Sierra Club joins Planned Parenthood to Promote Abortion

Quote:

---

The Sierra Club crisscrossed California this month for a series of conferences called Sex and the Environment. Planned Parenthood also was represented at most of the stops, the California Catholic Daily reports. The Sierra Club is pushing "global reproductive health" — abortion means fewer kids and, apparently, a healthier environment.

"The Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood are teaming up to promote their radical views on the environment and abortion," said Dawn Vargo, associate bioethics analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "The view that humans are to blame for our environmental problems has found perfect partner with the largest abortion provider in the country."

The 115-year-old Sierra Club, founded by California environmentalist John Muir in 1892 to “explore, enjoy and protect the planet,” declares on its Web site: “Sierra Club is a pro-choice organization.”

The tour was part of the Sierra Club’s Global Population and Environment Program, which aims “to protect the global environment and preserve natural resources for future generations by advancing global reproductive health and sustainable development initiatives.”

"The answer in their minds is clear," Vargo said, "environmental problems can be addressed by aborting the next generation."

---

Kathleen Parker also addressed this in a column...

Quote:

---

Hey, did you hear the one about the woman who aborted her kid so she could save the planet?

That's no joke, but Darwin must be chuckling somewhere.

Toni Vernelli was one of two women recently featured in a London Daily Mail story about environmentalists who take their carbon footprint very, very seriously.

So seriously, in fact, that Vernelli aborted a pregnancy and, by age 27, had herself sterilized. Baby-making, she says, is "selfish" and "all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet."

Because Toni and her husband, Ed, are childless and vegan, they say they can justify one long-haul airplane trip per year and still remain carbon neutral.

Sarah Irving is another like-minded nature-nurturer. She and fiancé Mark Hudson decided on him having a vasectomy to prevent the possibility of an inconvenient life interfering with their carbon-perfect ones.

---

She's kidding, right?

Quote:

---

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet...

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.

---

The extremely ironic thing about this, is Tony met her husband Ed at "an animal rights demonstration." I don't know whether to laugh or cry at how incredibly sad that anyone can be so monumentally stupid.

Comments?

I had a big, long answer and deleted it all, just to say this: when the hour comes for all of us and we make an accounting - I would not want to be in their shoes. While it is good to protect the environment and I am not in disagreement with SOME of planned parenthood, to mix the two together has toxic potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shygrneyzs

I had a big, long answer and deleted it all, just to say this: when the hour comes for all of us and we make an accounting - I would not want to be in their shoes. While it is good to protect the environment and I am not in disagreement with SOME of planned parenthood, to mix the two together has toxic potential.

---

I agree, but can you come up with something even stronger than "toxic?" :D

Oh Yeah! Lol. But it is not printable.

I too believe in pro-choice... But I go a few steps ahead of conception.

I think there is a choice that people have to make regarding conception and, or abstinence. If they cannot make these types of choices, then I don't think they are mature enough to make the other more drastic choices.

Of course there are acceptions, such as rape, and religion (and I won't go further into the latter subject because this post would be to darned long too).

So.. In My Opinion, it comes down to education and logic - but that too can be a long story.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_2_26.gif Suggestions to the young.. say NO, use a condom, or get a puppy!

Let's face it... egotistical, political, or financial, it's all the same..

But Mother Earth has a way of correcting some mistakes, and we just might be on that list of 'things to do'. Evolution has not stopped just because we are in the 21st Century, no matter how wonderful and powerful some humans think they are.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_9_18.gif

Speechless in Texas's post is incredibly misleading. The Sierra Club isn't going around promoting abortions. Not "to save the planet" or for any other reason. For that matter even Planned Parenthood would far rather see people use birth control than have people resort to abortions.

The information posted above comes from Focus on the Family Action, which is a political pro life group. They are entitled to say whatever they like, but I would take what they say about Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club with a grain of salt. The Sierra Club supports limiting population growth; that's nothing to do with abortions. And with the world warming up because of excess CO2, eventually we'll have to limit our growth, so it's not unreasonable. Virtually every country in the world is already having fewer children. There's nothing evil about having 3 children instead of 8 and it's better for the planet. You don't have to have an abortion to do that. We just don't have enough resources to support an infinite number of people. Babies are great (I just went to see my new niece), but 6 billion babies is plenty of babies. We don't really need 12 billion or 50 billion of the little tykes to prove that we like 'em.

