Save the planet: Have an abortion

posted at 10:00 am on November 23, 2007 by Allahpundit

Via Weasel Zippers, a new entry in the pantheon of great abortion rationales. The greatest gift you can give Gaia is the gift of extinction:

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

“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.”

She met her husband, who’s also a vegan, at an animal rights demonstration, which I guess also makes this an entry in the pantheon of cartoonish cultural stereotypes. Not an isolated example, either:

Most young girls dream of marriage and babies. But Sarah dreamed of helping the environment – and as she agonised over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child.

“I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet – and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do.”…

Mark adds: “Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don’t have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly.

“We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food.

“In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child.”

All we need now is some evidence that environmental fanaticism is genetically influenced and we can break out the party favors. Exit question: Isn’t there an even higher level of social consciousness than saving the planet? My friends, there is.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I don’t call fetuses kids and I don’t like the values of the “pro-life” movement. My aunt is in a nursing home. Her life is horrible–just pain and anxiety. My mother goes and visits her and comes back feeling depressed. She calls me on the telephone and I have to deal with her depression. My feelings towards “pro-life” value are hatred because they do nothing but make me and the people around me miserable. I’m certainly not the only one.

thuja on November 23, 2007 at 3:23 PM

By all means, let’s off your aunt so your mother isn’t depressed.

wytammic on November 23, 2007 at 3:53 PM

I seriously look forward to hearing a statement on this story from Al Gore. As the head of this insane movement, he bears some responsibility for the actions of his followers. He needs to make a strong statement that this is horrible, that this world needs people, and that humanity is a good thing.
Also, did you notice that the tone of the story was supportive? That is almost as scary as the story itself. I’ll bet lots of people will applaud her abortion, and start thinking of other ways of applying this philosophy. This might be the spark that begins the “environmental jihad”.

redshirt on November 23, 2007 at 4:00 PM

“…we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint….”

Not quite; You are still breathing.

LegendHasIt on November 23, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Thuja wrote:

I firmly support the argument that abortion is a positively wonderful technology because otherwise we produce more people than is good for the environment.

Your slovenly use of the word “environment” casts too wide a net. It’s impossible to know what you’re saying. By “environment” do you mean the human environment including the natural world Man exploits to better serve his needs and wants, or do you mean nature “red in tooth and claw”? If you mean the former, then what is good for the environment is mankind continuing to forge a world more suited to itself. As always when left free to do so we make our own resources thereby increasing our own carrying capacity, unlike every other creature, and life is good comparatively speaking. So in this context abortion is just pointless. If by “environment” you mean “nature red in tooth and claw”, then from whose vantage point can you say what is good for it given that the only constancy in untamed nature is to be be both hunter and prey and to die of wounds, disease or hunger?

FierceGuppy on November 23, 2007 at 4:07 PM

Good for her, now if she can just convince a couple of her friends and they in turn convince a couple of their friends….
And then if they all decide to remove themselves even sooner from the “environment” in a friendly carbon neutral manner, there’ll be less competition for space and resources.
If they could get busy on that before I have to go Christmas shopping at the mall, that would be awesome and extremely considerate.

G-man on November 23, 2007 at 5:17 PM

Michael in MI

Okay, if that is the case, then there must be some kind of number out there for the “ideal carbon footprint” right? Does anyone even know what this is? This is all supposed to be scientific, so there should be some numbers out there which calculate everyone’s carbon footprint in the entire world, how they affect the climate, and by how much we need to reduce them in order to be “ideal”.

Um, they have that number (or more appropriately, a range of estimates), but its a bad number so its a bit hard to find. The number is an 80-95% reduction in all manmade CO2 from all sources.

80% by 2050
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sustain/dartmouth/carbon.html

87% by 2030
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/21/an-87-cut-by-2030/

90% by 2050
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmens/is_200706/ai_n19332997

“The U.S. goal, given its world-leading position in CO2 emissions, would then have to be 96 percent.”
http://www.japanfocus.org/products/details/2496

Oh, and these numbers aren’t fully offset, just trying to reduce the pain to an 85% chance of less than a 2 degree Celsius rise (per the IPCC if I read their analysis correctly). To truly remove mankind’s influence from the carbon cycle is more like a 96-99% reduction.

And this Michael is why they don’t give the numbers. A 96% reduction by 2030 for the U.S. would involve something like a removal of all the cities and a return to subsistence farming and agrarian communities.

