Did’ja hear about that columnist in Canada’s National Post? Yeah — that one.
The one who wrote that we have to limit ourselves to one child per couple. You know — to save the planet.
Right. Just like the Chinese.
You didn’t hear about it? Well, here’s the crux of her argument:
A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.
The world’s other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity’s soaring reproduction rate.
Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world’s leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.
The author is Diane Francis. She’s an “Editor-at-Large” at the National Post.
Didja know what I found on her blog?
No, not her National Post blog. The other one. No, not the blog where she sells her book. Her personal blog.
Guess what?
I got married to a Brit, Frank Francis, at 19 years of age and one year later we immigrated to Canada, or Toronto to be precise. We started a graphic design and typesetting business, Francis Graphics, which became very successful. I left the business to stay at home with our two babies, Eric and Julie, for six years.
Maybe she just doesn’t like one of her kids. I’ve heard that happens to shrewish harpies who develop God complexes.
(image hijacked from someone’s “Zazzle” store)
Related posts:
- Our Twisted Little Family is Growing! If there’s one complaint we’ve heard more than any other...
- Pachauri Reveals the Softer, Smuttier Side of Climate Change Warning: If the mere sight of Dr. P already makes...
- PETA Gets Perez Hilton’s Seal of Approval Perez Hilton must have taken his annual shower before posing...
- At Least Barney Frank Is Consistent Last week Nancy Pelosi put her foot in her grotesquely...
- Britney Spears Wants to be the new White House Drug Czar During a Wednesday night concert in Vancouver, pop tart Britney...
Yeah, forced abortions, monitoring women’s menstrual cycles, and other methods of enforcement are REALLY popular in China among the proletariat. People especially like the policy when their one kid dies when the parents are past child bearing age. Remember the big earthquake a couple years ago? A bunch of schools were improperly built, and collapsed on the students. A lot of the kids were older, so their parents were older, too old to naturally have a new one child. Of course, I guess if you think no one should have children, that is not a problem. I would like to know how a shrinking pool of young people are supposed to support an entire population top heavy with seniors. Maybe she’ll set the example and off herself, easing the burden on her children.
Death panels, AllyKat, death panels!! That’s how we end the burden of too many seniors and no young people. Boy those liberals leave no problem unsolved!!!!
I wish people like her would just do what they want and leave the rest of us alone.
…..I kind of want that shirt.
And journalism like that is why no one reads the National Post. I tried to read an issue once and felt brain cells die.
If this woman thinks China’s only pollution problem is “dirty coal plants”, she’s got another thing coming.
Hey, at least she’s not advocating Mao’s methods of population control.
Yet.
The problem with people like this is that they don’t get that it’s not too many people that puts a drain on resources its people who don’t pull their own weight. It doesn’t matter what you choose to do with your life as long as you take responsibility for yourself. As long as each person can take care of their self and understand the consequences of their actions and decisions things will balance out. Anyway its not the amount of people who are born everyday its the amount of sick people who are born. Believe me if people don’t take proper care of their health overpopulation won’t be an issue.
However the real problem with people like this is that they don’t have a problem with too many people, they simply have a problem with people. There will always be something. If we eliminated disease and infirmity and no person was ever a burden to another they would complain. If we learned to triple lifespans, extend child bearing years, had the same amount of children just much later in life they would still complain.
There is no reason to worry about overpopulation for two reasons. The first is that as people become more affluent and opportunities for improving our lives increase the birthrate will naturally go down. We are already seeing this in many countries. The second is that if put everything we know about farming and agriculture right now to use on all the available land and in the oceans to use we could feed the many times the Earth’s current population.
People who strive to improve their lives and care about other people do not put a drain on the planet. Anyway I like to remember the words of my half Irish grandmother who had eight kids when my mom asked her if she would do it all over again. “Hell no!” That’s wisdom from the “Greatest Generation”.
SCT is correct, and that is part of the reason I have seriously considered donating eggs. Because I am not a fan of children myself, but….other people can have my spawn.
If overpopulation is suuuch an issue, we should just stop providing health care, welfare and foreign aid. Enough people will die that the birth-death ratio will fall heavily in favor of death, lowering the population. So really, if you are a true believer, you need to support ending al forms of charity.
Hear that, Democrats? Universal “health care” will kill Gaia! Stop the legislation now!
