Report: Environmentalism
American Pro-Life
Encyclopedia
CHAPTER
91. ANIMAL RIGHTS AND RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM: MISPLACED PRIORITIES
==============================
“When it comes to feelings, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals. They all feel pain. There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights ... 6 million people died in concentration camps, but 6 billion chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses.”-- Ingrid Newkirk, founder and director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).[1]
“[Environmental groups] are missing the boat because picking up the garbage is not the issue, having sewage treatment plants is not the issue -- those are really details of the bigger issue. It’s like trying to talk about a pimple when you really have [overpopulation] cancer.”-- Jean-Michel Cousteau.[2]
We
are all fellow travelers on Spaceship Earth. However, we have abused our planet
beyond its ability to sustain us. People are a cancer upon this world, because
we needlessly destroy nature and its works wherever we congregate.
The
worst of our transgressions involves eating and otherwise mistreating animals,
which is revolting in the extreme. We should treat our fellow beings with
respect and love -- not eat them!
Such
atrocious treatment of our fellow beings never took place when the ancient
Pagan religions were observed. Animal and planet abuse only began with the
advent of Christianity.
How
can you anti-choice people call yourselves “pro-life” when you eat meat and
wear leather shoes? You’re being hypocritical!
A
truly ‘enlightened’ society must, by definition, care for and feed its most
helpless or oppressed members. However, national pride notwithstanding, the
United States is anything but an enlightened society.
Our
nation is a strange wonderland of inverted social values where caring has gone
awry, and compassion is extended only to those persons -- and species -- that
are considered “trendy” or ‘Politically Correct.’
BE A HERO, SAVE A WHALE
SAVE A BABY, GO TO JAIL
-- Operation Rescue T-shirt.
The
“mainstream” animal rights movement and the “mainstream” environmentalist
movement share similar philosophies. Their outlooks, although opposed by many,
generally attempt to balance the rights of mankind and the rest of nature, and
recognize that it is in man’s own best interests to preserve and nurture his
environment.
However,
the motivations and logic of the extreme animal rights and environmentalist
movements are different in nature.
The
“extreme” wings of both movements generally share the belief that the Earth is
our “mother” in the literal sense, because it is a colossal living organism
(“Gaia”) that is progressing towards its own divinity (“theagenesis”).
Although
the ‘Gaia’ hypothesis has, in one form or another, existed almost since the
beginning of recorded history, it has enjoyed a resurgence as an important
foundation of the “New Age” movement. ‘Gaia’ was re- postulated in 1973 by
‘evolutionary biologist’ Lynn Margulis, professor at the University of
Massachusetts at Amhurst. The word is Greek for Mother Earth, or “The
Deep-Breasted One.”[3]
Another
primary tenet of “New Age” thinking holds that it is natural that individual
human beings can themselves become gods on earth, because (or, perhaps, in
spite of) their ability to think.
If
the earth can become a ‘god,’ and if human beings can become ‘gods,’ it is also
logical (in a “New Age” manner) to assume that the intermediate link between
humans and the living earth -- i.e., animal and plant life --must also share in
this “potential divinity.”
Therefore,
any imposition of man’s will on either animals or earth is considered by the
radical animal rights and environmentalist groups to be unacceptable meddling
and an obstruction of other entity’s personal “vision quests,” or progressions
towards divinity.
As
Peter Singer says in his 1975 book Animal Liberation , “It can no longer be
maintained by anyone but a religious fanatic that man is the darling of the
whole universe, or that other animals were created to provide us with food, or
that we have divine authority over them, and divine permission to kill them.”
The
radical animal rights and environmentalist movements believe that literally
every being on earth is itself a type of divinity or “potential divinity.”
Since all objects we produce are extracted from natural resources, some even
believe that such objects interfere with the earth’s quest for its own godhood.
In
other words, everyone and everything is a god, potential god, or part of a god
or potential god.
This
omnitheistic paganism is naturally antithetical to any monotheistic concept,
and especially to the Christian religion, which teaches that the One God
created everything, and reserves divinity to Himself.
So
it is not surprising that there are absolutely no real Christians among the
ranks of the radical animal rights and environmentalist groups. Such radicals
are atheistic, anti-theistic, or paganistic in their outlook. This worldview is
reflected in their writings, and in media coverage of their activities.
For
example, Ted Turner, the Cable News Network anti-life propagandist who commonly
refers to pro-lifers as “bozos,” said that “The Christian faith --the
Judeo-Christian tradition -- says that God gave dominion over the planet to
human beings; as for animals, they don’t count for anything. That’s another
reason I didn’t want to go there [Heaven]: No trees, no animals, just these
fundamentalist Christians.”[4]
By
the way, 1990 ‘Humanist of the Year’ Turner is the person who brought us the
propagandistic “Captain Planet” cartoon show. This thinly- disguised political
pitch features six children, all of whom hail from idyllic countries -- all
except the American kid, Wheeler, who is shown fighting for his life against
muggers in a filthy New York City slum. By vivid contrast, Kinka is a Soviet
child from a beautiful cottage in the midst of a flower-filled field that
invariably has thousands of butterflies in it.
Yeah,
right (see the descriptions of several incredible Soviet ecological disasters
later in this chapter -- it’s a miracle that any butterflies survive in the
former Soviet Union).
When
the kids get into trouble they can’t handle by themselves (which is often),
they are backed up by the magic powers of the Earth Goddess Gaia --the “New
Age” patron saint -- whose voice is supplied by virulent pro-abort activist
Whoopi Goldberg.
Turner,
of course, claimed that he used only “totally impartial” advisors for his show.
These paragons of fairness included Carl Sagan, who brought us the bogus
“nuclear winter” theory, and Peter Dykstra, the head of Greenpeace.[5]
Time
Magazine’s bizarre 1988 “Planet of the Year” issue lay bare the strange
pro-nature and anti-Christian philosophy of the animal-rights and
environmentalist movement; “Humanity’s current predatory relationship with
nature reflects a man-centered worldview that has evolved over the ages ... In
many pagan societies, the earth was seen as a mother, a fertile giver of life.
Mortals were subordinate to nature. The Judeo-Christian tradition introduced a
radically different concept. The idea of dominion (engendered in the book of
Genesis) could be interpreted as an invitation to use nature as a convenience.
Thus, the spread of Christianity, which is generally considered to have paved
the way for the development of technology, may at the same time have carried
the seeds of the wanton exploitation of nature that often accompanied technical
progress.”
The
magazine is predictably crammed with lurid color photographs of oil slicks,
dead and rotting animals, toxic poisons leaching into the soil, smog, Everests
of trash, and starving children (but nothing about aborted preborn children,
naturally)!
The
moral of the story, of course, is that society must turn away from outmoded
Christianity and eventually towards a one-world government, enforced birth
control, and abortion.
It
is fashionable for animal rights activists and environmentalists to beat up on
Christians, but their latent anti-Semitism must be expressed in more careful
and discreet terms.
Sylvia
Cohen, an observer of extremist cults and political movements, noted in the
June/July issue of Midstream Magazine that “There is a distinct and explicit
anti-Jewish tone: These Animal Rights activists apply the imagery drawn from
the Holocaust to describe conventional farming, fishing and the killing of
animals for food; they use the same imagery in harassing Jewish biomedical
researchers and they direct recurrent attacks on kosher slaughter ...
“There
is a disturbing intolerance in the Animal Rights movement towards those who
disagree with its philosophy, and an unmistakable tinge of antipathy towards
Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Its criticism of Christianity usually centers
on Paul, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas for their views on the relationship
between man and beast. There is a sharper edge of intolerance towards Jews.”
Not
only are radical animal rights and environmental activists openly
anti-Christian and covertly anti- Semitic, they hold deeply rooted racist
beliefs as well.
David
Foreman, founder of Earth First!, has said that famine ought to be allowed to
run its course in Ethiopia, and has also called for an end to immigration from
Mexico and Central America.[6]
Taking
his cue from Margaret Sanger, Adolf Eichmann, and other eugenicists, Edward
Abbey, author of the ecotage novel The Monkey Wrench Gang , complained of the
wilderness degradation caused by “millions of hungry, ignorant, unskilled, and
culturally-morally-genetically impoverished people.”[6]
And
Chris Manes, author of Green Rage , wrote a column for the Earth First! Journal
asserted that AIDS could assist in population control, thus lessening the “ecological
load” caused by human beings on this planet.[6]
The
racism of the movement’s leaders inevitably has a profound impact upon the
directions taken by these radical groups. It seems that environmentally
destructive actions undertaken for the benefit of rich, upper-class Whites
receive much less emphasis from these groups than those taken to assist the
underprivileged.
