What does abortion have to do with climate change? You’ll have to ask Pope Francis.

[PeaceNikki]

Buried in Pope Francis’ encyclical on climate change, released Thursday, was a bold exhortation that pro-life conservatives support action to stop global warming on moral grounds.

“[C]oncern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion,” he wrote. “How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient that may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?”


The line seemed out of place in an American political context, where anti-abortion Republicans are on the opposite end of the spectrum from Democratic environmentalists, but the pope is only the latest in a growing number of Christian conservatives who see a connection between pro-life views and environmentalism.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/what-does-abortion-have-to-do-with-climate-change-119192.html#ixzz3dnFkVdGB


So, yeah, bury your head in the sand, Frank and preemptively give a middle finger to those of us who support choice and how keeping women reduced to nothing but broodmares DIRECTLY contributes to poverty and overpopulation.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. That's some pretzel logic.

Climate change is about human species survival, not being 'uncomfortable' or 'creating difficulties'.

Yes, we also want the other species, on whom we depend in various ways, to survive. Ideally, all of them, given that they all fill different niches in the environmental web. But fighting climate change is still anthropocentric for most folks.

[PeaceNikki]

2. Exactly. I'm surprised he didn't connect gay marriage to climate change.

Yet. Asshole.

[hifiguy]

37. And population growth is one of the things

most directly threatening the long-term survival of the planet.

Mother Nature ALWAYS bats last and never gets cheated.

Still, the bulk of his message is a good one. This and his critiques of capitalism surely beat Benny the Rat and his pedophile protection racket.

[Lordquinton]

42. His critiques of capitalism are identical to his predecessor

and back for a while. And while he wasn't literally the head inquisitor in charge of covering up pedophiles, he's still covering up for that guy, and has endorsed child abuse (look up his speech where he says that it's natural to hit a child).

[Warren Stupidity]

3. A sustainable human population requires

Free and readily available access to all forms of birth control so that people can make informed choices about reproduction. Wonder Popes regressive institution stands firmly in the way, despite all the superficially pleasant sounding words.

[PeaceNikki]

4. It's the LARGEST single threat to the environment.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/

A 2009 study of the relationship between population growth and global warming determined that the “carbon legacy” of just one child can produce 20 times more greenhouse gas than a person will save by driving a high-mileage car, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs, etc. Each child born in the United States will add about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent. The study concludes, “Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle.”

[The2ndWheel]

9. We're sustaining 7+ billion people now

The thing with the word sustainable is that we don't really know what it means. All that really matters is today. Rule #1 is keep people alive, and figure out the consequences later. Every time we hit a limit of some kind, we find a way around that limit, since we're humans and that's what we do. Death is the ultimate limit, so that's the one that we really don't like.

While free and readily available access to all forms of birth control so that people can make informed choices about reproduction is a good goal, it's not a requirement for a sustainable human population, because there's no objectively set number for it. We think because we can measure something that we can control it, but the numbers exist nowhere but in our heads.

Even the word sustainable is created and defined by us. If 7+ billion wasn't sustainable, a lot more of us would be dying right now.

[PeaceNikki]

10. A 'good goal'? No, it's a *necessary* goal for the environment, poverty reduction and autonomy.

[The2ndWheel]

12. Which are all different from it being required for a sustainable population

Which was the part that I was responding to. We're doing so well at sustaining 7+ billion, that we're projected to hit more than that in the coming years.

[PeaceNikki]

13. But we're not 'doing so well'.

[The2ndWheel]

17. At that one thing, we very much are

There are physically more people on the planet today than there were yesterday. Younger people, middle age people, older people, the whole spectrum. We get better and better at keeping people alive every day. What happens after that with everyone is more of a gray area.

[PeaceNikki]

19. We're not doing well with the environment.

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

[The2ndWheel]

29. Which isn't what I was talking about

We're doing an incredible job at keeping more people alive today than yesterday.

http://www.census.gov/popclock/

[Warren Stupidity]

40. You keep trying to unlink population and the

environment in which that population exists. That is nonsense.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. We are not in a sustainable state.

Do you really not understand that population is one key drivers of human induced catastrophic climate change? That the current situation is not sustainable and its unsustainibility is getting worse?

[The2ndWheel]

14. Well aware that it's one of the drivers, yes

In the 200,000 years or so that modern people have been around, it's the last 10,000 years or so of the resource concentration mechanism we call civilization that has been a real issue. Roads? One of the worst things we've ever done environmentally. Since we're not going to fix that...

We have 4 options:

1) More people doing more
2) More people doing less
3) Fewer people doing more
4) Fewer people doing less

#1 is basically what we're doing in the big picture. We know how to do that. That's how society functions. People with jobs going out and creating demand for more people to have jobs, and all the taxes that all those people pay.

#2 is basically what the developing world does. It adds people, but there's not enough infrastructure for them to really do that much.

#3 is the developed world. We have fewer people, so we have to import people just to keep pace. We use up more than our fair share of resources though, and the developing world wants in on some of that action. If the planet is finite, that's going to cause some issues.

