Based on your posts in the thread “Greater Threat to Humanity: Abortion or Global Warming,” it doesn’t appear that you consider abortion the killing of an actual human person, or at least not an important one. In that thread, I said:in post #248:
According to your own numbers Valke:
GLOBAL WARMING: 300,000 deaths per year by 2030
ABORTIONS: 48 million per year NOW
Now it’s been almost 30 years since I’ve been in school, but to the best of my recollection, 48 million is bigger number than 300,000. I would even go so far as to say it’s probably ALOT bigger. Now, let’s see, 48 million divided by 300,000 equals
160. I think that means that there are currently 160 times more actual deaths by abortions than are estimatedto occur 23 years from now???
Help me understand how you figure global warming causes more deaths. (Please use simple math for my simple mind.)
If you choose to speak in terms of infrastructure, you’re dodging the question. I’m using your own numbers of the PEOPLE that die/will die each year.
To which you replied in post #251:
THe question was, which is the greater threat to humanity. 48 million abortions a year, in a world where the population has gone from3 billion to 6 billion in about 30 years, and will go from 6 billion to 9 billion in another 30, pose no threat to humanity.
If you don’t consider an unborn baby a “life,” how can you call the Democrats a “Pro-Life” party? Or if you don’t consider an unborn baby an important life, why does it even matter whether abortions are fewer under either party?