Posted on 03/02/2006 6:48:02 AM PST by Louis Foxwell
Abortion and environmental laws stem from the same principle, the reduction of the human species to a status of undesirable.
The laws that destroy private property, imprison nature lovers, fine farmers and hunters, and restrict access to vast tracts of wilderness are all done in the name of protecting "nature" from people. This is not simply a matter of laws that can be undone.
There are countless examples of environmental laws run amock with deadly consequences. An excellent one is the banning of DDT, considered a miracle product with profound health benefits during its use. The banning of DDT was an act of pure murderous demogoguery. Not one of the thousands of workers involved in the production of DDT was ever found to have an adverse health condition. Several of the manufacturers ate DDT by the spoonful to demonstrate that it was not a health risk. Nontheless the substance was banned.
There was never any science proving that DDT was dangerous. No such proof exists even today. DDT was banned purely for political reasons, to placate enviro Nazis. It has resulted in the death of tens of millions of children by malaria and other mosquito born diseases. None of these deaths need have occured.
The outrageous premise that falcon egg shells were thinned by DDT - a fraudulent claim - was used as adequate justification for the death of millions of children. In truth the birds had been hunted to near extinction 50 years earlier and were rebounding when the ban was instituted.
If you believe that environmental laws are merely laws that can be changed and have no lasting consequences you have not looked at the issue. Very nearly as many have died due to the dehumanizing influence of environmentalism as from abortion. All have died for the same reason, because there is a culture of death in control of our political establishment that is committed to the eradication of undesirable human beings.
In the 20th century nearly every nation embarked on a campaign to eradicate undesirables. Nearly half a billion humans were slaughtered in the 20th century in obedience to this evil philosophy. The great slaughter in China of 30 million in the name of the Great Leap Forward was exceeded by the murder of as many by a Woman's Right to Choose in the US.
Environmentalism is an evil philosophy that must be eradicated from our nation. It has no place in a society committed to human dignity and freedom.
I agree with the author of this thread they are a group that has a large stake commercially in their agenda. They protect billions of dollars of research grants and sponsorships and donations. They are compromised and not to be trusted in my opinion
You have hit the nail on the head.
OB
Lots like pyrethrum and certain herbs but the ONLY issue is money. There are a wealth of resources you can look at on the internet. Do the research like I did and you'll see.
DISCUSSION ABOUT:
"ABORTION AND ENVIRONMENTALISM - THE SAME EVIL"
This is an excellent piece!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FreepMail wagglebee.
My concern is how much money politicians from both sides of the isles are getting from envirnomental groups. I suspect that is where their power is coming from.
My concern is how much money politicians from both sides of the isles are getting from envirnomental groups. I suspect that is where their power is coming from.
_________________________
The money raised to save ------- (fill in the blank) is used to pay fat salaries and maintain offices in DC and state capitals. There are thousands of so-called environmentalist lobbyists working to protect their budgets and create permanent jobs.
Many of these carpetbaggers land jobs with government agencies that do nothing more than hassle property owners. Environmentalism is a scourge upon the land. It is based on the extermination of species, not on their protection.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Thanks for the ping!
Sorry but that is a horribly simplistic example, would you be so confident if we made the illustration more representational? Say could you as a lay person repair a nuclear power-plant? which is getting close to the complexity of any given ecosystem on this planet.
"The same principle applies to gardening, you don't need to know the exact DNA make up of a plant to grow and take care of the plant"
Again if you want to grow more than just a single plant in other words maintain n ecosystem then understanding every process i not just vital is it a requirement for success. the largest biosphere experiment failed even with the top scientists from all 3 continents including the USA working on it.
I agree most politically active environmental lobby groups have retained lawyers and PR expert for just this purpose.
/sarcasm
Need a little more straw for your straw man?"
Thanks for the support :-)
Thanks OB :-)
I do not support churches taking positions on environmental issues -- like the recent global warming position taken by some churches.
All I said is that you can't totally throw out the concept of care or concern for the environment just because liberal environmentalists have a twisted agenda. My point was to say that not all attempts to protect the environment are harmful. It's pretty easy to protect a water supply with some simple sanitation policies. When third-world communities lack these policies, their people get disease. All policies to protect the environment are not bad.
That's laughable. Why don't you try doing some research other than that spit out by junkscience.com. For starters why not look at ECOTOX and review DDT Saves Lives
But you did make some pretty big assumptions and generalizations about my viewpoint yes?
"My point was to say that not all attempts to protect the environment are harmful."
But most of them are, also most are based on an erroneous position or on scientific data misquoted or taken out of context. They are rarely objective, they find data to suite an argument rather than objectively researching a hypothesis in the scientific method.
As long as the policy is scientifically validated, and also has acceptable impact on the population and economy. Most eco-policy is based on criteria other than economic viability sustainability and they often ignore knock on effects to society in general.
"When third-world communities lack these policies, their people get disease. "
Most environmental lobbyists would rather see third world development stall and stay in the middle ages. They believe their lifestyles are "natural" and have less impact on the environment.
I am still unsure why you tried to label this tag on me, it's ridiculous
"All policies to protect the environment are not bad."
Most of these policies effect other aspects of the environment detrimentally. So called "natural" policy favors lo-tech implementation over industrialization and development. It is mankind's evolutionary destiny to tame and control his environment. mankind is changing his environment all the time, to imply this is not "natural" is ludicrous.
You quoted: "From a scientific perspective, if we don't care for the environment, we perish. "
You responded: Sorry but there is no scientific basis for that comment, many environmental issues are based on poor grasp of science in general.
It appears to me that you are saying that there is no scientific basis for saying that if we don't care for the environment, we perish. I responded with my comment about the sanitation issues and water source pollution in third-world countries as a no-brainer example of when failing to care for the environment leads to disease and death. Other examples are wise farming techniques and proper storage and disposal of hazardous materials. I agree that there are cases where misguided attempts to help the environment have actually caused harm.
I do not support the work of any organized environmental groups at this time. I certainly don't support PETA. (I love animals, but my pets are pets, and I eat tasty meat.) I do believe that a lot of environmental policy is based upon bad science and a leftist, anti-human world view. I believe in Father God, not Mother Earth.
This thread simply illustrates how the very words conservation or environmental protection bring out the ire of conservatives. I am extremely pro-life. I am species-ist. I have four children and am open to more if God wills it -- I'm not one who wants to limit population. But I take very seriously my responsibility to be a good steward of God's creation -- not only for his Glory but for the wellbeing of my family, neighbors and future generations. Conservation is Conservative!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.