It's like puppies. We all love puppies. But does every household need 50 puppies? A few are usually enough and limiting how many puppies you have doesn't mean you hate life or want to kill puppies! It just means more love for the two or 6 puppies you keep.

The vegan, childless couple are just one weird couple. They don't represent a vast conspiracy of child hating Americans. It' silly to think that the Sierra Club wants to kill babies. They just want to conserve some wilderness, so everyone's children will have something green to look at in 2075.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Speechless in Texas's post is incredibly misleading. The Sierra Club isn't going around promoting abortions. Not "to save the planet" or for any other reason. For that matter even Planned Parenthood would far rather see people use birth control than have people resort to abortions.

The information posted above comes from Focus on the Family Action, which is a political pro life group. They are entitled to say whatever they like, but I would take what they say about Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club with a grain of salt. The Sierra Club supports limiting population growth; that's nothing to do with abortions. And with the world warming up because of excess CO2, eventually we'll have to limit our growth, so it's not unreasonable. Virtually every country in the world is already having fewer children. There's nothing evil about having 3 children instead of 8 and it's better for the planet. You don't have to have an abortion to do that. We just don't have enough resources to support an infinite number of people. Babies are great (I just went to see my new niece), but 6 billion babies is plenty of babies. We don't really need 12 billion or 50 billion of the little tykes to prove that we like 'em.

---

First, my apologies for not furnishing the link, I'm usually more careful than that. Second, here's a list of the Sierra Club's "Sex and the Environment" conferences from their website. Is that too misleading?

Seriously folks, is that the best some can do is claim something is "incredibly misleading" because the source is Focus on the Family, or Fox News, or whatever source you don't trust? That's OK though asking, those familiar with me know I don't just throw things out there without backup. :D

Global Population and Environment

Seems the two groups have shared their environmental concerns over having babies for some time.

Quote:

---

It's like puppies. We all love puppies. But does every household need 50 puppies? A few are usually enough and limiting how many puppies you have doesn't mean you hate life or want to kill puppies! It just means more love for the two or 6 puppies you keep.

---

Comparing babies to puppies?? Seriously??

Quote:

---

The vegan, childless couple are just one weird couple. They don't represent a vast conspiracy of child hating Americans. It' silly to think that the Sierra Club wants to kill babies. They just want to conserve some wilderness, so everyone's children will have something green to look at in 2075.

---

At least we agree they're weird, and I'll leave it at that for now

What's really wacky about that couple is they are animal right's activists, but they support abortion. Seems a little inconsistent to me... Also, though I have not been able to confirm this yet, I think it's a safe bet to say current abortion methods were developed through animal research... Again, a little inconsistent if that's the case. Also, cow farts are a HUGE contributor to global warming, so why not kill all the cows to save the earth? And if you're going to kill 'em, might as well eat 'em! And I don't get the "offset your carbon footprint" crap - you recycled your plastic bags so now you get to drive your SUV? Isn't the point to REDUCE your carbon footprint, not "offset" it? That's Al Gore logic (Glogic? Gorgic? Gorogic?) right there! Crazy environmentalists...

As far as the programs being developed to "promote" abortion as a means of saving the earth, I didn't see anything in an unbiased article regarding that. That's a hefty claim to make without backing it up with facts. Just because they are doing "Sex and the Environment" programs doesn't mean they are pushing abortion, just pushing population control. Would that include abortion? Possibly, but there's nothing saying that's the objective of the program. The quote from your link,

"The tour was part of the Sierra Club's Global Population and Environment Program, which aims “to protect the global environment and preserve natural resources for future generations by advancing global reproductive health and sustainable development initiatives.”

says nothing about promoting abortion - that was a conclusion drawn by Focus on the Family. I know you have personal issues with PPH, but surely you realize they do more than perform abortions. Granted, I didn't look through the site in it's entirety, and maybe there is an entire hour during the demonstration devoted to "Have an abortion, save the Earth", but I didn't see it. But, if they are discussing "global reproductive health", abortion is bound to come up - mentioning it doesn't mean it's being "promoted" or "encouraged", just discussed.

asking...

I think in the future, the only 'wilderness' in the modern world will be on top of highrises - which finally someone decided was a good idea, and are doing it very tastefully.

If 'vegan' means vegetarian.. then they don't have to work too hard at preventing overpopulation because IMO, protein from meat is a needed building block for development of the human. The body has a way of sending signals when essential nutrition is missing to have a healthy and functioning reproductive system. An example of this is women with eating disorders such as A and B - the body reverts back and does not even ovulate in most cases.