Civic
leaders from San Francisco envisioned a badly-needed development consisting of
12,000 moderate-income houses and apartments on San Bruno Mountain five miles
south of the city. This development would have greatly relieved the shortage of
housing for low-income families in the Southern part of the county. But, when
environmental activists discovered that the area was a nesting place for the
rare Callippe Silverspot Butterfly (which has a life span of exactly one week),
they raised such a ruckus that the development was reduced in size by more than
80 percent -- to only 2,200 units.
San
Mateo County Black activist Cliff Boxley railed against this “green bigotry,”
saying that “Conservationists are more interested in saving the habitats of
birds than in the construction of low-income housing.”[7]
On
the international scene, DDT was found to thin the shells of the eggs of
several species of birds, so the insecticide was not only banned in the United
States, but companies manufacturing it were prohibited from shipping it
overseas. Until DDT was extensively used in Ceylon (Sri Lanka), there were
between two and three million people afflicted with malaria. This disease was
wiped out by DDT. After the ban, the incidence of malaria once again exploded,
and thousands died every year from the disease.[8] This disaster was simply
ignored by the radical environmental groups, who apparently covet bird’s eggs
above thousands of human lives.
When
people begin to see themselves as morally equal to or lower than animals, a
certain inevitable depressive world outlook must result. After all, if we are
not the supreme creation of God, then we are a cancer. If we do not occupy a
privileged place on this earth, we occupy the lowest rung of existence because
we cause more damage than any other species. If we desire to escape
responsibility in sexual and other matters, we may assuage our consciences by
accepting culpability for ‘destroying’ our planet -- a psychological ploy
called “substitution” that allows us to take no concrete action other than
being politically correct in our speech.
The
attitude of “man as disease” is reflected in many statements made by animal
rights activists such as Ingrid Newkirk, who once said that “We [humans] have
grown like a cancer. We’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.”[9]
Although not an activist by any means, even Supreme Court Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes once remarked that “I see no reason for attributing to man a
significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain
of sand.”[10]
Some
environmentalists even wish for death -- not only for themselves, but for the
entire human race. For them, the world is an unending circus of horrors, to be
endured and survived until the blessed release that is afforded by the end of
their lives.
Bill
McKibben writes in The End of Nature that “We are not interested in the utility
of a particular species or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They
have intrinsic value, more value to me than another human body, or a billion of
them. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a
wild and healthy planet ... Somewhere along the line -- at about a billion
years ago, maybe half that -- we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have
become a plague upon ourselves and upon the earth ... Until such time as homo
sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right
virus to come along.”[11]
Perhaps
the most extreme statement of this nihilistic philosophy was made by what has
to be the world’s ultimate anti- life group -- The Voluntary Human Extinction
Movement, or VHEMT, pronounced “vehement” for short.
Anti-people
crusader Les U. Knight, Portland, Oregon substitute teacher and founder of
VHEMT, said in his newsletter These Exit Times , that “The hopeful alternative
to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary
extinction of one species: Homo sapiens -- us ... When every human makes the
moral choice to live long and die out, Earth will be allowed to return to its
former glory. Each time another one of us decides not to add another one of us
to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another
ray of hope shines through the gloom ... No matter what you’re doing to improve
life on planet Earth, I think you’ll find that phasing out the human race will
increase your chance of success.”[12]
Knight
seems not to notice that people will have a hard time ‘improving life on planet
Earth’ if there are no people left to do the work!
Dr.
Frederick Goodwin of the United States Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health
Administration struck at the root of such a hopeless Weltanschauung (world
outlook) when he said that “At its core, the animal-rights thesis is a
degradation of what it means to be human. As a psychiatrist, I see in that a
kind of giving up on the human endeavor, a sense of hopelessness and despair.”
One
of the most interesting and concrete results of this hopeless worldview is the
ridiculous vision for the future of mankind that many environmentalists hold.
These visions are translated into wildly inaccurate predictions that even the
most disreputable psychic would disavow.
It
is also important to note that these predictions (some of which are shown in
Figure 91-1) actually represent the type of society and world that the radical
environmentalists and animal rights activists hope will come into existence
through their efforts.
|
“The central fact is that the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity.”-- Newsweek Magazine, April 28, 1975. Quoted in Brent Bozell, “Environmental Inaccuracy: Who Cares?” Conservative Chronicle , June 17, 1992, page 18. |
|
“The atmosphere may be reaching the limit of its capacity to absorb emitted carbon dioxide without falling into a disastrous greenhouse effect.”-- Newsweek Magazine, June 1, 1992. Quoted in Bozell, op.cit. |
|
Jay Forrester predicted in his doomsday tract The Limits to Growth that the world would run out of gold in 1981, mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc in 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, natural gas, and lead by 1993. |
|
Paul Ehrlich predicts in his book The Population Bomb that 65 million Americans will die of hunger by 1985. He also said in 1968 that “The battle to feed humanity is already lost ... we will not be able to prevent large-scale famines in the next decade.” By the next decade, of course, weight reduction clinics were everywhere and diet books consistently made best-seller lists. Never one to give up, Ehrlich in 1980 bet economist Julian Simon a thousand dollars that the prices of five strategic metals -- tungsten, copper, nickel, chrome, and tin -- would rise. All five fell, and Ehrlich paid up.-- As described by syndicated columnist George Will. “‘Earth Summit’ Already Loses Luster With Environmental Pessimists.” The Oregonian , May 31, 1992, page E3. |
|
Due to the increasing severity of the food shortage, the
following will be a typical menu by the year 1990; |
|
By 1995, worldwide compulsory birth control will be instituted. By 2000, the PLANNED PLANETHOOD (!) movement will triumph over all other systems of thought. In the same year, the control of conception will be removed from personal choice. Males will be sterilized at age 14 after depositing a semen sample in the frozen gamete bank. Conception will require approval of a state or federal committee, which will first investigate the genetic health of the two proposed genetic parents and will license conception only if the parents are of superior “stock.” By the year, artificial insemination will be widely used to produce genetically superior offspring -- Margaret Sanger’s dream of a “race of thoroughbreds” will finally become a reality.-- These are among the many predictions by Judith Wurtman, G. Harry Stein, Robert Francoeur, John Catchings, Frederick Davies, Robert Truax and Jerrold S. Maxmen, as described in Wallechinsky and Wallace, op.cit. |
“[We desire] an end to all commercial logging ... the elimination of the automobile, coal-fired power plants, and manufacturing processes using petrochemicals ... and, most important[ly], the reduction of the human population to an ecologically sustainable level.”-- Christopher Manes, Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization .[13]
The
vast majority of animal rights activists certainly have their hearts in the
right places. They work quietly to better the lot of sick and abandoned wild
and domestic animals, and help limit unnecessary damage to valuable species for
the sake of biological diversity and humanitarianism.
However,
as always, the radical fringe of any movement gets all the press. In the case
of the animal rights and environmentalist movements, five percent of the people
agitate for extreme, unworkable, and even harmful objectives.
These
animal rights extremists demand that the eating of meat and the wearing of
natural furs be outlawed; that all pet ownership be banned; that all zoos be
dismantled; that no hunting or farming (even dairy farming) be allowed; and, of
course, that all animal experimentation cease immediately.
Earth First! charter member Christopher Manes goes even further.
He asserts that man must return to a nomadic hunter/gatherer existence and that
we must recognize the “civil rights” of “tree people” and “rock people.” In
other words, human beings ‘oppress’ rocks when using them to construct roads or
buildings!
It
boggles the imagination to try to estimate how many people heap the ultimate
indignity on “sand people” daily by using them for cat-box filler.
Manes’
book (for which thousands of “tree people” made the ultimate sacrifice)
acknowledges that ecoterrorism has caused hundreds of millions of dollars of
damage and numerous murders and maimings.
Earth
First!, by the way, is one of the sponsors of the ecophile’s version of
Woodstock, the “Mississippi Redwood Summer,” where speakers equated trees with
disenfranchised Blacks.
For
animal rights extremists, there can be no exceptions to their rules. The
president of Friends of Animals, the appropriately-named Priscilla Feral, says
that “Animal experimentation is just plain wrong. Human beings have no right to
the knowledge gained from experimentation on animals, even if it is done
painlessly.”[14] This attitude is remarkably similar to that of the scientists
who believe that medical knowledge gained by the Nazis during their hideous experiments
on human beings should be off-limits to modern researchers,
Ingrid
Newkirk of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), states flatly
that pet ownership is “... an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by
human manipulation.”[14]
Even
the very mainstream Humane Society’s literature states flatly that “There is no
rational basis for maintaining a moral distinction between the treatment of
humans and other animals.”[14]
Such
attitudes, if codified, will inevitably lead to expensive, useless and
ludicrous results. As always, if we want to see the future of our society, we
must look to Sweden, where the Animal Bill of Rights dictates that each pig
must have a separate bed, which ideally must be changed each night.[14]
“In time, we’ll look on those who work in animal laboratories with the horror now reserved for the men and women who experimented on Jews in Auschwitz ... That, too, the Nazis said, was ‘for the greater benefit of the master race.’”-- News release from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.[15]
Nothing
agitates animal-rights groups more than the use of animals in laboratories for
purposes considered ‘frivolous’ by the activists. This is natural because, in
their minds, the sacrifice of one being for an equal or lesser being is
illogical and evil.
