Why the Logic Of Abortion Rules Out Worrying About “Climate Change”

Why should we care about human babies in the womb? They’re not actual people; they’re only potential people. So let’s allow the mother to do whatever is best for her convenience and kill her baby if she wants to.

For the sake of argument, just for the moment, let’s accept that position.  Potential person.  Choice is all important.  Convenience of the people who are here now.  Kill at will.  Check.

So, let’s not worry about the planet for exactly the same reasons we shouldn’t worry about babies in the womb.

It’s interesting that the same people who tend to care so passionately about global warming also so devotedly support abortion on demand.  Potentiality is meaningless.  Choice is everything.  And convenience is all we are to live for.  In the ends-justifies-the-means relativism of liberalism, these things are sacrosanct in one issue, and then utterly meaningless the next.

Climate change (which used to be called “global warming” until the inconvenient fact emerged that the planet has actually been getting colder for the past 10 years) isn’t wiping out millions of people now.  Alarmists and pseudo-scientists such as Al Gore can twist the actual data all they want, but at best (or worst) “climate change” is just a potential problem that will happen in years to come.   And in this sense, potential “climate change” is very much like all the millions of “potential persons” who would clearly have been cooing and gurgling in just a few months if their incredible potential as human beings hadn’t been ignored so that they could be dissolved with acid or cut into little pieces and vacuumed out of the womb like so much garbage.

Choice?  Well, in the United States, I might have a right to walk into any abortion clinic and have my baby killed for me by courteous professional killers, but I am increasingly losing my right to do something that might contribute to “climate change.”  Environmental laws are becoming more and more restrictive and punitive all the time.  What about my “choice”?

Individual choice is only important when liberals want it to be important.  They don’t mind if their logic and moral reasoning are incoherent; not as long as they keep getting their way.

And then there is the “choice” of countries like China and India.  China has been building a new coal plant at the rate of one a week.  Are we going to be “anti-choice” and try to stop them?  What makes European and American socialists think they know better than a couple billion Chinese and Indians?

And if the argument of convenience matters, then by all means, let’s throw all “climate change” regulations and spending out the window and start burning more of that good old fashioned oil and coal.  The simple fact of the matter is that oil and coal are incredibly cheap and deliver an incredible amount of energy compared to the “alternative energy” that liberals want us to undermine our economy to develop.

When it comes to abortion, potential is thrown out the window, the choice of a mother to kill her baby is sacred, and convenience is absolutely everything.  But when it comes to “climate change,” potential is all important, choice is to be denied any who think otherwise, and convenience is to be destroyed at all cost in favor of an energy system that will produce little at great cost.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Why the Logic Of Abortion Rules Out Worrying About “Climate Change””

  1. Phil Says:

    So individual choice is all or nothing? Gotcha. So the government “forces” you to wear a seat belt then by the same logic it shouldn’t give women the individual freedom over their own body. Yup, sounds logically equivalent to me.

    Oh and since you want absolute freedom of choice you must be opposed to laws denying me the individual choice to kill other people. Makes sense to me.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    From your comments, I would say it’s not the things that DON’T make sense to you that I should worry about; it’s the things that DO.

    You apparently don’t have the “sense” to recognize that I can – and basically did – make the same argument about your view. You sanctify “choice” when it helps you advance your agenda, and ignore it when it doesn’t.

    Women should have freedom over their own body; but they aren’t killing “their” body – they are killing someone else’s. From the moment of conception, every baby is a different individual from his or her mother. Different DNA. So, yes, Phil; I AM against laws denying you the individual choice to kill other people. And I ask, “Why aren’t you?”

  3. Ian Says:

    I’m pro-life and active on the issue of climate change, which has as much scientific backing as the theories of gravity and evolution.

    The typical US conservative position, anti-abortion (though rarely pro-life in any genuine way), and climate change denialist, is equally if not more ridiculous than the liberal position on these issues.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    I notice that you didn’t even begin to attempt to deal with my argument, other than to take a couple of drive-by pot shots.

    That argument, in a nutshell, is this: why should I care if “potential people” who haven’t even been born yet perish in the future due to “global warming” when we can now abort our babies – who are in wombs RIGHT NOW – without a moment of moral regret?

    Please don’t think you undercut that argument by saying, “I’m pro-life and pro-global warming.” Because you don’t.

    But I’m curious.

    Why are you pro-life, anyway? And if you are pro-life, why do you speak so dismissively against those who are “anti-abortion”? Why would you say that those who oppose the murder of unborn babies are not pro-life? Do you support the murder of 50 million babies in the US alone and yet call yourself “pro-life”?