Do as we say people, not as we do…
Pearce, I want that shirt, too. Didn’t know Costeau was so Hitleresque.
OH HELL NO. She did NOT just hold up today’s China as an example of anything we need to emulate. AllyKat is right: Forced abortions–some of them performed as partial-birth abortions–and infanticide, almost entirely of female babies, is earth-friendly? Is this heifer on crack, or what?
To say nothing of her “two babies”. Which she let live. So in true “green” fashion, HER kids are above the very rule she proposes for everyone else. SCA Syndrome again. Filthy, hypocritical bitch. I’ll take her seriously the very minute she pops a gun in her mouth and squeezes the trigger. Until then, she needs to shut it and step way the hell off.
AllyKat,
“Hear that, Democrats? Universal “health care” will kill Gaia! Stop the legislation now!”
Actually, with all the problems that I personally foresee with “universal” health care, it’s probably their plan to kill off vast quantities of people rather than Gaia. Though the way they present it, at least, shows a more Gaia aimed murderous intent.
I contacted her through the e-mail listed at the bottom of the article: dfrancis@nationalpost.com
I thought I would share with you all what I wrote to her:
Mrs. Francis,
I just read your article in the National Post. I cannot believe they printed that unresearched, propaganda-spewing drivel. As someone who plans to immigrate to Canada in the future, I am sorely disappointed and ashamed to have to count you as one of my fellow Canadian immigrants. Believe me, if you ever start a movement to implement the one-child policy you so adore (even though you yourself have two children), I will fight against it with all of my spirit and strength. Thank God I have the chance to, because I wasn’t born into a country that mandated the killing of children to stave off a phantom of depleted resources because of overpopulation. I won’t only indict your naivety, however. I also have some constructive feedback. If you are so worried about depleted resources, there are many ways to lower this risk. There is a reason the people at the Cophenhagen summit are not advocating eugenics like you are. For one, there could be a realistic cap on air miles. This would mostly mean no jet-setting celebrities travelling everywhere and eating up those precious resources for their social agendas. This would not hurt businesses, because of that great new technology of phone conferences and even video conferences. There could be a big push for everyone to use public transportation like buses, trains, and subways. There could be a water use cap for watering your lawn (or even do without watering your lawn entirely). There are SO many things that we as humans do that contributes to resource depletion for no good reason that could be changed. Please consider being an advocate for these causes before attempting a pathetic promotion of a life-denying tyrannical approach.
Sincerely,
“babeltek”
Those are the times I read something on the Internet and I say to myself “What a Dumb American Bitch” until I read that the text came from the National Post!
I would like to express my most sincere apologies to the American readers of this blog. Looks like we have our own brand of “Lame-Ass Dumb” morons up here also.
What a Dumb American Bitch?
As someone who works hard for the title of Bitch, I take offense to the comment Dumb American Bitch. I think more apt and much less offensive comment would be Dumb American Politician/Celebrity.
Yeah, she may be a hypocrite. China’s policy may be absolutely brutal. Totally inhumane. Unthinkable to apply over in the West.
Doesn’t change the fact she’s right.
We also need to start letting people over 60 [50?] die. Just withhold medical assistance. Let them go. No death panels, just let them go. If you’re still fighting fit at 100, then you keep on living.
That way we lose the reliant top heavy society while keeping the keeping the youth levels in check. Not nice, but probably 100% essential within the next century. And no ‘just being responsible’ isn’t going to help much when the sheer number of humans on this planet swallow 300% of available resources.
Please tell everyone you can. The more people who know the way you think, the better.
undeadbydawn, you are without question a gaping asshole and a murderous, selfish hypocrite. By all means, sterilize yourself, preferably with an X-acto knife, and then, just to be sure, shoot yourself in the head.
You know, lead by example.
@undeadbydawn: As someone with a mother who is in that age range and fighting cancer, there’s only one thing that pops into my mind.
Go to hell.
Don’t worry, you’ll like it there! You’ll meet lots of people like you.
@undeadbydawn
Because at 50+ you’re no longer contributing to society?
You sir, have clearly not thought out your position. At all.
Now, now … Let’s all be civil.
I know if I had a whiny blog that no one read about how I washed out of the health care field, I might feel like wishing death on those around me too.
“And no ‘just being responsible’ isn’t going to help much when the sheer number of humans on this planet swallow 300% of available resources.”
