J
josephdavid
Guest
Tell me what your thoughts are about this:
conservation.catholic.org/john_paul_ii.htm
usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.htm#change
- Status
conservation.catholic.org/john_paul_ii.htm
usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.htm#change
J
josephdavid
Guest
I say both are equal because we are destroying life in the womb and destroying life outside the womb and destroying life for future generations. Not just human life but nature which God had created and left us in charge.So the murder of millions is not a concern even if it is happening as we speak. But the possible death of those in the future is of way more concern.
Please help me out with this train of thought.
Save those who are dying now or save those who could possible die in some unforseen future. Hmmm tha is a hard one.
And not just through global warming either. Through deforestation of the Amazon, spewing tons of mercury into the air with our coal burning power plants, the toxicity of our cars, the spilling of oil.
S
st_lucy
Guest
I totally agree with this statment.
I don’t think that we should ever drop one for another. Human life is always the most important. And especially those who are most innocent.
J
josephdavid
Guest
P
pumpkinbeast
Guest
There is a difference between global warming, which actually has very little evidence that it is caused by humans and much evidence that it is a natural cycle over which we have no control, and pollution, ie mercury, oil spills, etc. There is also a difference between willful, brutal destruction of a human life directly at the hands of another human, and the detriment of health through indirect, and in some cases unintentional, means. Both need to be addressed, but brutal murder should take first priority, before we can sit back and address how our actions could indirectly affect others. If we’re not willing to stop outright murder, why should we be willing to change anything else?
P
pnewton
Guest
I like the second article better, as it offered more specifics. I think the virute of prudence as applied to the the issue was particularly apt. Still, being a matter of prudence, it does not rise to the level of a mortal sin, as does abortion.
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
E
Eschato
Guest
Excuse me, do you you understand what you just said? “Any belief system that states that one human is better than another human…” that is all that abortion is. You have to admit that this was a rather silly comment. One persons greed overrides all reality and perception.
D
Durendin
Guest
Playing the numbers game, abortion is nothing compared to reproductive rates the world over when you consider that there’s more people alive than have ever died. As brutal and harsh as it sounds, humanity could quite easily survive if five billion people died tomorrow.
E
Eschato
Guest
Actually there was one big one… it was called a massive volcanic eruption. Go look them up, they cause more green house gases than any amount of car ever will. They can occur at any time. If the whole world began using “green” energy tonight, an eruption could occur tomorrow that could have a massive effect on the world.
“Well, if it causes greenhouse gases, why is it called the little ice age?” Good question, when massive amounts of material burns, it causes not only “greenhouse” gases but also sulphur compounds to rise to the top of the Earth’s atmosphere. This is where your dreaded acid rain comes from. Well anyway, the sulphur compounds actually counteract any effect that a greenhouse gas might ever have. It is very well documents that these gases actually reflect the Sun’s energy and effectively freeze the earth for short periods of time… say a decade or two.
I’d say Mr. Internet left that out of his documentary.
E
Eschato
Guest
No civilization has ever survived for long while it supported human sacrifice. Abortion is the sacrifice of a child for the sexual desires and otherwise greedy behavior of the parent.
D
Durendin
Guest
I’d agree with most of that, but it won’t affect humanity. The West is probably doomed though. Populations are getting older and not enough young are being born here to make up for the difference. (As someone on these forums said and it stuck in my mind, “We’re aborting and contracepting ourselves out of existence”)The countries and areas that are considered to be “behind” us, the continents of South America and Africa will prosper when the Western Civilisations of Europe and North America slowly die out or are re-colonised by stronger cultures.
E
Eschato
Guest
How, is that disagreeing with what I said? One way or another this thinkg is going to come back to bite us.
E
Eddy
Guest
Even if, for the sake of argument, we say global warming isn’t happening (which I firmly believe it is, and I still argue that it’s a moral imperative to be environmentally friendly), what about all the arguments for behaving in an environmentally responsible way?
- Car culture is shown to be making us more unhealthy. People are becoming more obese (for which cars are partly responsible) and the levels of ashma have rocketed.
- Fossil fuels are non-renewable. They’re going to run out. So we need to be finding new sources of energy, and reduce our current usage.
- If we import food from across the globe (with all the pollution that goes with it) local farmers suffer, food is less fresh, farmers in the developing world become reliant on cashcrops rather than farming to support their own communities, we all become less self-sustainable.
- There are limited supplies of metals etc, which will run out at some stage, so it makes some sense to recycle.
- People in the Western world are lonlier and increasingly prone to depression. Communities are suffering. One way to address this is to get people out of cars, out onto the streets walking and getting buses - increasing social interaction and connectivity. The best way to address public safety in urban areas is also to get more people out and using the streets.
- Landfill is occupying increasing amounts of our countryside. It is releasing pollutants which harm local wildlife and landscape.
P
pumpkinbeast
Guest
I don’t think anyone is going to argue with you in that we need to treat the earth properly. (though many will argue as to what the best treatment is) Taking care of our children also falls under that scope; they are part of this earth, too. The bodies of children are ending up in those landfills. You mentioned treating the earth as a commodity; well, children are also being treated as such, thrown away when people don’t want them, and then generated in test tubes when people do. Perhaps a change of attitude will fix both problems?
J
Joe_Stong
Guest
NATURE has killed people and animals from the beginning - so the question as to which kills MORE people, global warming (at less than 1 degree difference per year) or abortion (1.3 MILLION per year JUST in the USA ALONE) is a no brainer…
the demographic decline in Europe and the one child policy in China and India are already having drastic consequences for the gene pool of ‘humanity’ - far in excess of any consequences of 'global warming.
