Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Feminist icon Gloria Steinem thinks coercing women to have children they don’t want is the fundamental cause of climate change.
…
People argue that climate change and other issues are also feminist issues. What do we lose by broadening the meaning of the term?
“Are you kidding me? Listen, what causes climate deprivation is population. If we had not been systematically forcing women to have children they don’t want or can’t care for over the 500 years of patriarchy, we wouldn’t have the climate problems that we have. That’s the fundamental cause of climate change. Even if the Vatican doesn’t tell us that. In addition to that, because women are the major agricultural workers in the world, and also the carriers of water and the feeders of families and so on, it’s a disproportionate burden.”
…
Climate advocates are often (though not always) population control advocates. Unborn children are an easy target for the population control freaks – they can’t defend themselves.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Suffer the unwanted children.
Actually, though, won’t somebody think of the grandchildren: https://cliscep.com/2017/05/19/sick-butchering-little-kids-to-save-the-planet/
My advice, after having children, is never to have children, only have grandchildren.
I once saw a car sticker that said.
“My Grand Children Are Great I Wish I’d Had Them First”
James Bull
Jer0me, yeah, many of my relatives second your philosophy. For some reason, though, it tends to be one of those attitudes that “skips a generation.”
My favorite bumper sticker: “Stupid people shouldn’t breed.” Which about covers progressives. If these unhinged “feminists” think they’re going to undo the Darwinian imperative, good luck with that. Fleas and ticks are smarter than these people!
All my children are perfect, they tell me so regularly. All my grandchildren are better than my children. According to my children. I’m impressed by how they overcame my multitude of imperfections.
Your children are your parents’ revenge!
Want to know why Grandparents and Grandchildren get along so well?
They have a common enemy!!!
Now I appreciate that Bill Cosby has fallen out of favour in recent times but I still insist that performed the funniest monologue on children I have ever seen.
He also achieved the impossible by actually talking about brain damaged children and making it funny as….. His underlying message was that childhood necessarily involved a degree of brain damage (note that means everyone).
Well G L O R I A just how many children have you been forced to give birth to?
If you ask this same question to every woman alive today I’m quite certain that the number in every case would be around ZERO
sorta the equivalent of someone that doesn’t like dogs…
…telling you puppies are destroying the world
And complaining about how puppies have been forced on people.
Like most leftists, Gloria can’t imagine why smart people would ever want to do anything that she wouldn’t want to do.
I’m thinking all a woman has to do if the old man starts to get frisky is show a picture of Gloria to him. That’ll put him right out of the mood.
BTW – what’s climate deprivation?
Thank heaven the patriarchs never forced me to force her to have children. Systematically or not.
Bryan, some women bear children from being raped. I think it is safe to say they count, and the number is NOT zero. And they bear those children not because the Vatican says anything at all, but because they believe that lives matter, even those that you didn’t want to help start. And what is equally amazing is that in spite of what happened to them, they still love the child.
But Tom,
I never said it was exactly ZERO I said it would be around ZERO
about ZERO
very near ZERO
Given a female population of 3.5bn, indistinguishable from ZERO
But not exactly ZERO
Bryan, I always think it is cruelly ironic that people who want less population to protect _______ (fill i the blank) never, ever want to show by example that they believe in what they are saying. Will the radical feminists, Fascists, Communists, radical Greens, etc. ever learn the the best leaders lead by example.
It is always you go first and I will not follow because I and my work are too important.
Note it is only patriarchal societies. Matriarchal societies get a free pass for forcing women to have kids.;)
Birth stats from a hairdresser …
Hey GLORIA, why don’t we force men to have the kids, oh wait this isn’t a climate model. What to do. Tell ya what Gloria, sit down and STFU. you are NOT a climatologist or Medical Doctor, you are a s3IT DISTURBER OF THE HIGHEST ORDER. bY THE WAY THE PINK ELEPHANTS MUST HAVE ARRIVED.
My daughter was a planned preganancy. We decided it was time and my wife was pregnant within a week.
My attitude was that she, (my daughter), did not ask to be born and therefore she desrved the very best chance in life.
