Of course that is for others and not him.
Posted on 08/19/2016 11:01:35 AM PDT by jazusamo
Climate-change activists are mobilizing to cut the birthrate, arguing that richer nations should discourage people having children in order to protect them from the ravages of global warming and reduce emissions.
Travis Rieder, assistant director of the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University, told NPR that bringing down global fertility by half a child per woman “could be the thing that saves us.”
“Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” said Mr. Rieder, who has one child.
He proposed procreation disincentives such as government tax breaks for poor people and tax penalties for rich people, a kind of “carbon tax on kids.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The entire climate change hoax was about population control. Whose children and grandchildren are not to be born? The have finally exposed their true goal.
Here we go again. They did this in the 70’s when they said we were going to overpopulate the planet and starve to death because we would outstrip our food production capability. We were sold a two child family as the max, one would be better, and none would be best. Now they say we must import workers and allow illegals to stay because we are not having enough children. So they want us to have even less, again? And why are they insisting that the current successful population cease to reproduce itself, while simultaneously encouraging the unsuccessful hoards to breed like rabbits and migrate? Curious, huh???
Of course that is for others and not him.
Why don’t you sniff some VX, Travis Rieder?
They don't really want to protect man. That is a phony rationalization to confuse the masses. The environmentalist's intrinsic value of nature and cultural devaluation of man leads to the idea that man is inferior to animals and even rocks and dirt, and their hatred of man calls for the killing of man to protect nature.
It would be politically incorrect to point out that all the runaway population growth is occurring in the developing world. Positively racist to suggest they implement similar policies to reduce child bearing there. No, in typical liberal/left fashion, the proposal is to punish countries with at or below replacement birth rates further. Yeah, and let’s encourage people from those overpopulated countries to come here and have more babies so the tax base won’t decline and the politicians can buy their votes with handouts. Sounds incredibly familiar somehow.
Swell.
Why don’t you sniff some VX, Travis Rieder?
The radical Left thinks we need about 25% of the global population today, and they’ll sign on to just about anything to get us there.
Genocide for Whites is a great starting point for them.
No, you don’t put them in a gulague, you simple refuse to let them procreate, or heaven forbid, have a large family.
Third worlders don’t cause that reaction, just White Western Civilization citizens do.
These people should be under a watch program. This is racism.
Of course it won’t apply to Muslims.
Sterilization is nothing to joke about. These people are trying to engineer an economic collapse, and eventually the end of the human race.
Overpopulation is the opposite of our problem. Uncontrolled immigration is the only thing masking a demographic collapse in the US. Fertility rates are at historic lows, far below replacement levels.
It is the same problem in Western Europe, Russia, and Japan.
You are not going to like the US economy if population goes into free fall.
What dey means is youse whiteys gotta stop having babies so dem non-whiteys can have dem all.
Americans contracepting this country into oblivion need to know that runaway population growth in the third world is a myth of the UNFPA, backed by some of the most evil people on this planet.
Instead, Democrats should say if you’re on welfare programs of any sort from SNAP to Section 8 housing to Medicaid, all females of childbearing age have to receive an IUD or Norplant (any type of long term contraception that doesn’t require effort after installation).
When you’re supporting yourself and your children, whether as a single woman or relying on your spouse, then you can have the contraception removed and have another child.
It isn’t sterilization, it isn’t punishing taxpayers or limiting them. No forced abortions, no issues with someone forgetting or refusing to take pills.
Instead, it limits the population growth rate of the people who are not contributing to society and have the highest birth rate (for middle class, it is around 1.8, lower class, 2.5-3 children).
Why don’t they just move to China where this policy is already in place?
Soros.....again
Yes, but suicide would be so much more immediate, and a way to truly display one's allegiance to the cause.
`
Notice how the focus is always on the woman.
There is your anti-woman agenda right there.
Why not call for men to get vasectomies? You almost NEVER hear suggestions that men do something to prevent conception from the population control people. That tells me that the real agenda is control (and punishment) of women.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.