ProWomanProLife

… who has five children, would like you to have just one. To save the planet, of course. Thought I’d pass this amusing tidbit along.

As you were.

____________________

Andrea adds: A global one-child policy. Wow. Sounds like a mandate for the United Nations. They might already be on it, who knows?

Margaret Wente on the new Ontario sex-ed thing:

I do have one objection to the way sex ed is taught in schools. It is so scrupulously gender-neutral that it ignores the fundamental differences between teenage boys and girls. Boys want sex, all the time. Girls want relationships. It’s hardwired into their biology. The more that girls absorb this cruel fact of life, the better off they’ll be. Teenage girls need to learn that having sex as freely as guys do is not necessarily empowering. In fact, it’s a lot more empowering if they don’t.

Darn right! But there’s more: Not only are girls looking for something other than just casual sex 24/7, they are the ones most at risk when it comes to long-term consequences from sexually-transmitted diseases (what a surprise it must be to find out, in your early thirties, that the family you are now ready to start can’t happen because you are sterile), and they’re also the ones who end up having to deal with a pregnancy when, you know, things don’t go quite as planned. As a very predictable result, many girls are made to feel that, should they get pregnant, it’s their “problem” and theirs alone even though it usually takes more than one person to create a baby. That, too, is far from empowering. Go read Unprotected if you don’t believe me.

On an another note, I also agree with this bit from Ms. Wente’s column:

If you’re a parent, it’s not sex ed that deserves to drive you nuts. It’s green ed. Today is Earth Day, as you have surely noticed – the holiest day in the school calendar. All across the land, millions of schoolchildren are being reminded that the glaciers are melting and the polar bears are drowning and the entire planet is in peril. The schools are there to teach them that they are stewards of the Earth (it says so, right in the Ontario curriculum), which can only be saved by turning out the lights and recycling the dryer lint. Time to make them watch An Inconvenient Truth again! Poor kids. Now that’s indoctrination.

___________________

Andrea adds: I guess I read recently that even in marriage a husband knows his wife loves him if she has sex with him, and a wife knows her husband loves her if he talks with her. Not that I’m reading any relationship self-help books, no, no. But people keep sending them to me! (And I’m not above the help, either.)

Well done!

LiveAction just released new pro-life posters. I especially like this one:

David Suzuki compared inaction on climate change to slavery. on the CBC, with Evan Solomon. Here’s the excerpt:

SOLOMON: You talk about 2006. But the CBC has obtained documents that raise questions about the government’s ability to even meet that 20 percent reduction from 2006 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Today the environment minister, Jim Prentice, he did stick by that goal. But there is word that they’re thinking about giving the oil sands perhaps a different break on that.

SUZUKI: Of course.

SOLOMON: And in fact, what’s your view on that?

SUZUKI: Of course. Well, you know…

SOLOMON: And by the way, they’re saying because it is, by the way, because the oil sands creates jobs, creates money that is transferred to other provinces, and that’s their notion of the balance.

SUZUKI: You know, that’s what they used to say in the southern states. We can’t give up slavery because it’ll destroy our economy and slavery gives us jobs and we have to have slave runners and all of that. Some things you do because they’re right. And you know, the problem is…

SOLOMON: But David, just for the record, and I know you’re passionate, but is comparing this to slavery, is that fair, to demonize the other side like that?

SUZUKI: We’re talking about the fate of all of humankind and the kind of future we’re going to leave for our children. Yes, I think this is criminal what’s going on now, to act as if the economy. Remember, the economy is a human- created construct. It’s not a law of nature. You know, some things like gravity and the speed of light, you can’t do anything about that. We can’t do anything about the fact that we’re animals, and if we don’t have clean air, clean water, clean soil, clean energy and biodiversity, we’re dead. So, surely to goodness that should come before anything else.

I am currently reading Somaly Mam’s The Road of Lost Innocence, her memoir as a sex slave in Cambodia in the late 20th century. I’m almost half-way through it, the poor girl is not 20 years old, and already she’s been raped more times than I’ve had frappucinos in my entire life. And savagely beaten. Repeatedly. And degraded. And killed inside. Because she was simply considered a piece of meat that could be bought and used at the discretion of others. This book makes me shake with fury at the injustice of it all – the fact that countless other girls, some as young as five years old, are RIGHT NOW being used as sexual slaves (sold as virgins then sown up then sold again as virgins then sown up again, etc). And David Suzuki would have us believe that not acting fast enough for his taste on climate change amounts to treating human beings the way Somaly Mam was treated?