The Tsunami last year killed more people in a day than ‘unusual typhoons’ have in a decade, and it was a tectonic effect, not an effect of rising temperatures.
Volcanos too blast more stuff into the skies than entire countries industries combined, but since they’re not affected by temperature, they’ll discounted.
Given the KNOWN cycles of sun spots and hurricane cycles, even Katrina can’t be exclusively blamed on global warming (after all, if rising temps in the seas definately cause hurricanes explain this past summer’s non-event).
Maybe the seas will rise by 1 inch per year. Big whoop. No country is going to disappear overnight and mankind is certainly capable of raising levies faster than the waters, or relocated to higher ground.
the demographic decline in Europe and the one child policy in China and India are already having drastic consequences for the gene pool of ‘humanity’ - far in excess of any consequences of 'global warming.
The Tsunami last year killed more people in a day than ‘unusual typhoons’ have in a decade, and it was a tectonic effect, not an effect of rising temperatures.
Volcanos too blast more stuff into the skies than entire countries industries combined, but since they’re not affected by temperature, they’ll discounted.
Given the KNOWN cycles of sun spots and hurricane cycles, even Katrina can’t be exclusively blamed on global warming (after all, if rising temps in the seas definately cause hurricanes explain this past summer’s non-event).
Maybe the seas will rise by 1 inch per year. Big whoop. No country is going to disappear overnight and mankind is certainly capable of raising levies faster than the waters, or relocated to higher ground.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Actually, “AGW” [anthropogenic (man-made) global warming] , according the the IPCC computer models would contribute about 1 degree per century, not “less than one degree per year”. “Less than one degree per year” could be misconstrued by the media to be slightly less than 10 degrees per decade or maybe 99 degrees per century … and that is exactly how it is misconstrued. The media and some of our politicians deliberately take the numbers from the IPCC computer simulation and throw them totally out of context.
For example, Al Gore (one of our politicians) took the IPCC temperature change estimates and deliberately misconstrued it in such a way that he provided a movie in which the temperature was slyly discussed in such a way that ocean levels would increase by 20 feet when the most recent IPCC summary report says maybe 18 inches.
When the context of one degree per CENTURY is properly appreciated, it become 0.01 degree per year… imperceptible.
And THAT is what is being “spun” by certain politicians and certain media outlets into some catastrophic event.
M
marci
Guest
I can’t even believe this is an argument. Global warming definately caused by man? This has yet to be proven. Even the scientific community is not wholely on board the train. The Earth has always gone through cycles, why do we assume our age is any different?
The extreme environmental movement has become a religion for people who have none.
I don’t expect “all of this”, the earth, humans, animals, the solar system to exist forever. If you are a christian, which I am, you know that the Lord will come again for the final judgement. That is not to say we should abuse what God has given us. We should be good stewards of the earth, but without the issue of life there can be no other issue.
Some argue for sterilization for population control (China). One could argue that this is better for the whole because there would be less stress on resources. The church, however, takes a very different view.
The same goes for abortion, fewer people, fewer use of resources, fewer cars, less infastructure–this may seem a good argument from the perspective of an athiest, but again, the church would have big problems with this as well.
I wish more people on this planet, were a little more concerned about their souls, and a little less concerned about their SUV’s. Afterall, one thing’s for certain, no matter how it happens, all of us will come to an end, it’s the condition of our souls that matter.
Cheer up, all you global warming junkies! Look at it this way, maybe we’ll luck out and just get hit by a meteor. If it doesn’t destroy all life on earth as we know it, at least it will give us something else to talk about.
The extreme environmental movement has become a religion for people who have none.
I don’t expect “all of this”, the earth, humans, animals, the solar system to exist forever. If you are a christian, which I am, you know that the Lord will come again for the final judgement. That is not to say we should abuse what God has given us. We should be good stewards of the earth, but without the issue of life there can be no other issue.
Some argue for sterilization for population control (China). One could argue that this is better for the whole because there would be less stress on resources. The church, however, takes a very different view.
The same goes for abortion, fewer people, fewer use of resources, fewer cars, less infastructure–this may seem a good argument from the perspective of an athiest, but again, the church would have big problems with this as well.
I wish more people on this planet, were a little more concerned about their souls, and a little less concerned about their SUV’s. Afterall, one thing’s for certain, no matter how it happens, all of us will come to an end, it’s the condition of our souls that matter.
Cheer up, all you global warming junkies! Look at it this way, maybe we’ll luck out and just get hit by a meteor. If it doesn’t destroy all life on earth as we know it, at least it will give us something else to talk about.
Z
Zirconia
Guest
I would say humanity is the greatest threat to humanity, because it has apparently decided that the consequences of its irresponsible, short-sighted actions and poor stewardship in regards to this planet are a hoax not worthy of its attention.
I also fail to see how it is compatible with a pro-life position to bring babies into a world where, if current trends continue, they will no longer be able to breathe the air, drink the water, or work the land.
Zirconia
I also fail to see how it is compatible with a pro-life position to bring babies into a world where, if current trends continue, they will no longer be able to breathe the air, drink the water, or work the land.
Zirconia
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Go tell that in New Orleans.Excelent point.
Abortion is killing hundreds of thousands of people NOW, and even if global warming is a threat and not just a cycle, it’s not killing anyone now. If global warming is real, it will need a drastic change in lifestyle to fix, from what I’ve heard. So why not start with educating children instead of killing them?
- Status