I can't let the day pass without linking to one of the best dissents against environmental religion. In 2009, an economics professor was asked his thoughts on the importance of Earth Hour. His response is gold. The link is to the article posted at the Watts Up With That? website, which has a great photo of the country that wins the Earth Hour award year after year.
I love abortion. I don’t accept it. I don’t view it as a necessary evil. I embrace it. I donate to abortion funds. I write about how important it is to make sure that every woman has access to safe, legal abortion services. I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for reproductive freedom. I love abortion.Another link led back to a older article by DelBalzo in which she argues "the case against adoption".
Here she lays out her reasoning for her activism:
When people discover that I am against adoption, they often assume that I am adopted. I am not, nor have I lost a child to adoption. In fact, I grew up believing that adoption was perfectly acceptable. When my parents were unable to conceive a second child, my young self even threatened to adopt one so that we could have a baby in the house. By the time I reached high school age, however, I had begun questioning more serious issues and forming deeper opinions. One of my elective classes involved frequent debates, and one particular discussion on the ethics of abortion and the "loving option" of adoption sparked my curiosity. Instinctually, adoption suddenly felt like a tragic loss for both the mother and the child, and I began researching the subject voraciously using the library to obtain relevant books and the internet to connect with people who had personal adoption experiences.Everything that I learned further inspired my activism, and after graduation I founded Adoption: Legalized Lies, a grassroots organization supporting family preservation and the abolition of adoption. In the past nine years, we have participated in awareness-raising campaigns, art displays, rallies, and letter-writing. We have also assisted numerous families who were struggling to keep their children despite interference from the adoption industry.
Knowing that many people who are politically liberal are also very much for adoption, she makes sure to note that adoption is part of a "1.4 billion dollar industry" (dog-whistle for socialists) and she footnotes the article with references to other articles which back up her claims that adoption hurts the birthmother and child (dog-whistle for liberals who see citations as creating unassailable research).
My insight is that in arguing against the institution of adoption, DelBalzo is doing what the left does to many institutions that are valued by conservative--marriage, family, churches, Catholic education, traditional organizations like the Boy Scouts--they try to destroy the institutions by pointing out that they are not perfect. A conservative would say that marriage in most cases is good for the people in the marriage and good for society. The same for religion, nuclear families, and traditional organizations. Adoption is the same. Sure, there are thousands of people who may be dealing with issues related to being adopted or women who have felt pressured to give up their children to be adopted, but that does not outweigh the good that so many families have given to their adopted children.
I would also make the observation that DelBalzo is being fundamentally untruthful in her interest in fighting against adoption. She argued for abortion in school, people argued against her that adoption was the "loving option," so in order for abortion to be seen as the ultimate good, she needs to tear down adoption. Said differently, adoption threatens abortion; nothing can threaten the ultimate good of abortion; therefore, adoption must go away.
As we see in this example, for a true leftist, those institutions which are not perfect must be destroyed.