We home educated her until she was old enough for school at 5 years old.
We chose private schools of which she received the top academic prize on graduation from each one.
She got a first class honours degree at university and now works for one of the top companies in the world.
The world is her oyster, she makes a great contribution to society and is a fully rounded person.
Of course we are very proud of her and there have never been any regrets on our part for our decision to bring her into the world.
Can it be that our devotion and contribution for her childhood was worth while.
You bet it was!
Were we unusually fortunate?
Probably not.
The potential is with every child, it is the job of the parent to make sure that the child’s potential is realized. Discharging this responsibility is the greatest gift for the world and society that a citizen can give.
Sorry Gloria, you missed out big time!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Fits with lewandowsky being back in this new article explaining how to neutralize misinformation even though we know he is actually the source if much climate change misinformation. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0175799
People who long for Guiding Fictions seem to be the first to also scream Fake News at realities they want people to disregard.
Poor Gloria knows not what she is doing. If we went her loony way, the only winners would be the Muslims, that breed like rabbits, and would soon take over by shear force of massive population. Followers of Gloria Steinem would feel the blade of the sword on their necks as they lost their useless minds.
There will be no discussion on population control because it is non-whites who are over breeding.
Wally,
when did they get over it? And what’s their new hobby?
“Climate deprivation”? What the heck is that?
Climate Deprivation ™
By your selfish right wing actions, you are depriving virtuous correct thinking left wing martyrs from their rightfull climate. And the children (that you shouldn’t be having).
You couldn’t make it up if you tried! 🙂
“Climate deprivation”? What the heck is that?
————
No idea in reality (I don’t think it exists in reality), but it’s a new one for my “Climate monastic chant” list.
Philip California writes
I wondered that too. Maybe is because children won’t know what snow is?
“Climate deprivation”?
Something experienced by elitist ” academics” who never go outdoors.
Climate deprivation is the climate Arizona steals from Canada in the winter, resulting in climate refugees fleeing climate persecution. If Hillary had been elected, Canadians could have just presented themselves at the US border, undocumented, and the US gov’t would have provided air tickets south, along with bottled water and complimentary green cards. But Mean Mr. Trump retained border inspections — life is grim under Republicans.
Maybe she said “depredation”, and someone made an error transcribing it?
Misspeakage is certainly one interpretation. Let’s not rule out the possibility she was trying to confess to being climate depraved.
She might be thinking about the oxygen deprivation she had at birth.
Well she certainly seems to be an oxygen thief.
“Climate deprivation”? What the heck is that?
==============
that is when you aren’t getting any. as they say, a picture tells a thousand words.
You won. 🙂
Climate Deprivation
Is when you deprive the Clim-a-tics of their arguements
I suspect it has some relationship to “Sensory Deprivation Tanks”, as much as possible remove one from any contact with reality. Remove one from reality long enough and then it becomes much easier to impose your reality on them.
A side branch of would be “Information Deprivation”.
Dead people are climate deprived.
It is quite true that population growth has been a major cause of growth in greenhouse gas emissions.
No, it is the population growth of the poor people who are denied access to cheap energy….
Indeed. Getting down from trees was an error, getting out of the caves was bigger. Why we die in millions now is caused by those two mistakes in the past. Plus patriarchy.
The cure is Nuclear Winter. Duh!
Absolutely correct. It is a proven fact that births are the number one cause of deaths and all the suffering in between. Why bother? On the other hand if one can slither out of angst of social pessimism peddled by the likes of Gloria Steinem and similarly programmed humophobes there are a few fun things along the path that make it all worth while. Really good french fries come to mind.
Right on!
If not for the patriarchy forcing women to have unwanted children, there would be no people, hence no Man-made (no women involved) GHGs, thus no “climate change” problem.
So it’s literally Man-made climate change. If feminist goddess Gaia had Her way, there would be no people, therefore no problem.
“humophobes”
I am stealing that. 🙂
True as far as it goes. But I’d say the causation train is a little more involved.
Population growth was made possible to a great degree by the invention of inexpensive, reliable energy sources (whose use caused greenhouse-gas growth).
