The Scientific American has an idea for addressing global warming (or, if you prefer, climate change; whatever): contraception and abortion, The goal: reduce the earth’s population and, therefore, the “carbon footprint” left by all those babies who are never permitted to get outside the womb alive.
David Bielo begins the article with a breathlessly delivered statistic and a hopeful prognostication:
An additional 150 people join the ranks of humanity every minute, a pace that could lead our numbers to reach nine billion by 2050. Changing that peak population number alone could save at least 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere each year by 2050, according to a new analysis—the equivalent of cutting more than 10 percent of fossil fuel burning per year.
There are so many ways this could be lampooned, the mind boggles.
First, there’s the whole climate change folderol, which in another decade will be the butt of endless jokes, except for Al Gore and his enviro-nuts who have drunk uncounted gallons of the kool-aid.
Second, there is the link between population and the so-called carbon footprint. On one hand, the advanced nations are already in population decline (a fact ignored by Bielo in The Scientific American), a decline so severe that it is nearing irreversibility in Russia, Italy, and the Netherlands. A panicked South Korea, where three out of every four pregnancies ends in abortion, has decided to begin enforcing a long-ignored ban on abortions because of its now-irreversible population implosion, a fate also facing Japan.
According to The Scientific American, this is all a very good thing and needs badly to be replicated in the United States and in those parts of Europe not already in precipitous population decline.
Finally, if one reads between the lines, it is not hard to find an anti-human, pro-anything-but-human ethic behind all this. Jeff Poor, commenting on The Scientific American article for the Media Research Center Network, notes that even more radical ideas are out there:
Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in 2007 called for the world’s population to drop below 1 billion, meaning roughly 5.7 billion people would have to go away.
Okay, that’s radical, I suppose. But it is any more radical than agitating for increasing the number of abortions, already in the tens of millions annually? Is it any more radical than agitating for entire nations to commit demographic suicide?
[This blog is cross-posted to Faith and Gender.]
While it’s still up, you can read here the Washington Examiner’s exposition about how bad Obamacare is. Turns out, according to these editors, it’s much worse than its critics ever said it would be.
To summarize, the Examiner’s analysis shows that:
- Obamacare won’t decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare’s actuary, it will increase costs.
- As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama’s promise that it wouldn’t. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral.
- Obamacare won’t allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama’s estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.
- Obamacare will increase insurance premiums — in some places, it already has. Obama’s only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.
- Obamacare will force seasonal employers — especially the ski and amusement park industries — to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.
- Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients.
- Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.
In Cherry Hill, New Jersy, a Planned Parenthood office is closing. Why? Because part of Gov. Chris Christie’s belt-tightening plan for New Jersey was the termination of $7.5 million in public funding for Planned Parenthood clinics in the state, a decision Democrats in the legislature countermanded with a bill that cleared the Senate with a 30-10 vote — sufficient to override a veto. But when that veto came and the Democrats scheduled an override vote, Republicans in the legislature backed down, and the measure failed 23-17.
It’s still amazing to me that “pro-choice” people think that taxpayers should be forced to pay for slaughtering babies. Such folk are not “pro-choice” at all, but “pro-abortion” – so much in favor of entitling women to kill their children that they insist that the coercive power of government should be deployed to ensure that any woman who wishes to kill her child is enabled by the government to do so.
Is there hope that abortion will cease in our land? I admit, I’ve not had anything that could be called hope in that regard. Mostly I’ve been occupied with hoping that God’s grace would forestall the judgment which the oceans of baby blood are crying out for in the sewers and landfills of our nation.
But, if a Republican governor in a place like New Jersy can veto funding for Planned Parenthood … well, who’da thunk anything like that could happen. I confess I never did. Maybe there’s some hope after all.