The
posters and advertisements used by animal-rights people invariably portray the
‘hard cases,’ or those animals that people can most readily identify with:
Puppies with big, sad eyes, cats, and apes. However, of the 60 to 90 million
animals ‘used’ (and killed) each year for research and testing, about 90
percent are rodents, which are certainly not photogenic and therefore rarely
used in animal-rights literature and publicity.
The
director of the National Anti-Vivisection Society acknowledges that the number
of animals he quotes as being used by researchers each year is much too high, a
tactic identical to that used by pro-abortionists who claimed that “5,000 to
10,000 women used to die each year from illegal abortions.” He also coaches his
followers to “Never appear to be opposed to animal research. Claim that your
only concern is the source of the animals.”[16]
Small
mammals are ‘used’ to test the toxicity of colognes, cosmetics, food colorings,
and many other substances ultimately intended for human consumption. Among
other testing methods, these compounds may be injected into the animal’s
esophagus or dripped into its eyes. Many of these cosmetics have been proven
toxic when the mammals experienced convulsions or died. The practical effect of
these tests was to prevent toxic or even deadly items from reaching the human
market.
Animal
research has led to vaccines against polio, measles, mumps, diphtheria,
whooping cough, and rubella. It has led to cures for smallpox effective
diabetes treatment, and the discovery of at least three lifesaving antibiotics.
Surgery
on animals has led to the development of techniques for implanting cardiac
pacemakers, for reattaching severed limbs, and for transplanting hearts, lungs,
kidneys, and liver. Animal research also produced the cure for acute
lymphocytic leukemia in children.
The
animals themselves also benefit from animal research. Such research has led to
immunizations against distemper, anthrax, rabies, tetanus, and feline leukemia.
According
to the 1988 National Academy of Sciences report on animal research, “Animal
experimentation has contributed to an increase in average life expectancy of
about 25 years since 1900,” a claim backed up by former Surgeon General C.
Everett Koop, who estimates that animal research has added twenty years to the
average person’s life in the last two generations.
Despite
PETA propaganda that claims otherwise, a 1988 American Medical Association
survey found that 97 percent of the country’s 570,000 doctors support animal
research.
One
interesting group that supports animal rights in general but opposes the
radical animal-rights movement is iiFAR (incurably ill For Animal Research),
Post Office Box 1873, Bridgeview, Illinois 60455.
Other
cases of animal maltreatment are less justified in the eyes of animal-rights
activists and probably in the opinion of a large segment of the public.
For
example, since farm animals are not currently protected by Federal legislation,
virtually any mistreatment short of outright intentional torture is tolerated.
From
the age of three days, veal calves are commonly confined in 22- inch wide
crates, and they are not allowed enough room to walk or to even turn around.
Their constant liquid-only diet inflicts permanent diarrhea upon them. This and
the fact that they never see the sun guarantees the desirable white (anemic)
meat of the so-called “milk-fed calf.”
There
is undoubtedly a tremendous amount of cruelty inflicted upon animals in this
country.
And
why not?
If
we, as a nation, have so callously displayed our disregard for the welfare of
our own species through abortion, forced sterilization, infanticide,
euthanasia, and genocide, why should we place a higher priority on lesser
species? We should instead strive for consistency and become ‘equal opportunity
abusers,’ with no particular regard for any species.
The
public is constantly exposed to a parade of horrific visions of war, disease,
and destruction on television while a large percentage of our people have
obtained an abortion or assisted in obtaining one. We have become jaded by
death. Why should we become excited about the killing of animals, even if such
killing is cruel and entirely unjustified?
“We are trying to pretend that the environment can be handled by becoming again children of nature. You know children of nature today play electronic guitars. Every time I hear an anti-technology ballad sung on an electronic guitar with the latest amplifiers, I kind of wonder.”-- Professor Peter F. Drucker, who offered the nation’s first college course on the environment in 1947.[17]
As
with most other movements, the vast majority of animal-rights groups and
individuals employ legal, low-key means to protect various species of animals
that are in danger, either as individuals or as a species.
For
example, Alan Sweatt’s San Antonio farm “Primarily Primates” houses about two
hundred former pets and circus animals that were retired rather than
euthanized. This makes his facility roughly the equivalent of a crisis
pregnancy center.
Some
of his apes had endured torment for years at the hands of circus trainers or
sadistic and neglectful private owners. Sweatt invests considerable time in his
attempts to “detraumatize” these animals, with impressive results.
There
are many other parallels between the animal-rights movement and the pro-life
movement. However, some of the illegal tactics routinely employed by
animal-rights groups would never be tolerated if pro-life activists used them.
For
example, it is common for the Animal Rights Front (ARF) and other groups to
block hunters from entering Connecticut game preserves with their cars and
bodies. If the hunters do manage to gain entry, the activists dog their heels
all day and make enough noise to scare away deer and other game.
This
is essentially the animal-rights equivalent of the pro-life “rescue mission.”
Yet no animal-rights activists have ever been hit with an injunction or a
multi-million dollar Federal anti-racketeering lawsuit, and their activities
are tolerated by police and game wardens.
“Their tactics are clear. Work to increase the costs of research, and stop its progress with red tape and lawsuits.”-- Nobel laureate Dr. David H. Hubel.
The
most extreme “Meat is Murder” people, including such organizations as the Animal
Liberation Front (ALF), routinely break into and destroy research labs,
vandalize veal farms and rustle cattle, and spray graffiti everywhere with
virtual impunity.
Why
is this behavior winked at by authorities?
Because
animal rights is a ‘trendy’ Neoliberal cause.
The
overt expression of the radical animal-rights viewpoint has sometimes taken
murderous directions.
Leon
Hirsch is a businessman whose company manufactures surgical instruments used in
transplants. This company primarily tests these instruments on approximately
1,000 abandoned dogs annually. Hirsch, who has also received numerous death
threats, found a remotely-controlled nail bomb outside his home in 1988.
Experts say that this bomb would have killed him had it detonated. The
perpetrator, Fran Trutt, pleaded ‘no contest’ to charges of attempted murder,
possession of explosives, and bomb manufacturing.
Trutt
received a sentence of exactly one year in prison.[18] Contrast this to the
sentences received by pro-lifers who endanger only property : Four years in
prison for Joan Andrews, who caused $215 damage to an abortion suction machine
in Florida, and 20 years for Curt Beseda, who torched an Everett, Washington
abortion mill. Nobody was hurt in these latter two incidents. The reason that
pro-lifers receive much more severe sentences than animal rights activists who
commit the same act is that the pro-lifers represent a more credible threat to
an institution that the government is deeply committed to supporting: The
abortion/population control complex.
In
a separate incident, a bomb being transported by two Earth First! members
exploded prematurely in California, and the San Francisco Chronicle and
Examiner immediately painted it as an FBI attempt on their lives.
A
typical Earth First! magazine reads more like Soldier of Fortune : A single
recent issue featured stories on activists sinking whaling ships, smashing
computers and chainsaws with sledgehammers, destroying logging equipment,
getting into fistfights and gun battles, getting blown up by bombs, and even
performing the equivalent of a kamikaze mission by standing under falling
trees.
It
is interesting to examine the direct-action tactics used by animal rights
activists to accomplish their goals.
Alex
Pacheco, a charter member of PETA, got a job with research psychologist Edward
Taub in Silver Spring, Maryland, in 1981. Taub studied monkeys under a National
Institute for Health grant in order to try to find ways to allow stroke victims
to regain the use of paralyzed limbs.
When
Taub took a vacation, Pacheco provided false information to police that
resulted in confiscation of all of the lab animals and the charging of Taub
with 119 counts of cruelty to animals. It took Taub five years to clear himself
of all charges in court, while the animal rights people continued to phone and
mail him death threats.
On
October 26, 1986, members of the Animal Liberation Front, which is listed by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation as one of the ten most dangerous terrorist
organizations in the country, broke into research buildings at the University
of Oregon at Eugene and destroyed microscopes, an electrocardiogram machine, an
incubator, a sterilizer, and an X-ray machine, and stole 150 research animals.
More than a dozen projects were trashed, including neuroscientist Barbara
Gordon-Lickey’s research into visual defects in newborns.[19]
In
1988, animal-rights activists destroyed the epilepsy and Alzheimer’s research
laboratory at the University of California at Los Angeles. The leader of the
responsible group received a sentence of 45 days in jail, with most of the time
off for good behavior. None of the other ‘raiders’ were punished or even
charged with a crime.
Contrast
this to the 2-1/2 years actually served by Joan Andrews (mostly in solitary
confinement) for damaging a suction machine in a Florida abortion mill, and
multi-year sentences doled out to nonviolent, nondestructive pro-life rescuers
on their third or fourth misdemeanor trespass conviction.
On
April 3, 1989, the ALF broke into four buildings at Tucson’s University of
Arizona, smashed medical equipment, spray-painted graffiti like “Nazi” and
“Scum,” and stole or released 1,231 animals. They then torched two of the
research buildings, causing $200,000 in damage. One of the 15 projects halted
involved research on creating an effective disinfectant for
Cryptosporidium-contaminated water that would save thousands of lives in
developing countries. The ALF ‘commandos’ unwittingly released 30 mice infected
with the virus, an incurable strain of diarrhea that is invariably fatal to
AIDS patients and malnourished children.[20]
On
July 4, 1989, members of the Animal Liberation Front broke into a Texas Tech
University laboratory and destroyed more than $70,000 worth of medical
equipment. They stole five cats being used by Dr. John Orem in researching
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), which kills more than 5,000 babies every
year. The destruction wrought by the ALF halted Orem’s progress entirely.
Nobody will ever know how many babies died as a result of ALF’s attack.
The
ALF is particularly active in Great Britain, where its attacks occur on a
weekly basis. For example, during the Christmas 1988 season, it firebombed and
destroyed five department stores and fur sellers. Bombs were defused at two
other sites. These actions may very well resulted in massive loss of human
life. The ALF and the Animal Rights Militia have also taken credit for acts of
arson that destroyed a San Jose meat company.[21]
The
above acts are by no means the only anti-personnel actions that have been
carried out by radical animal rights activists. Other violent attacks include
the following.
·
In June of 1990, a British veterinarian was severely injured when her
car was bombed. An animal rights group claimed responsibility, and a member of
the group who called in to a local radio talk show said that it was
“unfortunate that she survived.” An Animal Liberation Front caller on another
show said of another researcher, “The sooner he is killed, the better.”[19]
·
Also in June of 1990, animal rights activists tried to kill a Bristol
University researcher with a car bomb, but instead blew up a 13-month old baby
in his carriage nearby. The baby survived with burns, shrapnel wounds, and a
severed finger.[19]
·
On May 2, 1980, a crew of U.S. Forest Service personnel were using
backpack-mounted sprayers to apply herbicide to an area of young conifers in
the Siskiyou National Forest. They were confronted with 80 angry environmental
activists armed with knives and clubs, who promised to “split your heads.” The
crew attempted to escape, but was trapped by the mob. The head of the team
shouted that they would end the spraying, saying later that “If I hadn’t done
it, someone would have surely been badly hurt or killed.”[22]
·
In May of 1982, ecoterrorists bombed four British Columbia Hydro
500-kilovolt transformers, causing $6 million in damage. Police received a
letter from an environmental group that called itself “Direct Action,” and
which condemned ‘patriarchy’ and read “We must make this an insecure and
uninhabitable place for capitalists and their projects. This is the best
contribution we can make towards protecting the earth and struggling for a
liberated society.”[22]
·
In May of 1981, radical environmentalists destroyed a $180,000
helicopter leased by Publisher’s Paper Company for the purpose of spraying
brush control herbicides on a commercial Douglas Fir plantation near Toledo,
Oregon. A letter from the “People’s Brigade for a Healthy Genetic Future”
claimed responsibility.[22]
·
In January of 1981, ecoterrorists destroyed Montana Power Company’s
timber-truss Franklin Bridge, the only vehicular access to the Rattlesnake
Wilderness and National Recreation Area.
·
Earth First! member Judi Bari, a pro-abort who has tried to disrupt
pro-life events in the past, was blown up when a nail bomb she was transporting
in her car detonated while she was driving it. She claimed that she had no
knowledge of the existence of the bomb in her car, and blamed it on a
(conveniently unnamed) “right-wing fundamentalist with a history of violence.”
As
described above, some extremist animal rights activists and environmentalists
attempt to murder human beings, an activity that is rightly classified as
‘terrorism.’
Other
environmentalists engage in ‘ecotage’ or ‘monkeywrenching,’ which is the
destruction of equipment and supplies used by loggers and other groups that
present an immediate perceived threat to a specific segment of the ecosphere.
These
activities are not intended to harm human beings.
To
make the difference more understandable to pro-lifers, clinic bombing is the
anti-abortion equivalent of ‘ecotage.’ Any attempt to kill or mutilate abortionists
would properly be classified as murder or terrorism. Of course, all pro-life
activities (even silent prayer) have been labeled “terrorism” by pro-aborts,
and this propensity for exaggeration has muddied the waters considerably.
Many
animal rights/environmental extremists point to Edward Abbey’s 1975 book The
Monkey Wrench Gang (a action-adventure novel about a band of “ecoteurs”) as the
spiritual beginning of their movement. This is reflected in Earth First!’s motto,
“No compromise in defense of Mother Earth!”
Not
only do some animal-rights activists destroy property and endanger lives, they
proudly revel in the resulting publicity and urge others to violent action in
their publications.
The
Anarchist newsletter Business As Usual parrots the same Marxist psychobabble
that the extreme Neofeminists do: “Real freedom in our lives cannot be achieved
without the massive escalation of attacks on the capitalist system of
oppression.”[23] The magazine proudly lists dozens of attacks on department
stores, supermarkets, and fast-food outlets that its writers judge to be
supporting cruelty to animals.
Edward
Abbey (mentioned above) claims that “I’m not advocating illegal activity,
unless you’re accompanied by your parents -- or at night.”[22]
And
David Foreman, founder of Earth First!, says that “I would not encourage anyone
to monkeywrench; that is an entirely personal decision. More importantly, I
would not want to discourage anyone from monkeywrenching. Those willing to
commit ecotage are needed today as never before.”[23]
Substitute
the words “bomb abortion clinics” for “monkeywrench” in the above quotes, and
then imagine how the environmental/population control people would react!
It
is not only individual environmentalists who advocate and encourage destruction
of property. The 25,000 member group Environmental Action sponsored an
‘ecotage’ contest, where participants wrote up their ideas and submitted them.
The group published the best ideas from the contest in its 1971 Pocket Book
Ecotage! [22] George Foreman also published a book entitled Ecodefense: A Field
Guide to Monkeywrenching , which contains chapters on road and tree spiking and
the destruction of bulldozers and aircraft.[23]
What
would the reaction of the media be if radical pro-lifers published a Clinic
Bombing Manual for Babysavers?
Is
there really any doubt?
A
popular target of animal-rights activists are fur-wearing women. For example,
Trans-World Unlimited sponsors “Fur- Free Friday,” an annual New York City
parade that has for years been led by talk-show host Bob Barker. During this
procession, participants routinely assault and spit on women wearing fur coats.
Furriers have had their windows smashed and their property vandalized; in one
instance, animal-rights vandals slashed and destroyed $400,000 worth of furs.
This
type of activity clearly violates the Neoliberal ‘Prime Directive’ of
consistency because, as Utne Reader author Richard Ryan points out;
“It’s
not hard to see that the attacks on fur-wearing females (as opposed to
leather-wearing men) play simultaneously on cheap populism and cheaper sexism.
You can scream at women in mink coats emerging from ritzy department stores and
be fairly certain they’re not going to physically retaliate ... It would be
more interesting to watch zoophiles gathered in front of a biker bar, hollering
slogans at the leather-sporting clientele as they swagger up to their Harleys.
“But
we’re not likely to see that anytime soon, are we?”
It
is significant indeed that none of the ‘mainstream’ environmental groups like
the Sierra Club or the National Wildlife Federation have ever condemned either
specific acts of ecotage or the practice in general.[22]
If
we use the logic of pro-abortionists -- that any pro-lifers who do not
vigorously condemn clinic bombings in fact support them and are therefore also
contributing to “an atmosphere of intimidation and harassment” -- we may also
conclude that the mainline environmental groups support eco-terrorism.
Despite
their terroristic tactics, the ALF and other organizations are often lionized
in the press. Contrast this to the American media’s treatment of people who
take pains to destroy abortion mills when nobody is present.
As
additional evidence of bias, the media simply will not tolerate any depiction
of the results of the act of abortion itself. In nearly one hundred documented
cases from all over the country, pro-lifers have attempted to purchase
advertising that features graphic photographs of aborted preborn babies -- and,
in the vast majority of cases, they have been turned down, because, as the
media censors say, such material is “in bad taste.”
Curiously,
the media seems to have no trouble at all in publishing garish photographs of
current war scenes, the effects of the atomic bombs on people at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, or even of dead Jews stacked like cordwood at Nazi concentration
camps in the aftermath of World War II.
And
the ‘mainline’ media also accepts for publication the most graphic and
revolting imaginable photos proffered by animal rights groups;
“Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby.”-- Environmental activist Helen Caldicott.[24]
It
is curious indeed that pro-abortion groups hysterically denounce pro-life
clinic bombers for endangering human lives, but support with their silence the
destruction of research laboratories, massive endangerment of human life, and
the release of deadly diseases by animal-rights activists.
There
is compelling evidence that some animal-rights activists truly believe that the
life of an animal is much more important than the life of a human being. For
example, some animal-rights extremists condemn the “crime of vivisection” as
immoral and unscientific, asserting that they would prefer experimentation done
for the sake of human beings to be performed on human beings.
And
only in the United States could there exist a group entitled ‘Animal Rights
Activists for Choice.’
The
attitude of radical environmental activists towards abortion, and the basic
logic behind this view, can be summed up with a pair of very simple (and
simplistic) equations;
|
PEOPLE = ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE |
|
THEREFORE, |
|
MORE PEOPLE = BAD |
|
V |
|
ABORTION = LESS PEOPLE |
|
THEREFORE, |
|
ABORTION = GOOD |
One
of the many curious outgrowths of the extreme animal-rights movement is a cadre
of members who pale at the thought of inflicting any discomfort upon animals,
but shrug indifferently when confronted with the specter of a late-term unborn
baby writhing in agony as it is torn limb from limb by the steel instruments of
the abortionist.
Molly
Yard, president of the National Organization for Women, neatly tied abortion
and radical environmentalism together when she said that “The abortion question
is not just about women’s rights, but about life on the planet -- environmental
catastrophe awaits the world if the population continues to grow at its present
rate.”[25]
The
following environmental and animal-rights organizations have gone on record as
favoring repeal of the Mexico City Policy and restoration of Federal funding to
the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), the chief architect
of China’s one-child population control policy. This program includes mass
forced sterilization and abortion, as described in Chapter 50 of Volume II,
“Forced Abortions.”
|
Defenders of Wildlife |
|
Environmental Action |
|
Environmental Policy Institute * |
|
Friends of the Earth (FOE) * |
|
Global Tomorrow Coalition |
|
Izaak Walton League |
|
National Audobon Society * |
|
National Parks and Conservation Association |
|
National Wildlife Federation |
|
Natural Resources Council of America |
|
Natural Resources Defense Council |
|
Renew America |
|
Sierra Club * |
|
The Oceanic Society |
|
The Wilderness Society |
|
Trout Unlimited |
|
Union of Concerned Scientists |
* Identified as an “Organization Working to Solve Population Problems” on pages 246 and 247 of Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich’s 1990 book entitled The Population Explosion .
These
environmental groups claim that they only favor “family planning” and
“population control.” However, their leadership is fully aware of the fact that
the Mexico City Policy and the cutoff of funds to the UNFPA only affected those
“population control” programs that funded coerced abortions.
Of
course, when the line between human and animal is blurred, the potential for
abuse by pro-abortionists escalates geometrically. Advocates of behavior that
was formerly thought to be immoral or unethical use the mighty weapon of
‘mystagoguery’ to advance their cause. This is the needless complication of a
simple issue in order to create a ‘grey area’ that may be exploited in the
midst of the resulting moral confusion.
The
animal rights movement has handily provided one more cover under which
pro-abortionists may more easily create and exploit this ‘grey area’ for its
own purposes.
One
good example of a person who has recently used this tactic is ‘bioethicist’
Mary Anne Warren, whose pet project is the harvesting of organs from late-term
aborted preborns and anencephalic newborn babies. She writes that
“If
we are to make a reasoned judgment about the moral status of fetuses, and of
nonhuman animals, alien life forms, intelligent machines and other problematic
entities, we must develop a criterion of moral rights that is species-neutral.
That is, it will not do to make ‘genetic humanity,’ or mere genetic affiliation
to the human species, either a necessary or a sufficient condition for the
possession of full moral rights.
“[The
criteria for personhood is] an entity that has the actual, not merely potential
capacity for consciousness, complex, sophisticated perception, rationality,
self-awareness and self-motivated behavior.”[26]
Note
the jumble of false comparisons and open-ended qualifications that make up the
thick smoke screen behind which Warren attempts to justify her ghoulish
desires. She readily concedes that the preborn “look disconcertingly like
people,” but states as a fact that “they do not desire life, or anything else,
any more than trees or amoebas do.”[26]
Might
Warren be remembering her own preborn existence?
“To the degree that other species have no voice in the political process, they will be exploited and destroyed. We need to think in wider terms how to build into our political system, into the fabric of our society, a practical way of giving voice to other living beings.”-- Mary O’Brien, staff scientist for the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (E-LAW).[22]
Sadly,
the view that humans are less important than animals is also the official (but
largely unpublicized) position of our own government at every level.
Divisions
of major Federal government agencies have as their sole purpose the protection
of various animal species and their habitat (i.e., the Environmental Protection
Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). These agencies can levy huge
fines for killing or injuring non-human species -- even those as yet unborn!
Meanwhile,
abortionists rake in hundreds of millions of dollars every year for killing
preborn human babies.
Animal-rights
activists strongly oppose the use of condemned animals for research. Strangely,
the logic of their opponents -- the animal researchers -- is identical to that
of the fetal organ harvesters: Since the animal is slated for euthanasia, why
not use it for the benefit of mankind?
The
state, by its legal actions, reveals that it values castoff cats and dogs more
than the unborn child. No state has yet banned fetal experimentation, while
eleven states now prohibit the selling of stray animals after their impoundment
for research. Ironically, the practical effect of these regulations is that
these strays are put to sleep much sooner.
Of
course, it is common knowledge among pro-lifers that the government values
unborn animals much more than unborn human beings.
It
is illegal to transport pregnant lobsters (no, this is not a joke) anywhere on
the East Coast for fear of damaging them or their offspring. This means that
the Federal government recognizes lobsters as lobsters from conception.[27]
Anyone
destroying or tampering with eagle eggs is subject to a $5,000 fine and one
year’s imprisonment. This means that the Federal government recognizes eagles
as eagles from conception.
Cattle
used as breeding stock must be capitalized, which means that all associated
costs must be recorded. These costs begin at conception! According to The
General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (commonly referred to as the “Blue
Book”), issued by the Joint Committee on Taxation, “The preproductive period of
[farm] animals begins at the time of acquisition, breeding, or embryo
implantation.”
This
means that the Federal government recognizes calves as calves from implantation.[27]
Laws
across the United States are virtually uniform in addressing the avoidance of
pain to animals. Yet no law even attempts to ameliorate the awful pain felt by
the 15,000 third-trimester babies who are cut apart and left to die in aluminum
buckets every year in this country.
There
are almost too many examples of our government’s People Last! policy to count,
but some of the more ludicrous and hypocritical instances are shown below.
·
In Rhode Island, “cruelty to animals” is a misdemeanor punishable by up
to 11 months in jail and a $500 fine. One Providence woman was arrested and
charged under this statute for starving her dog to death. In the same state,
Marcia Gray, a human being, was starved to death, even though she had never
requested such ‘treatment.’ She was merely “inconvenient,” presumably just as
the dog was, and so was “put to sleep,” just as the dog was. But there is no
fine or jail term in Rhode Island for starving a human being to death.[28]
·
A Los Angeles woman baked her boyfriend’s parrot after an argument with
him and was subsequently sentenced to 30 days in a County jail. She was also
prohibited from owning a pet for three years.[29] Presumably, she was not
severely beaten by police with name tags removed, as were hundreds of pro-life
activists during massive rescues in the same city in 1989.
·
A panel of Florida judges said that a fertilized turtle egg was “marine
life” and that a turtle’s life begins the moment the egg is laid, in an opinion
that included a fine of $108,800 levied against James Bivens, who pleaded
guilty to poaching turtle eggs from John D. MacArthur State Park. Bivens was
also sentenced to 60 days in jail, all of which he served.[30] Joan Andrews,
who caused $215 damage to an abortion suction machine, languished in a Florida
jail for two and a half years .
·
An Illinois man was fined $500 in 1984 for inadvertently killing a
female white-tailed deer. He said that he shot at extreme range and mistook the
doe for a buck. Unfortunately for him, the doe was pregnant, so he was
fined.[31] This is typical of local and state hunting laws. It also means that
the government recognizes deer as deer from conception.[27]
·
The May 6, 1982 Washington Post reported that a Maryland veterinarian
was suspended from his practice and fined $3,000 “in the starvation death of a
dog.”[32] Yet every year in this country more than 2,000 newborn human beings
are allowed to die of starvation and thirst because their parents deem that
their lives are not of sufficient quality. Bloomington’s Baby Doe was merely
the most publicized of these thousands of deaths.
