Having children is selfish

  • Thread starter Thread starter dafalax
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Probably the most chilling Orwellian scenario yet–

Because, of course, ‘nothing’ is more important and there is no greater purpose in life than ‘reducing the carbon footprint’ and ‘saving the planet’.

Or --“I want to maintain everything on earth–the animals, the land, the seas, and the air–EXCEPT humans.”

May God have mercy on these people and guide them to truth.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Probably the most chilling Orwellian scenario yet–

Because, of course, ‘nothing’ is more important and there is no greater purpose in life than ‘reducing the carbon footprint’ and ‘saving the planet’.

Or --“I want to maintain everything on earth–the animals, the land, the seas, and the air–EXCEPT humans.”

May God have mercy on these people and guide them to truth.
Click to expand...
"When I was a child, I loved bird-watching, and in my teens that developed into a passion for the environment as well as the welfare of animals - I became a vegetarian when I was 15.
Click to expand...
"Even my parents used to smile and say: ‘You’ll change your mind one day about babies.’
Click to expand...
I wonder if Peter Singer would endorse this…

I could imagine a world were everyone would get sterilized because things such as cancer, heart disease, alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, etc. were all eliminated.
ADNJdG:"I am not going to bother with the easy answers to this question. The easy answers are to wave my hands and say, well, maybe overpopulation will never happen anyway because, you know, the population is going down in Europe and so it may go down everywhere in due course, you know. There’s lots of waffly answers like that. I’m going to give you the straight answer: it doesn’t matter whether we have to do Draconian things in terms of sterilization, even. It doesn’t matter. The right to procreate will never be rated above the right of a living human being to carry on living. Not developing this, it means letting people die. "
Click to expand...
second of silence
Click to expand...
One audience member: “It’s a world without children."
Click to expand...
immediate and glib reply
Click to expand...
ADNJdG: “It will be a world without children, yes”
Click to expand...
cough in background
Click to expand...
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6526709231920433808 (39:30)
 
I find it interesting that those who think there need to be fewer people on the Earth don’t seem to have the courage of their convictions to remove themselves. They just want fewer other people.

Not that I am suggesting this as a course of action.
 
One of the logical conclusions of radical environmentalism - humans are seen as bad for the planet - is that abortion and sterilization are celebrated. What is frightening to us makes perfect sense to them.

Like many of the commentators, I find it interesting that they are willing to kill children to save the planet but won’t kill themselves.

I also wonder how many people like this actually wind up adopting children (and aren’t just using that as a guilt-trip for people who want to bring more children into the world).

I would also mention that while few of us are as nutty as these people, most of our societies have put other things above having children.

I don’t worry about there ever being an uninhabited planet though. I’m sure the Chinese would make good use of our land and the Muslims seem to have a healthy enough appreciation for life (and desire for an Islamic globe) to keep things going.
 
having too many children (like 4 or more) is selfish and careless. but that woman is extreme. and she excelled at catholic school too! 😃
 
Why 4 or more? (After all, only 2 would ensure population replacement, maybe have a 3rd if you are worried one of your kids might die before breeding.) And who gets to decide? Should this be some sort of enforced policy?

I am nulliparous but have nothing against marriage and family and childbearing for those who desire such things. They are doing us all a favor.

Not only did the woman decide not to have children for environmental reasons, she had an abortion for environmental reasons! Save the Planet - Have an Abortion! Hey, a new marketing angle for Planned Parenthood.

They should all be given a free membership to the Society for Voluntary Human Exctinction, and a free trip to the annual party…where they can drink the Kool-Aid…:eek:
 
kentuckyliz said:
Why 4 or more? (After all, only 2 would ensure population replacement, maybe have a 3rd if you are worried one of your kids might die before breeding.) And who gets to decide? Should this be some sort of enforced policy?
Click to expand...
because 1 is few. 2 is enough. 3 is many. therefore 4 is too many. and too many is selfish & careless. 😃
kentuckyliz said:
Not only did the woman decide not to have children for environmental reasons, she had an abortion for environmental reasons! Save the Planet - Have an Abortion! Hey, a new marketing angle for Planned Parenthood.
Click to expand...
yeah she’s such an environmentalist extremist. maybe she ought to commit suicide when she becomes too old to actively contribute to environmentalism. 😉
kentuckyliz said:
They should all be given a free membership to the Society for Voluntary Human Exctinction, and a free trip to the annual party…where they can drink the Kool-Aid…:eek:
Click to expand...
glad we agree.
 
AgnosTheist said:
having too many children (like 4 or more) is selfish and careless. but that woman is extreme. and she excelled at catholic school too! 😃
Click to expand...
Why pick four or more? No human has the right to say God has blessed someone with tooooo many children.:mad:
 
Nihilism is one of the main tenets of the Secular Relativist. What develops from it is a self centeredness that is so prevalent today. Self has replaced God in society today.

As for children, they are a blessing and there is no such thing has having too many.
 
Leopard said:
I find it interesting that those who think there need to be fewer people on the Earth don’t seem to have the courage of their convictions to remove themselves. They just want fewer other people.

Not that I am suggesting this as a course of action.
Click to expand...
Most of them aren’t saying ‘remove other people’, they’re saying ‘don’t make more people’ (or even just ‘hey, slow down there, cowboy, let’s feed who we’ve got first’).

Les U. Knight of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement actually showed up here a while back in a thread about them 🙂
 
Every couple should feel free to have as few or as many children as they can support.
 
KathleenElsie said:
Why pick four or more? No human has the right to say God has blessed someone with tooooo many children.:mad:
Click to expand...
thats your opinion. in my opinion people who cant feed another mouth has no moral right having even just one baby. thats selfish.
 
Well the great thing about the secularist/relativist/ atheistic/environmental wackos is they don’t want to reproduce, the don’t eat meat and they don’t like guns, so if they ever try to impose their insanity on the rest of us, they will be few, weak, and poorly armed 😉
 
AgnosTheist said:
thats your opinion. in my opinion people who cant feed another mouth has no moral right having even just one baby. thats selfish.
Click to expand...
While I do see your point on this, its a very slippery slope and one of the reasons why I think it has been avoided in part.
 
According to recent reports by the United Nations Population Division[1] and the US Census Bureau,[2] population decline is occurring today in some regions. According to the UN, below-replacement fertility is expected in 75% of developed world by the year 2050. The US Census Bureau notes that the 74 million people added to the world’s population in 2002 were fewer than the high of 87 million people added in 1989-1990. The annual growth rate was 1.2 percent, down from the high of 2.2 percent in 1963-64.
Click to expand...
“Census Bureau projections show this slow-down in population growth continuing into the foreseeable future,” stated the Bureau’s brief on the findings. “Census Bureau projections suggest that the level of fertility in many countries will drop below replacement level before 2050… In 1990 the world’s women, on average, were giving birth to 3.3 children over their lifetimes. By 2002 the average was 2.6.” Of course, this value still ensures the continuing rapid growth of the human population as a whole, even if some regions may decline.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline
 
Isn’t it interesting that none of these women cares enough about the planet to just not have sex so they KNOW they wouldn’t get pregnant. Sure they care but not enough to give up sex with whatever male is in their lives at the moment.
 
These types who think of a potential child as another mouth to feed, never seem to consider that just one such potential child might grow up to develelop new agricultural techniques that could help feed the world. They see every person as just a “taker” not a “giver.” I wonder if that’s projection?
 
marytk said:
Isn’t it interesting that none of these women cares enough about the planet to just not have sex so they KNOW they wouldn’t get pregnant. Sure they care but not enough to give up sex with whatever male is in their lives at the moment.
Click to expand...
LOL. Great point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top