And population growth in turn accelerated the invention of more-efficient ways to use the more-available energy.
And the more-efficient ways to use energy itself spurred more. . . .
Joe Born
Population growth is not down to energy, in fact it’s the opposite. The energy rich western world has a declining population whilst the developing world is increasing.
The reasons are simple. Without welfare for the elderly, the means of their care falls to their family. Therefore producing a large family is a necessity, especially in the face of high infant mortality.
Encourage the building of scrubbed coal fire stations, satisfies energy needs, the country becomes wealthier and population increase slows as welfare becomes more affordable and a government with increased taxed income can contribute meaningfully.
Here is an article pertinent to the population discussion;
http://drtimball.com/2014/overpopulation-the-fallacy-behind-the-fallacy-of-global-warming/
HotScot:
I knew someone would make that debating point, of course.
It’s true that wealth has decreased the rich-world fertility rate recently. But the survival rate increased with the energy-use increase of the industrial revolution. Even if you start at the depths of the Black Death, you can barely squeak out a quarter percent per year increase before the 1800s.
World population growth rate actually fell during the early decades of the Industrial Revolution. IMO it took off more from improved public health and medicine than from fossil fuel use alone, although we couldn’t feed, house and clothe so many people without fossil hydrocarbon resources.
Population grows because for up to a few generations under developing economies, people continue having kids at the rate required previously to ensure the survival of one or two kids. Then they realize that they don’t need so many. That’s called “demographic transition”.
Birth control helps, preferably voluntary. My great grandparents (extant 1850s to 1950s) all came from large families, yet some of them managed somehow to have only two kids in the late 19th century, while others had big old-fashioned broods.
I’ll second Butch’s observation.
I’ll also add that humans occupy 3% of the planet’s land. And much of the developing world is forced to routinely burn timber (and dung) felled by illegal loggers who are merely responding to demand for fuel to cook and heat with. Roughly 11% of the planets total energy consumption.
Promote the building of scrubbed, cheap, coal fired power stations and entire cities will be released from the burden of burning dirty fuel over which there is no control.
It will also provide the means by which clean water can be processed and pumped, and sanitation can be dealt with safely. Irrigation is a natural extension so food can be grown and animals kept healthy and productive. Industry can thrive and the demand for international aid can be dramatically reduced. Wars and terrorism largely driven by poverty and the need for food would also be dramatically reduced.
And the fear from this energy development is what? That whilst there has been no observable detrimental effect of increased atmospheric CO2, other than political, the planet has greened by 14% over the last 30 years. Truly, an unprecedented, observable, positive benefit of increased atmospheric CO2.
Renewables? With global energy demands rising at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years, nearly 2,000 terawatt-hours between 2013 and 2014, it would require 350,000 wind turbines to be built every year globally just to meet increasing demand, far less address the current need. That’s around one and a half times the total number built since the early 2000’s. In 50 years a land mass equivalent to half of Russia would be covered with wind farms, little of which could be used for agriculture.
If you want the full details of this, including the genuinely staggering environmental cost of merely manufacturing this number of turbines, read Matt Ridley’s short blog on the subject. http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/wind-still-making-zero-energy/
Isn’t over 50% of Earth’s land uninhabitable by humans ?
Robert Kernodle,
would that not make the equation of man’s inhabitation of the earth’s land mass 6%, rather than 3% then?
Not an earth shattering difference methinks.
You say that like it’s a problem.
Well yes, but population growth also enables the broad support base required for a high tech civilization. Do you think we would have iPhones with a world population of 100 million? Do you think if we somehow managed to peacefully reduce world population to 100 million those “no longer climate deprived” people would have enough time left over from basic food production to even learn everything necessary to maintain the level of civilization we have now, let alone advance it?
Pick any number you want for earth’s “natural carrying capacity” and assume you could somehow engineer a non-catastrophic reduction to that level. When all is said and done, the lower the total population the lower the level of technology that could be maintained.
