Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ABORTION AND ENVIRONMENTALISM - THE SAME EVIL
VANITY | 3/2/2006 | AMOS THE PROPHET

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: abortion; ecoping; environmentalism; leftists; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last

1 posted on 03/02/2006 6:48:05 AM PST by Louis Foxwell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GreenFreeper


2 posted on 03/02/2006 6:50:47 AM PST by FOG724 (http://nationalgrange.org/legislation/phpBB2/index.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet

Do you know if anything is being done to overturn the DDT ban?


3 posted on 03/02/2006 6:52:47 AM PST by Jessarah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet

What I've noticed is that those individuals who consider humans a blight on the planet, and who call for reductions in human population growth, are never willing to lead by example.


4 posted on 03/02/2006 6:53:40 AM PST by Arm_Bears (You are the New Day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet; GreenFreeper
Ridiculous!

From a Biblical perspective, the first job given to man was to be a caretaker in the Garden. Creation displays the glory of God, and to treat His creation carelessly insults the Creator.

From a scientific perspective, if we don't care for the environment, we perish. We breathe air, we drink water, we eat food. If these necessities becomes tainted, we die.

I don't agree with many of the actions of the established environmental movement. But the sane, godly principles of being wise stewards of the world in which we live are fundamentally for the good of mankind. Even if the current environmental movement is hostile to God and man, that doesn't mean we need to turn our backs on our responsibilities to care for our environment for the safety and wellbeing of all people.

5 posted on 03/02/2006 7:04:33 AM PST by Chanticleer (Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready. T. Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jessarah

The seriousness of the malaria problem in several African nations has led to very limited use of DDT in dwellings. Presumably it is OK if it kills people so long as it can not affect "nature".


6 posted on 03/02/2006 7:05:01 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (Here come I, gravitas in tow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears

What I've noticed is that those individuals who consider humans a blight on the planet, and who call for reductions in human population growth, are never willing to lead by example.

___________________

Amen. I have long advocated suicide as the best act of civil disobedience by enviro wackoes. Unfortunately they consider themselves superior creatures who should oversee the eradication of undesirables like you and me.


7 posted on 03/02/2006 7:06:52 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (Here come I, gravitas in tow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Chanticleer

From a scientific perspective, if we don't care for the environment, we perish. We breathe air, we drink water, we eat food. If these necessities becomes tainted, we die.

____________________

There is a profound difference between the philosophy of the environmental movement and the philosophy of conservation. Environmentalism views humans as an undesirable species. Conservation views humans as primary in nature.
The Bible teaches conservation and good husbandry. It does not teach the eradication of the human species to protect nature.


8 posted on 03/02/2006 7:12:16 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (Here come I, gravitas in tow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Chanticleer
"From a scientific perspective, if we don't care for the environment, we perish. "

Sorry but there is no scientific basis for that comment, many environmental issues are based on poor grasp of science in general. Global warming for instance, at the moment we are on the cusp of a next ice age global temperatures are actually lowering not rising. There is no scientific case for global warming, ice flows and glaciers are thickening in Greenland and Antarctica. the exception being the antarctic peninsula which has always seasonally calved icebergs. The average temperatures in most cities has not shown a uniform rise this implies that global weather patters are very much local not a global system. Some cities show large temperature increases since records began others show decrease in temperature. The main key indicator that global warming is occurring would be the sea levels, and those are static since records began showing flat not increasing trends.

Most environmental lobby groups take portions from respected scientific research and once out of context twist the meaning intent and conclusions of the scientist that published the original white paper.

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

9 posted on 03/02/2006 7:19:08 AM PST by Kelly_2000 ( Because they stand on a wall and say nothing is going to hurt you tonight. Not on my watch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Chanticleer
"But the sane, godly principles of being wise stewards of the world in which we live are fundamentally for the good of mankind."

Do you know the history of Yellowstone national park? Husbanding the environment caused more damage than good. They destroyed the habitat until the realized they needed to burn portions of the woodland in order that the environment could sustain itself and create new growth. They prevented beavers building dams and flooding tracts until they realized this was also bad for the environment and a necessary attrition mechanism. The point here is that there are so many dynamics and complexities to any ecosystem that manging them is beyond our understanding at present and our technological capability.

