Jonathon Porritt, Chairman of the British government’s Sustainable Development Commission says–
I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.
Many organisations think it is not part of their business. My mission with the Friends of the Earth and the Greenpeaces of this world is to say: ‘You are betraying the interests of your members by refusing to address population issues and you are doing it for the wrong reasons because you think it is too controversial.’
The Times reports-
Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.
He said: “We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers.
He would rather spend money on abortion and contraception than on curing people who are actually sick. I wonder what the Pope would say about that – this and this – not that his views matter very much when it comes to government policy.
One needs to be very careful when governments or their commissions begin using the word “irresponsible” about something. Its one small step – from “irresponsible” to “illegal.” Abortion is a personal choice; so is having children. And it “must” be respected; Indians still remember Sanjay Gandhi and his “family planning” program.
“The man who says to me, ‘Believe as I do, or God will damn you,’ will presently say, ‘Believe as I do, or I shall assassinate you,'” Voltaire said; he lived in an age when religion was running riot and when Catholics were persecuting Protestants. But what he says applies to every ideology, particularly environmentalism. Do environmentalists believe in individual rights? Will an environmentalist in government stay away from interfering in people’s lives all in the name of the “carbon footprint?” I say no. And this article is just one among many others that are pushing the envelope to see what kind of interference people are willing to tolerate to prevent “global warming.”