Your argument has merit, but having once reached a certain level of technology and automation, you can surely then carry on producing enough food, goods, etc, with far fewer people??
zOMG, a world without iPhones. Now there’s a dystopia I can get behind.
We could indeed get by with fewer people….
I hereby nominate Griff to decide which types of people we don’t need; and as population czar, he should have the right to implement all policies necessary to fulfill his depopulation agenda.
Least destructive method for reducing population to 100,000,000…
send everyone else to Asteroids for mining or to the moon to set up house or to Mars to set up house and start with the most populace regions/religions
AW,
Most, if not all, dynamic systems have an optimal level of operation. That is, cars have a speed at which they get their best gas mileage. Higher speeds not only cause greater consumption of fuel, but increase noise and tend to be fatal more frequently when there are accidents. Steam engines had governors on them to keep them from destroying themselves.
Actually, I suspect we could support something like “iPhones” with 100 million people. However, even if that number isn’t large enough, I believe that there is an optimal population that can support the advantages of technology while minimizing the disadvantages. To “give the Devil his due,” it is only environmentalists who even hint at the idea of an optimal population. I don’t believe that the level of technology varies directly with the population. Instead, I think that there is more like a threshold effect to sustain the economies of technological societies. Consider the Antikythera mechanism, ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism ) which was invented when the world population was much smaller. However, it had to be custom built. Economy of scale would allow such things to be made more widely available. However, not everyone in the world needs one. For that matter, not everyone ‘needs’ an IPhone either!
DonM,
Make Griff the program manager for the “B Ark”?
IMO Griff should be on the special Short Ark, for the Gammas. Or Deltas, despite his initial letter.
100,000,000 people worldwide would be a population of 500,000 per each of the 200 countries. In the U.S. that would equate to 10,000 per state. Currently, there are 35,000 cities and towns in the U.S. which would then equate to 14 – 15 people per city or town.
Countries with high GHG emissions have longer life expectancies. We need to reverse that trend and will leave it to you to lead by example.
Probably wind up with a society like that in Logan’s Run where everyone dies at 30
Again, people who want less population never, ever lead by example. They always want others to die because they are so important them must live.
Leonard Lane,
You said, “Again, people who want less population NEVER, ever lead by example.” I have no children and I will die soon enough. There is a direct correlation between the accuracy of your statements and their value. Therefore, you might want to think about your statements before sharing them with a large audience.
Bryan A,
Being a commenter here, you should be painfully aware of how averages distort reality.
Nic, But that’s not the same thing as women were forced to have children they didn’t want. The population explosion is primarily as a result of massive reduction in children mortality rates due to modern medical advances. Women had and average of 4+ pregnancies in past centuries just to keep populations level. However, pregnancy rates have now dropped dramatically but there is a significant lag – hence population growth. However, population growth is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for economic growth and prosperity.
niclewis,
And I can’t think of a single “pollution” problem that wouldn’t be improved if there were fewer people contributing to the pollution.
All life pollutes. Pollution is a necessary biproduct of life. We cannot choose to NOT pollute and still exist. We share this in common with all other life forms. As a sentient species, we have some ability to choose how we pollute. We make these choices based on our preferences, not some Gia inspired heirarchy of sin.
Ultimately, those like Gloria are essentially arguing for the end of humanity, by putting a moral value on all human pollution, right down to our every exhale. This most be a form of mental illness.
“Ultimately, those like Gloria are essentially arguing for the end of humanity, by putting a moral value on all human pollution, right down to our every exhale. This most be a form of mental illness.”
No, she is arguing for a smaller population. There is a massive difference between someone arguing for a less than 9B population, and zero. There is no question that at 9B the resources of the planet are overtaxed. The mass of fish in the ocean is down by 90% from what it was before, the ocean is full of plastic. There are similar stories on land.
Well-thinking people love Humanity. It’s humans they despise.
Ha ha!
I really didn’t think that people could be this inanely funny in public. Peak insanity?
“Peak insanity?”
I wish. But there doesn’t seem to be such a thing, it doesn’t seem that a peak exists.
