Birth control could help combat climate change

Source news.yahoo.com...


Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread Page):
AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events, or important information from other sites; please post one or two paragraphs, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.


[edit on 20/9/2009 by Mirthful Me]

reply to post by uswgo

---

So. . . . we cull the herd, and
global/climate/green/cooling/heating/melting/foggy/wet/dry/hot/cold
problems will be fixed?

Hmmff.

What's the next step? The two kid rule, like China?

Not sure I'm liking this.

yeah this is beyond scary, whats next will they say murder will be legalized for protection of the planet! It could happen! Just take a trip and see the Georgia Guide Stones and it says that the population cannot exceed above 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

I dont see any problem with contraceptives being offered for free.

thats not why this article is scary, it is because people like Al Gore and crap and trade mongers might start forcing abortions to help combat this natural climate change by sun spots.

This means future genocide, it always starts with it's a choice or it's not forced but will slowly pave the way to forced abortions like Obamas mad science czar that wants forced abortions, if they get people used to liking abortions a lot they will force it upon everybody to combat climate change, mothers might start killing their own babies or fetuses to help combat climate change because climate change is scam for the global elite.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by uswgo]

[edit on 18-9-2009 by uswgo]

It's not like the people in developing countries would ever use them anyway.

These people think a shower after sex can wash HIV away and that raping a child is a viable method for cleansing oneself of AIDS.

Right, send them all a bunch of condoms.

All that will accomplish is some condom manufacturers will get their hands on money that was taken from us in the form of taxation.

Amazing that you and I dont ever have to buy a product for a company to get rich from our money.

Stop messing around with these "developing" countries. Sink or swim for them a whole lot of money saved for us. Sooner or later they'll figure out they can't "witch doctor" their problems away and if they dont so be it.

Lets stop eating burgers, and stop reproducing the stupid cattle.
Can't do one scenario without the other.
Feed the grain to the people instead.
Seriously, if you actually believe in global warming, which I don't, at least not the Al Gore version...
There is little on this planet that is deteriorating solely due to the presence of man, and there is nothing we can due to change the Earth in her progressive state to whatever the future holds.
Hang on and enjoy the ride.

More evidence that the elite environmentalists are the true racists.

Many people in third world countries consider having children as wealth. It is kind of like a social security system where kids support the older generations. There is a reason why elder respect is very important in many third world countries.

The people living in third world countries are not going to accept contraceptives, it would be suicidal for their families, their culture, and their futures. Having children is the only wealth these people can have and they don't need to take out loans to attain it.

This contraceptive thing is just an opener but it will be ineffective. Unless huge amounts of money is printed to pay for people to neuter themselves, the third world will continue to make babies.

Want to cut greenhouse gases? Don't provide birth control to developing countries... those people for the most part are contributing something so tiny it can't even be classified as a blip. Don't provide birth control to the average citizen in the industrialized world, either... again, it's a large enough contribution to be called a blip safely, but nothing more. Supply birth control in high quantities to the Hollywood and political elite, PARTICULARLY the Al Gores, Nancy Pelosis, and Alec Baldwins of the world.

I used this site: www.whatsmycarbonfootprint.com...
to calculate my so-called "Carbon Footprint." and then looked into some of the footprint contributions of various activists crying wolf.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I consider the theory of Global Warming to be the biggest PONZI scheme running today. It is all bunk, but since they say it's meaningfull, let's judge them by their own rules and see how they're doing....)

So, according to the aforementioned site, my "carbon footprint" is, drumroll please:
22.1485 Tons of CO2 per year. WOW!

OK, so I've got a small herd of elephants spewing into the atmosphere courtesy of my household's activities. I drive an SUV as well, so according to THEM (cue ominous voice echo) I am Satan incarnate (particularly so since I could not give a single dry rat dropping about what my CO2 "footprint" is in the first place, but I digress...)

So, based on these facts, Al Gore must be way under that figure, right? I mean he went so far as to commission a people lifter to show how high up his projector screen our CO2 emissions were in comparison to history in an Inconvenient "Truth", right?

WRONG!

Based solely on Al Gore's public record of having paid out $2,439 a month on average for electric and natural gas at his eco-un-friendly mansion a couple of years ago PLUS an assumption that Al Gore takes 5 "long" flights per year *I'm having a hard time averting the snickers over how ridiculously lowballed that assumption is!* and assuming (hoping) Al recycles and drives a 30MPG hybrid (those pictures of him getting out of black SUVs were clearly photoshopped). Big Gay Al's carbon footprint is
(da, da, da!)
190.2515 Tons of CO2 Per Year... WHAT!?!?!?
Using even the most conservative of assumptions he uses 8 and a half times more CO2 than my family does? There must be a mistake somewhere here!

So, in summary, if we're gonna stop new births to save the planet from greenhouse gases, then let's start at the top and prevent these hypocritical jackasses from breeding because they're the ones destroying the planet (at least if you use their formulas... which I think is only fair)

I'm torn on this one. I do believe there is evil in the extreme environmental movement right now. They see people as parasites that need to be culled. They think they are morally right in whatever they do and this in itself is dangerous because they don't have compassion for people.

I know many women WANT less children but cannot afford proper contraceptives. The Pope also needs a swat across the head for banning birth control. Insane.

So, yes, it would be good to give birth control to women who want it (even if that means going against their society's wishes) but never, never use force or coersion to do it.

I suppose there is an explanation in physics.

Condoms reduce friction.

Less friction - less heat.

wow.

reply to post by dooper

---

I like your logic, but on the other hand (pun 100% intended and unabashed) proper lubrication achieves the same goal.

Ilm still cheesed about this GW nonsense in general. Bareback sex is bad, beef is bad, alcohol production is bad, SUVs are bad, farting and belching is bad, I've even seen them try to tie sports to global warming because of increased electric usage to broadcast and view games... When are they just going to come clean and tell the truth about what the global warming movement really is? That being a further attempt to emasculate men by villianizing some of our favorite manly activities and passions?

Lets require that all elite environmentalists be sterilized first.

Then we would do more for golbal warming then giving out free condoms to third world people that are not likely to use them anyway.

This is unbeleivable news.. Who would have ever thought that reducing population growth would impact habitat in such a way?

Its a good thing we have these experts in LOLondon to contribute their massive knowledge with the rest of the world.

These programs are never directed at the socities that they should be directed at.

China and India? No way...that'd be racist. We have to get the numbers in the West (read; white) down.




Deleted in 3.....2......1.....

You know what would work better?

Some good old fashioned War.