Watch "Dear Greta, Are Trees Worth More Than Babies?" on YouTube

[ATraveller]

There is (or at least there was) little incentive to court more conservative groups in Canada or much of Western Europe because leftist ideologies enjoyed a dominance of power there. They called the opposition names because they could get away with it.

In Europe, it’s different because most of them have proportional representation which allows all sorts of parties to get elected but never enough to govern on their own. They have to cooperate and you can get unthinkable partnerships (at least from a North American perspective).
Canada doesn’t so the few have too much power.

 

[ATraveller]

No one has to agree with Greta and the adults trying to make her into a Christian saint (I certainly don’t) but protecting the environment and being pro-life can be done at the same time.
This is a Dutch fundamentalist Calvinist party’s position on emissions using Google Translate (their website goes offline on Sundays so if you’re reading this on a Sunday the links won’t work):

God’s creation is worth saving. As a steward, we must be careful with resources, energy resources and nature. The CO 2 emissions from car journeys, gas boilers and factories have an impact on the climate. […]

• In order to tax CO 2 emissions, the European CO 2 emissions trading system must be tightened up. A floor price is needed, so that companies are actually encouraged to save energy and limit CO 2 emissions. The Netherlands must focus on the better functioning of the emissions trading system.
  […]
• In Brussels, the Netherlands is committed to further tightening the emission requirements for new cars.
  CO2-uitstoot - SGP

International agreements, such as the Paris climate agreement, are needed to prevent countries from remaining on their hands and companies going to those countries where the least rules apply. […]

Reducing the use of fossil fuels is also needed to become less dependent on unstable regions such as the Middle East and to spend less money on imports of these fuels.
Klimaat - SGP

The big disadvantage of wind farms is that it does not blow every day. The SGP believes that too much is now being invested in new wind farms and too little in energy saving, energy storage and the development of alternative, sustainable energy sources.

When placing wind turbines at sea, fish-rich areas must be avoided.

[…]windmills can cause annoying noise pollution for local residents. That is not good for support. The noise rules were relaxed a few years ago. This must be reversed.

Companies that operate wind farms must be obliged to allow local residents to participate financially or to benefit from it.
https://www.sgp.nl/standpunten/w/windmolenparken#standpunt-windmolenparken

So they want to protect the environment but also want challenges to be smoothed out.
And on abortion:

With ultrasound we now see better than ever that a fetus of twelve weeks is not a lump of cells, but a little person with all the trimmings. And you can hear the heart beating from the fifth week. This defenseless unborn life in the womb, which is worth protecting from the very beginning, therefore deserves legal protection. For that reason the ‘Abortion Act’ must be repealed. As long as that has not (yet) happened, the government must do everything in its power to reduce the number of abortions. Every abortion is one too many.
Abortus Provocatus - SGP

 

[maryjk]

As for a frozen world, or even global cooling, there was one cover story on Time magazine about some scientists who predicting a coming ice age. Their ideas were by no means mainstream and were definitely not taken seriously by the public.

We were taught, in public school, that the next ice age was coming. It wasn’t some small group. This was very much mainstream teaching.

If course we were also taught that what is now called climate change was cyclical.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

As for a frozen world, or even global cooling, there was one cover story on Time magazine about some scientists who predicting a coming ice age. Their ideas were by no means mainstream and were definitely not taken seriously by the public.

We were taught, in public school, that the next ice age was coming. It wasn’t some small group.

You may have misunderstood how soon they said it was coming. They may have been saying that ice ages are cyclical and that another one may come at some indefinite period in the future. There never was a wide-spread prediction of any definite time when an ice age may come. So it is nothing like the current climate change projections, which are definite.

 

[blackforest]

Are people basically not allowed to talk about any cause unless they simultaneously talk about abortion?

I p(name removed by moderator)ointed what this video reminds me of - the pro-choice argument that pro-lifers have no business arguing against abortion when they “aren’t helping born people.” In fact, pro-choicers could just as easily reverse it, and it would still sound ridiculous: “Why are you so obsessed with fetuses when we have our warming planet to worry about?”

No matter what variables you plug in - “Why are you arguing for Issue X? Don’t you care about Issue Y?” - it’s a dirty trick to play on someone.

 

[Theo520]

So it is nothing like the current climate change projections, which are definite.

You should be so sure about that

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

One article in the Guardian hardly proves the existence of a wide-spread understanding or movement.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Actually, you may apply to speak at the United Nations, watch their website for opportunities like this one: Civil Society | Apply to Speak or Attend: President of the General Assembly's High-level Meeting on Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace | PEACEBUILDING

or your country’s UN delegation may have you speak.

 

[Annie]

Actually, you may apply to speak at the United Nations, watch their website for opportunities like this one:

eight stakeholder respondents… The Committee will ensure regional and gender balance, and diversity of constituency and expertise in the overall set of candidates.

Don’t think I will make it.

And I don’t think my nation’s delegation will pick me, either.

Altho Greta Thunberg was able to speak despite not being an expert, I doubt they would let a non-expert like me speak

 

[yankeesouth]

If someone doesn’t “get” the fact that an unborn child is a child, then it’s difficult for me to accept much of anything else that they say.

Yes our Bishops say the same…

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...moral-issues-not-equivalent-to-abortion-64430

And while being opposed to abortion and euthanasia does not excuse anyone from caring about other social injustices, such a poverty and violence, there is a right ordering of moral priorities, Archbishop Chaput said, which is the reason the United States’ bishops released their 1998 pastoral letter, “Living the Gospel of Life.”

“Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care . . . But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life.

Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community” (Living the Gospel of Life pp. 22).

And Pope Francis…

“Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away”.