Maybe I'm being 'bass-ackwards' on these issues, but had to put my two-cent's worth in because I too care what is happening worldwide.

Hoping all will have a nice weekend in spite of the unavoidable occurrences.


http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_22_18.gif

Will someone please tell me what I did wrong to have the dumb post below show up with all the formatting crap??

This has never happened before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

What's really wacky about that couple is they are animal right's activists, but they support abortion. Seems a little inconsistent to me... Also, though I have not been able to confirm this yet, I think it's a safe bet to say current abortion methods were developed through animal research... Again, a little inconsistent if that's the case. Also, cow farts are a HUGE contributor to global warming, so why not kill all the cows to save the earth? And if you're going to kill 'em, might as well eat 'em! And I don't get the "offset your carbon footprint" crap - you recycled your plastic bags so now you get to drive your SUV? Isn't the point to REDUCE your carbon footprint, not "offset" it? That's Al Gore logic (Glogic? Gorgic? Gorogic?) right there! Crazy environmentalists...

---

I mentioned the fact that the couple met an an animal rights protest, and I can't believe these people don't get it, lol. I can only assume such people really long to be in the wild picking mites off each other's backs (which by the way are a great source of protein I hear) eating leaves and personally fertilizing the soil, which would require another use for leaves thereby minimizing a tree's capability to reduce atmospheric CO2 (if they care to be sanitary). By all means, let's grant them their heartfelt desire :D

Jillean, Gore and logic don't fare well in the same sentence, although I like the sound of 'glogic.' I don't get the carbon offsets thing either, it's just an excuse to appease their consciences and make them feel good about doing something to "save the earth."

Quote:

---

As far as the programs being developed to "promote" abortion as a means of saving the earth, I didn't see anything in an unbiased article regarding that. That's a hefty claim to make without backing it up with facts. Just because they are doing "Sex and the Environment" programs doesn't mean they are pushing abortion, just pushing population control. Would that include abortion? Possibly, but there's nothing saying that's the objective of the program. The quote from your link,

"The tour was part of the Sierra Club’s Global Population and Environment Program, which aims “to protect the global environment and preserve natural resources for future generations by advancing global reproductive health and sustainable development initiatives.”

Says nothing about promoting abortion - that was a conclusion drawn by Focus on the Family. I know you have personal issues with PPH, but surely you realize they do more than perform abortions. Granted, I didn't look through the site in it's entirety, and maybe there is an entire hour during the demonstration devoted to "Have an abortion, save the Earth", but I didn't see it. But, if they are discussing "global reproductive health", abortion is bound to come up - mentioning it doesn't mean it's being "promoted" or "encouraged", just discussed.

---

True, it doesn't explicitly say abortion, but what do you think “to protect the global environment and preserve natural resources for future generations by advancing global reproductive health and sustainable development initiatives” means? You have to watch what these people do, not just what they say. PP reports 519,958 abortion procedures in their 2005-2006 annual report, a 9.4 percent increase over the 2002-2003 numbers, which were a 6.1 percent increase from the previous period.

Planned Parenthood® Federation of America, Inc. Annual Report 2005-2006
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/fil...ual_report.pdf

Planned Parenthood® Federation of America, Inc. Annual Report 2003-2004
http://plannedparenthoodrx.com/annua.../report-04.pdf

That's what happens when you "advance global reproductive health," abortions continue to increase. So what happens when the nation's largest abortion provider - by increasing numbers - joins forces with the Sierra Club, which blames "population growth and urban migration....for many "environmental dilemmas?" They won't say abortion unless they have to, it's always "reproductive health," "women's health care" and "comprehensive sex education." (And as a side note, they blame any increase in teen pregnancies and abortions on the failure of abstinence only education, and not the agenda that they've driven for the past 30 years or so.)

I add it all up and yes, they believe abortions help save the environment, even if they don't explicitly say so.

Well that's that . I have to scrape my Sierra Club sticker off my SUV window! The Sierra Club is not alone . The National Audubon Society has a document entitled "Population and Habitat: Making the Connection" .Population and Habitat Homepage
It exhorts the United States to spend more money on international population control, insisting that "while the U.S. remains the richest nation on earth, we spend very, very little to help stem the tide of human population growth." It makes no mention of the fact that the "tide" is cresting and soon will be receding.

