Pro-Abort Vatican Speaker: Decreasing Population by 6 Billion Would Have a ‘Pro-Life Effect.’

March 2, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- Ridding the world of 6 billion people to bring the population down to 1 billion would have an “overall pro-life effect,” a pro-abortion population control advocate told the press two days before delivering his speech at a Vatican-run conference on saving the natural world.

“A world population of around a billion would have an overall pro-life effect,” The Guardian indirectly quoted Sanford biologist Paul Ehrlich as saying. “This could be supported for many millennia and sustain many more human lives in the long term compared with our current uncontrolled growth and prospect of sudden collapse,” the British daily wrote about its conversation with Ehrlich.

Days before the Vatican symposium titled “Biological Extinction” was held – behind closed doors – in Rome, from February 27th to March 1st, two of the key speakers, Dr. Paul Ehrlich and Sir Partha Dasgupta, spoke to The Guardian about the conference.

“Biologists say half of all species could be extinct by end of century,” blared the headline, warning that the largest “extinction event” in millions of years will lead to “the eradication of most other life forms.” According to Ehrlich, the ecological catastrophe is man-made, mainly by rich western countries and will only be prevented by the radical social and economic changes needed to save the planet’s biosphere.

Back in early February, there was a discussion of the "abortion" question, which is a bedrock, no-compromise issue for Democrats, the statement was made that Friedman (Tom) was up in arms that the US would take away funding for abortion as a way for them to have population control. “What does this administration come up full scale against? A family planning technology being extended by the US government and climate change is a complete myth,” he chided.

"He argued that the increase in population coupled with the border wall would lead to a breakdown in the US/Mexico relationship when it came to national security. “Now how are the Mexicans gonna feel about keeping that going when we're building a high wall?"

Finally, right there in black and white, an admission that the bottom line on the Liberal/Progressive/Democrat Party's absolute and unyielding hard line semantically described by the misnomer of "women's issues" is, in fact, "population control"!!

Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":

Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:

"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON

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.