Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Birth Control is Seen as Answer to Climate Change and Poverty

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
R-71/SB5688 UPDATE: As we move into the final 30 days of effective campaigning to preserve marriage, we are finding that if we had more funds, simply stated, we could reach more people with our message to REJECT R-71 / SB 5688.

I know you understand that. If you are able to help, please do so now. Thank you and God bless you.

Click here to make an online donation to the PAC.

Birth Control is Seen as Answer to Climate Change and Poverty

The Global Warming Summit, aka, Climate Change, since we have entered a cooling trend on the earth's surface, actually produced a significant carbon footprint in New York City last week as a result of the elite's convoy of vehicles. For example, our own President needed 20 to 30 cars to get him to the meeting.

However, some of the ideas and conclusions that came from the meeting may be more damaging than the carbon they produced.

The British Medical Journal editors say, "There is now an emerging debate and interest about the links between population dynamics, sexual and reproductive health and rights and climate change."

"Reproductive health and rights" often refer to birth control and most often abortion on demand.

Our President, who has so far not missed a single crises as an opportunity to expand government control, redistribute wealth and throw trillions of dollars at a few institutions, creating more national debt than all presidents combined, from George Washington to George W. Bush, said yesterday that he is "determined" to do more to address this problem. Indeed he will. But what will he do? Considering some of the Czars he has surrounded himself with, it is troublesome.

He said if we fail to act, which presumably means pass his climate bill, we will create an "irreversible catastrophe".

Should people of faith be concerned about this process, or should we sit on our Bibles and declare that Christians should not be involved in such unseemly discussions? There are many who hope for our silence.

This population "crises" is not a new population crises.

It was first articulated by a British mathematician, Thomas Malthus, who in 1798 predicted that if population grew, mathematically we would experience a dooms-day type famine. He had not foreseen mechanized farming with its dramatic growth in food production. He underestimated human ingenuity.

This is also not the first time lifestyle issues have been attached to global warming. We've been told we must stop eating meat, so we can reduce the number of animals, so we can preserve natural resources, that we must use less water--take fewer showers and even recently in a video for kids, we've been told that we should only flush when we have gone #2, not when we have only gone #1. True.

But this is different. And this time birth control is getting a lot of attention. Too much attention.

China, with its "one child" policy is being seen by activist researchers as a viable model for the future. It is seen to demonstrate how fewer children improve the economy and leads to greater personal prosperity. While this theory is as flawed as Malthus's, it is concerning because they are looking into the gray areas of morality created by relativism, for answers. Present human need trumps morality and life. It sounds good to some pragmatists, but in the end will create a greater "catastrophe".

The British report says that for each $7 spent on family planning (birth control and abortion), one ton of carbon dioxide emissions will be eliminated.

If people of faith are not involved in this process, who will speak on behalf of biblical truth, life and morality?

Having been a pastor nearly all of my adult life, I find the argument that people of faith should stay out of "politics" hollow, misinformed and concerning.

If not us, who then should speak?

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.