visit online pharmacy and buy norvasc online, after that buy cheap wellbutrin online no prescription, and cheapest valtrex no prescription. Get your discount in pharmacy when buy arimidex online, and buy lasix without prescription. Make sure your are secure when you buy neurontin online without prescription, and buying cheap retin-a no prescription online. Best place to order flagyl online without prescription, and order cheap zovirax online no prescription, and order cheap zovirax no prescription. Go to the best pharmacy online to buy baclofen online, and purchase clomid online with no prescription, and buy diflucan without a prescription online, and purchase with no prescription premarin 15 mg online. Get a discount when buy doxycycline online no prescription, and buy cheap acyclovir online no prescription
Login or Edit
Pro-Life TeensPro-Life TeensPro-Life TeensPro-Life Teens

Babies Are Eating the Planet!

— Posted by Eric Scheidler (March 1, 2007 at 1:10 pm)

The Child CatcherThe “anti-breeding” animations of artist Nina Paley have to be seen to be believed. I would call her “radical child hater Nina Paley,” but even that doesn’t come close to describing her apparent contempt for children—and indeed for all resource-consuming human beings.

Then again, for all I know she might be quite fond of the particular children she knows, preferring to despise only those unknown but too-numerous children spawned by Christians and suburbanites. Consistent logic is not to be expected from those who hold the view that human beings are by their nature a blight upon the planet; they apparently except themselves from that analysis, so why not their friends and their children’s friends too?

But whatever Ms. Paley may be like in person, her animations are horrific—the more so because she is tremendously talented. See for yourself:

  • CancerThe Wit and Wisdom of Cancer—We are cancer cells infesting “Gaia”
  • FertCo—Anti-breeding movie hosted at the “Voluntary Human Extinction” site
  • The Stork—Dropping babies like cluster bombs on the pristine wilderness

Volunteer, Already!

I find that Ms. Paley is a volunteer of the Voluntary Human Extinction Project and drew their logo. What I don’t understand is why anyone who subscribes to the idea of voluntary extinction doesn’t just hurry things along and commit suicide.

I suppose the theory is that the good one can do discouraging others from breeding and further harming the ecosystem makes up for the resources one is consuming while postponing one’s own exit to extinction.

But while I wouldn’t want to say anything that would encourage any of these unfortunate enthusiasts to destroy themselves, I can vouch that their efforts have not had the desired effect on this accomplished breeder.

I won’t say that the anti-human campaign has actually inspired us to have any more children—our own delightful children deserve the credit there—but it is nice to think one is single-handedly (which is to say, double-handedly) replacing no fewer than eight of the co-called “childfree” with one’s brood.

Save the Planet? From What?

This is a good opportunity to comment on that silly phrase, “Save the planet.” What are we supposed to be saving the planet from?

The planet isn’t going anywhere. Mars is a planet. I wouldn’t want to live there—not yet anyway—but Mars, as far as Mars is concerned, is doing just fine as a planet without Bambi or Mumble the penguin.

Yes, we should be good stewards of this world, but I find the call to “save the planet” totally uninspiring. The planet, as such, doesn’t need saving—not until a real-live Darth Vader builds the Death Star.

Terraforming Mars?Speaking of Mars, perhaps the concept of “save the planet” would be better applied to our red brother. Mars seems a rather dreary place and it would be all together improved if we were to transform it into another Earth—which will happen the sooner, I think, if we go on thriving here as we’ve been doing, rather than trying to erase ourselves from history.

Because not only couldn’t the planet care less whether we’re here or not, neither could the the flora and fauna. They have no notion of the question, even when we are guilty of recklessly harming them.

All the consciousness there is on Earth is found not in some magical “Gaia,” but in you and me and the rest of us human folk. Far from being a malignant tumor upon the earth, we are its very heart and soul. And I say, the more heart and soul the better.

Cross-posted at Square Zero.

This entry is filed under Babies. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

29 Comments on “Babies Are Eating the Planet!”

Please Note: Visitor comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Generations for Life or our parent organization, the Pro-Life Action League.