Attitudes that promote assumptions that mankind somehow has to interfere with "nature" (whatever that is) are ignorant to the extreme. Most of the countryside and plains in the USA are assumed to be "natural" yet the understanding is false. The native American Indians often shaped the landscape by burning forest and scrub to create grazing prairies for their buffalo hunting requirements. this was on a primitive scale landscaping to a far greater degree of intelligence than most so called environmentalists show today.

10 posted on 03/02/2006 7:26:59 AM PST by Kelly_2000 ( Because they stand on a wall and say nothing is going to hurt you tonight. Not on my watch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet
Absolutely. I agree. The secular environmentalist movement teaches our youth that humanity is a scourge on the planet. The other side of the DDT issue was something I had never heard until I came to Free Republic.

But I've also seen a backlash by those incensed by the anti-human bias in the environmental movement -- a reaction that treats the planet with contempt and any type of environmental protection as evil, wrong, and stupid.

We should make all decisions from a point of accurate information, considering the impact on the environment, the people, and future generations, minimizing the harm to all but always keeping the priority on mankind. Conservation is conservative.

11 posted on 03/02/2006 7:29:07 AM PST by Chanticleer (Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready. T. Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Chanticleer
From a Biblical perspective, the first job given to man was to be a caretaker in the Garden.

You cannot be a caretaker if you are not allowed in the garden. One the jobs of a caretaker is to clear out the dead to prevent forestfires like what we have seen happen in the U.S. in the past couple of years because of the evironuts movement to prevent any human action in forests.

12 posted on 03/02/2006 7:42:16 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet

I respectfully disagree.

Abortion is the direct slaughter of an innocent human being. There are no gray areas.

Environmentalism can have a wide array of activism. While environmental extremists support laws that indirectly have resulted in hundreds of millions of unnecessary deaths (such as the DDT example you provide), this is still an indirect murder. There are other levels of environmentalism that have the intent to help people (although they are often ignorant of side effects).

While I'll agree that modern environmentalism is almost entirely based on ignorance or political motivation, and is thus evil, it does not even come close to the direct evil of abortion.

I am replying to your post because I don't believe that the evil of abortion should be "watered-down". It is a great evil alone by itself.


13 posted on 03/02/2006 7:43:09 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chanticleer
From a Biblical perspective, the first job given to man was to be a caretaker in the Garden. Creation displays the glory of God, and to treat His creation carelessly insults the Creator.

A theological argument to be sure, but still a very strong one reason not to ban DDT.

The carelessness of the enviromentalists (Witness the recent Progessive government of the USSR and the resulting enviromental catastrophies) is an affront to everything God has created.

14 posted on 03/02/2006 7:46:31 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (Free Republic, the newspaper I can talk back to!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kidd

I am replying to your post because I don't believe that the evil of abortion should be "watered-down". It is a great evil alone by itself.

____________________

The evil of abortion can not be separated from the philosophy that is at its core. The fruit of the poisoned tree is death by the eradication of species.
Whether the justification is A Woman's Right to Choose, the Preservation of Endangered Species, The Great Leap Forward, or the hundreds of attempts in the 20th century to rid the world of undesirables, it all amounts to the same thing, death to vast numbers of humans.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that unintended consequences is a lesser evil. The death of a baby is, after all, the unintended consequence of the choice to end a pregnancy.


15 posted on 03/02/2006 7:56:59 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (Here come I, gravitas in tow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kelly_2000
Sorry but there is no scientific basis for that comment, many environmental issues are based on poor grasp of science in general.

You're a microbiologist. Are you telling me that you'd like to live in a place where the drinking water is polluted with human waste? You certainly are familiar with cholera and dysentery. Would you want your children to live in a city where the air quality is so poor that children, the elderly, and the infirm can't venture outdoors? You deny any connection between pure air, water and food and human health?

I don't believe in global warming. I believe there are cycles in the earth's weather, perhaps controlled by solar activity, that make some periods warmer than others. I do not deny that there is a lot of bad environmental science out there. But that only means we need to differentiate between the bad and the good, not get rid of all efforts to protect the environment.

