[Mrs. Don-o]

Like jihadis, environmentalists see the demise of what's left of Western Civilization as an overall plus.

The jihadis do it with bombs, machetes, IED's, exlosives and crashing airplanes.

The environmentalists, with contraceptives, sterilization, abortion, gender disorientation, sexual dysfunction and buggery.

[2banana]

Have no children and import millions of Muslims.

Self imposed genocide.

[marron]

The people who want you to stop having children also want open borders.

The idea is to replace you. You are being replaced.

[dp0622]

I thought that Trump’s winning put an end to the need for violent revolution.

Now I’m not so sure anymore.

I wish there were a non threatening way to let the powers that be know we WILL NOT sit idly by if they succeed in damaging Trump, in whatever way.

[SpaceBar]

Brits to abortion activists: go shoot yourselves.

[seawolf101]

I agree. They should commit sucide. We’ll se how long their bull shit lasts.

[the_daug]

Why. They stop having children they’ll have children from someone else in the 3rd world.

[ealgeone]

Amazing the ignorance of the Left.

[BenLurkin]

What they should be doing is castrating every male Muslim under the age of 66.

[Rusty0604]

I’m sure that doesn’t apply to the Muslim invaders.

[SandRat]

Might work, if the Muzzies would quit forcibly raping every woman they see.

[BobL]

Since most of the people that need to be killed to control population would be MUSLIMS, can we safely say that this group needs to prosecuted for HATE CRIMES?

[DiogenesLamp]

I consider everyone who advocates that opinion a volunteer for euthanasia.

The Third World Islamists need to stop having babies, the British don't.

Again I point to David P. Goldman's argument that we need to deliberately kill 3 million young Muslim males.

[Secret Agent Man]

So libs want to leave the world to the muslims and hindus and africans and chinese, basically. Basically they dont mind their populations are expooding and would rather have the industrial nations folks die out.

Well blatant stupidity can be cute when you’re two, but...

[Crucial]

Britain has fallen a long way since WW2.

[workerbee]

Breitbart reports a new report from Population Matters argues that the predicted population growth in the UK in the next 15 years will put a heavy strain on the economy. According to the environmental group, the expected 5.5 million-person surge could cost the UK billions of dollars for roads, infrastructure and more.

Funny they don't mention from WHERE this growth & surge will be. (hint: jolly old Winstons & Janes aren't the problem).

[HandyDandy]

Of course we all know that on top funding PP, we are also funding IPP. That’s right, International Planned Parenthood. But that should end the moment President Trump resets the Mexico City Policy.

[jonrick46]

This mindset is exactly why we call these Marxist Leftists The Culture of Death. They think they are fighting for the control of population growth. What these Marxist flunkies fail to understand is they are setting the wheels in motion for the death of human kind. The extinction of a species of animals is the model these fellow travelers are setting in place.

[fruser1]

The population control argument has been used for decades.

What these fools (the true believers) don’t realize is that people are themselves resources.

[nathanbedford]

Here is an old reply on the subject of overpopulation which I know you have seen before. In no way should this reply be construed to be in support of abortion which I oppose without reservation.

The population of the United States has doubled in my father's lifetime and redoubled in my lifetime. This is not an arithmetic but an exponential rate of growth which cannot be sustained for very many more generations, this business about every living soul standing on a square meter of unproductive sand in Texas to the contrary notwithstanding.

My concern about exploding population is not offered out of Hobbesian theories of want but out of real fears concerning liberty. Even assuming we are theoretically capable of feeding billions more people, are we actually able to do so as a free people operating in a free market in a free society? Or are the leftists right when they say that the problem is too much freedom and not enough organization? Are we populating ourselves into a statist dystopia?

Nathan Bedford's Maxim: the more population density, the less liberty.

Look about you and consider how the left has compressed our liberties in the last three quarters of a century. Think of the strictures placed upon you for the environment. For example, it is no longer legal to burn a wood stove in parts of California. It is now the federal government that tells you as a rancher in Wyoming whether you could have a pond out back for geese and ducks. Your ability to charge rent in your New York City apartments has been controlled for decades by the government because of overcrowding. Your right to shoot a deer has been severely restricted and regulated and taxed. Your right to shoot a deer or a bear may have been entirely eliminated and there are no resemblance to the America of my forefathers who actually went hunting with Daniel Boone. The size of the toilet you flush and the bulb with which you illuminate the darkness is no longer a matter of choice.

The list is endless, indeed there is virtually no area of your life that is not currently regulated by the federal government or the state government and much of that is justified by the need to protect your neighbor from you. You also want the government to protect you from your neighbor, that is why we have zoning ordinances for example. All of these things come with density of population. A density of population which we might be able to feed but can we endure? Can we endure as free men? Can we feed them as free men?

Against this we have the inherent liberty to have children. Because one regards overpopulation as a threat to liberty does imply he also condones curtailing the liberty to have a family. Conversely, nor does it imply in any way that we should condone abortion. Perhaps we ought not to subsidize more children, but if you think we should, even as we do, perhaps, if we wish to be consistent, we should subsidize an unlimited inflow of immigrants?

The hordes rushing into Europe ought to give us pause before we blandly dismiss the downside of overpopulation.

[FenwickBabbitt]

This is crazy. The Brits are not even close to having enough children to maintain their population and economy as it is. The entirety of their population growth is from immigration, mostly from the Third World, where larger families are still standard. Why don’t these crazy leftists ever mention that? One would think their real problem is only with foreigners, because the Brits are already hardly having any children—except for the fact this is all just propaganda waged against Western Civ (as you noted) and doesn’t really have anything to do with general population control or the environment.