  1. Roman Ženka says:

    The VHEMT site explains pretty well why its supporters do not start committing suicide. Just read more, you might gain better understanding of their viewpoint. That is, if you are not too busy replacing the childless with your brood. 🙂

    The opinion that there is no magical Gaia is actually stated by the cancer cells in the animation as well. The cells are obviously wrong. It is not so easily answered with humans. I think Gaia is used as an allegory, which may or may not be less misleading than your Mars allegory.

    Comment posted March 1st, 2007 at 7:27 pm
  2. Rebecca says:

    I love people. Don’t get me wrong.

    But I also perceive, among people, an unnatural degree of suffering, the kind which results from ideologies which limit choice. Including the choice to have or not have children.

    What most people don’t realize is that we are now capable of *choosing* whether or not we want to increase the population of humans on this planet. You can have a vesectomy or tie your tubes. Choosing not to reproduce doesn’t necessarily make your quality of life any better or worse. Some people who have kids are miserable; some childless people have fulfilling lives … and vice versa. Everyone’s different, and raising children just doesn’t need to be a priority for some people. And furthermore, if voluntarily sterilized people want to do a great job of raising a family (i.e. they have the will, the heart, the smarts, and the financial means), there are many kids in line for adoption. (And don’t tell me adopted kids are loved any less than natural offspring. I know many happy people who were adopted.)

    People aren’t a scourge unto the planet, but I think we can all agree that they are often mistaken, misled, and imperfect.

    We’ve been making a mistake to overpopulate since the industrial revolution.

    Hopefully we can reverse this trend.

    Comment posted March 3rd, 2007 at 12:22 am
  3. Rosie says:

    I think the people who believe the world is overpopulated live in big cities. I also wonder if they’ve ever been out of the city at all. I drive into the country once a week and I gotta tell ya, the world is not overpopulated. I have also wondered why those who believe the world is overpopulated haven’t taken a bullet for their cause,(not that I would want them to) but they expect others to. If these people don’t want kids fine, but don’t create life then kill it. Furthermore I would really appreciate it if they would quit whining when others have children. These people don’t realize that they act like children themselves. Maybe they do and are self loathing, I don’t know…

    Comment posted March 3rd, 2007 at 9:48 am
  4. Rebecca says:

    I grew up in a town of 1700 people in rural Minnesota, and yes, I do think the world is overpopulated. And I mean WORLD. I think on a global level when I say the WORLD is overpopulated – not the city where I now reside. Do you watch the international news, Rosie?

    Maybe most of the people who think the world is overpopulated live in cities because they are educated people who choose not to live in rural towns because cities have more to offer (museums, the theater, music, other eduacated people, etc.).

    When I see people who have children, I ask myself, “are those parents fit to raise children? Do those children look happy, well-adjusted? Do the interactions I see indicate a healthy parent-child relationship?” Sometimes the answer is “yes” and nothing makes me more joyful. Usually the answer is “no” – and then I really start to feel sad for the kids and a mixture of angry and sad for the parents.

    I’m very good at determining this quickly. I have a sharp analytical eye for the psyche. I have a job in a restaurant, and I see a lot of families. I can tell within 10 seconds of meeting a family how well the kids are being raised. 9 times out of 10, the kids who are not raised well will cry at the table or run around the restaurant by the time the meal is over. The kids who are raised well communicate clearly to me, look me in the eye and say thank you even when I am just refilling their water, and behave like perfect angels because they know what “restaurant behavior” is. Teaching children how to behave in public is a very good indicator of how well a parent is preparing his/her young ones for adult life.

    This does not happen often.

    Even among successful people (we’re talking downtown Seattle here), many have psychological issues that disallow them from raising children properly.

    And I probably need not mention the many family problems in rural America. I saw them among my peers for 18 years, until I left for college.

    It’s a sad truth – many people just shouldn’t have kids. They don’t know how to care about other people, much less their own children. But they think they have to – it’s ridiculous! They don’t have to! The world would be better off if they didn’t! Amazing.

    But I don’t whine about it. And neither do the people who espouse VHEMT. We’re just stating what we see and proposing a solution that we see is fit.

