Posted on 04/27/2017 9:29:19 AM PDT by Morgana
Bill Nye “the Science Guy,” famous for hosting a children’s educational TV show, is not as kid-friendly as he initially may appear.
An abortion advocate, Nye recently hosted a new Netflix show that The Federalist describes as bordering on eugenics.
The episode “Earth’s People Problem” is part of the Netflix series “Bill Nye Saves the World.” In the half-hour show, Nye and several panelists discuss how they think large families and population growth are affecting the world, according to the report.
One of those panelists is an abortionist named Nerys Benfield who practices at the Montefiore Medical Center in New York City. Another is Dr. Rachel Snow of the United Nations Population Fund, which has been linked to coercive abortion practices in China.
Nye begins the show by describing how humans use natural resources. According to the report:
Following an intro that demonstrates how human consumption is like sponges soaking up water, Nye explains how women who have access to educational and professional opportunities tend to have fewer children. This is true …
Nye says when women are in power, they have fewer children, and more resources can be devoted to those children. “It’s not rocket surgery. It’s science!” he coyly explains.
The underlying eugenic and abortion tones come out later in the show. Though the word “abortion” never is mentioned, panelists hint at it while talking about family planning and women’s health care.
Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter.
At one point, Nye even asks the panel if families should be penalized for having “extra kids.”
The report continues:
The fight against climate change, Nye’s most passionate cause, is brought up by [Dr. Travis Rieder, ethicist at the Berman Institute at Johns Hopkins University], who notes that children in developed countries use 160 times more resources than children in the developing world. This is where the creepy totalitarianism of the environmental movement starts to show itself. Nye asks, bluntly, “Should we have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world?” …
Rieder says we should “at least consider” a form of punishment for people who have these Extra Kids (TM). Nye impatiently responds that “consider means do it.” Snow, to her credit, jumps in and takes issue with the idea that “we do anything to incentivize fewer children or more children.” Benfield notes the history of compulsory sterilization in America, a practice that was in place as recently as the 1970s. The issue was not come at from a position of justice in the past, she adds. But this time will be different, I guess?
Some countries already do penalize large families, and their population policies are notoriously abusive. China mandates that families have only two children. Until last year, most families in China were allowed one child. Families who have more than one or two children report being coerced or even forced to abort their unborn children, fired from their jobs and penalized with huge fines.
Last October, the BBC interviewed a Chinese family who went into hiding after conceiving a third child.
“The local government carries out pregnancy examinations every three months,” the husband told the BBC. “If we weren’t in hiding, they would have forced us to have an abortion.”
Others have been even less fortunate. A U.S. Congressional report from 2011 detailed one horrifying case where a woman 9-months pregnant with twins was dragged to a local medical center, held down and forced to abort her unborn twins.
These coercive population policies have proven to be abusive, and yet they are being promoted again in popular western media.
I am for clean air, clean water, and clean land, and would probably join an environmental organization if their focus was on protecting those things.
Unfortunately, many environmental organizations are run by abortion advocates, and insist that innocent preborn babies be treated as a poison to the planet and exterminated.
People like Bill Nye are obsessed with rapid demographic change.
My favorite show as a kid!
We really do not know what will happen to folks around the disaster zone in Japan.
Why not serve the wild boars in Japan as a main course
That has nothing to do with my point, so let me put it another way. The victims of radiation exposure that go on to have children years later don't pass genetic damage on down to their offspring. That's assuming they didn't still live in the contaminated area while pregnant or during conception.
I agree that living in a radiation contaminated area is always a bad idea, and it isn't a good idea to consume radioactive wild animals.
The fool is a fraud...and anti-science. It is unfortunate for humanity that his parents had any children.
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.