Woman aborts her child because its "good for the planet"
-
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35. "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population." [^] Is this a good enough definition of EcoNazi I wonder? Anyway, this bit ammused me: "But nothing in Toni's safe, middle- class upbringing ...." "Safe and middle class". Now there's a surprise. She ought to just put an end to her life and the twat she married.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
She ought to just put an end to her life and the twat she married.
:laugh: maybe a the same time take out her entire bloodline, that should make a difference.
-
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35. "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population." [^] Is this a good enough definition of EcoNazi I wonder? Anyway, this bit ammused me: "But nothing in Toni's safe, middle- class upbringing ...." "Safe and middle class". Now there's a surprise. She ought to just put an end to her life and the twat she married.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
By the way, "right-wingers" all over the world, or, at least, all over the US, were laughing about this very story (and, more importantly, the attitudes on exhibit) several months ago. If you're interested, I might be able to find Mark Steyn's take on this story. edit, or even if you're not: here's one reference[^] (I think I recall an entire article by Stryn devoted to this story)
I’m often told that my demographics-is-destiny argument is anachronistic: Countries needed manpower in the industrial age, when we worked in mills and factories. But now advanced societies are “knowledge economies”, and they require fewer working stiffs. Oddly enough, the Lisbon Council’s European Human Capital Index, released in October, thinks precisely the opposite — that the calamitous decline in population will prevent Eastern and Central Europe from being able to function as “innovation economies.” A “knowledge economy” will be as smart as the brains it can call on. Meanwhile, a few Europeans are still having children: The British government just announced that Mohammed is now the most popular boy’s name in the United Kingdom. As I say, the above demographic audit has become something of an annual tradition in this space. But here’s something new that took hold in the year 2007: a radical anti-humanism, long present just below the surface, bobbed up and became explicit and respectable. In Britain, the Optimum Population Trust said that “the biggest cause of climate change is climate changers — in other words, human beings,” and Professor John Guillebaud called on Britons to voluntarily reduce the number of children they have. Last week, in The Medical Journal Of Australia, Barry Walters went further: To hell with this wimp-o pantywaist “voluntary” child-reduction. Professor Walters wants a “carbon tax” on babies, with, conversely, “carbon credits” for those who undergo sterilization procedures. So that’d be great news for the female eco-activists recently profiled in London’s Daily Mail boasting about how they’d had their tubes tied and babies aborted in order to save the planet. “Every person who is born,” says Toni Vernelli, “produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of overpopulation.” We are the pollution, and sterilization is the sol
-
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35. "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population." [^] Is this a good enough definition of EcoNazi I wonder? Anyway, this bit ammused me: "But nothing in Toni's safe, middle- class upbringing ...." "Safe and middle class". Now there's a surprise. She ought to just put an end to her life and the twat she married.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Two contradictory thoughts occur to me: 1) At least she had some reason other than merely changing her mind for terminating the pregnancy, 2) As you suggest, if saving the planet is a justification for abortion, why is it not a justification for genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35. "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population." [^] Is this a good enough definition of EcoNazi I wonder? Anyway, this bit ammused me: "But nothing in Toni's safe, middle- class upbringing ...." "Safe and middle class". Now there's a surprise. She ought to just put an end to her life and the twat she married.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35. "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population." [^] Is this a good enough definition of EcoNazi I wonder? Anyway, this bit ammused me: "But nothing in Toni's safe, middle- class upbringing ...." "Safe and middle class". Now there's a surprise. She ought to just put an end to her life and the twat she married.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Complete nut job: Darwin's law in action, perhaps?
-
Ilíon wrote:
Killing your children is an effective way to give the future to someone else.