I live in Florida, where the water table is only feet below us. I've seen beautiful lakes die in a matter of years because of improper treatment of runoff. As the state's population has grown, the state's natural resources have deteriorated. Does that mean we halt population growth in Florida? Absolutely not! I believe that wise growth is possible and necessary. Wise use of our resources is imperative.

The Dust Bowl in Oklahoma is another good example of how a terrible drought combined with poorly managed use of resources resulting in environmental catastrophe which caused massive human suffering. Does that mean farming was evil? Absolutely not! But wise soil conservation techniques have helped protect the land since then.

Do you know the history of Yellowstone national park? Husbanding the environment caused more damage than good. They destroyed the habitat until the realized they needed to burn portions of the woodland in order that the environment could sustain itself and create new growth. They prevented beavers building dams and flooding tracts until they realized this was also bad for the environment and a necessary attrition mechanism.

Have there ever been misguided attempts in which "protecting" the environment was actually harmful? No question. But as population grows, especially in population-dense areas, population puts a strain on the resources. We need wise practices to manage and protect these resources so that they will be around for future generations. Teddy Roosevelt said it better than I ever could:

Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us. I ask nothing of the nation except that it so behave as each farmer here behaves with reference to his own children. That farmer is a poor creature who skins the land and leaves it worthless to his children. The farmer is a good farmer who, having enabled the land to support himself and to provide for the education of his children leaves it to them a little better than he found it himself. I believe the same thing of a nation.

16 posted on 03/02/2006 8:01:10 AM PST by Chanticleer (Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready. T. Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

I am not making a theological argument in support of a ban on DDT. Frankly, from what I've read, the ban was most likely a mistake. I just don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water. Get rid of the junk science and secular de-humanist philosophy that plagues the environmental movement in this country, but strive to be good stewards of our land.


17 posted on 03/02/2006 8:05:09 AM PST by Chanticleer (Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready. T. Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

Then we need to take back the garden! I agree there have been very harmful and misguided policies, and unfortunately, the educational system in this country starts teaching children the environmentalists agenda from the cradle.


18 posted on 03/02/2006 8:11:04 AM PST by Chanticleer (Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready. T. Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet
The evil of abortion can not be separated from the philosophy that is at its core.

I still disagree with the comparison.

Abortion is a greater evil precisely because of the unintended consequences, its core philosophy AND the very direct, conscious and personal evil enacted upon an unborn individual (done one-by-one but million and millions of times).

Environmentalism, at its worst, lacks the individual and personal aspect of abortion.

While I'll agree that both abortion and environmentalism have resulted in numerous victims in the 20th century, abortion has many times more participants.

19 posted on 03/02/2006 8:21:13 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet; FOG724
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.

You've been reading too much junkscience.com (which is largely junk in and of itself- selective citations). The ban is not worldwide and DDT would do little to prevent 'millions' of deaths. Mosquito resistance to DDT occurs within just a few years. Uggh don't even want to start the same arguements.

20 posted on 03/02/2006 8:27:28 AM PST by GreenFreeper (Not blind opposition to progress, but opposition to blind progress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam; Carry_Okie; Chanticleer; ClearCase_guy; cogitator; CollegeRepublican; ...
May as well get this on this....

ECO-PING

FReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!

21 posted on 03/02/2006 8:34:52 AM PST by GreenFreeper (Not blind opposition to progress, but opposition to blind progress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet
Yup, misanthropy.
22 posted on 03/02/2006 8:47:08 AM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chanticleer
Get rid of the junk science and secular de-humanist philosophy that plagues the environmental movement in this country,

That stuff doesn't plague the movement, it IS the movement.

A lot of people don't understand (and here is my own cliche) "Eviromentalism is the tool, Socialism is the goal".

23 posted on 03/02/2006 8:54:35 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (Free Republic, the newspaper I can talk back to!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Chanticleer
"You're a microbiologist. Are you telling me that you'd like to live in a place where the drinking water is polluted with human waste?"

You are missing the point many of the mechanisms that make this drinking water healthier are causing pollutants to be released into the environment. According to many environmentalists cleaning our water so that it is a source of water for consumers is not "natural" Let them drink the "natural water " I say.