Somehow they think you’d be willing to give up 5-10%, so thats the request. It’ll help as much as peeing on a forest fire, but few are willing to admit that.

gekkobear on November 23, 2007 at 5:17 PM

I don’t think I even have to address the sickness of this woman’s argument. But I am wondering if she is thrilled with all the carbon footprints that have been erased in this war? It MUST be a good thing in her view.

The thing about environmentism is that I lean toward all things that are environmental. Clean air, clean water, and conservation. But I can’t get on board with much else, mainly because the people advocating these things have been wrong on just about every other issue, why should I trust them on this one?

Rightwingsparkle on November 23, 2007 at 5:44 PM

Michael in MI,

I hope you didn’t miss all the good wishes that went your way in Bryan’s giving thanks thread.

Rightwingsparkle on November 23, 2007 at 5:47 PM

I don’t call fetuses kids and I don’t like the values of the “pro-life” movement. My aunt is in a nursing home. Her life is horrible–just pain and anxiety. My mother goes and visits her and comes back feeling depressed. She calls me on the telephone and I have to deal with her depression. My feelings towards “pro-life” value are hatred because they do nothing but make me and the people around me miserable. I’m certainly not the only one.

thuja on November 23, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Selfish much? Geez…get over yourself and deal with LIFE (don’t pardon the pun)!

SouthernGent on November 23, 2007 at 5:55 PM

It’s called Christmas. :)

Merry Christmas!

wytammic on November 23, 2007 at 6:00 PM

I don’t call fetuses kids and I don’t like the values of the “pro-life” movement. My aunt is in a nursing home. Her life is horrible–just pain and anxiety. My mother goes and visits her and comes back feeling depressed. She calls me on the telephone and I have to deal with her depression. My feelings towards “pro-life” value are hatred because they do nothing but make me and the people around me miserable. I’m certainly not the only one.

I don’t call fetuses kids either. I call them life, which they certainly are.

I know how your mother feels. The one person I loved most in the world, my grandma was in a nursing home.

I understand from a humanistic perspective how that can be depressing, but what God asks us of us is to see Him in the worst of circumstances. What I saw in my grandma is the opportunity to serve her in love as she had done so many times to me. I was able to love her in the ways she had loved me. Unconditionally. Her being in the nursing home was a gift to me. A gift to finally give back to her all that she gave to me. Perhaps if your mom saw it that way she wouldn’t be so depressed.

Rightwingsparkle on November 23, 2007 at 7:28 PM

The first thing I always say to someone that is so gung ho on abortion is “Aren’t you glad your parents didn’t think like you do?”.

Guardian on November 23, 2007 at 8:54 PM

What does being sterilized have to do with abortion?

There are much better reasons for having yourself fixed so that you won’t have kids. Like, for example, being a parent sucks and there is not a single thing that is good about it?

For starters.

Jaynie59 on November 23, 2007 at 9:01 PM

Jaynie59 on November 23, 2007 at 9:01 PM

Wow! Did your kids forget to call and wish you a Happy Thanksgiving??

speed911 on November 23, 2007 at 9:13 PM

thuja on November 23, 2007 at 10:15 AM

You may be too young to remember this, but when I was in high school, the world was entering an ice age, by the year 2000 the world population would be so large, that their would be mass starvation. And that included the U.S., we would run out of fossil fuel (primarily because the heating would be so severe because of the coming ice age), on and on.
Every couple of decades, a new “disaster” looms (or I forgot, over 1/2 of all animals would be extinct by 2000).
Face it, realize it, man is part of nature, we are the only ones that chronicle nature; we, in essence, are nature. And for more of us, means the more of nature.

right2bright on November 24, 2007 at 1:05 AM

speed911 on November 23, 2007 at 9:13 PM

Ha, great.

right2bright on November 24, 2007 at 1:06 AM

If you want my aunt alive, what possible objection can one have to Saddam Hussein’s torture chambers or his sons’ rape rooms? After all, no one is killed as long as it’s just torture or rape.

thuja on November 23, 2007 at 3:39 PM

Hmm, someone needs to investigate this nursing home, as it is apparently the equivalent of torture and rape rooms.

If you’re prime concern is how your aunt feels, and you deem it imprudent to kill her yourself, are you able to go visit her, bring some kids, sing some songs, read aloud to her, send a card or a care package if you’re too far to visit, do something to help her know she is loved and valued and put some sunshine into her last days on earth? I’d do it myself and I don’t even know the woman. This is your blood. Give something back.

tikvah on November 24, 2007 at 2:00 AM