Shame on him.

_____________________

Andrea adds: Suzuki has established in different forums that he is prepared to make outrageous statements that he hopes will remain unchallenged. I heard he walked out of a Toronto talk radio station once because he got offended. Apparently the host asked a critical question (how shocking). In short, I have come to see Suzuki as a kind of petulant mini-tyrant. Perhaps he and Diane Francis could room together or something.

Beijing tries to put brakes on plummeting birth rates, reads the headline in today’s Vancouver Sun:

Wang Weijia and her husband grew up surrounded by propaganda posters lecturing them that “Mother Earth is too tired to sustain more children” and “One more baby means one more tomb.” They learned the lesson so well that when Shanghai government officials, alarmed by the city’s low birth rate and aging population, abruptly changed course this summer and began encouraging young couples to have more than one child, their reaction was instant and firm: No way.

“We have already given all our time and energy for just one child. We have none left for a second,” said Wang, 31, a human resources administrator with an eight-month-old son.

More than 30 years after China’s one-child policy was introduced, creating two generations of notoriously chubby, spoiled only children affectionately nicknamed “little emperors,” a population crisis is looming in the country.

Right. So I was wrong about Diane Francis, very, very wrong. Far be it from me to not admit when I’ve made a mistake. I said she wasn’t an idiot, but in this interview with Laura Ingraham she displays a good dose of idiocy with a splash of just plain ole’ sad.

By the way, I do love Laura. This interview doesn’t show it, but she’s actually a very funny talk show host. And funny, non-shrill women in the public arena truly are a gift.

Further to Andrea’s post from yesterday, with an even nastier twist. Now we in the West are urged to consider saving the planet from global warming by preventing more poor, non-white babies from being born.

That’s what I call progressive!

Don’t believe me? Read on:

Consumers in the developed world are to be offered a radical method of offsetting their carbon emissions in an ambitious attempt to tackle climate change – by paying for contraception measures in poorer countries to curb the rapidly growing global population.

The scheme – set up by an organisation backed by Sir David Attenborough, the former diplomat Sir Crispin Tickell and green figureheads such as Jonathon Porritt and James Lovelock – argues that family planning is the most effective way to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.

Optimum Population Trust (Opt) stresses that birth control will be provided only to those who have no access to it, and only unwanted births would be avoided. Opt estimates that 80 million pregnancies each year are unwanted.

This is the picture they used to illustrate the story:

Well. Imagine how relieved environmentalists in the West are going to be when they are able to offset their own carbon emissions that way! “It’s fine, honey, we can fly to Costa Rica eco-guilt-free! I bought enough credits to send three more shipments of condoms to Dakar and cover the cost of four abortions in Nairobi! Woo-hoo, party!”

I think I’m going to go idle the car for no reason.

After one meeting (albeit a lengthy one) this article was forwarded to me three times.

It’s Diane Francis of the Financial Post declaring we should all officially adopt China’s One Child Policy.

I think it’s satire. From what I know of Diane Francis, she’s not an idiot. But this is the sort of drastic and unattainable policy that some would think completely normal and/or useful in combatting “climate change.”

Paragraphs like this one lead me to believe this is a ruse:

The fix is simple. It’s dramatic. And yet the world’s leaders don’t even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen. Instead there will be photo ops, posturing, optics, blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud, announcements of giant wind farms, then cap-and-trade subsidies.

You bet they don’t have it on their agenda at Copenhagen… And maybe we need a few more articles like this to highlight how the climate change file is a crazy one.

Anyway, vote now: satire or not? I say it is.

______________________

Andrea adds: I stand corrected. Apparently, Ms. Francis is, with a straight face, advocating for the totalitarian impulses of Communist China to be applied To. The. Planet (insert echo voice here).

And apparently, I must get rid of my optimistic tendencies–this impulse that would have me see the best in everyone. Misguided! Oi ve.

I’m not exactly surprised or shocked by this story, for it is not new. Hard-core “environmentalists” have, for the longest time, been more partial to the earth than to humans. See this, for instance. Or this.

Of course it’s silly. And in some cases, more than a little creepy. But hey, I’m not particularly worried. Besides, if the most hard-core activists choose not to reproduce, it will mean that many fewer hard-core activists born and raised, so how can we lose?