"Would you want your children to live in a city where the air quality is so poor that children, the elderly, and the infirm can't venture outdoors? You deny any connection between pure air, water and food and human health? "

Yes but only if the means to provide the clean air where viable and based on hysterical and non scientific policy. For the record my daughter is acutely asthmatic she has to be nebulised at least twice a month.I have a respirator at home and am checked out to use it. I understand the issues around this better than most.

"I do not deny that there is a lot of bad environmental science out there" Almost all of it is bad as far as I have seen

"I don't believe in global warming. I believe there are cycles in the earth's weather"

Then you are on the same page as most scientists in the field. :-)

"As the state's population has grown, the state's natural resources have deteriorated. Does that mean we halt population growth in Florida? "

That would be an environmentalists solution, reducing the population would not be the objective rather reducing the pollutants would be the objective. Do you start to see the problem yet?

I will give you an example of poor environmental knowledge and good intentions:

In the UK animal rights activists released hundreds of American Minks into the wild as an act of liberation. these animals had been caged and processed to make fur coats in the UK.

the result of this activity has wreaked havoc in the UK ecosystem, shrew has almost become extinct as has the English water vole. The otter unable to compete with it's aggressive cousin has also declined to the point of extinction, there are cases of minks killing otter kits in their den because of predatory competition instincts.

Minks have also decimated rare bird colonies in the UK, a documented case of a mink swimming from the mainland UK to a coastal island housing many rare seabird species. Where a mink and its mate systematically killed hundreds of protected bird species their chicks and eggs in one nights bloody lust.

The mink has no predator in the UK to keep it's numbers under control, it was a devastating idiotic destructive step to have taken based on ignorance and a desire to "do good"

24 posted on 03/02/2006 9:35:30 AM PST by Kelly_2000 ( Because they stand on a wall and say nothing is going to hurt you tonight. Not on my watch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

"You cannot be a caretaker if you are not allowed in the garden."

Exactly!


25 posted on 03/02/2006 9:43:18 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
"You cannot be a caretaker if you are not allowed in the garden"

the trouble is there are no qualified "caretakers" on the planet. The environmentalists believe they are qualified and therein lies the problem

26 posted on 03/02/2006 9:48:16 AM PST by Kelly_2000 ( Because they stand on a wall and say nothing is going to hurt you tonight. Not on my watch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kelly_2000
the trouble is there are no qualified "caretakers" on the planet.

That's total BS, you just have to be good at gardening and farming.

27 posted on 03/02/2006 9:53:48 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
"That's total BS, you just have to be good at gardening and farming."

Acuualy thats far from true, a precise knowledge of the complex dependencies and symbiotic relationships between microscopic organisms, molecules, prey and predator and vegetation is required. The entire human scientific experience has not developed such knowledge yet.

For the record it was farmers and environmentalists that destroyed the surface soil layer in Australia and turned much of the habitable and farming viable land into desert. By introducing hunting game - the rabbit.

28 posted on 03/02/2006 10:08:54 AM PST by Kelly_2000 ( Because they stand on a wall and say nothing is going to hurt you tonight. Not on my watch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GreenFreeper; Amos the Prophet

This is false. I am totally against abortion and I am an environmentalist. I am also a practicing christian who is also a member of Christian Vegetarian Assocation (totally anti-abortion group). My views of life are consistent and across the board.


29 posted on 03/02/2006 10:09:21 AM PST by cyborg (I just love that man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GreenFreeper

thank you presenting some sanity...all the while the DDT advocates ignore the alternatives!


30 posted on 03/02/2006 10:10:28 AM PST by cyborg (I just love that man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Chanticleer
I don't agree with many of the actions of the established environmental movement. But the sane, godly principles of being wise stewards of the world in which we live are fundamentally for the good of mankind. Even if the current environmental movement is hostile to God and man, that doesn't mean we need to turn our backs on our responsibilities to care for our environment for the safety and wellbeing of all people.

I think I agree with you here. But I agree with Amos the Prophet too, because I think he's talking about environmental extremism.

Plenty of, if not most, conservatives are moderate conservationists as well. I don't think there are many who want the world turned into a parking lot with pools of industrial waste and scorched hilltops scattered about for variety.

On the other hand, there seems to be no shortage of environmental wackos who would love for mankind to at least revert to the stone age, if not disappear altogether. For that well-represented vein of thought and belief, I think Amos is right on the money.