The Left is on an spiralling downward 3D asymptote of insanity. A negative infinity lies just beyond their reach to their Left. Think of them like a turd spinning CCW, downward in a toilet bowl. They will try to get to whatever lies at the singularity of insanity.
500 years of ‘patriarchy’? You mean 50,000 or 500,000 year don’t you Gloria. Where does the 500 year come from?
Clowns like Steinem make ‘patriarchy’ seem like a reasonable alternative frankly.
Yes, that one had me puzzled, too. Maybe she means the 500 years that Europeans and their descendants have lived on North America. This means she is a Euro-centric bigot who thinks that Native Americans were incapable of being patriarchal. Either that or she thinks the world is only 3600 years old.
Likely just a number she pulled out of her Arsenal
500 years ago is when those nasty Europeans started to dominate much of the world.
That struck me, too. Five hundred years of patriarchy==>reminds me of the old song “don’t know much about history, don’t know much biology. . .” A typical green.
Maybe the last of the Amazons died 500 years ago?
(Oh wait. Wonder Woman. I forgot about her.)
Sorry Gloria, us real women out here don’t need your advice. We already know how to wack our men into submission with a 2 by 4 and we don’t need a pink hat to do it either.
[This website cannot condone the use of violence against its weaker readers. Nor its female readers. 8<) .mod]
Sorry Mod, : )
I should have used a sarc tag.
For clarity, I do not condone violence.
EJ mod was only kidding. Charles? is a very caring person :))
understood
and some of us men like being beaten by a strong woman like EJ, the lash is just so 19th Century..
Please miss, can I have some more….. 🙂
EJ, you can beat Gloria with a 2×4 cos it sounds like she could really do with it too….
(and you leave EJ alone you meany Mod.)
[The mods are now confused. Should they duck under a 2×4, or swoop to the non-rescue of an upside non-rescued Aussie? .mod]
[Somebody else asks if a a 2×4 is a 4×2 in Australia? ]
Thank You for the chivalry, Convict. Your mother taught you well.
Obviously, Gloria, has not yet become wise in her years to obvious male whacking submission tool, the common birthday suit.
(I’ve never seen a meany mod here, but just in case)
Husbands quote ” never underestimate the power of a 5 foot Yooper”
Here’s a good read about ancient women. Quite a few artifacts on Ancient Nomadic Priestess Warriors
https://csen.org/WomenWarriors/Statuses_Women_Warriors.html
Dear Mod,
mate, its a 2×4 if you get hit with the 4 side and a 4×2 if the 2 side makes contact ( or is that the otherway round – I am usually concussed or in nirvarna at these times). I assume EJ was offering to paddle whack not brain someone. She sounds like a disciplinarian not a serial killer.
You seem easily confused Mod. and perhaps just need to get out more. Come down to Oz or catch up for a session with EJ.
🙂
When talking about wood, there is no such thing as a 2×4, or a 4×2 any more it’s 50×100 or 100×50. ;-P
I would recommend ducking, mod
With an over inflated facetious mindset. ; )
Convict,
” I assume EJ was offering to paddle whack not brain someone. She sounds like a disciplinarian not a serial killer.”
Not sure on the ‘paddle whack’, there’s no sms (?) here. ( tread lightly folks)
But truely, I have always been the disciplinarian, and I have two well rounded, self thinking, children to prove it.
Gunga,
“I mean, Ej can wack her man with a 2×4 and get away with it. But if her Man wacked her with a 2×4….”
You ‘might’ be right on that, but Ej, smarter than the average bear, (facetiously) Ej remembers every moment of Hunters safetly classes.
“”“Be sexy and carry a big stick.”
PS Being truly “sexy” doesn’t require looks. It requires mutual love for each other.””
So true, Gunga. This is why the man chose me, and I him. On any given day I could be out there hauling wood, using the wheel barrel, mixing morter, and I can honestly say, I lifted every single sheet of particule board up to the roof top of a garage we built. AND it was me and him putting up the trusses.
Yep, 2×4’s are not your fathers old 2×4’s. They are now 1 1/2″ x 3 1/2″.
