Some how the discussion about climate change always turns to this.
Peter Singer: Women Should Sacrifice Having Kids to Protect Environment
Bioethicist Peter Singer compared women and children to cows overgrazing a field and said — at the global Women Deliver Conference last week, hailed as the most important meeting to focus on women and girls’ human rights in a decade — that women’s reproductive rights may one day have to be sacrificed for the environment.
The controversial Princeton University professor, known for championing infanticide and bestiality, was a featured panelist on Thursday at the three-day Women Deliver conference attended by Melinda Gates and more than 4,000 abortion and contraception activists in Kuala Lumpur.
Singer said that since the world’s affluent are not likely to restrain their high rate of consumption compared to the world’s poor any time soon, and since it’s possible that family planning efforts may “turn out to be not enough…we ought to consider what other things there are that we can do …in order to try stave off some of the worst consequences of the environmental catastrophes…”
“It’s possible of course, that we give women reproductive choices, that we meet the unmet need for contraception but that we find that the number of children that women choose to have is still such that population continues to rise in a way that causes environmental problems,” he said. Women have more children because of their “ideological or religious views.”
Singer added that “greenhouse gases… are getting very close to a tipping point,” and climate change could become a “catastrophe and cause hundreds of millions or billions of people to become climate refugees.”
In that case, he said, “we need to consider whether we can talk about trying to reduce population growth and whether that’s compatible with the very reasonable concerns people have about women’s right to control their life decisions and their reproduction.”
Singer, who has also argued the case for bestowing international human rights on primates, said it is “appropriate to consider whether women’s reproductive rights are “fundamental” and unalterable or whether, in bioethicist speak, they are “prima facie — good and important to respect but there can be imaginable circumstances in which you may be justified in overriding them.”~snip~
I've said before but it does bare repeating, at one time groups like PETA were considered fringe "out there" movements that people kind of chuckled about. Sort of like the burning bras radicalism of the feminists in the late 60's and 70's.
Now they're becoming more and more mainstream as 50 years of constant liberal indoctrination takes it's toll on society.
What Singer is proposing may seem to be considered fringe and "out there" also but the truth is the climate change fanatics and the eco-fascists have been working towards their ultimate goal for a while.
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.
These bozos have been around for a while and they're dead serious propagating the idea that human beings are little more than vermin on mother earth and need to be exterminated.
This particular group advocates that we do it "voluntarily".
Singers solution doesn't seem nearly as benign.
Who knows what will be mainstreamed 50 or 60 years in the future?
It's possible that humanity will end itself for the benefit of mother earth 100 to 150 years in the future, not with a bang but with a whimper.