Ever seen Soylent Green? In the 60s and 70s they were utterly convinced that we would literally be eating each other if we ever surpassed the 6 billion mark. Result? We have fewer people on this Earth going hungry tonight than we did then.
One guy in particular (name escapes me) is said to have saved two billion (yes, with a friggin B) lives by dedicating his life to cross-breeding agricultural products to make them more drought and disease resistant. That’s how cool-headed pragmatists deal with problems like overpopulation. They develop new technologies, processes, synthetic alternatives, that save lives.
Saying ‘let those who most need our assistance die’ like undeadbydawn advocates is not only morally dubious (seriously, even Nazi eugenicists didn’t go around spouting that crap publicly) but it’s just freaking lazy. ‘It’s too much work to save lives. I’m way too busy playing with myself and playing X-box.’ Douche.
P.S. My apologies to any of my friends out there who spend their days playing with themselves and playing X-box. You know we’re cool Pasta.
*sigh*
I don’t comment here much, but this time I really feel a need to.
Not everyone who would like to see a purposeful reduction of population growth is an elitist hypocrite who advocates deliberately killing people.
No matter how you spin it or slice it, fewer people = less pollution and less consumption of natural resources. That’s a fact, Jack. Slowing down the birth rate does not have to involve forced abortions and harsh government control. How about tax incentives for people who choose not to have children? Free voluntary sterilization? Sex education? Free access to birth control? And yes, free access to safe, legal abortions for women who choose to have them? All of those things will help a lot, but most of all, we need to let go of the mindset so many people have that says “I *MUST* have children.” We are not an endangered species. Taking steps to voluntarily reduce population growth now means it will not have to spiral out of control until nature thins the herd with her own much more brutal methods like disease, starvation, etc.
It’s disheartening to see how every time someone mentions the words “population control” people flip out and start screaming about “EUGENICS!!!” That term only applies when there’s an attempt being made to create a “master race” or “breed out” this or that race, ethnic group, nationality or whatever category you want. Any efforts to reduce the birth rate that are applied equally and fairly to everyone no matter who they are is not eugenics.
Then you have the conspiracy theorists who say population control is a tool wielded by mysterious power-mad schemers to bring about the “one world government” or the “new world order”. Puh-leeze! It’s nonsense. Do a bit of historical research…has there EVER been a single government, dictator, king, queen or empire that’s controlled the ENTIRE world? No. What makes you think that’s suddenly going to happen now and why would any authority figure seek to drastically reduce the number of people they need to serve them?
Now before you scoff at everything I’ve said and ask me how many kids *I* have I’m going to shut that down right now and tell you I have none and I have made sure it will never happen. I wasn’t pressured by anyone into using birth control and then getting myself sterilized. I chose it of my own free will, for my own reasons and it wouldn’t matter a jot or a tittle to me what any government says about it.
Why is encouraging people to have fewer or no children a bad thing? Please tell me, because I can’t see it.
Fine. You first.
Practice what YOU preach Deciever. The National Post does not represent all Canadians. Your title stinks.
@ The Oversneer- Today has probably been the most hits his blog has ever had thanks to your link.
Besides babies Eric and Julie she also has a niece and a nephew and is not the only child, either. And yes, I’ve been lurking…reading that “blog” or whatever it is she “writes” made me even dumber…didn’t think that was possible. Looks like eveyone in her family has exceeded their quota limits…Seriously though, I’m just gonna go ahead and assume it’s drugs. Drugs or some rare brain disease that makes her and people like her think that way and share those thoughts with others. The very thought of a mentally healthy sober individual managing to think something like that up is just too much to bear. Simply put, that bitch is trippin’, yo.
I got into the same argument with an “anti-pop” recently. They were banging on about how we had to reduce the world’s population to 2 billion, and we had 50 years to do it.
So I did the math. Allowing for current natural death rates (yeah, I looked it up, I’m that pedantic), I pointed out that their ideal policy meant that we’d have to liquidate *80 MILLION PEOPLE PER YEAR, EVERY YEAR, FOR 50 YEARS*.
me, even Stalin or Mao would get a little off their lunch at those figures.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for having a sustainable population, but there’s no way in hell I’ll countenance these genocidal .
What they don’t get is that the world’s population is already stabilising anyway, and will probably fall further as developing countries, well, develop.
After all, as I pointed out, the most proven way of reducing birth rates is wealth and education for women. It’s worked everywhere else.