Now, that I’m done replying, I’m off to put on that silk dress with heals and darn it I am sexy in it too !! My lucky husband !
When Bill Maher asked Gloria Steinem about FGM and the abuse of women in Islamic societies (interview), she danced and equivocated and refused to condemn Islam for the brutal anti-woman institution it is. “I can’t handle any monotheism,” she said, as though they were all alike these days.
She praised Muhammad as a reformer for women of his day — an accolade easily refuted by even a cursory historical study. Contemporary Byzantium did a better job, for example, and so did Scandinavia.
Meanwhile Muhammad (by reputation) had sex slaves, raped female captives, took child brides, and allocated himself 13 wives. If anything, Islam concreted the abuse of women into sacred dictate.
I don’t think Gloria realizes she’s reached her goal.
I mean, Ej can wack her man with a 2×4 and get away with it. But if her Man wacked her with a 2×4….
(in countries not suffering under Sharia law type nonsense)
Put this in the wrong spot………
Gunga,
“I mean, Ej can wack her man with a 2×4 and get away with it. But if her Man wacked her with a 2×4….”
You ‘might’ be right on that, but Ej, smarter than the average bear, (facetiously) Ej remembers every moment of Hunters safetly classes.
“”“Be sexy and carry a big stick.”
PS Being truly “sexy” doesn’t require looks. It requires mutual love for each other.””
So true, Gunga. This is why the man chose me, and I him. On any given day I could be out there hauling wood, using the wheel barrel, mixing morter, and I can honestly say, I lifted every single sheet of particule board up to the roof top of a garage we built. AND it was me and him putting up the trusses.
Yep, 2×4’s are not your fathers old 2×4’s. They are now 1 1/2″ x 3 1/2″.
Now, that I’m done replying, I’m off to put on that silk dress with heals and darn it I am sexy in it too !! My lucky husband !
Didn’t Teddy Roosevelt say something along those lines?
“Be sexy and carry a big stick.”
PS Being truly “sexy” doesn’t require looks. It requires mutual love for each other. “Looks” are two dimensional with that. Using someone because they “look good” is one dimensional.
I’d guess when she was younger that last is all the “love” she ever got?
I want to adopt a working college graduate.
Kamikazedave
Good luck with that! (McDonald’s is trying very hard to get their robot-server-oder (er, order) takers to make as many mistakes per hour as the live ones do. Soon as they get the bugs worked in, the last of the college-graduate entry-level positions will be gone!)
Hope she’s making tasty, non-Michelle-approved school lunches! 😉
No worries, RACook. My working college graduate will have a MS Chemical Engineering degree.
Just read this to my wife as she slaved under my weighty thumb making my kids their lunches for school. I think we’re both more than a little disturbed by her comments. We will continue to celebrate our 5 wonderful children and what they will bring to the world.
“what causes climate deprivation is population. If we had not been systematically forcing women to have children they don’t want or can’t care for over the 500 years of patriarchy, we wouldn’t have the climate problems that we have. That’s the fundamental cause of climate change. Even if the Vatican doesn’t tell us that. In addition to that, because women are the major agricultural workers in the world, and also the carriers of water and the feeders of families and so on, it’s a disproportionate burden.”
_________________________________________
Right, Gloria –
we don’t need no
https://www.google.at/search?q=india+widows+burning&oq=india+widows+burning&aqs=chrome.
How about men die in the workplace at ten times the rate of women. link link
We’ve been trying for many years to encourage women to become engineers. For sure there are more women engineers than there were in the 1950s but I think it has plateaued since the 1980s. Women are highly resistant to taking up some jobs. The fact that women aren’t doing dirty dangerous jobs isn’t just because of the patriarchy.
Graph showing the percentage of women engineering students since 1991. It has remained around 20%.
Patriarchy prevents women from cleaning up main sewers, driving trash trucks and dying to heart attack at their 60’s. Neat, isn’t it.
Changing the wheels on my tractor every season.
Been doing engineering for more than 40 years. Worked with hundreds on engineers, managing/supervising a good number. Women in engineering are average, neither brilliant nor dullards, just as the IQ data would suggest, grouped in the middle. Motivation, dedication, and passion are similary grouped, down the middle.
