 21 years ago when JPII called on ALL people to do the right thing and mitigate global warming (then referred to as “the greenhouse effect”). The money we could have saved and the economic benefits perhaps could have staved off this economic collapse, or made it look like a small hiccup. Instead of investing in real estate beyond our means (what used to be “home buying”), we could have bought more modest homes and made them energy efficient, with SunFrost frigs, etc. We could have been working to reduce our killing of people…then that would have given us some moral authority when it comes to talking against other people having abortions.

We’ve been VERY slow to respond. Of course, no politician alone (or in concert with all governments of the world) can turn this ship around; we people also have to do our part. As JPII said – it is EVERYONE’S responsibility.

Realistically speaking, I don’t think any politician can get anyone to do anything they don’t want to do – they can’t get them to stop abortions, and they can’t get them to mitigate global warming. They can’t get them to stop doing crime, or stop murdering people.

These are all very hard nuts to crack. We just hope they can stop abortion and mitigate climates change and halt executions, and bring about justice for all, etc.

So are you saying Huntsman is no good. I’m not sure what your point is.

 

[ManOnFire]

It’s funny how no one is recommending that we stop burning the unnecessary carbon used to fuel the elective fashion and entertainment industries. If the sky is truly falling, you’d think they’d be to that point if they really cared about the lives of others.

 

[MillTownCath]

I think there are a lot of people in the U.S. that could use a hangin’.

I think thats terrible unCatholic.

 

[Hastrman]

I think thats terrible unCatholic.

Nah. The doctrine of Original Sin is, in essence, everyone could use a hangin’. All are guilty through all and before all, to quote Dostoevsky. That’s where the divine mercy comes in, and all.

Of course, as far as the state is concerned, we can only hang (or otherwise punish) the guys whose particular acts make it impossible for us to continue to live with them.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

IMO, abortions are far worse than whatever harm we are doing to the earth. We are killing infants faster than we are destroying this earth. So I don’t buy that ‘saving the earth’ stuff when there are far more important issues at hand. Not saying we shouldn’t help the environment, but I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. Plus, climates change throughout many years.

Just my 2 cents on those issues put together.

 

[lynnvinc]

IMO, abortions are far worse than whatever harm we are doing to the earth. We are killing infants faster than we are destroying this earth. So I don’t buy that ‘saving the earth’ stuff when there are far more important issues at hand. Not saying we shouldn’t help the environment, but I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. Plus, climates change throughout many years.

Just my 2 cents on those issues put together.

That’s bec most people conceive of the environment as something totally unrelated to people and the unborn. In fact environmental harms cause abortions & birth defects, among the many other harms to born people and the rest of God’s creation.

My main impetus to reduce my harm re environmental problems is to reduce my (direct & indirect) harm to people. Indirect harms include harming people’s agriculture and food-getting, causing starvation. Another example is global warming is causing increased intensity of floods, and during the extreme Pakistani flood of 2010, where millions of people had to flee and many drowned & died of disease in camps, doctors just gave abortions to women who were fleeing the flooding with their families (in a society that is pretty much against abortions). It was a terrible act in a state of desperations.

More directly, the pollution our ICE cars emit cause miscarrriages & birth defects, among other harms.

Now I’d be the first to say elective medical abortion is a much worse sin than polluting the environment & killing people that way, but in my case I’ve never had an abortion and never will, but I am killing people in other ways, and feel that I should stop, or at least reduce that to the best of my ability.

Other can do whatever they wish (tho I’d hope and pray they do the EC (environmentally correct) thing), since there is no law against polluting & killing people that way, and it just wouldn’t be feasible to pass such laws.

 

[Raskolnikov]

It’s funny how no one is recommending that we stop burning the unnecessary carbon used to fuel the elective fashion and entertainment industries. If the sky is truly falling, you’d think they’d be to that point if they really cared about the lives of others.

Plenty of people of people are. They just don’t get the media attention for obvious reasons: the enetertainment industry certainly isn’t going give air time to people who want it to cut back.

And this “they” you are talking about? Would you think it fair for someone to say that pro-life people don’t really care about the lives of others because of their failure to make significant changes on abortion policy? They’re all just in it for themselves? Why should anyone else extend you a courtesy you deny them?

MillTownCath:

I think thats terrible unCatholic.

It most certainly is. Don’t expect him to change though.

 

[lynnvinc]

It’s funny how no one is recommending that we stop burning the unnecessary carbon used to fuel the elective fashion and entertainment industries. If the sky is truly falling, you’d think they’d be to that point if they really cared about the lives of others.

I think they have much worse sins to mitigate than environmental sins, but it would be good if they also reduced their greenhouse gas emissions.

We don’t go to movies – the last one we went to was St. Therese (a St. Luke Production…not in Hollywood), and we never watch TV except for the news, EWTN, and old westerns (my husband loves them, esp The Virginian, tho I don’t like the “mild violence”). We hate the immorality in all the new stuff, even the commercials.

In fact, we don’t really need any new program; there are plenty of good reruns. There could be lots of GHG reduction if we just gave up TV & movies altogether, & spent recreation time with family members. The morals of society would also improve. Sounds like a win-win-win situation to me.

 

[dcharles]

That’s bec most people conceive of the environment as something totally unrelated to people and the unborn. In fact environmental harms cause abortions & birth defects, among the many other harms to born people and the rest of God’s creation.

My main impetus to reduce my harm re environmental problems is to reduce my (direct & indirect) harm to people. Indirect harms include harming people’s agriculture and food-getting, causing starvation. Another example is global warming is causing increased intensity of floods, and during the extreme Pakistani flood of 2010, where millions of people had to flee and many drowned & died of disease in camps, doctors just gave abortions to women who were fleeing the flooding with their families (in a society that is pretty much against abortions). It was a terrible act in a state of desperations.

More directly, the pollution our ICE cars emit cause miscarrriages & birth defects, among other harms.

Now I’d be the first to say elective medical abortion is a much worse sin than polluting the environment & killing people that way, but in my case I’ve never had an abortion and never will, but I am killing people in other ways, and feel that I should stop, or at least reduce that to the best of my ability.

Other can do whatever they wish (tho I’d hope and pray they do the EC (environmentally correct) thing), since there is no law against polluting & killing people that way, and it just wouldn’t be feasible to pass such laws.

Global warming is a scam introduced by a few scientists who think there are too many OTHER people in the world. (Never too many of themselves, just other people).

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and other anti-Christians are strong in pushing over population ideas. Athiests CANNOT love other people who they do not know. Thus they try to push global warming and over population in order kill off these other people who they only see as animals, (not human beings, equal to themselves in value) who harm the enviroment. Here is one of many articles about this:
thetruthwins.com/archives/to-the-global-elite-the-math-is-simple-human-overpopulation-is-causing-climate-change-so-the-solution-to-climate-change-is-population-control

Any global warming is not man made, and is actually good for the population
SEE THIS:
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40684

Thus, those who push abortion and those who push the false idea of man-made climate change are one in the same. They are atheists who have no love for God, thus they cannot love other human beings who they do not know, and thus they consider these others as less equal than themselves and of less value than the plants and animals of the earth.