Admin
Main Admin Member is offline The Ten Commandments are Not Multiple Choice.

Posts: 822
|
Posted: Feb 9th, 2009 at 02:39 pm
|
|
|
According to the UK government's green adviser couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment. Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government's Sustainable Development Commission, said that curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. Porritt said, “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.”
Read the article here.
Admin. note: Apparently Mr. Porritt believes anyone disagreeing with him on this issue is unable to think for themselves what is really appropriate. Oy. I liked the reader's comment about paying more attn to teenage pregnancies as a higher goal.
...
« Last Edited by
Admin
Feb 9th, 2009 at 07:09 pm »
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
Admin
Main Admin Member is offline The Ten Commandments are Not Multiple Choice.

Posts: 822
|
Posted: Feb 9th, 2009 at 03:03 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin
Main Admin Member is offline The Ten Commandments are Not Multiple Choice.

Posts: 822
|
Posted: Feb 9th, 2009 at 03:06 pm
|
|
|
Another, perhaps more chilling, related article here:
http://iperceive.net/nancy-pelosi-jonathan-porritt-two-ps-in-a-population-control-pod/
Nancy Pelosi & Jonathan Porritt: Two Ps in a population control pod
by Kurt Schulzke on February 2, 2009
Quote:
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.
And a reader comment of note:
Gravitas
02.03.09 at 2:43 am
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.
Please give me your comments.
« Last Edited by
Admin
Feb 9th, 2009 at 03:46 pm »
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
FresnoJoe
Viscount Member is offline

Posts: 66
|
Posted: Feb 10th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
|
|
|
|
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|