    Why do you claim that denying global warming amounts to being a “change denialist” (new term for me) given that the earth is clearly cooling?

    Here’s a couple of bullet points from the NOAA National Climate Data Center:

    # The average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coolest based on preliminary data.
    # For the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record. The month was marked by an active weather pattern that reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts. Temperatures were below normal in eight of the nation’s nine climate regions, and of the nine, five were much below normal. Only the Southeast climate region had near normal temperatures for October.
    # Statewide temperatures coincided with the regional values as all but six states had below normal temperatures. Oklahoma had its coolest October on record and ten other states had their top five coolest such months.

    I have nothing but naked contempt for the “change” from “global warming” to “climate change.” What a load of manure! When it gets warmer, it’s because of climate change; when it gets cooler, it’s because of climate change; when it rains, it’s because of climate change; when it doesn’t rain, it’s because of climate change. The theory is so elastic and so devoid of any kind of reality that it literally accounts for everything. And thirty years ago the chief proponents who are pitching global warming were pitching an impending ice age. Take a look at top Global Warming Moonbat James Hansen doing so in 1971. There appears to be no point at which global warming alarmists will ever acknowledge that they are full of “global warming gasses” themselves.

    I’ve written a couple of other articles about global warming. Perhaps you wouldn’t mind taking a few seconds to refute the science and facts presented.

    What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

    What You Never Hear About Global Warming

    Perhaps you could show us “denialists” the error of our ways by showing us your irrefutable case for man-caused global warming?

    I can prove the theory of gravity by dropping a coffee mug. I challenge you to so easily prove global warming (and for that matter evolution) so easily, since you seem to think you can.

  5. Justin Says:

    Oh my god I am fantastically shocked by how stupid you are. “global warming” never ever meant that the world was strictly going to get warmer. it was always meant and known that colder temperatures would be a by product of global warming due to holes in the ozone layer.. They changed the name because it does sound confusing. Global warming just meant extremes at both ends, hot and cold. Climate change just makes more sense as a phrase, its not a conspiracy. Stupid stupid stupid

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    Justin,

    You say,

    “Oh my god I am fantastically shocked by how stupid you are. “global warming” never ever meant that the world was strictly going to get warmer.”

    Think again:

    Webster:

    global warm·ing
    noun \-ˈwȯr-miŋ\
    Definition of GLOBAL WARMING
    : an increase in the earth’s atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution

    I can’t help but notice that the definition doesn’t say anything about colder temperatures. All I see is “increase,” and never “decrease.”

    So, yeah, “global warming” actually means “global warming.”

    I submit that if the “global warming” industry thought that “climate change” was a better designator of their views, then they would have used it more than twenty years ago, rather than waiting until AFTER “global warming” was plainly revealed to be abject idiocy.

    It is just amazing with you “true-believers.” No amount of evidence can convince you that your radical religious cult of global warming alarmism is wrong. It doesn’t matter how many facts prove that global warming is pseudo-science. You just put on the blinders and keep goose stepping.

    We’ve just gone through the climategate email revelations, in which the very top “climate change” “scientists” were caught red-handed deliberately falsifying and misrepresenting scientific data, destroying scientific data in order to avoid having the truth revealed, and engaging in an illegitimate use of the peer review process to destroy scientific opponents.

    The amount of fraud, abandonment of any form of scientific procedure or ethics, and the sheer incompetence coming out of the global warming movement is simply staggering.

    Hal Lewis comes from the elite upper levels of science — a physics professor at University of California (Santa Barbara), and a member of the Defense Science Board (a group of the top 40 or so, advising the Pentagon). He recently resigned from the American Physical Society, saying:

    It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

    And what is your response? Merely to call a man who has more scientific experience in his pinky finger than you will ever have in your entire body in your entire miserable life, “Stupid, stupid, stupid.”

    Forest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does.” And what you is and what you does is both stupid.

    Now we’ve got the global warming industry caught red-handed being just as stupid as you are. Just the other day it was revealed that you global warming alarmers “miscalculated pollution levels by 340 percent” in order to pass bogus legislation and usurp control of society by fear and lies.

    And this is going on even as the new Obama global warming alarmism energy rules are discovered to destroy more than 800,000 jobs.

    Meanwhile the arctic ice is returning to normal. Meanwhile the globe is so warm that 50 ships got stuck in that warm Baltic Sea. And the very tops of the international movement screamed that the seas were rising. Even though they weren’t.

    But you failures will never acknowledge your theory is crap, because it’s a crazy cult of socialist redistributionism more than it is anything resembling “science.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: