What’s a radical liberal to do? To a rational person, holding two ideologies which are in conflict is rather difficult but today’s environmentalists easily juggle mutually exclusive ideals like veteran circus performers.
The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano published a report Saturday claiming that the contraceptive pill has negative effects on male fertility and the environment.
Liberals love the pill only slightly less than they love abortion which is A LOT. But they love the environment a heap as well. But now that the two things are in conflict you’d think liberals would be in a tizzy. But so far the silence is deafening.
MyFox Chicago reports:
According to AFP, the Italian-language report quotes the president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations as saying the contraceptive pill “has for some years had devastating effects on the environment by releasing [tons] of hormones into nature” through female urine, and that there is “sufficient evidence to state that a non-negligible cause of male infertility in the West is the environmental pollution caused by the pill.”
The report was, of course, disputed by several pharmacological organizations and they are obviously adopting the same legal “head in the sand” strategy of the tobacco companies in the 1990’s. That didn’t work out to well for them.
Now normally, I don’t remember environmentalists taking big business mouth pieces at their word but so far I’ve heard no skepticism over this denial.
The National Catholic Register wrote in 2007 about an EPA-funded scientists at the University of Colorado who studied fish at Boulder Creek he was shocked to find that out of the . randomly netted 123 fish downstream from the city’s sewer plant, they found that 101 were female, 12 were male, and 10 were strange “intersex” fish with male and female features. We call the latter classification the “Richard Simmons fish.”
It’s “the first thing that I’ve seen as a scientist that really scared me,” said then 59-year-old University of Colorado biologist John Woodling, speaking to the Denver Post in 2005.
They studied the fish and decided the main culprits were estrogens and other steroid hormones from birth control pills and patches, excreted in urine into the city’s sewage system and then into the creek.
Woodling, University of Colorado physiology professor David Norris, and their EPA-study team were among the first scientists in the country to learn that a slurry of hormones, antibiotics, caffeine and steroids is coursing down the nation’s waterways, threatening fish and contaminating drinking water.
I’m personally interested to see how this plays out. Do the zany environmentalists show the world that they really don’t give a damn about Mother Earth by pretending to ignore this or do they take it seriously. How much you want to bet they act as ignorant as Paris Hilton on this one.
I don’t know how this is going to turn out but if I start listening to Celine Dion and Air Supply I’m blaming the water.
January 5, 2009 at 6:03 pm
The way it can be spun is to blame the prolifers, if they weren't interfering with a woman's right to "choose" and pushing abstinence (which everybody knows doesn't work) there would be fewer females born to purchase & use the Pill.
More abortions & contraceptive use in the short term, less babies born to use the contraceptives that pollute the enviornment in the long term. Those Neanderthal prolifers are ruining the world!
The scary thing is, I can visualize some moonbats using that line of reasoning.
January 5, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Maybe the enviro-wackos don’t mind the increase in male infertility – after all, that means fewer children, and thus less damage to the environment!
January 5, 2009 at 6:34 pm
What they don’t mind is the damage to masculinity. If they can’t turn us all into weepy metrosexual puddles through philosophy and childhood programming, they can do it through the environment.
January 5, 2009 at 6:36 pm
I read about the Univ. of Colorado study before, and I’ve always found it interesting that the most ardent environmentalists are often the most anti-life. Human life, that is.
They are vegans, and yet they pump their bodies full of artificially produced hormones and expect no lasting effects on themselves or the environment? I have heard them justify their position by saying that they are not producing any more humans to pollute the world or add to the overpopulation crisis (which actually does not exist).
It’s a head scratcher to me.
January 5, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Thanks for linking to the NCRegister article from 2007. We need to share that story with as many people as we can, and pray to the Holy Spirit to open as many minds as possible.
Jacqueline Y.
January 5, 2009 at 8:52 pm
I always thought it was rather ironic for the concerned liberal who eats organic foods and then also uses a drug that fools the body into thinking it is pregnant. But when it comes to sex liberals have never been consistent.
January 5, 2009 at 10:36 pm
“a slurry of hormones, antibiotics, caffeine and steroids is coursing down the nation’s waterways”
Liberals will protest coffee and penicillin before they protest the pill. Well maybe not penicillin, I hear that has uses in resolving one of those other side effects of promiscuous sex.
And while we’re pointing out the inconsistencies of vegans and organic food folks, don’t forget the PETA types who want to protect every single kind of animal except the baby human kind.
January 6, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Yes, but it is quite possible to be vegan and Catholic; or at least mostly vegan and Catholic. I am. 🙂 It might be hypersensitive to be unwilling to survive on the pain and death of other creatures, but concern for the greater creature leads to concern for the lesser.
Abortion/contraception, child abuse, and animal abuse (and by abuse, I mean things only the devil would do to God’s creatures) are certainly not all equal, but are definitely all abominable. Disgust at one should lead to and support disgust for the others.
Just my two cents.
January 6, 2009 at 7:06 pm
The crack about Richard Simmons was uncalled for. Dislike him, fine, but comparing him to a genetically damaged fish is too much.