Yes, that's called "natural selection". Keep going; you might end up understanding evolution someday.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
Two contradictory thoughts occur to me: 1) At least she had some reason other than merely changing her mind for terminating the pregnancy, 2) As you suggest, if saving the planet is a justification for abortion, why is it not a justification for genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35. "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population." [^] Is this a good enough definition of EcoNazi I wonder? Anyway, this bit ammused me: "But nothing in Toni's safe, middle- class upbringing ...." "Safe and middle class". Now there's a surprise. She ought to just put an end to her life and the twat she married.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Sick, she should kill herself.
The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.
-
Two contradictory thoughts occur to me: 1) At least she had some reason other than merely changing her mind for terminating the pregnancy, 2) As you suggest, if saving the planet is a justification for abortion, why is it not a justification for genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
why is it not a justification for genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Is this not you Neocons doing these days in the name of "war on terror"?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
why is it not a justification for genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Is this not you Neocons doing these days in the name of "war on terror"?
No, it's what you want to do to the Jews.
Everything is bleak. It's the middle of the night. You're all alone and the dummies might be right. Outside the darkness lurks.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
why is it not a justification for genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Is this not you Neocons doing these days in the name of "war on terror"?
Yes, giving Muslims in Iraq and Afganistan and Bosnia an opportunity to join the 21st century with freedom and democracy, helping to protect them from communism and other forms of tyranny is actually a clever plan to exterminate them. I would have to say though that the dream of a world free of Islam might just be worth the effort.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Yes, giving Muslims in Iraq and Afganistan and Bosnia an opportunity to join the 21st century with freedom and democracy, helping to protect them from communism and other forms of tyranny is actually a clever plan to exterminate them. I would have to say though that the dream of a world free of Islam might just be worth the effort.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Bosnia! Dont make me laugh. The mighty west sat on its arse and watched as bus loads of muslems got carted off to their death, and as for Iraq! Yesh, sure, 100 k dead to save thel from a tyrant who was 78 and close to his end. Wow, thats real kind of ya!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ilíon wrote:
Killing your children is an effective way to give the future to someone else.
Yes, that's called "natural selection". Keep going; you might end up understanding evolution someday.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Diego Moita wrote:
Yes, that's called "natural selection". Keep going; you might end up understanding evolution someday.
You're such a fool, as evidenced in these silly statements alone. I *understand* "evolution" ... likely better than you do. And, understanding the various equivocations meant by the term (and also understanding the absolute necessity of logic in all things), I *reject* the silly beliefs that fools such as you have about "evolution." (The quotes are because you people use the word equivocally, sometimes even within a the same sentence) In a state of vast amusement, allow me to quote from the Holy TalkOrigins site:
TalkOrigins.org: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology[^] Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
No, it's what you want to do to the Jews.
Everything is bleak. It's the middle of the night. You're all alone and the dummies might be right. Outside the darkness lurks.
73Zeppelin wrote:
No, it's what you want to do to the Jews.
Well, at least his sort isn't prejudiced ... they also want to do it to you and me. What a bummer it must be to know that you and I have something in common, even if at second-hand. :laugh:
modified on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 7:35 AM
-
Diego Moita wrote:
Yes, that's called "natural selection". Keep going; you might end up understanding evolution someday.
