UN Promotes Genocide to Battle Global Warming
Forget your Prius. Forget all that tedious recycling your kids bug you about. Forget solar panels on your house.
The UN Population Fund has a better way to fight the scourage of global warming:
Condoms.
Fight Climate Change With Free Condoms, U.N. Population Fund Says
London (AP) - The battle against global warming could be helped if the world slowed population growth by making free condoms and family planning advice more widely available, the U.N. Population Fund said Wednesday.
Who knew that thing you carried in your wallet throughout high school could save the planet.
The agency did not recommend countries set limits on how many children people should have, but said: "Women with access to reproductive health services ... have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions...As the growth of population, economies and consumption outpaces the Earth's capacity to adjust, climate change could become much more extreme and conceivably catastrophic," the report said.
It's great that the population control folks want the common man to share the burden of saving the planet. Do they have any particular populations in mind?
The world's population will likely rise from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050, with most of the growth in less developed regions, according to a 2006 report by the United Nations.
Oh. The planet could be most efficiently saved from global warming by limiting population in third-world countries.
The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as:
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. [emphasis mine]
Well, even if it's genocide to target third world populations for "access to reproductive health services," at least the scientific basis for the use of fertility control as a method of combating global warming is well established...
The U.N. Population Fund acknowledged it had no proof of the effect that population control would have on climate change. "The linkages between population and climate change are in most cases complex and indirect," the report said.
Oh, so they think that genocide might be helpful in saving the planet, but there's no scientific evidence...
...Still, Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, the U.N. Population Fund's executive director, told a news conference in London on Wednesday that global warming could be catastrophic for people in poor countries, particularly women.
Global warming is a threat to women? The U.N. Population Fund is directly responsible for the most horrific femicide (deliberate killing of girls and women) in history. "Population control" programs endorsed by the U.N. Population Fund and other population control nuts are responsible for the "Missing Women of Asia," first noted by Indian Nobel Laurate Amartya Sen. There are 100 million fewer women than men in southeastern Asia, mostly in China and India, due to sex-selective abortions and female infanticide.
The death toll among women from global warming: zero. The death toll among women from policies advanced by the U.N. Population Control Fund: 100 million.
One analyst seems to understand the unique venality of the population control zealots:
On Wednesday, one analyst criticized the U.N. Population Fund's pronouncements as alarmist and unhelpful.
"It requires a major leap of imagination to believe that free condoms will cool down the climate," said Caroline Boin, a policy analyst at International Policy Network, a London-based think tank.
She also questioned earlier efforts by the agency to control the world's population.
In its 1987 report, the U.N. Population Fund warned that once the global population hit 5 billion, the world "could degenerate into disaster." At the time, the agency said "more vigorous attempts to slow undue population growth" were needed in many countries.
According to Boin, "Numerous environmental indicators show that with development and economic growth we are able to preserve more natural habitats. There is no causal relationship between population density and poverty."
In this month's Bulletin, the World Health Organization's journal, two experts also warned about the dangers of linking fertility to climate change.
"Using the need to reduce climate change as a justification for curbing the fertility of individual women at best provokes controversy and at worst provides a mandate to suppress individual freedoms," wrote WHO's Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum and Manjula Lusti-Narasimhan.
The perceived threat to humanity posed by global warming is based on fraudulent science and is probably minimal. The hypotheticals of the global warming nuts are a joke--"billions and billions will die... polar bears will drown..." But there have been real deaths on a large scale caused by these creeps. The threat to humanity posed by the U.N. Population Fund and associated population zealots is a matter of historical fact, and is ongoing.
The only way that "population control" fights global warming is that it elimininates tens of millions of innocent warm bodies.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
“Who knew that thing you carried in your wallet throughout high school could save the planet.”
Who didn’t? By reducing the rate of population increase we reduce the demand for more energy .
They claim that this is an attempt to impose population controls, but then cite a specific passage that specifically states that there are to be no hard numbers… but rather notes that when women gain access to reproductive services (such as birth control) the rate of population growth decreases (as well as improvements in economic status and overall health ).
It is in the third world that this would be most useful, because it is in those areas that such services are currently not available on an appreciable scale.
The ‘Discovery’ Institute goes on to imply that this is somehow genocide… highlighting the below passage:
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Yet the recommendation does not contain even a hint of enforcement… these programs would be made available to those who wanted them, not forced on those who do not.
The ‘Discovery’ Institute further take statements about the impact that this has on women out of context. Global warming strikes hardest on those who are at the most disadvantaged… and women in third world countries are perhaps the most disadvantaged group on the planet.
Caroline Boin’s statements are equally disingenuous…
“It requires a major leap of imagination to believe that free condoms will cool down the climate”
Yet the statement by the UN states…
"Women with access to reproductive health services ... have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions...”
Which in no way implies that condoms = cooling, but rather that a slower population growth rate will equate to a slower warming trend.
Their quoting of Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum and Manjula Lusti-Narasimhan holds true to the ‘Discovery’ Institutes trend of disingenuousness…
“Using the need to reduce climate change as a justification for curbing the fertility of individual women at pest provokes controversy and at worst provides a mandate to suppress individual freedoms.”
Again I ask where they are drawing this implication from? The UN recommendation is not for mandatory birth control but rather for increased access to birth control. This increases individual freedom, rather the suppresses it.
The ‘Discovery’ Institute should stick to ID, debunking that is a much more light hearted endeavor… this is far more depressing.
The writer has sure left this planet behind and flown to mars with this article and headline. On mars he was joined by a number of posters who would rather rant than face facts. Get real folks condoms are not genocide and you all know it. You all know that the planet is a limited space, it can't support in our style the number of people already here. If we reduce the birth rate perhaps we can keep one step ahead of the grime reapers: war , famine and disease.
the Rush Limbaugh's parents didn't have a condom!
Right, because Rush is the cause of the UN's agenda and has helped commit genocide.
Maybe Rush's parents aren't the ones who needed a condom, eh?
This is the same guy who said that having health care was like having a beach house ... some people have it and some don't.
EITHER.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
So owning a beach house is the same as not dying from pneumonia because you have antibiotics?
Read the Constitution and point out where it mentions a beach house or medicine .
Healthcare is not a human right. Nor is having a job, or a Bentley, or gold teeth, or a slim laptop.
Why would you think otherwise?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
“Healthcare is not a human right. Nor is having a job, or a Bentley, or gold teeth, or a slim laptop.”
Health care directly impacts ones survivability, unlike beach houses or other luxury items. I pointed out that statement to show the callousness of Rush Limbaugh… it has a very “let them eat cake” ring.
“Why would you think otherwise?”
Maybe empathy, compassion, or a sense of responsibility towards my fellow H.Sapiens. Call me silly, but I think that “LOL, should have been rich!” is not an ethical or moral response to people in need…
Healthcare insurance is not a right. It is not a 'need' it is a 'want'.
If healthcare was a right you would be obligated to provide it to anyone who begged. Telling a bum "No." would be a violation of his rights. You are not thinking this through, Book.
Healthcare insurance as a right is a cockamamie idea. Sure, you feel compassion, I'm cool with that. I think it is admirable, even. But the moment you force every American to pay to support your bleeding hart liberal philosophy, you cross the line. And, yes- That is exactly what it would take to guarantee that everyone's shiny new "right" were not being infringed upon.
Next, we can say that everyone has the "right" to food and shelter. Because without both, the person can't survive. Do you turn away the crowd of bums who knock on your door in violation of their rights? Do you risk lawsuit for ignoring them as the beg for food money as you walk down the side walk?
Think with your head, not your bleeding heart. Finally, do not be philanthropic with MY money.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.