Is it consistent, on the one hand, to hold to an evolutionary world view, and yet claim, on the other hand, that humans who are causing the extinction of other creatures are improperly interfering with the evolutionary process (e.g. natural selection, survival of the fittest) that’s been shaping the development of those creatures?

That was the question bumping around in my mind on Sunday evening after listening to an interview with Conservationist,  Dr. Samuel Turvey (pictured), concerning the extinction of the Baiji – also known as the Yangtze River Dolphin.

During my Sunday afternoon drive home a couple of days ago, I found myself inadvertently listening to a program called Earth Beat – a product of Radio Netherlands Worldwide – courtesy of ABC News Radio, Australia. During the program we learned that Dr. Turvey has spent quite a bit of time working to locate and preserve any remaining members of the species that had been in steep decline for several decades. As it turns out, he was too late.

The Earth Beat website says that Dr. Turvey describes the demise of the dolphin as “a national tragedy and an international disgrace.” [emphasis mine]

Elsewhere, in several articles citing the paper co-written by Dr. Turvey concerning the extinction of the Baiji (a paper subsequently published in the Royal Society Biology Letters journal), he is also quoted as saying, “This extinction represents the disappearance of a complete branch of the evolutionary tree of life and emphasises that we have yet to take full responsibility in our role as guardians of the planet.”

Now I want you to keep in mind that the broader context of this story is an evolutionary world view. That’s critical context, given that we are dealing with the attempted conservation of a species that has arguably been eradicated by the industrialisation of the Yangtze River.

So here’s the remark that really caught my attention. Earth Beat host, Marnie Chesterton, says:

Read the rest of this entry

If Mathew will forgive me for stepping into what is normally his arena, I would like to share an editorial published today in The Daily Courier, a local Kelowna newspaper.

Over the last few years, pro-life advocacy and activism has really begun to blossom in Kelowna, especially among the Millennial Generation (those under 30), and of course this is really getting under the nose of abortion supporters. In response to an editorial published last week by Kevin Ade, in which he vilified the pro-life movement (probably in response to the recent 40 Days for Life campaign across North America which had participants in front of Kelowna General Hospital), today Marlon Bartram, Executive Director of Kelowna Right to Life, wrote a poignant response to Ade that cuts succinctly to the heart of the matter, which I simply must share with you.

The following is Bartram’s editorial (almost) in full:

 
Normally I do not bother responding to ignorant, pro-abortion rants such as the one put forth by Kevin Ade in last Wednesday’s edition of The Daily Courier, but considering that his harsh attack was directed at my fine colleagues at Trail-Rossland Right to Life, I feel it my place to chime in.

There is not enough space here to comment thoroughly on Ade’s tacit support of China’s barbaric one-child policy (wherein forced sterilizations and abortions are routinely carried out on unwilling women and dead babies are found washed up on riverbanks), nor his approval of the mass culling of the most defenseless and innocent members of the human family in the name of “population control” … or his hateful demonization of pro-lifers as “deceitful,” “liars,” and “terrorists.” I will take time to respond on what I perceive to be the thesis of his column: the denial of any causal link between abortion and breast cancer.

Ade might be surprised to discover (if he dares to engage in a little open-minded research) that 80 percent of the 70 studies done on the issue since 1957 show a positive correlation between breast cancer and abortion. In addition, Ade seems to have missed the rather abundant media reports revealing that (former) fellow denier Louise Brinton of the National Cancer Institute (U.S.) admitted in a 2009 study that abortion does indeed raise the risk of breast cancer by 40 percent.

Although some of the aforementioned studies show as much as a 200 percent risk increase, let’s go with the lower 40 percent figure and put that into some context.

It is estimated that living with a smoker increases a non-smoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. So I think it is safe to conclude that the risk of contracting lung cancer from public second-hand smoke is far less, given the comparatively reduced exposure. Yet that minimal public risk has resulted in massive anti-smoking campaigns and scores of legislation aimed at deterring, reducing, or outright banning smoking in public places.

Surprise, surprise, no such campaigns aimed at deterring, reducing, or banning abortion are undertaken when its harmful effects are uncovered. Instead, abortion groups, the media, and misguided politicians all minimize, ignore, and even libellously attack anyone who points to any health risk associated with abortion.

It is not just the breast cancer they rail against, but infertility, sepsis, hemorrhaging, death, depression, trauma, substance abuse, and scores of other physical, emotional, and psychological harms known to be associated with abortion. They do so not because it is in the best interest of women to be denied information on these risks; rather, they do so in order to preserve and promote their abortionist ideology.

Ade recklessly purports that “proselytizing is an abuse of privilege” and “the enforcement of bias upon others is terrorism.” Call it a hunch, but I suspect the self-avowed social activist and environmentalist fails to see any ‘terrorism’ involved when he proselytizes and enforces his left-wing, environmental, population control, abortionist bias on others. Let me guess: it’s only ‘terrorism’ when people with views different than your own speak out. Otherwise it’s just another benign editorial in a newspaper. Is that it?

So who, really, is acting in the best interest of women, children, and society here? Those who work to make the harmful effects of abortion known, or those who deny them in order to preserve their abortionist ideology at all costs, even at the cost of down-playing or ignoring very serious health risks to women?

Ade closes out by suggesting the pro-life movement “do the right thing and apologize.” In reality, when the day comes that abortion is seen for the horror it truly is and the terrible harm it has done to women, it will be the Kevin Ades of the world doing the apologizing.
 

Bartram, Marlon. “Only Those Who Disagree Are Apparently ‘Terrorists’.” The Daily Courier (Kelowna) 6 Apr. 2010, Letters sec.: A7. Print. (For more information on the link between abortion and breast cancer, see www.abortionbreastcancer.ca.)

But then who could put it more powerfully than John Piper did?