·
It is illegal to offer goldfish in games of chance in Massachusetts,
because the Supreme Judicial Court of that state ruled that this practice tends
to “dull humanitarian feelings and corrupt morals.” Remember that this is the
same court that upheld forced public funding for abortions.[33]
·
An unidentified person shot an American bald eagle on December 2, 1981
in Maryland’s Patuxent State Park, and the Izaak Walton League of America, the
National Wildlife Federation, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
immediately joined forces, offering a $4,500 reward for information leading to
the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator. Yet people in the same state
screamed in outrage when pro-lifers posted reward posters for information
leading to the arrest and conviction of abortionists.[34]
·
Finally, an unidentified person attacked a 500-year old oak tree near
Magnolia Springs, Alabama, with a chain saw in October of 1990. Local
government ‘rescuers’ responded to this “act of terrorism” by putting up a tent
labeled “+ ICU +” (intensive care unit) over the base of the tree. This tent
was equipped with a furnace, air conditioner, and 24-hour armed guard with
telephone.[35]
One
vivid example of how completely our values have been inverted took place
recently in (where else)? The People’s Republic of Massachusetts, where
Attorney General James Shannon allowed several questions regarding animal
rights to be put to the voters via a general ballot. These ballot measures,
which failed, would have extended animal rights to the extent that they would
have been nearly equal to human rights. These measures would also have created
absolute pandemonium in Massachusett’s farming and agricultural sectors.
However,
the same Attorney General rejected as “inappropriate” a nonbinding public
policy question requested by 26,000 voters that would have posed to the voters
a multiple-choice question regarding when human life begins.
It
is very interesting that the good Attorney General was a past president of the
local Planned Parenthood chapter.[36]
The
conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is obvious. Our government values
preborn lobsters, eagles, cattle, and deer much more than the preborn human
being, which it considers nothing more than garbage.
This
situation is so ridiculous that even some secular media spokesmen have parodied
the animal-rights people. Syndicated humor columnist Dave Barry, in his March
13, 1989 weekly column, wrote that; “You’re going to be sure that we made this
up, but we didn’t. It seems that a Rockville, Maryland restaurant called “The
House of Chinese Gourmet” installed a lobster tank, which greatly upset some
customers who belong to a group called the People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, whose members apparently have (1) a deep respect for all living
things, and (2) a tremendous amount of spare time. They bought seven lobsters
from the restaurant for $40, removed them from the tank (according to the
article, a PETA member “talked softly and rubbed the lobsters to reassure
them”), and then paid $200 to fly the lobsters to Portland, Maine, where they
(the lobsters) were released in the ocean, where we are sure they will live
happy, productive lives until they are recaptured by lobstermen, who will
re-sell them to The House of Chinese Gourmet, which will re-sell them to PETA,
and thus will the great Cycle of Life continue until the lobsters become so
airsick that they deliberately hurl themselves into boiling water.”
Everyone (at least in California) has noticed the slogan “LOVE ANIMALS, DON’T EAT THEM” stenciled on public sidewalks and on the walls of packing houses and shops that sell fur coats. This philosophy has led to books with the silliest themes imaginable, i.e., The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory .
The
general idea is that animals are all part of the ‘eco-community,’ and are
co-equal with human beings in every way -- except that they are superior to
humans in some ways. The idea of actually eating such exquisite creatures is
anathema. Trans-Species Unlimited even urges “total abstention from animal
products, including dairy and eggs.”
There
is a lot to be said for vegetarianism. The human gastrointestinal system is not
designed to efficiently process meat. The human intestine is sized for
digesting vegetables, and expends a disproportionate amount of energy on heavy
chunks of meat. Some sources assert, very persuasively, that many or most of
the country’s half-million annual cases of intestinal cancer are caused by the
prolonged additional stress of digesting meat.
There
would also be vast advantages for everyone if the human race occupied a lower
rung in the food chain. The average person consumes about 60 million calories
of food energy in a 70-year lifespan. This is equivalent to either 100 tons of
grain eaten directly, or more than 500 tons of grain if converted to meat at a
10 percent caloric conversion efficiency ratio.
The
implications for feeding the world are obvious. Medard Gabel, in his 1979 book
Ho Ping: Food for Everyone , says that we now cultivate 12.7 percent of our
52,426,568 square miles of land for food production. He also shows that we
could cut land use in half by using all of our grain to feed humans instead of
animals.
One
of the biggest flaws in animal rights/environmentalist logic is the “Spaceship
Earth” simile. Ecologists say, rightly so, that our planet is a closed and
limited system that can be profoundly affected by man’s activities at any point
on, above, or under its surface.
Yet
their words and their actions contrast sharply, depending upon who is doing the
damage.
Our
American media is positively saturated with concerns about our environment. We
are bombarded constantly with words and images describing oil-soaked birds,
clearcutting, the ‘dangers’ of nuclear power, and strident warnings about the
ozone layer and the ‘greenhouse effect.’
Environmental
groups seem to assume that the United States, as the world’s leading
industrialized country, is one huge environmental disaster riding on the
razor’s edge of habitability. Moreover, these groups point to the United States
as the world’s number one polluter.
However,
the environmentalists and the press mysteriously remain silent about the much
greater disasters in the former Soviet Union -- ecological nightmares on a
scale so vast they literally stagger the imagination.
The
ecological situation in the former Soviet Union has always been bad, but has
reached true crisis proportions in the last few years. Following are several
examples of gigantic ecological disasters that have plagued the Soviet Union in
just a single year -- 1990 .
In
May of 1990, more than ten thousand tons (3 million gallons) of rocket fuel
leaked out of ruptured tanks at the Sverodvinsk nuclear submarine facility and
into the White Sea. One- third of all marine life died in the area, including
100,000 seals and 5,000,000 fish.[37]
In
July of 1990, enough raw, untreated human sewage to fill a train 135 miles long
(700,000 tons) was dumped into the Sea of Azov (a large arm of the Black Sea),
closing all resorts and residences on the sea, which now has been described by
Moscow Television as a “literal sewer.” It is not known if the shores will be
habitable for years.[37]
Also
in July of 1990, the entire water supply of two large cities, Bryansk and
Yaroslavi, was cut off after huge spills of formaldehyde and phenol into their
reservoirs.[37]
In
the Siberian Hizhnevartovsk and Novourengoi oil fields, 400,000 tons (115
million gallons) of crude oil were spilled and lost in a single weekend . In
the first half of 1990 alone, more than three-quarters of a million tons of oil
were spilled in 1,100 separate accidents and oil pipeline breaks.[37]
In
early August, the Soviet Union’s third largest city, Vladivostok, was closed to
all visitors. All roads were blocked and all beaches for miles in each
direction were closed. All of the city’s five sewage treatment plants had
broken down simultaneously, allowing more than 575,000 tons of untreated sewage
to be dumped into the Sea of Japan every day .[37]
The
volume of the Sea of Aral in Soviet Uzbekistan has shrunk by more than 40
percent since 1960 because of water withdrawals for cotton irrigation. The
withered lake is surrounded by miles of salt flats, and chemical-laden dust
saturates the air during the frequent local windstorms.
Because
its supply of safe and clean water has dried up, two-thirds of the entire
Karakalpak population living on the shores of the Sea are currently suffering
from hepatitis, typhus, or cancer of the esophagus and throat. Infant mortality
in the area is hovering at ten percent, 100 times the national average.[37]
Stalin
decided to “proletarianize” Krakow, Poland, by building giant steel mills
there. Now the home of the current Catholic Pope has become one of the
filthiest and unhealthiest cities in the world. Steel mills burning
sulfur-laden soft coal belch half a million tons of pollutants into the air
annually, dissolving artwork and statues for scores of miles around. More than
85 percent of the area’s industrial workers retire early on disability, mostly
because of lung diseases. Most food grown in the region of Krakow would be
declared unfit even for animals to eat in the United States, let alone
humans![37]
Why
has the American public not been informed about these ecological outrages? Not
one percent of Americans know that an average of 40 percent of all original
Soviet forest cover has been destroyed by pollutants. Nor do they realize that
air over the former East Germany contains, on the average, nine times the
pollutants of air over the former West Germany.
The
fault for this pervasive ignorance certainly cannot be laid on the doorstep of
the Soviet press, which has reported all of these disasters in great detail in
all of its media outlets, many of which (including Pravda ) are translated into
English every day.
The
fault lies with the American press and American environmental organizations.
The
Soviet press, for example, informed the Moscow office of Greenpeace about all
of the disasters described above, but not a word on any of them has appeared in
any Greenpeace literature.
