It’s no secret that those in power believe that the earth is overpopulated. And isn’t it ironic that those advocating stemming the population have large families themselves? They can have big families, because they view themselves as superior to everyone else. Everyone else is poor and uneducated and therefore needs to be sterilized (or aborted) so that the world isn’t filled with their filthy progeny.
Besides, in a world that’s burning up as a result of dirty human activity, the last thing that we need is more humans. Or, as the Journal of Medical Ethics calls them, “carbon legacies.” We can work to reduce these needless carbon emitters by heavily regulating the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) industry, like in vitro fertilization.
…[I]n the ever more radical Journal of Medical Ethics, Cristina Richie, of Boston College’s Department of Theology, argues that these technologies should be regulated to limit the number of children–called “carbon legacies,” as a means of fighting climate change. From the article:
“A carbon footprint is the aggregate of resource use and carbon emissions over a person’s life. A carbon legacy occurs when a person chooses to procreate. All people have carbon footprints; only people with biological children have carbon legacies.
“Through the use of ARTs multiple children are born, adding to worldwide carbon emissions. This is a burden on the already over-taxed ecosystem to support new beings who might not have existed without medical intervention. It is therefore the obligation of environmental policymakers, the ethical and medical communities, and even society to carefully weigh the interests of our shared planet with a business that intentionally creates more humans when we must reduce our carbon impact.
“While population growth and ARTs are not the primary environmental issue that should concern ecologists and bioethicists, the numbers of ART babies are increasing at an exponential rate. If we were to look at these numbers in terms of carbon emissions instead of raw population growth data, the statistics look grim.
“The unregulated ART business can no longer be endorsed and the medical industry ought not operate in an environmental vacuum. Retrenchment in all areas of life is the key to slowing down or halting carbon emissions that lead to climate change. For each child made through medical intervention a carbon legacy results. ARTs should be allocated with due concern for the environment and sober consideration for the implications of climate change.
Carbon caps on the fertility business and eliminating funded ARTs for those who are not biologically infertile are the beginning of an environmentally sustainable ART business.
Abortion was never about women’s rights. That was just the marketing slogan. It’s more about keeping the population down to a “sustainable” and more “manageable” level. They’ve since added global warming into the mix and are using that as an excuse to solve our “overpopulation” problem. Having only one child (or none at all) is the environmentally friendly thing to do. Soon, we’ll have to pay taxes for every child we have beyond that one-child threshold. Mandatory sterilization or abortion will be called for in cases where families can’t afford to pay the tax or for those who insist on having “too many kids.” And it will all be sold to people using global warming hysterics.