Statistics show that Western countries’ populations ARE shrinking. American women have about 1.5 children on average, with lower numbers in Europe. It’s in poor countries, like India, where women have no access to birth control that population is booming at an alarming rate. And why?? Cause the West is smart/stupid enough to give them food and medical assistance to save lives. Would you let them die to achieve your perfect population numbers?? Then let’s cut off all the antibiotics and prenatal educators we send over there.
And for the love of God, quit picking on old/sick people (like my Mom, who by the way has worked for years in this country and contributes to the economy). It is not, and has never, been their fault that the world’s population is exploding. It isn’t so easy to call for no children in the West, since our populations are practically achieving zero growth and most new members are immigrants. Oh, and don’t forget about a little thing called Social Security which needs lots of healthy babies to become adults and pay for others’ retirements.
I’m sorry if this sounds uncivil but it’s an issue I deeply care about. I despise the way some people treat their elders, as if only young people are worth something.
Baba Yaga, thank you for the link, it’s a must see for everyone.
Why is it that when it comes to immigrating into Canada all sorts of a**holes (Diane) get in easily while normal people the ones who are actually beneficial to society have to wait for many years till they allowed to immigrate here.
After reading her bio I couldn’t help but notice that she makes a peculiar leftie. She’s a director of Aurizon Mines of Vancouver (omg, mines….evil corporations….aaaaa), listed on the Toronto and American Stock Exchanges (evil capitalist),and on the advisory board of a private healthcare company (have you heard?! It’s a PRIVATE healthcare, well that just makes her a Hitler).
Reading her article in NP was disappointing, I held NP to higher standards (sometimes they print quite good articles that go against PC).
Thanks you for all the comments and for linking to the site.
You’ve actually managed to cheer me up a lot.
@Beige, I do feel a need to respond to your comment specifically.
I am not a murderer. I have, in fact, saved several lives – including at least 10+ people over 70 years old. I have dedicated most of my professional life to looking after people who, under for example the US system would have been left to rot or completely bankrupted by the services I provided.
My comment was specifically designed to elicit a harsh response. What I find very interesting is that none of you have tried to construct a counter-argument. Please do. I really want you to. Because I *absolutely do not want* to live in a society as I myself described it.
Oh, the ‘whiny blog that no-one reads’ criticism is completely fair. I shall try to be a lot more positive and constructive in my future posts. Even if no-one is reading them.
Cheers
@Scott F. — The guy who saved 2 billion people through biotech plant engineering was Norman Borlaug. He died recently. I guess he went straight to hell, though, since his innovations caused such a strain on the planet by letting people eat.
@Odesa — I’ve seen The National Post referred to as “Canada’s National Newspaper” too many times to count. Some of us “Yanks” had the impression that those words mean something. Sorry.
@dooflotchie — “Encouraging people to have fewer or no children” is a bad thing, at least in the industrialized world, because children bring unparalleled joy to the lives of the adults who bring them into this world. There’s life before having kids, and life after having kids. Night and day. I’m truly sorry you’ve chosen to never experience that.
@undeadbydawn — If you think living past 60 is so evil, let’s see you mix some hemlock. Not for yourself, of course. For your parents. Go ahead — We’ll wait here. These things always sound great in the abstract, but every “statistic” in your argument is someone’s mom or dad.
Simon Scowl said:
“Fine. You first.”
*LOL* That’s cute how you ignored every valid point I made and went straight for the schoolyard taunt. It would have been a lot funnier if you’d ended it with “Neener, neener!”
The Oversneer said:
“’Encouraging people to have fewer or no children’ is a bad thing, at least in the industrialized world, because children bring unparalleled joy to the lives of the adults who bring them into this world. There’s life before having kids, and life after having kids. Night and day. I’m truly sorry you’ve chosen to never experience that.”
OK, I can respect the opinion that having children is a joyful experience, for many people it surely is. I never said anyone who *WANTS* to have kids should be prevented from doing so, but that still leaves the question of why is it bad to make it easier and more appealing for someone to freely choose to abstain from reproducing? Missing out on something good really isn’t an acceptable answer.
I really don’t understand the harsh attitude some people have about what I’ve said here. Perhaps it’s because on the surface I am agreeing with the “anti-pop” argument, but I do *NOT* believe birth rate reduction can only be achieved by forcing abortion and sterilization on anyone. Any thinking person with even just a tiny shred of decency or fairness would object to that, and rightly so. What I’m talking about is changing people’s minds, not forcibly controlling their bodies.
