Every time I see a story about some know-it-all saying people should be limited in the number of children they can have, I have to wonder why these people don’t just off themselves, since they think people are the problem.
Now, granted, octuplets’ single mom should probably be put under observation, but you never see the Left attack single moms because they are holier than married folks. Or something.
Still this latest know-it-all seems to be thinking along the same lines as Democrats and Our Messiah in Chief.
Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming…
Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.
After all, the pork package making its way through Congress is chockful of spending for “green” projects, and also had funding for contraceptives (those evil pharmaceuticals!) until they were embarrassed into cutting that.
But a spending bill for environmental pork projects and “family planning” do make sense if your attitude is that people are the problem. Perhaps Obama should consider Mr. Porritt for Tom Daschle’s spot at HHS. Does he have tax troubles?
Global warming is just another form of totalitariansim disguised as something to “help” us. Now they’re worming it in to a way to control the womb. That’s anti-choice!!!
Every time I see a story about some know-it-all saying people should be limited in the number of children they can have,[...] Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.
Shorter Sharon: Can someone force me to look up the word “consent” in a dictionary?
Shorter Pho: I don’t like children and agree with limiting the number of children people are allowed to have, so I’m going to pretend that this man didn’t advocate prohibiting people from having more than 2 children.
Of course, the other point being that, like smoking, if we can convince enough people that having 3 children is “icky,” then people will just stop having so many. Not that too many people are having 3 kids now, mind you. Buried in the story is the fact that, really, it’s the wrong kind of people having so many bloody kids.
If Mr Porritt believes that who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, does that mean he’s soon going to be advocating “birthing credits,” so women who voluntarily choose to have fewer than two children can sell a “birthing credit” to someone who wants more?
What about the woman who has had one child, and then finds that her second pregnancy involves twins? Does the government fine her, or take away one of the twins for disposal?
And Phoe, when a government official starts talking the was Mr Porritt was, it usually isn’t long before government regulation starts to be considered.
I’m also curious about a person in my position: having a child with one man, divorcing, remarrying and having 2 children with husband no. 2. Since all I’ve done is replace the 3 people involved, does it count or do I have to give one kid back? And which child should that be?
Sharon – not to be nitpicky, but your “shorter Phoe” was actually longer than Phoe’s original statement, so, er, yeeeeah.
Also: Buried in the story is the fact that, really, it’s the wrong kind of people having so many bloody kids.
Namely, conservatives
Actually, in this instance, the “wrong people” are immigrants and minorities.
Wait, that would decrease the number of liberals. Dude, Porritt, you’re doing it wrong! You gotta stop conservatives from having babies! Encourage immigrants and minorities to have as many babies as possible – limit the baby-making capacity of rich white Christians!
Some men you just can’t reach, eh?
Hm. Has Mr. Porritt been spending time in the PRC because this smells a bit like their one-child policy…which was of course in part established out of concern for the environment as well as population control and economic factors. Can female infanticide be far behind?