Tag Archives: global warming

Can’t Save The Environment By Declaring War On Creation

December 11, 2009

Environmentalist that advocates for massive changes in US life style and wealth transfers to developing countries displayed their ugly side yesterday. A story titled Population Control Called Key To Deal in the China Daily exposed what has been a fear here at St Michael Society; the environmental movement’s war on children in the womb.  Here is one of many horrible quotes from the story:

 “Although China’s family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China’s population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society.”

 As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said.”

A refresher; “China’s family planning policy” is nothing to be proud of and includes forced abortions as a way to enforce their mandated one child per family law.  Saving the environment does not include declaring war on children in the womb. Nor does it include removing the gift of creation from the sexual act.

UP DATE:  Finacial Post runs a horrible op-ed that concludes climate warming or cooling is not the problem, but humans are overpopulating the world and the world should adopt the China one child policy.

Let’s be clear. We are all called upon to be good responsible stewards of creation.  The world around us is a living display of God’s great love for mankind.  As we have written before, we at St Michael Society do not oppose legitimate efforts to ensure that we pass on this gift intact to future generations. 

On the other hand, we will fight any effort that pits mother against child in her womb, husband against wife or couple against their gift of making a new life.  Population control can never be a solution.

Share
Also tagged , , , , , – No Comments

NYT Enviro-Reporter Ponders Carbon Credits for 1-Child Families, ‘Are Condoms the Ultimate Green-Technology?’

October 20, 2009

Andrew Revkin, a NY Times environmentalist reporter recently proposed giving carbon credits to couples that limit themselves to having one child. He said, “You get credit–If we’re going to become carbon-centric–for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three.”

Catholic teaching has always stressed due respect for the environment but never at the expense of the human person.  Genesis 1:28 is a good place to start understanding the Judeo-Christian relation of man to the environment: “God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.’”  God commands humans to multiply, fill the earth and have dominion over it.

In stark contrast to these basic principles, Revkin suggests that the protection of the environment comes first and birth control is the way to achieve it.  On September 15, 2009 Revkin posed this question on his blog: “Are Condoms the Ultimate Green-Technology?” and began the entry saying “More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions.”

Fewer children leads to problems that are far worse than carbon dioxide emissions.  Knowing the great resource that people provide to the world, Pope Benedict XVI noted in his newest encyclical the effects of diminished birthrates and his concern with this trend: “Formerly prosperous nations are presently passing through a phase of uncertainty and in some cases decline, precisely because of their falling birth rates…The decline in births, falling at times beneath the so-called “replacement level”, also puts a strain on social welfare systems, increases their cost, eats into savings and hence the financial resources needed for investment, reduces the availability of qualified labourers, and narrows the “brain pool” upon which nations can draw for their needs.” (44, Caritatis in Veritate)

People are the greatest resource even more so than the natural resources provided by the environment.  No “green-technology” can exist that degrades human sexuality and limits it by strategies of mandatory birth control.

Share
Also tagged , , , , , – No Comments

It’s Not Just Health Care, Climate Change Policies Take Aim at The Unborn

October 2, 2009

While many Catholics and pro-life organizations have rightly focused their efforts on keeping abortion and euthanasia out of health care, population control advocates are pushing hard for global populationist  policies as a way to neutralize climate change.  Steve Mosher has a story revealing these efforts from a few days ago here. http://bit.ly/3nmoE

Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the Pro-Life Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, recently took issue with environmentalists pushing for population control, via abortion (including vacuum abortions), abortifacients and other forms of contraception, as a way to confront climate change.  The Cardinal also advocated for larger families when he emphasized that small family sizes are bankrupting Social Security and Medicare.

Cardinal Rigali criticizes population control as way to curb climate change

Cardinal Rigali criticizes population control as way to curb climate change

Cardinal Rigali:

“It should not be surprising that the neglect, and even the death, of some people are offered as a solution to rising health care costs. Population control advocates have long espoused aborting children in the developing world as a misguided means for reducing poverty.

“Some environmentalists now claim that the most efficient way to curb global climate change is to make ‘family planning’ more widely available in the developing world. They report that an average of 2.3 pounds per day of exhaled carbon dioxide can be eliminated from the atmosphere by eliminating one human being. As used by population control advocates, the innocuous term ‘family planning’ includes abortifacient contraceptives, sterilization, and manual vacuum aspiration abortions …

Since the advent of widespread contraception and abortion, a cultural hostility to children has grown. They are often depicted as costly encumbrances who interfere with a carefree adult life. No fewer than six recent books are dedicated to defending the childless-by-choice lifestyle – for selfish reasons, or to counter ‘overpopulation,’ a thoroughly discredited myth. In fact, if married couples were to have more children, Medicare and Social Security would not be hurtling toward bankruptcy.

“Since 1955, because of fewer children and longer life spans, the number of workers has declined relative to the number of beneficiaries, from 8.6 to only 3.1 workers paying benefits to support each beneficiary. Without substantially more young people to enter the work force as young adults, in 25 years, there will be only 2.1 workers supporting each beneficiary. Eliminating our young does not solve problems even on pragmatic grounds. It adds to them.”

Amen.

Share
Also tagged , , , , , , , – No Comments