I think that we should limit ourselves to two kids. And that’s it.
-Denise
But isn’t that what this Diane person is suggesting – “a planetary law”? How is that NOT “forcibly controlling their bodies”?
And “changing people’s minds” by laws is force. Rather than say, “hey it might ease the strain on the planet if we reproduce less”, it becomes “you SHALL have fewer kids”. In California they just put into law a ban on plasma TV sales because they aren’t as energy-efficient as other models. Rather than say, “hey these TVs will raise your energy bill, you might think about a different type”, it became “you WILL NOT BUY this type of TV in this state”.
How is that NOT a form of force?
One thing at a time.
There is a non-profit that is working to eradicate poverty and hunger that has done some math and figured out that current food production is enough to feed all six billion of us 1.5 times. The biggest problem right now is food distribution. Examples: there may be food near where you live, but the area is too dangerous for people to travel there and get food (refugee camps apparently often have this problem); food may be available in neighboring countries, but legal red tape makes importation difficult (often seen in African countries during famines). Another problem is that some land is not being used efficiently: Zimbabwe used to be known as the breadbasket of Africa, following Mugabe’s land redistribution, food production plummeted. The white farmers who knew how to farm no longer had land, and many of the new owners had no real interest in farming, they just wanted a political reward.
Botanists are currently working to engineer crops to grow more efficiently, with less need for water, pesticides, etc. Public opposition to genetically modified foods (generally unfounded) has stopped wider implementation in some areas, but there is vast potential for another “green revolution”.
As for being for population control but not for killing/letting people die earlier, that is almost impossible. Most human beings want at least one child. Even if only one child was born to every couple for the next few centuries, it would still take decades (at least) for the population to go down naturally. (Most alarmists claim we can’t wait that long.) Also, what about people who can’t have children naturally? If every woman can only have one child, few babies are going to be around for adoption (which in some ways IS a good thing). If a woman has one shot, she probably isn’t going to give that kid up. What if a couple divorces? Think custody battles are bad now? They’ll be much worse. What if you remarry, but you already had a kid? You won’t be able to have a kid with the new spouse? The “necessary evil” of abortion will certainly skyrocket in popularity, which will be a problem as few medical students want to learn to perform them now. Considering that the majority of people have at least one child if in a committed relationship even with the doomsday talk, it is almost certain that laws will be required to keep the birth rate at 1 baby:2 adults.
Again, a halved population will have a difficult time supporting numbers twice their size. If you have 50 kids supporting 100 adults, each kid is actually supporting 3 people: their parents and themself. Even doing this for a short time is expensive. There is a reason most countries’ social services are strained (not just America’s). A huge amount of resources go into overall care of the elderly, and if we provide them all with fabulous health care, most will live much longer than if untreated. This keeps the population high and significantly ups resource use overall and per capita. If such things are so bad for the earth, and one is working to lower the population and resource usage, it stands to reason that the aged will also be expected to sacrifice. Most people don’t want to live less time, or struggle to breathe because using a respirator/breathing machine will use too much energy. The only way such sacrifice will become widespread is by legislation.
Any way you slice it, population reduction is only happening two ways: by force or huge calamity that gives no choice. Unless you are praying for a natural disaster, supporting significant population control does in fact equal supporting involuntary birth control and death control measures.
*jumps off soapbox*
The only real problem I have is when people have children they cannot afford to raise. Then the government taps into MY resources in the form of taxes. I take issue with that and I do see a lot of people IRRESPONSIBLY having children.
And you must have found it quite onerous, apparently.
It necessarily becomes force. People, the PRC hasn’t “encouraged” women to have only one child. They take you from your home by force, and abort your child against your wishes and without your consent. The MOST merciful thing they do is impose fines you can barely afford. In many villages, sonograms are employed not so much to check on fetal health or development, but to check gender–so that a female baby can be aborted, preventing the mother from “wasting” her chance at a child on a mere girl.
And this filthy bitch wants to copy THAT? I think it’s totally fair to insist that she, and anyone who agrees with her, go first. Go ahead and choose some disposable family members, people who matter and contribute less than you think they should. Have the courage of your convictions.
