babies

Babies deemed 'threat to the environment' by population control freaks


Most Viewed Articles
Popular on Facebook
CDC issues flu vaccine apology: this year's vaccine doesn't work!
Depopulation test run? 75% of children who received vaccines in Mexican town now dead or hospitalized
Biologist explains how marijuana causes tumor cells to commit suicide
Companies begin planting microchips under employees' skin
BAM! Chipotle goes 100% non-GMO; flatly rejecting the biotech industry and its toxic food ingredients
U2's Bono partners with Monsanto to destroy African agriculture with GMOs
NJ cops bust teenagers shoveling snow without a permit
Russia throws down the gauntlet: energy supply to Europe cut off; petrodollar abandoned as currency war escalates
McDonald's in global profit free fall as people everywhere increasingly reject chemically-altered toxic fast food
March Against Monsanto explodes globally... World citizens stage massive protests across 38 countries, 428 cities... mainstream media pretends it never happened
Chemotherapy kills cancer patients faster than no treatment at all
Why flu shots are the greatest medical fraud in history
600 strains of an aerosolized thought control vaccine already tested on humans; deployed via air, food and water
Italian court rules mercury and aluminum in vaccines cause autism: US media continues total blackout of medical truth
Flu vaccine kills 13 in Italy; death toll rises
The 21 curious questions we're never allowed to ask about vaccines
Vicious attack on Dr. Oz actually waged by biotech mafia; plot to destroy Oz launched after episode on glyphosate toxicity went viral
Whooping cough outbreak at Massachusetts high school affected only vaccinated students

Delicious
(NaturalNews) Oddly enough, it is a study that was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. What its author, Cristina Richie, of the Theology Department at Boston College, essentially concluded was that too many babies are having too much of a negative impact on the environment, so -- well, there should be fewer of them.

Oddly, though, the author does not recommend fewer Christina Richies.

An abstract of her study, titled, "What would an environmentally sustainable reproductive technology industry look like?" reads, in part:

Through the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs), multiple children are born adding to worldwide carbon emissions. Evaluating the ethics of offering reproductive services against its overall harm to the environment makes unregulated ARTs unjustified, yet the ART business can move towards sustainability as a part of the larger green bioethics movement.

For the record, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ART refers to methods and procedures to artificially achieve pregnancy.

The ART babies are destroying the planet!

Richie says that the integration of "ecological ethos into the ART industry" can result in "climate change" being "mitigated," while "the conversation about consumption can become a broader public discourse."

Further, she wrote:

Although the impact of naturally made children on the environment is undeniable, I will focus on the ART industry as an anthropogenic source of carbon emissions which lead to climate change. The ART industry is an often overlooked source of environmental degradation and decidedly different from natural reproduction as fertility centres provide a service for a fee and therefore can be subject to economic, policy and bioethical scrutiny.

In other words, naturally born children are bad enough on the environment; those children who are created artificially, then, are even worse, and therefore, the entire "ART industry" must come under further "scrutiny" (which is code for regulating it out of business).

Notice, too, how Richie argues from the position that "human-driven climate change" is a settled issue, though it clearly is not.

"In this article, I will provide a brief background on the current state of human-driven climate change before suggesting two conservationist strategies that can be employed in the ART business," said her research abstract. Then, comes her recommendations, which amount to nothing more than imposed population control, again, all based on unproven "science":

First, endorsing a carbon capping programme that limits the carbon emissions of ART businesses will be proposed. Second, I will recommend that policymakers eliminate funded ARTs for those who are not biologically infertile. I will conclude the article by urging policymakers and all those concerned with climate change to consider the effects of the reproductive technologies industry in light of climate change and move towards sustainability.

Wesley J. Smith, a bioethics attorney and special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture, took issue with Richie's statements, characterizations and conclusions, in a blog post at LifeNews.com.

'Sorry, I can't get upset about global warming'

"I guess it takes global warming hysteria to get the bioethics movement to criticize what is known in the trade as 'artificial reproductive technologies' or ART," he wrote.

He also took umbrage with Richie's definition of children as little more than "carbon legacies:"

I don't know if Richie coined the term, but it is ridiculous. Children are children, not bundles of carbon producers.

ART is an almost unregulated industry, a lamentable circumstance with which many bioethicists are content. But Richie says global warming has to change the field's thinking about ART.


Smith also disagrees with Richie's contention that the ART babies are pushing the world's ecology over the edge, and he mocks her solution: "Regulate!"

What is "grim" about the situation, he says, is not Richie's conclusion that ART statistics are steadily rising, but is instead "the exploitation of surrogates in biological colonialism and the eugenic impetus that has sunk its fangs deep into the heart of the industry.

In the face of such human objectification, sorry, I can't get upset about global warming
," he added.

Sources:

http://www.lifenews.com

http://jme.bmj.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

Join over four million monthly readers. Your privacy is protected. Unsubscribe at any time.
comments powered by Disqus
Take Action: Support NaturalNews.com by linking back to this article from your website

Permalink to this article:

Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):

Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link.

Follow Natural News on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and Pinterest

Colloidal Silver

Advertise with NaturalNews...

Support NaturalNews Sponsors:

Advertise with NaturalNews...

GET SHOW DETAILS
+ a FREE GIFT

Sign up for the FREE Natural News Email Newsletter

Receive breaking news on GMOs, vaccines, fluoride, radiation protection, natural cures, food safety alerts and interviews with the world's top experts on natural health and more.

Join over 7 million monthly readers of NaturalNews.com, the internet's No. 1 natural health news site. (Source: Alexa.com)

Your email address *

Please enter the code you see above*

No Thanks

Already have it and love it!

Natural News supports and helps fund these organizations:

* Required. Once you click submit, we will send you an email asking you to confirm your free registration. Your privacy is assured and your information is kept confidential. You may unsubscribe at anytime.