31 posted on 03/02/2006 10:15:28 AM PST by TChris ("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kelly_2000
Acuualy thats far from true, a precise knowledge of the complex dependencies and symbiotic relationships between microscopic organisms, molecules, prey and predator and vegetation is required. The entire human scientific experience has not developed such knowledge yet.

You don’t need to know the exact math formulas to the physics behind the inner workings of the internal combustion engine of a car to be a mechanic who’s fixes those engines. You just have to know what tools are used on what parts, how to put it together and what the timings are on the gauges of the parts and tools.

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. You just need to know what type of soil, how much sun, how much water, how much fertalizer to use and how often to weed the plant.

That is why your state is BS.

Same prio

32 posted on 03/02/2006 10:17:49 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Kelly_2000

(Same prio) = blank space, just some typing I forgot to delete.


33 posted on 03/02/2006 10:18:52 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GreenFreeper
Could the use of DDT inadvertently worsen the malaria problem by decimating the populations of the mosquito's natural predators?
34 posted on 03/02/2006 10:27:58 AM PST by RightWingAtheist (Creationism Is Not Conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
That's total BS, you just have to be good at gardening and farming.

It's only been in the last few centuries that we've started figuring out how to maintain viable farms on the same plot of land for a long period of time. Historically, farming a plot of land until it was exhausted and barren, then moving on to a new plot of land, was the general approach.

35 posted on 03/02/2006 10:34:30 AM PST by Potowmack ("Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist
Could the use of DDT inadvertently worsen the malaria problem by decimating the populations of the mosquito's natural predators?

Another good point. Amphibians are certainly affected by DDT and have been known to munch on mosquito larvae as well as adults. Not only that but heavy use of DDT would also speed up the DDT resistance of skeeters. The truth of the matter is this isn't a black and white issue. DDT has its problems and its benefits. It just has to be used in moderation. It is by no means some wonder pesticide like some like to claim.

36 posted on 03/02/2006 10:46:48 AM PST by GreenFreeper (Not blind opposition to progress, but opposition to blind progress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Potowmack
It's only been in the last few centuries that we've started figuring out how to maintain viable farms on the same plot of land for a long period of time. Historically, farming a plot of land until it was exhausted and barren, then moving on to a new plot of land, was the general approach.

Yes, crop rotation is such a fairly obvious idea.

37 posted on 03/02/2006 10:47:42 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

It still amazes me how some people go so far out of their way and defy logic to reinforce and defend their own views.


38 posted on 03/02/2006 10:58:11 AM PST by GreenFreeper (Not blind opposition to progress, but opposition to blind progress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GreenFreeper

Thanks for ping. Guess I cannot add to what has been so well established as to how the environmental movement had been hijacked for less then honest/honorable purposes. So many things at so many levels of complexity to consider. It is often hard to find words that convey some form of blanket statement.


39 posted on 03/02/2006 11:00:26 AM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet
I have long advocated suicide as the best act of civil disobedience by enviro wackoes

Perhaps we should donate to these kooks:


40 posted on 03/02/2006 12:17:45 PM PST by proud_yank (Liberalism - The 'Culture of Ignorance'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet; 4lifeandliberty; AbsoluteGrace; afraidfortherepublic; Alamo-Girl; ...

Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!

Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...

41 posted on 03/02/2006 12:25:31 PM PST by cgk (I don't see myself as a conservative. I see myself as a religious, right-wing, wacko extremist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kelly_2000
Those PETA folks who release animals like minks into the wild are fruitcakes. No argument.

I don't want hysterical policy. I also don't want to see concern for and care of the environment demonized because a bunch of left-wing nutcases have twisted it for their own purposes.

42 posted on 03/02/2006 12:50:54 PM PST by Chanticleer (Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready. T. Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

Interestingly enough, there were Biblical laws requiring a field to lie fallow every seven years to let it rest -- a sabbath for the land. Sometimes I think we've forgotten as much as we've learned.


43 posted on 03/02/2006 12:54:28 PM PST by Chanticleer (Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready. T. Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Chanticleer
I also don't want to see concern for and care of the environment demonized because a bunch of left-wing nutcases have twisted it for their own purposes.

