Genocidal chic

Two items come to mind of late while reading the hard-left scribblings on-line: 1) Too often those not on the hard-left have a hearty laugh at the latest schemes, scams, and wind-mill tilting of those who know better how to live our lives for us; 2) The real lack of ad hominem attacks (a recurring theme amongst the clenched-fist leftists) from non-statists and socialists during the course of debate (yes, it does happen but is primarily the domain of the hard-left).

However, this particular offering rather leads the rational and libertine among us to drop the above two caveats:

COUPLES who have more than two children are being "irresponsible" by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government's green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government's Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

....

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.

The above of course is from a government official, not some left-wing loon who fortunately has no power over their own existence much less anyone else. No, the above is from an officially sanctioned governmental official. Rather than have a nice laugh at the meanderings of a potentially genocidal mind, this particular instance of population-control footsie unfortunately carries a little bit more weight. As such it is quite rational to ask legitimate questions along the lines opened-up by this particular government official:

1) Should there be a cull of third-born, fourth-born, etc children under a particular age? If yes, what age would that be? If no, the 'problem' you state must not be that serious, correct?

2) Which illnesses should not be treated so as to increase the funding for contraception and/or abortions? What if individuals want to pay for their own treatment for an un-illness? Will there be an age limit at which illnesses will not be treated -or- just a blanket non-treatment for certain illnesses?

3) Will household pets be included in this plan?

4) Will livestock used for food purposes be included in this plan?

5) What should be the penalties for any individual/couple for having a third-born+ child?

6) Who is to make these decisions related to enforcing such a scheme? Individuals or government?

There are undoubtedly a myriad of serious questions this government official should be forced to answer. This particular article may be attributed to a slip of the tongue for this particular government official. Make no mistake, this is better classified as a slip of the veil, a slip through which the mask drops and we get to truly see what types of individuals are staffing government officialdom. This leads to point two from paragraph one above, it is not only proper but necessary to question the sanity and possible mental defections of any government official with such troubled inclinations? Anyone this dogamtic in their zeal to push an unproved agenda in this manner is begging to have their fitness for office proven. Unburdened by reality the psychosis of this type of genocidal mindset must run very deep.

For those who prefer the story in pictures, this is what the genocidal-wing of the hard-left thinks about you the individual bringing that brand new bundle of joy back home from hospital, Luftwaffe-style.

By the way, they actually mean it.