Posted by Scott Malensek on 4 August, 2009 at 7:59 am. 21 comments already!


Forget about the birthers, and the nutty claims that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

More and more, we are hearing from people who might best be described as anti-birthers. Their claims have nothing to do with long- versus short-form Hawaiian birth certificates. Instead, they advance a simple proposition: that the birth of each additional American child is a kind of calamity for the environment.

The most recent example of anti-birth thinking comes from Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax of Oregon State University. In a study called “Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals,” they suggest that if you truly care about the environment, it’s not enough to trade your SUV for a Prius, use the right lightbulbs, or limit your lawn to organic fertilizers. To the contrary, you need to start thinking about something way more important: i.e., having one less child.

The “basic premise,” the study reports, is that “a person is responsible for emissions of his descendents.”

Yes, that’s right…they’ll pay for an abortion to kill a baby, and they’ll pay for cancer patients to kill themselves instead of getting chemotherapy, and that’s how the Obama Admin plans on saving the planet and the economy: less Americans=less cost

The president’s science adviser, John Holdren, appears to share Mr. Murtaugh’s worries about too many Americans. In a 1973 article, he argued that “210 million [Americans] now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many.” He concluded that we should encourage women to have fewer children.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x