Maybe simply a reflection of reality, most want marriage, motherhood, and family as a core of their life’s arc. Nothing wrong with that. It’s just the reality that Ms. Stenim and her ilk have been trying to deny for more tha half a century now.
I agree. Camille Paglia, one of the few feminists who acknowledge the role of biology, often finds herself at odds with other feminists.
Radical feminism is a lot like climate science in that heterodoxy is swiftly and harshly punished. Inconvenient facts are outright denied.
Gloria is a true Citizen Unfit for Naval Training.
A quick reference to the World Bank and the UN website on population will reveal how ill-informed this person really is. The fertility rate – the number of children per woman – is dropping rapidly Worldwide, and has been for years.
Could that possibly be because of education?
Bearing a child is still one of the most dangerous things a woman can do. It’s the sixth most common cause of death among women age 20 to 34 in the United States and for every 167 births in that country, there is one stillbirth. Globally, at least 3.3 million children less than 5 years of age die annually because of serious birth defects and the majority of those who survive may be mentally and physically disabled for life.
Maybe the Vatican could explain that in the Terms and Conditions section?
The Vatican has never objected to abortions needed to protect the life of the mother.
Mark,
“It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans abortion to save the life of the mother. ” As described below however, if the embryo or foetus is accidentally (“indirectly”) killed in the process of operating to save the mother, it’s allowed.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC043.HTM
ABORTION TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER
THE ‘DOUBLE EFFECT.’
Source of Confusion.
The very rare cases of pregnancy that pose a real and immediate threat to the mother’s life including uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancies are a source of great confusion, especially among Catholics.
It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans abortion to save the life of the mother. However (and this is an extremely important point) the mother’s life may be saved by a surgical procedure that does not directly attack the unborn baby’s life.
The most common dysfunctions that may set a mother’s life against that of her unborn child’s are the ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the ovary. Occasionally, cancer of the vulva or vagina may indicate surgical intervention.
In such cases, under the principle of the “double effect,” attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother’s life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the unborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby’s life, the baby will of course die. But this would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.
The principle of the “double effect” also applies to sexual sterilization. If a woman must have a hysterectomy to remove a dangerously cancerous uterus, this will result in her sterilization, but is not a sinful act. However, if the purpose of the operation is not to heal or safeguard health, but to directly sterilize, then that act is intrinsically evil and is always a mortal sin.[12]
[12] Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, #14, July 25, 1968, and Pope Pius XII, “Allocution to Midwives,” #27, October 29, 1951.
Father John Connery, S.J. Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective.
Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1977. Hardcover. Order from: Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174, telephone: (703) 586-4898. This study traces the entire history of the Roman Catholic doctrine regarding abortion from the beginning of the Christian era to modern times. Particular attention is given to the controversy and confusion within the Church regarding abortion to save the life of the mother.
A classic example of the ignorance of the left. In poverty, women will generally conceive more children. Those that survive are sent to the fields, factories, militias and brothels to provide for the family. The march through the Institutions of Western Culture by the Socialist Green Left, the ‘Watermelons’, destroys the wealth of our communities, creating the poverty, limiting the choices women can make to provide for their future.
The irony is we are funding the Looney Left to preach about saving the world, when they are the harbingers of poverty, population and pollution.
The missives of shills like this one, the news of blackouts, suicides and industry closures have merged with the actual text of Ayn Rand’s ‘Atlas Shrugged’. We are living Rand’s prophecy.
The Socialist Green Left is now so many generations removed from the farm, factory, and any other practical occupation that they literally no longer understand how anything works. Which is why under their dubious leadership, their theories have brought the world to the brink of Peak Charlie Foxtrot. They are looking sillier every day, and the more they rant the quicker their ride down the chute to the dustbin of history.
Except that their message of pure evil disguised as benevolence is very appealing to about half of the population who refuse to acknowledge the evil because it undermines their politics.
Well she said “over the 500 years of patriarchy”, so the children she’s talking about are dead already.
