Michelle Malkin » The latest eco-fads: Abortion and tube-tying

The latest eco-fads: Abortion and tube-tying

By Michelle Malkin • November 23, 2007 01:33 PM

So, environmental nitwits are killing their unborn children and sterilizing themselves to protect the planet (hat tip: Allah). I suppose we should be grateful these people are not reproducing:

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.

“Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.

We’ve seen this anti-children animus before. Back in May, you may remember, a green think tank issued a report on how kids are bad for the planet:

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family’s carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

“The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”

Not a big leap from there to here.

Posted in: Enviro-nitwits

Printer Friendly

comments (103)

trackbacks (22)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#178614

On November 24th, 2007 at 12:30 am, USN RET said:

Self chlorinating the gene pool. I can live with that as long as they don’t force it on others (pedophiles only exception)
#178672

On November 24th, 2007 at 5:17 am, saintkansas said:

Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees

All true. And I, for one, am in no way qualified to judge which people are worth the exchange and which aren’t.

To paraphrase M. Scott Peck, all motives are selfish. Aborting one child isn’t saving anything that couldn’t be saved another way. But if it makes you feel better about yourself… well, I wish it hadn’t come to that.
#178679

On November 24th, 2007 at 5:30 am, Prime Director said:

Studies show that – by and large – conservatives (not only religious ones, either) have more children, and that children have a strong tendency to adhere to the same beliefs of their parents. Logically, this means in 20 years, more children will be raised in conservative households than liberal ones, and the trend in politics and social policy will shift.

Which explains, of course, why liberals fight like hell to indoctrinate children via public schools.

If you really believe that your worldview is worthy of being passed on to another generation, having children is the best way to do so.

The next best way to do so is to impose your views on other people’s children using the apparatus of coersion (the state.)
#178716

On November 24th, 2007 at 9:36 am, On-my-soap-box said:

Three words

head meet gun
#178745

On November 24th, 2007 at 10:41 am, Latino said:

This is a good thing for the gene pool and future electorate.
#178752

On November 24th, 2007 at 11:00 am, ctmom said:

These people are too stupid to be parents. Thank God they aren’t reproducing those genes.
#178764

On November 24th, 2007 at 11:22 am, BOB said:

On November 23rd, 2007 at 11:22 pm, almeehan said:
And the Lord God said to the man & the woman, be fruitful and multiply. So what else is new with these people opposing the natural norms and standards set down by God? They kill babies literally and now figuratively.
As far as over population, the problem is not lack of food. There is more than enough aeriable land to more than sustain the earth’s population and more.

I must be spoiled to the kind of lifestyle we have enjoyed in the USA for many years, because I can’t look at overpopulation as only whether or not there is enough food to sustain life. If the population is “OK” as long as everybody can be fed, without regard to anything else, I’ll be most happy not to be around to “exist” with the God knows how many billions waiting for a natural catastrophe to thin out the crowd. Will God add an addendum to “be fruitful and multiply” or will he just expect us to figure out when we have done enough multiplying”? Maybe he forgot to consider the exponential effect? Doesn’t it make sense to plan ahead and recognize that the quality of life on Earth is important, not just being alive?
#178855

On November 24th, 2007 at 2:46 pm, angryoldfatman said:

BOB, you do realize that the scaremongers who’ve influenced your thinking said that most of us should be dead from lack of resources now?

They, like yourself, mistakingly assumed that human progress is linear and that the way things are done today is the way things will always be done.
#178888

On November 24th, 2007 at 5:10 pm, TXRose said:

I believe we will be on this earth for as long as God
wills it. I am afraid, from what I read about that young
woman that this could be ( for some ) a sort of
doomsday cult. Some of these people obviously are not well grounded and have nothing in which to truly
believe. They grasp at straws and do things that they
think will make them fit into this group.
I could laugh and say good riddance but what if this was a friend’s child that had herself sterilized hoping
to fit into this group?
To the far, far, far leftists I do say good riddance,
but to those who are misguided and just may out
grow this stupidity, I would have to say don’t do
anything that can’t be reversed.
#179254

On November 25th, 2007 at 2:09 pm, RetFireman said:

Well, my wife had her tubes tied. We had our youngest at 2145 and then by 0700 while I was holding her (our daughter) they wheeled my wife into the OR and tied and fried. Of course we had 4 kids by this point and my wife was more than finished being pregnant. We decided we did not want to be still havng babies while we were in our 40’s and 50’s…it wouldn’t be fair to the kids. Four kids were plenty. She got preggers at the drop of a hat as it was. It was totally her decision, and there really was no discussion, so my boys stayed intact. (yay!) However, the doctor had a discussion with her about it prior. He made sure she realized what it meant, and only after she told him how many kids we had did he agree to do it. I think there is a bit of ethics issues involved with these docs snipping these folks with no kids. Again, to do this act is actually pretty selfish on their part. they aren’t doing it for the environment. They are using that as an excuse, as they sip their Cherraz and drive their Beemers. If you look at their life-styles, i will be willing to bet that it is far from eco-friendly, and a kid would only make them have to “grow up” and thus they made sure they got rid of any “complications”/\.

Me? I only wish we were fabulously and independantly wealthy, as well as 20 years younger. I would have 10 more kids. I love them. Plus, I seem to only shoot X’s and would have likes to have had a boy…although girls rock and I wouldn’t trade any of my daughters for the world. (The boy is my step-son)
#182901

On November 29th, 2007 at 1:33 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

Just a couple of thoughts from this former UNEP worker:

1) There is enough food to feed 10 billion people.

2) Technology exists where we can desalinize ocean water

3) In order to live in a society with benefits, we need a) children b) immigration

4) I have studied this for years. The main cause of environmental problems is selfishness, NOT high birth rates. To those of you who don’t like diversity, my advice is to settle down and a family—the normal thing to do.

Peace
#194863

On December 13th, 2007 at 12:52 pm, Gabe said:

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.

It is funny how similar the environmental wackos are to the Gnostics of the first centuries A.D.: Secret knowledge that only the elite knows, a worship of creatures and the inanimate, pantheism, dislike of traditional Christianity. . .and now, just like the Gnostics, a dislike of reproduction.

Strange how liberals keep recreating the same mistakes.
#197711

On December 17th, 2007 at 2:12 pm, Bogtrotter said:

I whole heartedly support every lib/dem and ecofreak who wants to spare the planet the burden of more of their kind. Run to whatever free clinic you can find and have your tubes tied or a vasectomy procedure. Do it now before it is too late!!!!
#199426

On December 19th, 2007 at 4:04 pm, kmasitti said:

This is why the public schools try to indoctrinate your children, they don’t have any of their own left to brainwash. How else will the wingnuts survive?