Don’t give me that “I meant to provoke you” bullshit, either. As for constructive responses, well, I don’t count mine among those, because I’d happily break my foot off in your ass. But cooler heads here have responded brilliantly. Obviously, you’re choosing to ignore them.
“Don’t give me that ‘I meant to provoke you’ bullshit, either.”
Lol my thoughts exactly!!
I wonder which one of her two kids she’s told she’s going to kill in order to save the planet?
Ooooo! New murder defense! “I did it to save the planet.”
@Beige – I wasn’t trying to provoke you. I thought it was a fairly reasonable response to dooflotchie’s post. Well, reasonable for 2am my time, anyways.
Maybe her 2 kids are fraternal twins ? If so, or not, either way it sounds like she came up with this idea AFTER having her two.
Brings up a point – what if you’re expecting twins – do you have to abort one of them ?
NO NO NO NO NO. California Dave, that absolutely was NOT directed at you.
@Beige – Okay. Calm down. We cool.
AllyKat – Very nicely put
It seems to me that a liberal mind wants population reduction, elimante starvation, environmental controls, healthcare for everyone, mandatory living wages (whatever the hell that means), social security, education for everyone and eliminate poverty.
Anyone see any counter productive wants here?
If they really want to reduce the population they should be encouraging famine, genocide, plagues, war and climate change (you know for them bigger storms Gore always warns us about).
Eugenics. How cute. What is it, like 1920’s Europe again?
Oversneer – The National Post refers to *itself* as “Canada’s National Newspaper”. That doesn’t make it so. The Globe and Mail has a far larger distribution (as does the Toronto Star, the Journal de Montreal, and LaPresse).
The National Post is a sad, ultra-Conservative (both the party and the wing) rag that’s just upset that the Liberal papers are read more than they are and they have to give their paper away for free to get people to read it.
I think it’s like claiming that the New York Times represents the views of all Americans.
“The National Post is a sad, ultra-Conservative rag”
Ultra Conservatives: Forcefully aborting your baby since…Canada?
Holy crap! I would hate to see what the liberals are like up there! Do they walk around with scythes to rip out babies the instant they smell fornication?
Maybe Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot were just trying to save the world!
Don’t forget Mao, Jrod. Mossy-toothed mass-murdering pedophile that he was, dude really had the best of intentions.
@TheRose — The New York Times doesn’t represent all Americans? I’m shocked — SHOCKED, I say!
Jrod, please ignore TheRose’s rant, calling NP “ultra-Conservative rag” can only come from a distressed lefty who reads Toronto Star – now that paper deserves to be called a rag. Toronto Star = New York Times “logic” for Canadians.
National Post is quite popular with normal Canadians because it’s one of the few newspapers in Canada that prints articles that go against the leftist group think. Occasionally they publish bs articles to appease some moonbats, but I never expected to find such poorly researched and asinine crap in NP as Diane’s piece.
TheRose, just in case you want to call me an evil conservative or racist (usual insults reserved for those who advocate common sense), you can’t, because I’m a minority. Yeehaa!
*yeah right* the one-child policy is working in China – if you call abortions of female foetuses, kidnapping with coerced rape and marriage of women (as there’s not enough women to go round), the nasty rise of ‘little emperors’ (Google it), people paying bribes to corrupt officals to have another kid (and yeah – it’s not going towards the burden they *may* impose on the planet), entire villages collapsing as there is no children remaining to take on the family farm (as the only child goes to the city to earn a wage), oh, and yeah – funny how only the poor in China have to abide by this – seems any party member can have as many kids as they like (meet Wen Jiabao – happy pappy to a son and daughter and premier of the country).
I recommend you do some research, Diane – before you open your mouth and put your foot into it again.
its fascinating how women are usually the ones pushing for the killing of more children. Personally, most vaginas only want kids if the kids act like little dolls or puppets: they don’t cry when they shouldn’t; they are cute and lovable; they never wake you up at nite; and they never go in their diapers. Unfortunately, real human children do all of those things – and the selfish, self-righteous and vulgar (white) women of today can’t accept that. Thus, we now see gene manipulation, the rise of designer babies, and this bs calling for a one-child policy. The feminist agenda was two-fold: attack men and weaken them, and attack children (the unborn, particularly) and create a culture where killing them is permissible. But don’t you dare say this in a canadian university (or even an american one): a university cop will be citing you for criminal harassment sooner than you can say “rent a cop”.
It’s sick.