On Earth Day: Al Gore, Population Control and HypocrisyLast year, the Nobel Committee saw fit to award its Peace Prize to radical environmentalist and depopulation advocate Al Gore. Nothing so clearly indicates this Committee's complete lack of understanding of peace, the very condition it seeks to promote. Gore is an unabashed champion of death and believes that "Third World nations are producing too many children too fast... it is time to ignore the controversy over family planning and cut out-of-control population growth."
Gore and other depopulationists see human beings as the ultimate threat. At the same time, they seek to protect the natural environment at the greatest expense. Like ancient nature worshipers, they demand human sacrifice-- literally. Abortion, euthanasia and contraception are their rituals, essential to appease the nature deities and forestall their wrath: global warming. Of course, these neopagans possess an inverted view of the world, fully at odds with Judeo-Christian tradition and, what is especially ironic, the natural moral law. Indeed, they abide by another law-- that of the jungle, the very foundation of today's culture of death.
All this speaks to the hypocrisy of depopulation advocates. After all, if human numbers must be reduced, why don't Gore and his fellows lead by example and offer up themselves? No; it appears they're leaving that for the rest of us. '
John Francis Borra, SFO
veritatis@eaglecom.net "Used with permission."
1 comment:
I agree with some of what is said here. It doesn't make sense to save the environment but be in favor of killing babies. I believe this logic should go all the way though. That means that someone who recognizes the value of life thus will not kill a child, should not kill an adult thus is anti-war, should not harm the environment, should not harm someone who is different then themselves thus is pro-women's rights-men's and children's rights and is not racist etc etc, and should do his or her very best to be respectful of the life that must be shed or harmed for sustenance thus is vegetarian or vegan or just cuts back on how much meat is consumed and does not support anything that would treat these creatures badly before they are killed. This isn't a complete perspective on the issue but I hope it gives a taste of the kind of thinking that I believe must be adopted to solve the problems addressed by the pro-lifer and those addressed by the environmentalist. Much less than this would in my opinion be an incomplete, contradictory, illogical and invalid argument, and such an argument would be lacking in its ability to actually solve the problems facing our world today. An argument or solution that doesn't consider that ALL life is sacred yet tries to save some aspects of life will not succeed without creating other problems. Or that tries to argue that having freedom of choice to do with your own body what you will, but does not consider it important to have respect for the natural process of creation and avoid sex if you don't want a baby is actually not respectful to your own body. You want freedom to do with your body as will without respect for your body. This is like wanting freedom to do with your car what you will but not being willing to respect the other lives that are driving down that road. Or you want to have freedom of choice to harm your body but you are in favor of war in some instances. When someone takes the life of another person do you think that person was given a choice of whether or not to live or die? Sure he could have not gone to war, but then you could have not shot the man. You can't have it both ways if you respect life, you also respect freedom of choice but no freedom is complete and total such is impossible, so you have to have a respect for life and take responsibility to care not only for your life and body but the life and body of others. Don't kill your baby if you made the "choice" of having sex, don't kill another person in war be respectful enough to give that person the chance and freedom to continue making more choices, give your unborn child the opportunity to make many choices to do with you have to be willing to sacrifice the "small" freedom of being allowed to kill the child (it is only fair), and don't harm the environment because you yourself have to live in that environment and how are you going to continue speaking your mind if you die from cancer caused by toxic pollutants?
You can not have a part of the solution without the whole solution or the scales wont balance out.
Cheers, Surfin Cypherz
Post a Comment