China: We're Killing Babies To Stop Climate Change
Chinese authorities claimed today they have done their part to cut back on man-made climate change by aborting 300 million babies.
No, I'm not kidding.
China, which rejects criticism that it is doing too little to confront climate change, says that its population is now 1.3 billion against 1.6 billion if it had not imposed tough birth control measures in the late 1970s.
The number of births avoided equals the entire population of the United States. Beijing says that fewer people means less demand for energy and lower emissions of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels.
"This is only an illustration of the actions we have taken," said Su Wei, a senior Foreign Ministry official heading China's delegation to the 158-nation talks from Aug 27-31.
He told Reuters that Beijing was not arguing that its policy was a model for others to follow in a global drive to avert ever more chaotic weather patterns, droughts, floods, erosion and rising ocean levels.
But avoiding 300 million births "means we averted 1.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2005" based on average world per capital emissions of 4.2 tonnes, he said.
Pro-abortion global warming zealots in this country should have to choose sides on this one.
posted by Kentucky Progress @ 8/30/2007 10:38:00 PM
10 comments
links to this post
10 Comments:
This is a great post. I hope it gets wider publicity. China's mindset is a preview of the kind of society we could be heading toward; one in which anything which adds to the bottom line on the profit-loss statement is glorified. Beware the new-fangled, one-dimensional "conservatism" increasingly in vogue.
But then again, Nich Con, the Tibetans, Nepalese and Taiwainese are probably glad about 300 million fewer Chinese.
True, from a coldly geopolitical perspective. I think from reading several of your comments that we share an appreciation for Realpolitik when it comes to foreign policy. We can't do anything directly about China's barbarism -nor should we be trying - but I'm just speaking up about the necessity of drawing the line against the same barbarity being imported here. We've sadly already got legalized abortion-on-demand; we don't need forced abortion by legislative fiat as well.
We also don't want to apply a similar "progressive"/new ethics paradigm to a hundred other policy questions - oh wait, our bipartisan postmodernist elite already has...
The global warming morons are many of he same ones who support the murder of the innocents!
It is all part of the mental disorder of liberalism, with apologies to Dr. Michael Savage!!!
You got it 5:36!
FREEOURPOWS
Nich-Con, my guns are oiled and ready for the day when American women are forced to have abortions against their will..or to carry to term against their will for that matter. God's judgement comes at the end of our journey.
Against their will or in their will (which is worse), either way, it is an abomination, a huge sin, murder plain and simple.
American women have been convinced that they need a career and can't afford to have that kid in the way, or they engage in pre-marital sex and don't want that kid because they don't want that man, only wanted him for the night.
In America they don't need to force abortion because they have used the breakdown of morality in our society to do it for them.
Approximately 30 Million illegal aliens we allegedly need to keep our economy going and over 45,000,000 potential Americans murdered since Roe versus Wade, hmmm. So, do you think our leaders will finally stop the flood from the south when it reaches 45,000,000? Interesting!
Roe v Wade was horrible jurisprudence on many levels, most particularly in federalizing an issue best left to the individual states. I say this as one who is pro-choice on the matter, which puts me at odds with many friends and family, Republicans and Democrats alike. Actually, some of my most passionate pro-life acquaintances are Democrats who would probably echo every thing said by the 6:58 poster above, and I respect their opinions. That said, I wonder if a state which can prohibit choice of such an intensely private issue could not become a state ala China which compels an opposite result? And I wonder if the issue were to return to the states which way the winds would blow. That probably makes many a politician tremble.
I know not how anyone could be "pro-choice", actually pro-murder, and think that they will not one day suffer the wrath of God.
How does one justify a life being a choice? That blows my mind.
What gun to buy is a choice. What color shirt to buy is a choice. Pulp or no-pulp orange juice is a choice.
A life is not a choice, it is a gift from God meant to be protected and nurtured in the love and admonition of the Lord by all of us.
This is what the Weasel's friends are all about. Quick Mitch, set up more trade with and aid for Communist Red China.
Indeed!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home