How radical is Nancy Pelosi? Pretty far, judging by Pelosi’s population control proximity to Jonathan Porritt. Porritt is Chair of the U.K.’s Sustainable Development Commission. Pelosi, as you may recall, went on the air recently in support of proliferating “contraception” as way to stimulate the economy by cutting the costs of government health care. If there’s a more powerful argument against nationalizing healthcare, I’d like to hear it.
Meanwhile, as reported in the Times Online, Mr. Porritt has picked up the baton from Pelosi, announcing that parents who indulge themselves by having more than two children (Porritt is twice as generous as the PRC) are “irresponsible”:
“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.
“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”
The Optimum Population Trust, a campaign group of which Porritt is a patron, says each baby born in Britain will, during his or her lifetime, burn carbon roughly equivalent to 2½ acres of old-growth oak woodland – an area the size of Trafalgar Square. . .
And when it comes to contraception, Porritt and Pelosi really dance cheek-to-cheek:
Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.
As any prison warden knows, it’s vastly cheaper to execute inmates than keep them around for a life term.
He said: “We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers.
Why wait? What’s stopping us? Let’s just bump off any babies whose mothers don’t want to be mothers. Sounds like a pretty ragged edge, but, hey, we have to draw the line somewhere, right?
More at the Times.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
We all know the Social Security contributions paid by one retiree are not enough to support him/her — not if he/she survives very long into retirement — since Congress raids Social Security funds for other pet projects and the money is not being invested.
Since our Social Security contributions are not kept “in the bank”, someone currently working is subsidizing someone who is retired. Actually, it takes several someones to produce those dollars.
Sooo, sweet Nancy, whose kids are going to produce Social Security checks for two aging parents who DIDN”T have more than two kids? You say *my* five kids are going to subsidize them? You are picking THEIR pockets? Who’s being irresponsible here, Nancy? You are, my dear: those of us who “reproduce irresponsibly” are the only ones who ARE responsible. We are providing for our own. What a concept!
After all, since it doesn’t go into mutual funds or a lock box, shouldn’t those who want to qualify for Social Security be required to have enough children to support their own retirement?
If a gynecological exam shows you can’t have more than two — then you are a charity case, and your retirement would be subsidized by families who do who have more children than Nancy’s prescribed limit. …
And in fact, it IS. Those who have voluntarily chosen to have smaller families are leeching off those who have larger families. Do the math; it has to come from somewhere, Nancy. If Congress cannot keep it’s sticky fingers off Social Security funds, then we have to keep on reproducing.
Gravitas —
Taking your advice — say, 4 children per family on average — that’s a doubling of the population every 25-30 years.
You reckon that could work?! For how long, pray? For how much of today’s world?!
It may seem fair to reward financially those choosing to birth and raise children. And to punish financially those choosing otherwise. This is already happening, to an extent. Maybe you’d like to see more of that.
But there are reasons to be careful. Were 4+ kids to become a common family choice, see the above.
For crying out loud they say we need illegal workers because we don’t have enough children to work. So we import all the problems that the south of the border workers bring instead of having an educated population.
By the way: Good guys – 1
Obama/Daschle —–0
Alexei: Mortality rates would reduce that number measurably. Also, since the current “Social Security” system is basically a pyramid scheme designed to fail, and since demagoguing politicians won’t allow a serious debate on its solvency, what alternative is there?