The argument could be made that both issues represent individual liberty to each side of the ideological argument, with Conservatives arguing that AGW will restrict human liberty while Liberals argue that outlawing abortion would restrict women's rights to control over their own bodies. There is a shared component of morality, with one side arguing that it is immoral to despoil the environment and the other arguing that it is immoral to take innocent human life, and both championing liberty.
The source of the conflict is rooted in the commensurate value of each moral argument-human liberty is indeed important, as is human life, as is being good stewards of the earth and our obligation to one another and the future. This means there is no universally acceptable compromise immediately apparent, and therefore the argument becomes one of deconstructing the opposition's credibility rather than it's views-it is hard to argue that taking innocent life is moral, and equally hard to argue that being good stewards of the earth and being responsible to future generations is not a moral obligation of mankind. Therefore, many argue that accepting the killing innocent people to maintain our supply of oil is a moral conflict for those who are opposed to abortion, and conversely the argument that suggest economic agendas-and therefore undermining human liberty and progress-are the underlying incentives which compromise morality on the part of those who propose that mankind's activities are impacting climate. In some ways integrity and ethics in the social context may be interchangeable with the moral absolutes that these issues relate to-meaning that we argue about what constitutes "integrity" and "ethics" rather than the moral implications.
Ultimately, the two issues share in common emotional rather than logical underpinnings. Science has a role in both arguments as well as it tries to distill fundamental beliefs and the emotion that goes along with it to the basic components to reach a logical conclusion-when does life begin, and what, specifically, is our impact on climate and environment, another common element of the two issues. Finally, one might consider the name-calling that we often resort to in our frustration with one another-which one side or the other claims constitutes the opposition view having "lost" the argument. Obviously, that is not so as the underlying issue remains. It is only in the heat of emotion that we compromise progress on resolving an issue by productive dialogue-name-calling and attacks on credibility do indeed distance us from reason, but individual invectives, frustration and anger prove nothing about the underlying issue, and in point of fact escalate the conflict so everyone loses. This is a huge factor in how everyone fails when ethical and moral impasses are arrived at ethically in society, business and personal relationships. Reasonable people recognize when this is happening and step back rather than claiming their false phyrric victory.
People that want to take actions against global warming, are the ones that encourage abortion and birth control in the developing world. The actions against global warming are designed to keep the developing world poor, with more expensive energy.
They are both leftist issues that have been forced onto the population.
Abortion is a issue that most have resigned to accept in its current form except extreme leftists like Obama who think you should be able to abort babies no matter how late term it is. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2...
It is sick to abort viable fetuses and kill them. Democrats last election lied over and over again that Republicans were going to take away their right to contraception (meaning abortion too) and the gullible sheep bought it, just like they buy the racist line. AGW is also something the gullible little sheep buy.
With AGW liberals claim the science is settled, I have no problem with the science, it's the far reaching conclusions, predictions designed to instill fear and built in ambiguity that I have a problem with.
With abortion the science is actually settled, we know when life begins. Liberals want to ignore the science and redefine the killing of another human as choice.
With both none of the science matters to liberals, it's all about what they "feel" is the right thing to do.
Abortion is real
Man made global warming is phoney
Guess they have nothing in common
If you want to know why people routinely side up as they do, read:
A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Conflict_...
His book is clear, concise and to the point as one can ask. If you really want to understand then read this book and think. It will be worth it.
The two are political issues. Other than that, nothing.
The divide on the issues tends to be largely along ideological lines. And they both have political implications and consequences.
Other than that, however, nothing that I can think of. And I think the debate about abortion is not... so clearly split along ideological lines.
What DO they have in common? Both are political issues. Other than that, nothing.
Nothing, Zero. Zilch. Goose egg. In short, nothing. Just because they happened around the same time, doesn't mean they affect one another.
The Devil is in the Details.
Both are or have been liberal agendas. Both extremely critical flaws..
The world has and can do without either one. They are both abominations. Democrats love both. Communists love both. (Or is that redundant?) They both heap unnecessary hardships on mankind in general. They are both endeared by people who hate the US and its Constitution.
That question just sounds like a incitement to a political fight to me.
They're both misunderstood and lied about by the GOP.
Nothing. They are two separate issues.
They both contribute to help cull global population ?