When
the Soviet’s primitive Chernobyl nuclear plant suffered a severe accident,
Greenpeace indignation and anger was not directed at other equally primitive
Soviet nuclear plants, but instead at the much safer and more modern plants in
our own country! This is despite the fact that Chernobyl released about 50
pounds of highly concentrated radioactive waste into the atmosphere, including
one of the deadliest isotopes known, Cesium 137. It is expected that the
disaster will be responsible for between 17,000 and 475,000 excess deaths due
to radiation-induced cancer.[38]
This
rather one-sided attitude definitely gives the lie to the “Spaceship Earth”
concept. After all, if any disaster has an impact on the entire planet, it
should not matter to the radical environmentalists where such a disaster
originates!
“If abandoning animal research means that there are some things we cannot learn, then so be it ... We have no basic right not to be harmed by those natural diseases we are heir to.”-- T. Regan, The Case for Animal Rights .[39]
A
philosophy that holds animals superior to human beings is bound to run into
logic problems.
This
is often glaringly obvious in the many animal-rights bumperstickers decorating
battered, many-hued Volkswagen busses as they clatter down the road, merrily belching
oily smoke into the air;
|
PREGNANCY: JUST ANOTHER DEADLY SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE |
|
ANOTHER MORMON ON DRUGS |
|
DARWIN (Picture of a Christian fish with feet) |
|
HAYDUKE LIVES! |
|
I’D RATHER BE MONKEYWRENCHING |
|
LOVE YOUR MOTHER, DON’T BECOME ONE |
|
VISUALIZE INDUSTRIAL COLLAPSE |
|
THE VARIEGATED LOUSEWORT [SPOTTED OWL, SNAIL DARTER] HAS A RIGHT TO LIVE |
|
NO MORE BABIES! |
|
OUR FORESTS DO NOT OWE THE TIMBER INDUSTRY A LIVING |
|
DREAM BACK THE BISON, SING BACK THE SWAN |
|
THE EARTH DOES NOT BELONG TO US -- WE BELONG TO THE EARTH |
|
MORE WILDERNESS LESS PEOPLE (picture of a newborn baby with a slash through it), advertised as “Send a message to the breeders” |
Reference: These and other bumperstickers were advertised in the Earth First! Journal (“The Radical Environmental Journal”), Brigid (February 2), 1993, page 37.
The
‘WE BELONG TO THE EARTH’ bumpersticker is an expression of the ‘New Age’ belief
that the Earth is the Supreme Being and is evolving towards divinity, a process
known as ‘theagenesis.’
Peter
Singer, author of Animal Liberation , says that we shouldn’t eat anything
bigger than a shrimp. Singer is the ‘ethicist’ who said “To give preference to
the life of a being simply because it is a member of our species would put us
in the same position as racists.”[40]
In
other words, he accuses others of “species-ism” if they do not support his
animal-rights activities. But isn’t Singer’s attitude towards living things
that are smaller than shrimp just a form of “size-ism?” Don’t little tiny
things have just as much right to live as great big things? After all, it is
the great big things that sit at the top of the food chain and cause most of
the environmental damage -- and if we can go to the trouble of eliminating the
eating of all animals larger than shrimp, why don’t we go all the way and
eliminate the eating of shrimp and those animals smaller than shrimp, as well?
Evidently
Singer has a taste for shrimp!
Although
we can duplicate most of what animals can do (with mechanical assistance, of
course), no animal can duplicate the most unique essence of humanity: To
reason. No animal could invent a telephone or even use one. A logical person
simply cannot deny that we are superior to animals in the one place where it
really counts.
If
we grant animals co-equal status, we have some very thorny problems on our
hands, because, if animals are to be granted the same rights as humans, they
must necessarily be burdened with the same responsibilities.
There
is certainly one advantage that pro-lifers have over animal-rights activists.
We get queasy feelings in the pits of our stomachs whenever we pass a known
abortion mill. Animal-rights activists must get the same feeling whenever they
pass any McDonald’s, Arby’s, Burger King, or Wendy’s. And there are a hundred
fast-food hamburger outlets for every abortion mill!
The
animal-rights movement essentially attacks man as being made in the image and
likeness of God by placing animals on the same level as man. If there is no
essential difference between man and animals, there is no soul for any species,
and all beings either were or were not equally redeemed and saved by the Blood
of Christ, either option of which is utter nonsense.
When
Jesus cast the demons out of the man into 2,000 pigs, He did not interfere when
all of these animals rushed into the water and drowned themselves;
“When
he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two
demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no
one could pass that way. “What do you want with us, Son of God,” they shouted.
“Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?” Some distance
from them, a large herd of pigs was feeding. The demons begged Jesus, “If you
drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.” He said to them, “Go!” So they
came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank
into the lake and died in the water.”-- Matthew 8:28-32, Luke 8:26-33.
Jesus
tells us about God’s concern for a single sparrow but of his infinitely greater
concern for us. However, when we turn our backs on Him and think of man as
merely another animal, abortion becomes reasonable. So does any other procedure
that can be applied to animals: Fetal experimentation and organ harvesting,
sterilization, artificial insemination, euthanasia, chimeral monstrosities ...
Despite
lofty pronouncements by Ted Turner and his anti-theistic ilk, Scripture doesn’t
tell us that animals are worthless, because God would not have created them if
they were. The Bible only tells us that man is made in the image of God and
therefore occupies a unique place in Creation.
The
very first chapter of the Bible says it all for Christians;
“God
blessed them [Adam and Eve], saying “be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and
conquer it. Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of Heaven, and all
living animals on the earth.”... “And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife
garments of skin, and clothed them.”-- Genesis 1:28-30, 3:21.
Other
Scripture verses directly address the relationship between animal rights and
human beings;
“Yet you have made him [man] little less than a god,
you have crowned him with glory and splendor;
made him lord over the work of your hands,
set all things under his feet.
Sheep and oxen, all these,
yes, wild animals too.
Birds in the air, fish in the sea,
traveling the paths of the ocean.”-- Psalm 8:7-9.
“Look
at the birds in the sky. They do not sow or reap or gather into barns; yet your
heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they are?”--
Matthew 6:26.
“Why,
every hair on your head has been counted. So there is no need to be afraid; you
are worth more than hundreds of sparrows.”-- Matthew 10:31.
==========================================
[1] Ingrid Newkirk, founder and director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), quoted by syndicated columnist Stephen Chapman in the December 6, 1989 Chicago Tribune . Also see “Animal Rights Activists Take Their Protests Too Fur.” The Oregonian , December 6, 1989, page C5.
[2] Jean-Michel Cousteau. Quoted in Richard L. Hill. “Explorer Finds No. 1 Threat in a Word: Overpopulation.” The Oregonian , October 8, 1992, page B1.
[3] Mary O’Brien, staff scientist for the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (E-LAW). Quoted in Kristine Rosemary. “Ecofeminism Finding Fertile Environment.” The Oregonian , March 12, 1992, page B9.
[4] Ted Turner, 1990 Humanist of the Year, “Humanism’s Fighting Chance.” The Humanist , January/February 1991, page 15.
[5] Joseph Farah. “‘Captain Planet:’ Worse Than Imagined.” New Dimensions Magazine, March 1991, page 73.
[6] Stephen Talbot. “Earth First! What Next?” Mother Jones , November/December 1990, pages 46 to 49 and 76 to 80.
[7] Ronald A. Taylor. “Do Environmentalists Care About Poor People?” U.S. News and World Report , April 2, 1984, pages 51 and 52.
[8] D. Keith Mano. “On Environmentalism.” National Review , February 10, 1989, pages 63, 65 and 66.
[9] Ingrid Newkirk of PETA, quoted in Charles Oliver. “Liberation Zoology.” Reason Magazine, June 1990, pages 22 to 27.
[10] Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, quoted in Richard Hertz. Chance and Symbol . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948. Page 107.
[11] David M. Graber quoting Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature in the Los Angeles Times book review, as printed in the Orange County (California) Register , October 28, 1990.
[12] Les U. Knight of VHEMT, quoted in Joel Dippold. “Live Well and Die.” The Portland [Oregon] Alliance , March 1991, page 5. See also “That’s Outrageous!, A Compilation: The Dodo Solution.” Reader’s Digest , April 1992, page 147.
[13] Christopher Manes. Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization . New York: Little, Brown, 1990. Quoted in Bruce Frohnen. “Humans Last!” National Review , September 17, 1990, page 50.
[14] Priscilla Feral, quoted in the New York Times , October 25, 1988, page 1.
[15] PETA news release, quoted in K. McCabe. “Beyond Cruelty.” The Washingtonian , February 1990, pages 72 to 195.
[16] K. McCabe. “Who Will Live, Who Will Die?” The Washingtonian , August 1986, pages 112 to 157.
[17] Professor Peter F. Drucker, who offered the nation’s first college course on the environment in 1947. “Politics and Economics of the Environment.” Transcript of April 13, 1971 speech in Los Angeles during The Claremont Colleges Annual Lecture Series. Published by the Friends of The Claremont Colleges, Claremont, California, June, 1971. Page 8.