We see how that is true when the liberal’s political ideology is attacking the family not only through abortion (including infanticide) but also redefining marriage, gender ideology, assisted suicide and euthanasia. All of which are the Catholic non negotiables

And, of course, the USCCB recently confirmed that protecting the lives of the innocent unborn is the preeminent voting issue for Catholics in the U.S.

 

[Peeps]

And, of course, the USCCB recently confirmed that protecting the lives of the innocent unborn is the preeminent voting issue for Catholics in the U.S.

Thank you for posting this, and also for the rest of your post.

No laws stop Christians from taking the initiative to help the poor, the suffering, the ignorant, the frightened, the elderly, etc. in their circle of influence. We simply have to open our eyes and ears, look around, and see with Jesus’ Eyes that poor and needy who are right in our own neighborhoods, and then DO SOMETHING about it!

But…the laws can and do stop Christians from saving the lives of the unborn. The Holy Spirit can and does work in the hearts of women experiencing a crisis pregnancy, and there are many stories of women who changed their mind at the last moment and allowed the unborn child to live and be born. But all too often, a woman who decides to have an abortion goes through with it, and all Christians can do is pray for her deceased child and for her soul. We need laws that protect the unborn, and at this time in history, the huge majority of Democrats are not willing to pass any laws that they see as obstructing a “women’s right to choose.”

So what are we to do? Vote for those who are willing to pass laws that protect the unborn, and make up for any lack of laws that help those in need by helping them ourselves instead of blaming the government (and Republicans) for not stepping in.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And, of course, the USCCB recently confirmed that protecting the lives of the innocent unborn is the preeminent voting issue for Catholics in the U.S.

“The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family and because of the number of lives destroyed,” the letter reads. “At the same time, we cannot dismiss or ignore other serious threats to human life and dignity such as racism, the environmental crisis, poverty and the death penalty.”

So apparently it is not an issue that trumps all others in the voting booth.

 

[Peeps]

So apparently it is not an issue that trumps all others in the voting booth.

Umm…yes, it is. What exactly does the Church have to say to get people like you to realize that we cannot compromise on the issue of abortion?!

The statement clearly says, “The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself…”

Preeminent means that it has first place, trumps everything else, gets primary consideration.

The environmental crisis and poverty do not matter to those who are murdered before they even have a chance to be born and join in the effort to improve the environment and help the poor and disenfranchised.

IMO, anyone who is willing to kill an unborn child is lying when they say they care about the environment and the poor. Oh, really? Yeah, let’s kill 'em!–that’ll reduce the population of the poor (the Ebenezer Scrooge Method!)! Good plan! Or let’s kill their kids–that will demonstrate how much we “value” the poor (cough cough).

LeafByNiggle, you might scoff, but many evil people throughout history have used this “logic” to justify killing people that they considered “worthless” because their deaths would make it possible for others to live better lives. Don’t fall for it.

Just because someone is charming and well-spoken and has lived a socially-acceptable life does not mean that they are “good.”

I would be very wary of accepting help from a murderer, or someone with a murderer’s mindset! I just finished reading a book about Nazi women, one of which invited a group of little Jewish boys who had managed to escape transport (to the concentration camps) into her home, fed them a great meal, and then took them out to the back yard and shot them in the back of the head.

 

[Anrakyr]

Top priority doesn’t mean all else falls on the wayside. If means if you have to choose which subject to deal with you pick the priority. That doesn’t mean you can or should fight on the priority every day. You can’t make headway everyday. Pressure can’t be applied in Congress every day. It’s not realistic.

Where as you can take a bike to work every day.
Saavy?

 

[goout]

yankeesouth:

And, of course, the USCCB recently confirmed that protecting the lives of the innocent unborn is the preeminent voting issue for Catholics in the U.S.

“The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family and because of the number of lives destroyed,” the letter reads. “At the same time, we cannot dismiss or ignore other serious threats to human life and dignity such as racism, the environmental crisis, poverty and the death penalty.”

So apparently it is not an issue that trumps all others in the voting booth.

Here’s why the issue of abortion is pre-eminent:
1 It is policy that allows for the direct attack on innocent human life.
2 Human rights assume living human beings. Does that make sense to you? If I want to save the whales from ingesting plastic, but at the same time allow hunters to kill the whales, my concern about whale’s rights is pointless.
3 If we don’t first protect the right to live as a priority, talk about human rights is not only empty hypocrisy, it exposes an insanity (literally “unhealthy” thinking).
And un-reason does not bode well for the promotion of human rights.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The statement clearly says, “The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself…”

The letter was not approved unanimously. There were some notable dissenters. Therefore it does not define binding doctrine.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here’s why the issue of abortion is pre-eminent:

Even if one holds that abortion as an issue is preeminent, in most elections we do not get to vote for issues. We vote for people. How electing any particular candidate will affect the issue of abortion is not obvious. If someone claims to be anti abortion, but in fact has very little ability to affect abortion, that can certainly be taken into account.

 

[goout]

goout:

Here’s why the issue of abortion is pre-eminent:

Even if one holds that abortion as an issue is preeminent, in most elections we do not get to vote for issues. We vote for people. How electing any particular candidate will affect the issue of abortion is not obvious. If someone claims to be anti abortion, but in fact has very little ability to affect abortion, that can certainly be taken into account.

That is a reality for any issue. And you can use those uncertainties to abdicate responsibilities, or you can forge ahead and make responsible decisions given the information and situations you have.

The fact that life is uncertain and confusing does not excuse one from acting prudently and morally.

 

[Mac]

HoW DArE YoU!!!

 

[goout]

HoW DArE YoU!!!

Yea, and the more emotional outrage the more meaningful it is (in our days of wacky subjectivism).
You have to say it with enough moral pomposity.