Close Topic Options

Environmentalism: Abortion?

Why Do Some Environmentalists Think Saving Earth Requires Abortions?
by Colin Mason

If asked what function the San Francisco-based Sierra Club performs, most of its 1.3 million members would probably reply "protecting the environment," or "raising awareness of endangered species," or words to that effect. Yet, in their 2007 legislative report for Minnesota, the Sierra Club spent nearly 3 pages describing legislative initiatives that have virtually nothing to do with the environment. Rather, this section deals almost exclusively with population issues or, to put it more accurately, with population control issues. "Over 250,000 women need publicly supported contraceptive services in Minnesota," the section's first sentence urges. It goes on to complain that "the President's budget slashes funding for international family planning by $111 million, nearly one fourth of the FY 2007 funding level," and criticizes Bush's support for abstinence education. This disturbing attack on life and family is only one example of a larger trend. Over the past few decades, environmentalist organizations have adopted radically anti-natal stances, often with a dedication and ferocity that rivals Planned Parenthood. Here are only a few examples of organizations whose definition of environmental responsibility necessarily includes population control.
Ref. https://www.lifenews.com/int425.html

Abortion Environmentalism

Study: Have Fewer Children to Help Environment, May Lead to More Abortions

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new study that claims overpopulation exists and that it hurts the environment has an answer for parents: have fewer children. The study could lead to more abortions and promote euthanasia, since it says children who live longer in more developed countries pose a bigger environmental threat. The report comes at a time when other documentaries are showing underpopulation problems in many areas of the world. The latest junk science report to say people are a problem comes from statisticians at Oregon State University. The OSU researchers claim the adverse impact of couples having a second child is 20 times more adverse to the environment than helpful practices they could engage in such as recycling, driving a low-mileage car or using energy efficient light bulbs. Murtaugh complained that having a child normally results in that person having offspring and the combined effects of the people -- who may otherwise be killed in abortions -- is worse for the environment. The statistician also said that having an additional child in the United States or other developed nations is worse than having an extra baby in a place like China, where the nation's government already has a forced-abortion one-child policy per couple rule in place. Ref. Source 2

Environmentalism: Abortion? History & Civil Business Politics

I don't think that the researchers had an agenda, did they? Let's see now. If more babies were aborted, then there would be less people using resources, so the resources would not get used up, so the self-centered twits could continue to impose their agendas on everyone else.

Sounds like a great liberal ideology to me.

Abortion Environmentalism

I believe that the statistician's carbon footprint is far too big and he should do mankind a favor and neutralize himself.