Responsible conservatives are also conservationists . The problem is that in the ranks of the environmental movement there are a significant groups of wackos that think that human existence is a bane ;a blight , a plague on the planet . Paul Watson of the Sea Shepard Conservation Society has called human population the" AIDS of the Earth" . The Clean Water Action Council of Northeastern Wisconsin claims on its web site that "Human population growth is the number one threat to the world's environment" Population Growth: Impacts on the Environment

This is not new . They have been clamoring for population control since Malthus' flawed theories;and it really gained momentum with the publication of the 1968, Dr. Paul Ehrlich book Population Bomb with it's chicken little dooms day scenarios. He argued not surprisingly in favor to government imposed decisions regarding family size. Through the years draconian means of population controls have been implemented so it doesn't surprise me in the least that genocide is considered a legitimate form of population control . I'm just surprised that a free people would be so willing to buy that baloney.

A new corollary soon to gain momentum is that births will stabilize but the real problem is that humans are living longer . The solution ?Euthanasia of course. It is already being spoken of and justified in moral terminology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

True, it doesn't explicitly say abortion, but what do you think “to protect the global environment and preserve natural resources for future generations by advancing global reproductive health and sustainable development initiatives” means? You have to watch what these people do, not just what they say. PP reports 519,958 abortion procedures in their 2005-2006 annual report, a 9.4 percent increase over the 2002-2003 numbers, which were a 6.1 percent increase from the previous period.

Planned Parenthood® Federation of America, Inc. Annual Report 2005-2006
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/fil...ual_report.pdf

Planned Parenthood® Federation of America, Inc. Annual Report 2003-2004
http://plannedparenthoodrx.com/annua.../report-04.pdf

That's what happens when you "advance global reproductive health," abortions continue to increase. So what happens when the nation's largest abortion provider - by increasing numbers - joins forces with the Sierra Club, which blames "population growth and urban migration....for many "environmental dilemmas?" They won't say abortion unless they have to, it's always "reproductive health," "women's health care" and "comprehensive sex education." (And as a side note, they blame any increase in teen pregnancies and abortions on the failure of abstinence only education, and not the agenda that they've driven for the past 30 years or so.)

I add it all up and yes, they believe abortions help save the environment, even if they don't explicitly say so.

---

When I hear "advance global reproductive health..." I think of birth control, education and information, not abortion. We've had the debate about abstinence only education, and if it's being taught with lies and bad information, it rightly CAN be attributed to the increase in teen pregnancy. If teens are never taught you can get pregnant if the girl is on top, or if you are standing up, you get idiots who try those things and get an unwelcome surprise in a few weeks. Lots of things are to blame for the rise in abortions and teen pregnancy like the media, lack of parental involvement, etc.

If global warming is true (boy, that's another thread!) population increases WOULD contribute, and educating people on how to NOT get pregnant so there are less people in the world WOULD help. I think the problem is using the words "population control"; it evokes thoughts of China killing female infants and restricting people to having one child, it evokes thoughts of genocide, thoughts of restricting reproductive rights, thoughts of, well, having abortions to "save the planet". But I don't think that's the intent of the message. Whoever came up with the campaign didn't think out the verbiage very well. I don't think the intended message is "have an abortion save the plant" but rather, "Practice safe sex, prevent accidental pregnancies and save the planet." But like I said, I think whoever came up with the wording for the campaign didn't think things through.

I, like you, would LOVE to see a reduction in the number of abortions performed annually. Well, you probably want it down to zero, but you get what I mean! I think it's tragic there are so many people who are dealing with unwanted pregnancies and wish the education and knowledge was out there to PREVENT these pregnancies. It's not enough to reduce the number of abortions, it's important to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies too. I, unlike you, don't blame the rise in abortions to PPH; I blame lack of education and information with regards to prevention.

Does anyone know if condoms are biodegradable? I know the plastic packaging my pill comes in isn't... Hmmmmmmm... :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

I, like you, would LOVE to see a reduction in the number of abortions performed annually. Well, you probably want it down to zero, but you get what I mean! I think it's tragic there are so many people who are dealing with unwanted pregnancies and wish the education and knowledge was out there to PREVENT these pregnancies. It's not enough to reduce the number of abortions, it's important to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies too. I, unlike you, don't blame the rise in abortions to PPH; I blame lack of education and information with regards to prevention.

