This ministry needs your financial support! Donate now!
Posted by Anthony on January 22, 2010
I suppose many readers have heard the outcry against Planned Parenthood soliciting donations to restore ‘family planning’ services in Haiti. I’ll leave others to reflect on the weirdness of this. I’d like to focus briefly on the hypocrisy of it, for, after all, given Planned Parenthood’s real goals, their only complaint about what happened in Haiti can only be that more people didn’t die.
I have discussed the malthusian nature of abortion proponents at length on this blog so I won’t rehash it. Essentially the point is this: if you really believe that over population is the worst crisis facing the planet, then the mass destruction of tens of thousands of people must be, ultimately, something to celebrate.
For the person bobbing along in the waves of life, such an assessment will be seen as outrageous and insensitive. Still, the assessment is true. In the article I linked to begin with, there is this little quote:
“There are reports of women giving birth on the side of the road as hospitals and houses have been demolished,” said Ms. Stacey, noting also that Planned Parenthood is encouraging donations to Americans for UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, which is also bringing assistance to pregnant women in Haiti.
“The donations (Planned Parenthood is promoting) will help UNFPA provide emergency reproductive health kits,” said Ms. Stacey. “These kits could essentially function as OB wards as they contain essential drugs, equipment and supplies to provide lifesaving services to pregnant women.”
Now, an ‘emergency reproductive health kit’ is obviously a euphemism for an on-the-run abortion kit, right? Whether or not they really have the capability to ‘provide lifesaving services’ or only have that capability ‘when the life of the mother’ is at risk, I don’t know. What I’d really like to point out that PP is getting these kits from UNFPA- the United Nations Population Fund. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on November 24, 2009
The Internet is abuzz with the revelations that global warming proponents have been… lying, hiding data, and deceiving. The whole notion that ‘climate change’ is an emergency requiring drastic and immediate action now hangs in the balance. I was reminded of a post I wrote last year responding to a global warming skeptic comparing the global warming proponents to creationists. I said that in fact it was the other way around. Today, with ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ in particular being smacked around, it is good to revisit the issue.
Why?
Because the raw fact is that the ‘science’ behind global warming is just as shady as the ‘science’ behind macroevolution. Just as we see in this current case where scientists worked not merely to suppress data but also suppress viewpoints, trying to manipulate the peer review process to exclude dissenters and refusing to debate them in order to deprive them of credibility, so too in evolution.
This was exposed by Ben Stein’s Expelled, which I already discussed here.
But there are even more dramatic similarities between the ‘science’ behind evolutionary theory and global warming. It is my hope that when people see how reputable scientists tried to buffalo the entire world, hiding behind ‘consensus,’ and ridiculing those who think other wise- regarding global warming- that they will spot the same patterns of behavior regarding evolution… and approach it with more skepticism. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on April 29, 2009
Last week I posted an entry challenging the notion that we can save the planet. This generated some interesting comments. One person pointed out that it was his understanding that Christians should care about the environment. On this there is no dispute. Since I rarely speak on this issue I thought something more definitive is in order. Briefly.
There is no question that Christians should care about the environment. However, the infantile notion that the planet needs saving or could be saved is not what that means. This notion rests on the idea that the planet has some sort of intrinsic value, that it has the capacity to care which configuration it ends up in, and that there are things we can do for the sake of the planet just for the sake of the planet.
What is really meant by ‘saving the planet’ is ‘establishing or maintaining the biosphere in certain particular ways.’ And by this it is basically meant, ‘preserving the biosphere to reflect human interests.’ Here it might be objected that no, other interests are at stake, say for example the polar bears. But even there it is our human interests, because it is a special characteristic of humans to care about such things. This care is proper, but if we are not honest about it we are liable to be played as suckers.
The interesting thing about Christian care for the environment, especially if we take the Scriptures as our guide, is that this ‘human interest’ is front and center. Genesis 1:26 has God putting mankind in charge of ‘the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ This we can properly call stewardship and as we see from the text, the value of humans and the earth is set by God, and in this equation, the earth is placed in subject to Humanity.
Presumably, this means it is to humans to carefully manage what has been put under their care.
By ‘carefully manage’ we must understand that ‘human interests’ must be the guiding light, and as this command comes when man was yet unfallen the concern that mere selfishness would be the guiding light is probably not warranted.
Of course, some of the most strident Christian environmentalists are ones who have thrown out Genesis 1. So, I don’t know what their Scriptural basis is. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on April 21, 2009
Reflecting on the global warming/environmental propaganda being delivered to my son in elementary school, I was left shaking my head. Whatever it means to ‘save the planet’ it can’t possibly mean ‘save the planet.’
The planet isn’t going anywhere. The planet doesn’t care if it is polluted. In fact, ‘polluted’ is a term that is only meaningful relative to we human-folk. Indeed, ‘save the planet’ can, on the best construction, only mean something to the effect, “save the habitats that we consider important to life.” Presumably, with all the expressed fear that the ocean levels will rise, etc, what we mean by ‘life’ actually is ‘human life.’ Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on February 2, 2009
This weekend I read one of the scariest things I have heard coming out of the Global Warming crowd. That is saying something. I have documented elsewhere on this blog some other things they’ve said, like comparing denying man-made Global Warming to denying the holocaust. This is so disgusting I almost sat down and wrote a book exposing the various principles at work in it but stopped when I thought of at least one that is already written: C.S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man
.
In summary, the London Times article references a certain Jonathon Porritt, a Global Warming bureaucrat who reportedly says,
“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.
“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible.
‘Environmental footprint’? The whole ‘over population’ argument has been around for a long time. We’ve heard that we don’t have enough food or water or resources in general to feed the world’s population, or, if the population is unchecked, we won’t in ‘X’ amount of years. And ‘X’ amount of years is always being pushed back as we discover that, in fact, we can accommodate ‘Y’ number of people after all. But as scary as these arguments go, they at least have an air of plausibility. I mean, if you can only feed half the world’s population that obviously signals a legitimate problem. Or, if there are so many people that humans occupy every 10 yards of the earth’s surface area, that seems legitimate, and perhaps a reasonable ‘environmental’ basis for action.
But what does Porritt mean?
The Optimum Population Trust, a campaign group of which Porritt is a patron, says each baby born in Britain will, during his or her lifetime, burn carbon roughly equivalent to 2½ acres of old-growth oak woodland – an area the size of Trafalgar Square.
Oh no. Dear God, not 2 1/2 acres. 2 acres maybe, but not 2 and one half! Something must be done! Porritt says what must be done:
Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming.
He should get together with Obama. The two obviously have the same idea of abortion: “safe, legal, and rare*” (*where rare is defined by a hundred times more than we are currently aborting). Read the rest of the entry… »