Anyway, I’m amused to see the “problem” with climate is “patriarchy”. Misandry. Or whatever, my spell checker tells that is not a word. Might actually prove a point.
Misanthrope.
I am sorry but if The Patriarchy is forcing women to have children “they can’t care for”, then wouldn’t there be a lot of dead children? That is unless their fathers stepped in and helped care for them, which is against the rules of The Patriarchy. I betcha poor Gloria thinks “The Handmaiden’s Tale” is a documentary.
To quote from another commenter elsewhere.
“Pity Gloria Steinem’s parents didn’t follow her advice.”
+++++++ many
Her revolt against her parents has not been completed and the question is about when it once began. Very late probably …
Why do people save a horse from the swamp.
___________________________________________
For a person thei’d pull the mobile cam and hinder the rescue action.
because :
A horse can make a new horse.
Can you make a new horse?
Tom,
enough locked away in isolated detention
sticky dreaming of a good rogering.
Dream along.
Apparently Ms Steinem never received a good rogering.
We unfortunately live in an age of reason-deprivation and in a climate of fear-mongering. Feminism is championing the death of babies, free speech is silencing people with violence, science is marketing gender dysphoria and anal sex to our youth with artless theatrical performances. Leftism has turned every concept and value upside down. We’ve gone past perversion to full inversion. Hopefully we have just passed bottom dead center and are starting to climb back upward toward the light. #peakleftism
You do realise that the answer to those Ills (if ills they be ) is mass- conversion to Islam .
Why don’t the lefties ever consider debt to be the greatest driver of global warming? The ability to borrow 10x or more of ones income and consume today rather than save and consume later is obviously the greatest driver manmade CO2 emissions. Come to think of it, my CO2 emissions actually tanked when I had kids, no more boating or vacations for me.
It is incredible! All of those people trying to account for the phenomenon of climate change being blamed on humans, when along comes Dr. Gloria Steinem, DSc, Ph.D, MD and DDS,, and gives the world the “definitive answer”. Despite the absence of any evidence that humans are allegedly responsible for global warming this “outstanding researcher” has made the “breakthrough” with “sound reasoning” that makes it comically clear that, yes, humans are responsible. Her “brilliance” also fuels the “wisdom” of the left-wing provincial premiers in Canada, e.g. Wynne and Couillard of Ontario and Quebec, respectively, who instituted provincial taxes on gasoline.
It is worth pointing out out that those carbon taxes are gender-neutral and LBGTQWERTY friendly. There is nothing as modern and fair as a carbon tax for all. Except the North-West Territories which will not have them because they are different.
I thought the whole point was that there are no differences? No so, friends. Gender-neutral and LBGTQWERTY friendly carbon taxes will not apply to all Canadians.
Thank you Anthony for introducing me to ‘LGBTQWERTY’ via Crispin. Raised my endorphins for just a brief instant making my life on this doomed, God foresaken planet bearable if only for an moment.
Gloria Steinham is a pig. She blames children for every ill suffered by mankind. Better kill all the children Gloria. You and all you pig friends better get out there and kill the children. Kill them in concept before they are conceived, make them a pest in the minds of young girls, kill them in utero, kill them in the crib, kill them in there minds in schools, just kill them. Everything bad in the world is the fault of children. Kill them all so YOU and pigs like you can be fulfilled.
Translation: Our groups are in line for carbon tax revenue. check
Next up we have the eminent scientists from the Kardashian Group and the Paris Hilton Institute.
See a bandwagon, climb on a bandwagon.
Men write history.
Women wear the weight of the world.
Women multi task.
Men prioritise.
Nothing to do with anything, just thought I’d throw it in.
I’m sure women do prioritise. But. When some complain on men not ‘taking part in household work’, you should always ask if the household work is correctly defined. That is, for example, washing windows four times a year sounds like a hobby, and you can buy it as a service so why would you do it in the first place?
Fixing car usually is not included, but making food is.Again, both can be seen as hobby. That household work is defined as those jobs that many women prefer to do themselves rather than buy, and prefer to do often, is beyond my understanding.