Well Said!

44 posted on 03/02/2006 12:59:04 PM PST by GreenFreeper (Not blind opposition to progress, but opposition to blind progress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

In 1973 two things happened:

1. The Endangered Species Act was signed into law and enacted which enabled animals, trees and scum in rain puddles  to have God-given rights and became protected under federal law.

2. Roe vs. Wade where 9 mere humans, allowed it to be made possible for Humanity to slaughter, burn, aspirate and sever Human Babies, created in God's image and likeness. Since then, humanity, and the USA,  spiraled in a downward trend.

Touch a turtle egg or its nest, Canadian goose or a spotted OWL and get a yr. in jail and a $50K fine, and don't cut down certain trees or fill in that puddle! abort a child, get paid $750.00. And we wonder why there is NO respect for HUMAN life created in God's image.

This is why we need to inculcate a culture of life in our society in general and in churches and schools (starting in kindergarten) . People tend to think of children as disposable items.

A pro-life education Program

It's a grievous sin that animals and turtle eggs are afforded more protections and rights than a human fetus and baby created in God's Image with a soul.

Genesis 9:3
Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants.

Man:
Kill the humans (abortion) and save the Bears, the spotted owls, darters, the Canadian Geese and the whales and don't crack that turtle egg!!

You can get fined up to $10,000 for messing with those eggs and baby-killing physicians get paid government and private money $$$ to kill humans! Go figure.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973

The Endangered Species Act of 1973
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973
Penalties and Enforcement

The number of species listed (plants and animals, NOT humans) as threatened or endangered
Species Information
Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants

10 FALLACIES IN THE ABORTION DEBATE 
The Endangered Species Program

Page 4 Sec 3 (c)(8) don't crack those eggs, one might end the "life" of a bird, fish or turtle. I guess certain "mammals" (humans) do not apply.

Science and the ESA

The Govt. recognizes that a fertilized egg from an animal is "alive" and protected by LAW (The Endangered Species Act of 1973) and when an "alive" person created in God's image is growing and living in his mother, he's termed and given the moniker of just a blob of "unlive" protoplasm or tissue which can be aspirated if it's the mother's "choice" to do so with no protections under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for EVERY careless word they have spoken."--Jesus (Matt. 12:36)

In Florida, women dying in bed have less rights than turtle eggs! (FL Law 370, US ESA of 1973)

turtle sign 


Naturalism

Quanta Cura
CONDEMNING CURRENT ERRORS

THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX
I. PANTHEISM, NATURALISM AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM

William Jasper, author of "A New World Religion" describes the religion of the UN: "...a weird and diabolical convergence of New Age mysticism, pantheism, aboriginal animism atheism, communism, socialism, Luciferian occultism, apostate Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism".

Global warming fight going underground?

Green Theology
RETHINKING NUCLEAR POWER
Global Warming: The Perversion of Science
Science, Politics and Death
Stopping Malaria
DDT revisited
The Truth About Science

45 posted on 03/02/2006 1:17:58 PM PST by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet; GreenFreeper; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; ...


46 posted on 03/02/2006 1:18:52 PM PST by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet

Oh man. I agree with you, but we have a whole lot of brainwashed Freepers here who love their Mother Earth. Get ready for an earful.


47 posted on 03/02/2006 1:21:03 PM PST by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chanticleer
that doesn't mean we need to turn our backs on our responsibilities to care for our environment for the safety and wellbeing of all people.

No one has suggested "turning our back" on anything. But "Environmentalism" as it now stands is a move toward both paganism, collectivism and a command economy. Find a new word for it if you like, and a new group to hang out with, because "environmentalism' is just plain evil.

48 posted on 03/02/2006 1:25:47 PM PST by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan; Chanticleer
Find a new word for it if you like, and a new group to hang out with, because "environmentalism' is just plain evil.

Talk about being brainwashed.

49 posted on 03/02/2006 1:39:12 PM PST by GreenFreeper (Not blind opposition to progress, but opposition to blind progress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet; Coleus; wagglebee

Banning DDT was basically genocide!


50 posted on 03/02/2006 1:45:02 PM PST by Irish_Thatcherite (~~~A vote for Bertie Ahern is a vote for Gerry Adams!~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson