One Way Of Ensuring Conservative Victory
By Mitch Berg
Convince the lefties that reproduction is bad for the planet.
We’ve got a start right here:
At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.
Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.
“Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”
While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.
Ah, but hostility to children is an aberration.
Right?
Well – it depends, says this Bay Area mom…:
I often am seen in the company of three children who call me “Mom.” These traits have led people to freely let me know that they think I’m overpopulating the world. Probably the strangest experience I’ve had is being pregnant in the Bay Area. During my other pregnancies, I lived in Sacramento and was used to people smiling when they saw a pregnant woman. Here, no smiles — mostly scowls.
My favorite story is this one: When I was getting physical therapy when I was six months pregnant (after falling and breaking my wrist), the therapist asked me whether I was pregnant with my first child (she had already told me that she had one child and planned to have only one). When I said, no, this was actually my third child, she immediately asked me whether I was going to have my tubes tied after the birth.
After my baby was born, the hostile looks and mutterings continued. While I was waiting in line for coffee one day with the kids in tow, one woman offered to me that she thought three children constituted a big family. When I told her it really isn’t considered a large family in many other parts of the country, including the Midwest town I had recently moved from, she asked me with disdain, “Where was that, a religious community?” Then there was the woman who said to me as she pushed by my stroller, “Three? Don’t you think you have enough?” It’s not like I was asking her to contribute to their college fund! I was just taking my kids to the bathroom.
I’ve noticed a thin film of “child-free” people on the periphery of my circle of acquaintances, in the past few years. Not “don’t have kids yet”, not “don’t really want a family”, not “I’d rather have all my own money and free time for myself” or “I think I’d bew a lousy parent, and I haven’t been to Nepal yet” – although I know all of them. No, I mean “child-free”, in the sense of “Smoke-Free” or “Chemical-free” – as if one is ridding ones’ life and the world of some noxious pollutant.
Which is bad news for the future of liberalism, presuming they don’t get into power before the last one dies off and enforce a nationwide spay/neuter law…
November 26th, 2007 at 7:23 am
We ran a thread all weekend on this moral idiot. She’s so concerned about the environment she and her husband flew to South Africa for a vacation last year.
Using the environment to justify killing your baby is certainly a new, if not surprising twist.
November 26th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Well, in their selfish faces. My daughter has 4, my son has 3. Our niece is expecting #3 and my close friend has a daughter going on #4 and a daughter-in-law on #2. We’re doing our bit.
Kermit, you said it.
November 26th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Sounds like she isn’t killing any babies, Kerm, though I don’t expect that to matter to you hysterical antiabortion types. She’s a self-centered extremist kook who doesn’t want kids. So she got sterilized. Mazel tov. Meanwhile you self-centered extremist kooks seem to want to have lots of kids around, probably cause other adults are too bright to fall for your right-wing tripe. So knock yourself out. It’s a free country. Or at least till 9/11 it was.
November 26th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Mitch, was your headline suggesting “ensuring Conservative victory” 16-18 years from now when the little pillagers are eligible to vote?
In the meantime, nominations are now open for “retroactive abortions”.
November 26th, 2007 at 10:55 am
AC: “Sounds like she isn’t killing any babies, Kerm…”
As usual, the Clown is oblivious and obtuse. If he’d read the article he’d have noticed she had an abortion that she justified by her environmentalism.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Note to AC… didn’t read read the original article, did you? The first woman mentioned had an abortion and part of her justification was the fragile, eggshell-delicate planet.
These folks don’t understand that they are being selfish simply by living. Not only that, they are shooting themselves in the foot. More children grow up to be doctors, inventors, writers, etc. Regardless of party affiliation, they increase production… if you raise them correctly.
They are not a net loss… they are a net gain.
What’s more, the rest of the world has more children than we do, so some kookie chick strolling through Hampstead Heath who never has children doesn’t really put any kind of a dent on the so-called huge drain on the planet created by the family of eight in a Third World country.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Read the original article? As if! Angryclown already spends too much time at this wacky blog, sifting through all the fevered wingnut paranoias and unbalanced policy prescriptions. Now you want Angryclown to read the stuff linked in the footnotes? No way.
Mitch didn’t mention the abortion – he took the post in a different direction. Who cares? A rightwing British tab finds some lady who never wanted to have kids and lets her put some silly green spin on it. Angryclown thinks it’s a good thing she’ll never have kids. You wingnuts want to post guards next to her hospital bed and force her to.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Justification to maintain your Ignorant Clown persona.
We weren’t trying to argue with you, IC… just illustrate how your so called insight and analysis is based on assumption, projection, distortion, and lies.
Par for the course for a guy who (if I remember right) claims to be a former lawyer from NYC.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
You do not, Badda. Angryclown was a simple street busker, whose only goal was to bring joy to the daily lives of workers in New York’s financial district. Until he was struck on the head by falling piece of debris on 9/11 and became Angryclown: Scourge of Wingnuts, Pettifoggers and Political Mountebanks. (That’s you, Badda.)
Think Victor Buono in Batman. Only a pissed-off clown instead of King Tut.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Think Victor Buono
File under: “Phrases that sound like they might be dirty, but really aren’t”.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
When wingnuts in this world appear
To ply their brand of hate and fear
And beat up on the libs and queers
The cry goes out both far and near for Angryclown
Angryclown! Angryclown! Angryclown!
Mind of lighting, words of thunder
Fighting all who war and blunder
Angryclown, ah ah ah ah, Angryclown
Angryclown!
November 26th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
When AngryClowns in this world appear
To ply their sarcastic brand of sneer
And pretend to have matter between the ears
The cry goes out both far and near for Yossarian
Yossarian! Yossarian! Yossarian!
Mind of distraction, Journal of Thunder
Ripping the asses of Peev and AC asunder
Yossarian, ah ah ah ah, Yossarian
Yossarian!
November 26th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Y’AI’NG’NGAH
YOG-SOTHOTH
H’EE-L’GEB
F’AI TRHODOG
UAAAAH!
Y’AI’NG’NGAH
IGNORANT CLOWN
H’EE-L’GEB
F’AI TRHODOG
UAAAAH!!!
November 26th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Hey Cathcart. “Meter”: look into it.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
What is. . . the length of my wang?
November 26th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Ignorant Clown needs a pill to become effective… and claims to be both humble and loveable.
Somehow, I can’t buy the humble and loveable part.