Protecting Whose Environment?

July 15, 2007 09:00 AM

I have always known that those who advocate the environmentalist creed of hugging trees and keeping the air free of chemicals had a tendency to be off the radar screen when it comes to respecting the dignity of the human person, but I recently got a timely reminder that my assumptions are correct.

There have been several news reports over the years about what can occur when hormones such as those found in the birth control pill wind up in the water supply and are subsequently ingested by fish, foul and even human beings. Recently WorldNetDaily confirmed all of this, complete with graphs and a wide variety of comments from those who are aware of the problem and its potential consequences if it continues to go unchecked.

But as one member of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists, George Harden, said, "If you're killing mosquitoes to save people from the West Nile virus, you can count on secular environmentalists to lay down in front of the vapor truck, claiming some potential side effect that might result from the spray. But if birth control deforms fish--backed by the proof of an EPA study--and threatens the drinking supply, mum will be the word."

Any why is that? Well, because the average environmentalist would argue that people are a problem, and anything that can lessen the numbers will only contribute to a better environment, even if that means that in the process human bodies will be polluted with man-made chemicacls which are being given to perfectly healthy human beings in order to prevent them from bearing children.

In other words, babies are bad and bald eagles are good; the welfare of a human is not on the same level as the welfare of an insect. 

But perhaps the most disturbing point mentioned in the recent WorldNetDaily report is the question that nobody wants to answer: if the birth control pill is so damaging to fish and other members of the animal kingdom, what in the world is it capable of doing to human beings and why isn't anyone talking about it?

The answer: it is not politically correct to suggest that anything might be wrong with a product that has satisfied the sexually-saturated society in which we live, and is at the same time eliminating the human being who is, after all, environmentally problematic.

Does this line of thinking make sense? Of course not, but take a moment to consider who is in charge of the policiies that permit such skewed attitudes to rule in our democracy. We are living in a nation that has refused to accept the fact that only under God can America flourish.

When God's law is replaced by man's, nothing good can ever result. This is but one more example of how true that really is.

Back to news