You're such a fool, as evidenced in these silly statements alone. I *understand* "evolution" ... likely better than you do. And, understanding the various equivocations meant by the term (and also understanding the absolute necessity of logic in all things), I *reject* the silly beliefs that fools such as you have about "evolution." (The quotes are because you people use the word equivocally, sometimes even within a the same sentence) In a state of vast amusement, allow me to quote from the Holy TalkOrigins site:
TalkOrigins.org: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology[^] Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
You don't understand evolution, you silly duffer. The reason that the majority of biologists don't have a satisfactory grasp of it is, as you'd probably know, explained a tiny bit further in the article. People assume that they know all about it - I think you'll find that amateurs usually overestimate their abilities in a chosen field. They also speculate too loudly, and spread disinformation. What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
You don't understand evolution, you silly duffer. The reason that the majority of biologists don't have a satisfactory grasp of it is, as you'd probably know, explained a tiny bit further in the article. People assume that they know all about it - I think you'll find that amateurs usually overestimate their abilities in a chosen field. They also speculate too loudly, and spread disinformation. What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
You don't understand evolution, you silly duffer. The reason that the majority of biologists don't have a satisfactory grasp of it is, as you'd probably know, explained a tiny bit further in the article. People assume that they know all about it - I think you'll find that amateurs usually overestimate their abilities in a chosen field. They also speculate too loudly, and spread disinformation. What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
It proposes no mechanism, neither have any of its past incarnations prosed any mechanism not now disproved, capable of increasing the information capacity of a genome above the complexity of that belonging to a bacterium. It is therefore incapable by ommission of explaining the exitence of the majority of extant or even extinct species. Natural selection happens and can be observed, mutation happens and can be observed, the 2 do not and cannot ever add up to an explanation of the flaura and fauna observed, even given 10^100 years and a free ride at a 10^1(place 200 zeros here) chance. A theory that does not explain what it set out to explain, the origin of species, though it neatly explains speciation (a de-evoltionary process) or what it claims to explain, pretty much everything, is a dead theory. It is also a stumbling block in the way of scientific progress and a handicap to anyone actually trying to understand the world.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
It proposes no mechanism, neither have any of its past incarnations prosed any mechanism not now disproved, capable of increasing the information capacity of a genome above the complexity of that belonging to a bacterium. It is therefore incapable by ommission of explaining the exitence of the majority of extant or even extinct species. Natural selection happens and can be observed, mutation happens and can be observed, the 2 do not and cannot ever add up to an explanation of the flaura and fauna observed, even given 10^100 years and a free ride at a 10^1(place 200 zeros here) chance. A theory that does not explain what it set out to explain, the origin of species, though it neatly explains speciation (a de-evoltionary process) or what it claims to explain, pretty much everything, is a dead theory. It is also a stumbling block in the way of scientific progress and a handicap to anyone actually trying to understand the world.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
It proposes no mechanism, neither have any of its past incarnations prosed any mechanism not now disproved, capable of increasing the information capacity of a genome above the complexity of that belonging to a bacterium. It is therefore incapable by ommission of explaining the exitence of the majority of extant or even extinct species. Natural selection happens and can be observed, mutation happens and can be observed, the 2 do not and cannot ever add up to an explanation of the flaura and fauna observed, even given 10^100 years and a free ride at a 10^1(place 200 zeros here) chance. A theory that does not explain what it set out to explain, the origin of species, though it neatly explains speciation (a de-evoltionary process) or what it claims to explain, pretty much everything, is a dead theory. It is also a stumbling block in the way of scientific progress and a handicap to anyone actually trying to understand the world.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
This reflects a logical fallacy that we can call "Best in Class." Also, question-begging. Also, special-pleading. Also, shifting-the-burden-of-proof. An analogy:
'Bubba' is on trial for the premeditated murder of Mr Jones. The prosecution is making its final argument: "... And so in conclusion, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, while the Defense has blown holes all through the case we have presented, the fact reamins that 'Bubba Done It!' is the explanation we have for the heinous murder of Mr Jones. Therefore, I call upon you to convict Bubba of this heinous muder!"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence.
This claim itself is false, on both particulars: 1) 'modern evolutionary theory' explains "current biological diversity" only if one uses a very tendentious definition for "explain" and "diversity" -- and more importantly, it doesn't explain biological complexity, which is supposedly what Darwin and all his Disciples were/are doing. 1a) As DeVries said (in 1904, as I understand it): "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." 'Modern evolutionary theory' still cannot and never will be able to explain the arrival of "the fittest." 2) "the fossil evidence" is quite *contrary* to 'modern evolutionary theory' (that is, after all, *why* Gould and Eldridge invented "punctuated equilibrium") Or, if you look at it another way, the claim is false on all three particulars: 3) 'modern evolutionary theory' is in no way scientific, in the first place!