[18] “Activist Gets Prison Term.” The Oregonian , April 18, 1990, page A10.
[19] L. Horton. “The Enduring Animal Issue.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute , 1989:736-743. Also see L. Horton. “Putting the Politics of Research With Animals in Perspective.” J. Soc. Res. Adm . 1988; 19(3):5-15.
[20] “2 Fires Set: Animals Freed.” The Oregonian , April 4, 1989, page A9.
[21] New York Times , January 13, 1988, page 1. As described in the Portland, Oregon Alliance , February 1989, page 13.
[22] As described in Ron Arnold. “Eco-Terrorism.” Reason , February 1983, pages 31 to 36.
[23] Writer for the Anarchist Newsletter Business As Usual , quoted in New Dimensions Magazine, December 1989, page 42.
[24] Environmental activist Helen Caldicott. Quoted by syndicated columnist Theodore Roszak. “Environmentalists’ Wild Alarms Risk Their Cause.” The Oregonian , June 14, 1992, pages D7 and D10.
[25] Proletarian Revolution , Fall 1989.
[26] Mary Anne Warren. “Can the Fetus be an Organ Farm?” Hastings Center Report , October 1978.
[27] As described in the American Family Association Journal ,*** February 1989, page 9. Also see The Joint Committee on Taxation. The General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 . May 4, 1987, page 513. See also Section 803 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
[28] Mary Senander. “Animal Rights, Humans Wronged.” Catholic Twin Circle , April 2, 1989, page 6.
[29] “Woman Gets 30 Days for Baking Parrot.” The Stafford [Virginia] Star Advertiser , Week of December 19, 1988, page 6.
[30] Associated Press. “Judges Uphold $108,800 Fine Over Poached Eggs.” St. Petersburg [Florida] Times , March 16, 1990, page 2.
[31] As described in the National Federation for Decency Journal ,*** July/August 1985.
[32] As described in J.P. McFadden’s introduction to The Human Life Review , Summer 1982, page 4.
[33] Newsletter of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, February 1986, page 5.
[34] “League Offers $1000 Reward in Eagle Killing.” The Wheaton [Maryland] News , January 1, 1982.
[35] “News In Brief: Save the Tree.” The Oregonian , March 19, 1991, page A2.
[36] Richard J. Mullaney’s letter entitled “Animal Rights? Fetal Rights?” Fidelity Magazine, March 1989, page 7.
[37] Jack Wheeler. “Where is the Outcry Over Soviet Eco-Disasters?” The Oregonian , September 5, 1990, page B5. Also see Sandra Miesel. “Commissars Pollute, Too.” National Catholic Register , July 8, 1990, page 5.
[38] William Broad. “Mountain of Trouble.” The Eugene Register-Guard , November 18, 1990.
[39] T. Regan. The Case for Animal Rights . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.
[40] Book review of J. Robert Nelson’s Human Life: A Biblical Perspective for Bioethics , by James Manney. National Right to Life News , October 24, 1985, page 9. Also see Joseph Sobran’s Washington Watch. “Nice Kitties?” The Wanderer , April 20, 1989, page 5.
[41] Vicki Hearne. “What’s Wrong With Animal Rights: Of Hounds, Horses, and Jeffersonian Happiness.” Harper’s , September 1991, pages 59 to 64.
==========================================
Ethics & Medics . Subtitled A Catholic Perspective on Moral Issues in the Health and Life Sciences , this venerable monthly comments on all of the important developments in the life issues, to include animal rights and euthanasia. Subscribe for $15 per year by writing to The Pope John Center, 186 Forbes Road, Braintree, Massachusetts 02184, telephone: (617) 848-6965.
Greenhaven Press. Biomedical Ethics: Opposing Viewpoints . Greenhaven Press Opposing Viewpoints Series, Post Office Box 289009, San Diego, California 92128-9009. 1987, 216 pages. Each section includes several essays by leading authorities on both sides of each issue. The questions asked are: “Is Genetic Engineering Ethical?;” “Are Organ Transplants Ethical?;” “Should Limits Be Placed On Reproductive Technology?;” “Should Animals Be Used in Scientific Research?;” and “What Ethical Standards Should Guide the Health Care System?” Authors include Tibor R. Macan, Malcolm Muggeridge, and the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society. A catalog is available from the above address and can be obtained by calling 1-(800) 231-5163.
Greenhaven Press. The Environmental Crisis: Opposing Viewpoints . Greenhaven Press Opposing Viewpoints Series, Post Office Box 289009, San Diego, California 92128-9009. 1986, 263 pages. Each section includes several essays by leading authorities on both sides of each issue. The questions asked are: “Is There an Environmental Crisis?;” “Should Corporations Be Held Responsible for Environmental Disasters?;” “Have Pollution Regulations Improved the Environment?;” “Is Nuclear Power an Acceptable Risk?;” “How Dangerous Are Toxic Wastes?;” and “How Harmful is Acid Rain?” Authors include Ralph Nader, Ben J. Wattenberg, and John S. Herrington. A catalog is available from the above address and can be obtained by calling 1-(800) 231-5163.
Greenhaven Press. Science and Technology: Opposing Viewpoints . Volume I. Greenhaven Press Opposing Viewpoints Series, Post Office Box 289009, San Diego, California 92128-9009. 1989, 440 pages. Each section includes several essays by leading authorities on both sides of each issue: Creationism in the schools, current artificial birth technologies, genetic engineering, organ transplants, animal experimentation, and the Strategic Defense Initiative are just a few of the topics whose main pro- and con arguments are thoroughly covered in this excellent 440-page volume. This topic is covered by a series of books, beginning with a basic set of essays entitled Sources (priced at $39.95) and continuing with an additional and updated annual series of essays. A catalog is available from the above address and can be obtained by calling 1-(800) 231-5163.
Human Life International. Project Population Myths . 36 pages, June 1992. This fact-filled booklet aggressively debunks the eight primary myths set forth by the population controllers: The earth cannot feed us, the exponential growth rate is a population time bomb, planet Earth is too small, excessive population is incompatible with national economic health, Earth does not have enough natural resources, contraception and abortion are necessary, population growth causes severe environmental impacts, and the Chinese forced-abortion program is a good policy. Available from Human Life International, 7845-E Airpark Road, Gaithersburg, Virginia 20879.
Jacqueline Kasun, Ph.D. Population and Environment: Debunking the Myths . Population Research Institute, Post Office Box 2024, Baltimore, Maryland 21297-0330. Telephone: (301) 670-1864. 1991, 18 pages, $1.00. This booklet clearly outlines the history and major fallacies of the population control movement and describes some of the connections between environmental groups and the population control cartel. A good introductory presentation for those who want to become familiar with “the enemy.”
Carol Levine (Editor). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Bio-Ethical Issues . Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc., Guilford, Connecticut. 1984, 297 pages. Leading thinkers on both sides of bioethical issues express their opinions in scholarly essays on subjects including abortion, in-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, involuntary sterilization of the retarded, informed consent, active euthanasia, withholding treatment from handicapped newborns, suicide, the insanity defense, animal experimentation, prisoners volunteering for research, justifiable deception in research, organ harvesting from the dead, and genetic engineering. A good primer on the bioethical issues.
Christopher Manes. Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization . New York: Little, Brown, 1990. An interesting book in which the author demonstrates that the primary objective of the radical environmental/animal rights agenda is the complete dismantling of industrial/ technical society, which would preferably be replaced by an agarian/gatherer/hunter type of system.
Harlan B. Miller and William H. Williams. Ethics and Animals . Humana Press, Crescent Manor, Post Office Box 2148, Clifton, New Jersey 07015. 1983, 400 pages. This collection of about 30 essays from distinguished authors on both sides of the “animal rights” debate offers probably the most complete grounding in this issue available today. Topics include animal rights, the killing of animals, their suffering, “speciesism,” animal intelligence, experimentation on animals, animals in law, literature, and philosophy, animals and their relationships to humans, the moral status of animals, animal liberation, and the ethics of eating meat.
Tom Regan. The Case for Animal Rights . Berkeley, University of California Press. 1983, 425 pages, $19.95. The author, the “intellectual leader of the animal rights movement,” has written the most scholarly and persuasive tome to date on why animals should be given respect and rights because they are creatures that have expectations, desires, memories, and other attributes. The author’s basic thesis is that animals have value other than that assigned by others (oddly enough, the same argument used by pro-lifers). Unfortunately, his views are written from a purely Humanistic standpoint and therefore he winds up saying things that are just as extreme as better-known animal rights activists, only in many more words. For example, he argues that “If abandoning animal research means that there are some things we cannot learn, then so be it ... We have no basic right not to be harmed by those natural diseases we are heir to.” The book is very interesting reading for pro-lifers because the author, if he were a pro-lifer, could be arguing for the protection for the unborn.
=================================================================