Environmentalists like to claim that the science of "Climate Change" is settled. However, the fact that they now talk of "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming" belies the fact. The science is not settled on climate change, in that the scientists do not agree on the direction of the change, nor the cause. They do, however, their best to maintain the appearance of concensus that the climate is in some way changing, and maintain the suggestion that it is changing in some way that it has not always been changing. When I think of the fact that a mere ten thousand years ago most of the north american continent was a mile deep in ice, I am encouraged to do all I to be sure that any climate change resulting from human activity eres on the side of warming. Think of the global catastrophe of another ice age and tell me I should be worried about my carbon foot print and a degree or two of warming.
One question on which the science is settled is that of when life begins. And here, science has presented the world with a real inconvenient truth. Nancy Pelosi would like to debate the Catholic Church on when life begins, because it is an inconvenient truth that the science is settled on the question: Life begins at conception. The Church's position on when a soul enters a fetus, and therefore, when it is considered murder to commit an abortion, has evolved over time, and yielded to the determination of science that life begins at conception. The Catholic Church has, however, always taught that abortion is a sin, just that perhaps, if the fetus does not yet have a soul within it, it may not be the sin of murder. Ms. Pelosi would like to turn back the clock on science and the Church to the fifth century and adopt a more convenient starting place for life.
The inconvenient truth is that there has always been a consensus among pagans, Christians, and anyone else who has considered the question, that abortion is an unquestionable evil. Even now, most pro-choice voters do not consider abortion as a good. It is only the most radical proponents of abortion that believe that an abortion can be a positive good, versus a lesser of evils, a view peculiar enough, in that to accept this view one must accept the propisition that having a baby is the greater evil. Barack Obama seems to be in this camp, however, having suggested that a woman "should not be punished with a baby for having made a mistake."
There is no debate on the issue of when life begins, except among those who would like license to have, procure, or perform abortions, which, unfortunately, also includes the Democrat candidate for the presidency, who, among his limited accomplishments, actively spoke out against providing medical care for abortion survivers who were being left to die among the medical waste in Chicago hospitals. His argument, as I understand it, was that if an aborted fetus survives and it is considered to be a person and entitled to medical care, it would undermine the Roe vs. Wade decision. Now that would be inconveniant.
