The Rev. Jim Tonkowich of the Institute on Religion and Democracy said there is a spiritual battle behind the global-warming scare.

“Much secular thinking about the environment includes a right to abortion. Why is that?” he asked. “Well, we want to keep the population down because human beings are nothing but users and polluters.

“The biblical view sees human beings as stewards, builders, co-creators with God. Take the stuff of creation and make — build cities.”
The Institute on Religion and Democracy, by the way, is the group which is dedicated to infiltrating mainstream, moderate churches in order to either transform them into clones of the Southern Baptist Convention or to cause a schism and break them apart. Either way, the goal of diluting and reducing the social, cultural influence of moderate and liberal Christian organizations will be fulfilled.

That aside, I just don’t see the “logic” to this: the idea of global warming was created to decrease growth rates and thereby justify having more abortions? This sort of thing can only be asserted by someone convinced that fighting attempts to criminalize abortion is only done by people who want there to be more abortions rather than by people who simply want abortion to be available.

I wonder, though, what the Institute on Religion and Democracy and the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance have to say about Pat Robertson, who has become “converted” to the global warming cause:

“We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels,” Robertson said on his “700 Club” broadcast. “It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air.”

This week the heat index, the perceived temperature based on both air temperatures and humidity, reached 115 Fahrenheit in some regions of the U.S. East Coast. The 76-year-old Robertson told viewers that was “the most convincing evidence I’ve seen on global warming in a long time.” [Source: Yahoo]
It was only this past October that Pat Robertson accused the National Association of Evangelicals of teaming up with “far left environmentalists” in endorsing the existence of global warming, so he appears to have changed rather quickly. Do other conservative evangelicals believe that Pat Robertson is doing this in order to encourage women to have more abortions? No? Why not?

http://healthcareindia-drruchibhatt.blogspot.com/

Partial birth abortions are supposed to occur only when the mothers life is in danger. Can we all agree full grown adult females should be able to decide that question for themselves?

Honeypoo–its not murder==by definition.

Its only a sin if your religion says so. My anti-theism does not allow for sin.

If you don’t want an abortion you are FREE not to have one. You should give other women the same choice.

The law touches your body and the baby’s body with either choice.

Population growth cannot continue forever so either we decide how to stop growth or nature will do it for us.”

Rob beat me to it. I don’t think ivory-tower inhabiting types should make policies that keep people from reproducing excessively, but individuals should be thoughtful and careful about it, or Mother Nature will bitch-slap us back to a reasonable level. And the third-world countries where they have babies in bulk without thought will be (rightfully) hardest hit.

Go, give them hell!.

That is the most lame ass post I have ever seen…Even worse than

Paddy-Hoe!

I like the 2 child rule because it prevents people like you from being born and subsequently stops you from posting crap on the internet.

you

ASS

#46 Yes we can.

Is that irresponsible?”

Yes, it is. BUT … it’s not the norm, either.

In fact, the doctor that implanted that many embryos (and there were probably more than eight) was as irresponsible as the woman.

Because every child has a life expectancy of 72 years +/- and those children will pay a lot of taxes in their lifetime and some of them will be wiping your butt and giving you spongebaths when you are living in the old people’s home which will be paid for by their taxes.

Japan and Europe are faced with a shrinking workforce because no one is having kids. There’s also the argument that we can sustain a few billion more people with no trouble. With the fact that most people don’t seem to want more than three kids, I think we’ll be just fine.

Another progressive pet issue, like carbon caps, wherein the third world will not be held to these ridiculous requirements.