---

Ah, now that's the great deception. Absolutely education is critical, but PP's campaign to promote "comprehensive sex education" beginning in kindergarten no less, masks the problem. To offer a take on one of Bill Clinton's lines, "it's the culture, stupid." The glorification of sex in Hollywood, on campus, the "hook-up culture" where 13 year old kids no longer wait to date but have oral sex to see if they like each other first is the problem. PP is expecting kids to handle adult situations as adults - they're KIDS for crying out loud. They advocate for "children's rights," which in other words is taking the decision out of the hands of parents, think oral and anal sex can be considered 'abstinence,' and give every child with internet access a how-to on virtually any sexual activity. Have you ever browsed their teenwire site? Let them be kids again.

Quote:

---

Does anyone know if condoms are biodegradable? I know the plastic packaging my pill comes in isn't... Hmmmmmmm... :p

---

LOL, apparently they can be. You know they are making biodegradable plastic bottles from corn as well, perhaps soon there will be a "cornskin for your...."

Never mind :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

They advocate for "children's rights," which in other words is taking the decision out of the hands of parents, think oral and anal sex can be considered 'abstinence

---

Planned Parenthood considers oral sex and anal sex to be abstinence? Seriously? That's pretty bad. Do they actually mention that publicly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Planned Parenthood considers oral sex and anal sex to be abstinence? Seriously? That's pretty bad. Do they actually mention that publicly?

---

NK, I have actually read that on Teenwire, so if I can find the quote again I will certainly link to it.

I'll let you go to teenwire, I'd rather not do that from work. :D

I tried to find info on PP's kindergarten program, but all I saw was reference to "age appropriate information" and I think that's the key. I'll admit if I'm wrong, but my GUESS is sex ed for kids that young consists of body parts and names, which I have to objection to (if a parent does, they should be able to opt their kid out, however). The only thing I saw was this article Is your child at risk of smoking? - FamilyEducation.com which mentions "Growth education is family centered. It begins in kindergarten, with the questions: "What makes a family? What binds people together? How does it feel to be part of a community?" It recognizes the different forms that families take and emphasizes tolerance and respect." And I CERTAINLY have no problem with that. If the lesson plan entails teaching 5 year olds how to have sex, that's quite a different story, but I really, really, don't think that's the case.

So again, it's about education and involved families. If kids are taught in kindergarten and early elem. School about body parts, what a family is, communities, responsibility, then their body functions and how pregnancy occurs (obviously much of this comes for kids in later grades) they will have a basic understanding when they enter middle school. In middle school if sex ed focuses on respect for your body and yourself, alternate things to do instead of sex, and a STRONG emphasis on abstinence with mention of pregnancy prevention, they will be better prepared for high school. High school should again focus on abstinence, but focus more (than in middle school) on safe sex, disease, pregnancy, parenthood, prevention and so on. It's obvious looking at the pregnancy threads on this site kids aren't getting the education they need about safe sex - that needs to change.

As far as teens and the PP website goes, I don't object to it. Kids are curious about their bodies, and I'd rather my teen (if I had one) find information from a reliable source than from some pedo on the web. If my teen isn't sure how to masturbate, I'd rather him/her figure it out on the PP site than receive video instructions or typed directions in a chat room somewhere. Additionally, though I think many people are having sex WAY before they should be, I don't necessarily think waiting until marriage is necessary. I realize your opinion might be different, but that's why parent involvement is so critical. Also, these sites are visited by not just 13-year-olds, but also 19-year-olds, who, if well-informed might be less likely to make bad decisions. There's no reason to think that just because a kid looks at a site about how to have anal sex he/she is going to do it, and there's no reason to hide the information from them either. If we treat sex like it's a bad thing, like it's taboo, it makes it more mysterious and kids are going to gravitate toward it more. I grew up with a girl from a VERY strict religious family, she was opted out of all the sex ed programs at school and lost her virginity in 7th grade. She got pregnant the summer before 9th grade. Another friend (similar situation) got pregnant in our senior year of high school because she didn't know about safe sex and it was not spoken about in her family. I can't help but wonder if all the girls I know who have had accidental pregnancies because of not having information would have been in the same situation if sex had simply been talked about in their lives.

I wonder

If members of Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club will take a pledge to:
- no further children of their own
- abort any children they conceive or "fix" themselves so they cannot reproduce
- euthanize themselves at the age of 65


All in the name of saving the earth.


When they lead by example I'll take them seriously.