#4 is...well, it's basically not a society. Where's the business? Where's the tax money? It might be the best thing for the rest of life on the planet if we did #4, but we're not going to do #4.

[PeaceNikki]

15. JFC, the point of this OP is that the leader of 1.2 billion people who claims want to help the

climate takes the fucking OPPOSITE of a helpful stance when it comes to birth control. It's irresponsible, hypocritical and harmful to women, the climate and society in general.

I don't understand why you feel the need to try to debate that.

[The2ndWheel]

25. I didn't respond to the OP

Or anything that the Pope said. I was responding to the free and readily available access to all forms of birth control so that people can make informed choices about reproduction being a requirement for a sustainable population. It's a requirement for a better life for women, but just not a sustainable human population. Those are two different things.

[PeaceNikki]

26. Yes, it is.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

[The2ndWheel]

32. Alright, so what's the objective number?

How many people is sustainable? Depends on the context of the circumstances in which those people live, but lets just say at the current rate of human progress, since we're not going to want to live in a mud hut. How many people can be alive today, with a developed world lifestyle? It can be that of Sweden or Finland, it doesn't matter. It's certainly less than 7 billion.

It'll take a while to get to whatever that number is, but we don't have that long.

[PeaceNikki]

33. I don't claim to be a scientist, so let's refer to the research they've done:

Current Population is Three Times the Sustainable Level

Though, how much people consume is a huge variable in the equation. If the rest of the planet consumed like Americans, the planet would already be dead.

The point that you keep trying to defer from is that population is a definite contributing factor to the environment.

Fuck the pope.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. It's Frank's bait and switch, he has liberals celebrating an anti choice Encyclical

Just as they all celebrate his anti gay sentiments. The obvious concern with the more conservative straight folks in this Party is that they would so gleefully 'compromise' with Francis by giving away the rights of others to please him.
I just don't feel like I am a wanted part of this country. I'm sick of that.

[raouldukelives]

6. I so get what you are saying Blue, I feel the same way about corporatists.

Trading away my democracy, my world of trees & animals for easy cash. They give away my rights, they destroy my sources of joy and they celebrate it, in my face. I too feel unwanted.

I just hope you believe me when I say I want what you want. This country, this world, is for all of us, not the few.

I am no fan of the Catholic Church, but I am a fan of change and to me Francis is a huge step forward from the last.

I am no fan of how Thomas Jefferson made his wealth, but I am a fan of his words. Words that moved all of us forward.

Forward, we can do this.

[PeaceNikki]

8. Can you elaborate on how EXACTLY "Francis is a huge step forward from the last"?

That's a fantasy.

[PeaceNikki]

7. Not *all* liberals, just those who buy into "Fantasy Francis"

I have a set of articles which demonstrate how liberal he's not:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11362224/Pope-Francis-he-aint-no-liberal.-Beware-of-his-two-faces.html
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7249020
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9112081/the-fantasy-francis/
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116056/progressives-who-love-pope-francis-are-abandoning-women-and-gay-rights

[mmonk]

16. Well, the pro-life movement did not start out as an anti-abortion

movement (its was against the death penalty) and two, you can't be pro-life and pro-pollution. Hope that clarifies a few things (and no, I'm not for outlawing abortion).

[PeaceNikki]

18. Clear as mud.

[mmonk]

20. Only if you can't read or follow history.

Or are stubborn. No offense.

[PeaceNikki]

21. (insert totally shitty statement here)

<then end with "No offense.">

[mmonk]

24. Not going to fight you over abortion since I agree with you in that regard.

[mmonk]

22. Just trying to follow his logic in his wording.

Doesn't mean it holds water overall, just partially.

[joeybee12]

23. Talk about a disconnect...

Pro-choice and pro-science (and therefore concern about global warming) go hand-in-hand. He still doesn't get it.

[mmonk]

27. Unless you are saying you can't be pro-life and pro-pollution since pollution

destroys life.

[Agnosticsherbet]

28. Linking one to the other with the religious right is a good tactic.

It is annoying as hell that we can not just look at the science, but the religious right believes science is a conspiracy straight from the jaws of hell.

Though I reject the convoluted logic, I applaud the effort to bring religious people to support work to save our ravaged ecosystem.

[niyad]

30. just when I thought there was something positive to say about pope photo op

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Fortunately, the media doesn't analyze things, so you get another week

Of wall to wall happy fun times articles about blank Frank the wonderpope to enjoy.

[niyad]

41. I think I will pass.

[KamaAina]

31. Ugh.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Thank you for posting this. Dead on target.

My version of this thread in a different venue is. .. Less productive

[AlbertCat]

36. Not sure....

....... how a bunch of unwanted babies help climate change.

[itcfish]

38. Actually I understand

His logic. If you want to preserve life, that means all life. In his opinion. Nothing wrong with that. It's makes more sense than being pro-life and pro capital punishment. On the other hand, he should also be pro-birth control.

[PeaceNikki]

39. Bacteria is 'life'.