    Comment posted March 4th, 2007 at 2:40 am
  5. mary kay says:

    But you see Rebecca, you are not FIXING the problem. You are eliminating it. There is a difference. Why is it that your group never says, “So let’s get more parenting programs out there, and let’s teach abstinence only so that people who have mastered self-discipline are the ones having children”…

    No, to your, and the pro-abortion crowds, “Choice” is always “KILL THE CHILDREN” ; fix the problem by eliminating it. Don’t face it head on. No, just get rid of it. Even if that means murder. Sorry, but us overpopulators just see things a little differently.

    yet another useless eater

    Comment posted March 4th, 2007 at 6:34 am
  6. mary kay says:

    By the way, if we fell for your line of thinking, the world would be populated by Margaret Sangers, Adolph Hitlers, Madame Blavatskys and Alesteir Crowleys. Now there’s a family anyone would be proud to serve in restaurant. Talk about space wasters…

    Beethoven, Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II, and GK Chesterton would have been eliminated. Hmmmmmm….I gotta think Beethovens family would have given your waitressing skills pause…


    Comment posted March 4th, 2007 at 6:41 am
  7. Mike says:

    I have posted on another thread showing the world population can fit within the size of Texas. I can find it if you would like to see the numbers.

    On another note, I am debating someone about the Abortion/Breast Cancer link. I have given the Pro-Choicer all the studies but they still don’t believe in the relationship. They claim there is no relationship between a Miscarriage/Breast Cancer so therefore there is no relationship between Abortion/Breast Cancer.

    I believe the smoking gun known as “estrogen” acts differently between a abortion and miscarriage. Does anyone know the facts on this or a link to the facts? I’m stuck on this one and can’t find it anywhere on the internet.



    Comment posted March 5th, 2007 at 1:09 am
  8. Rebecca says:

    Mary kay, I don’t understand how not having children is the same as killing them.

    I never said anything about killing children or abortion. I simply think that fewer children should be born. Quality over quantity. People are not a burden *inherently,* but too many people is simply too many people, and it’s plain to me that constantly increasing our numbers burdens both ourselves and our natural world. So what if we can all fit within the state of Texas? Do you know how much agrable land a person needs for food energy, how many resources a human life requiers, and how many resources are available on this planet for every human as well as other life forms? You can’t think in terms of space alone. You must think in terms of ecology and energy expenditure and concrete conditionals when thinking about this problem.

    If you can’t provide for any more children (whether you already have enough or if you don’t have any), then make sure you won’t have any more – sterilize yourself. Take good care of the children you already have. If your economic situation changes or if you change your mind and decide you are willing and able to raise one more, you can always adopt.

    I love kids, btw. I volunteer at an elementary school where I tutor 2nd and 3rd graders who are having trouble reading. It’s the highlight of my week.

    But I’m not going to reproduce. I don’t need to. I’ve never defined myself as a mother; my talents lie in other areas of life. I’m starting grad school in the fall for psychotherapy; I want to live a simple life honing the art of helping injured souls recover. This makes me happy and spiritually uplifted. Raising children is not in the plans.

    Furthermore, and more importantly, I believe that modern society is dehumanizing. Human societies across the globe are deteriorating and so is our natural world, due to the misguided notion that perpetual expansion (often brutally enforced expansion) will make us more secure. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t want to see any child of mine suffer in a future environment of violence, sociopathy, resource scarcity, cruelty, and disunity.

    Comment posted March 5th, 2007 at 5:30 am
  9. mary kay says:

    Finally, women who had ever had an induced abortion were 2.5 times as likely as those who had never undergone such a procedure to develop endometrial cancer.

    Comment posted March 5th, 2007 at 5:36 am
  10. mary kay says:

    I think this link will answer you question…there are other topics you can click on that might answer more…


    Comment posted March 5th, 2007 at 5:38 am
  11. Young Christian Woman says:

    I am all for choice. I am glad that people who are sure they do not want to reproduce are doing it by way of sterilization, which has no chance of harming a child. I am all for those who so choose limiting their families in moral ways, although I try to convince Christians to do otherwise.

    Of course, while saying you are in favor of choice, you are very clearly against some people’s choices even if you do not want to take it away. If you are against it, fine, but you cannot say that you are in favor of choices if you want to take away my God-given right to have all the children He is willing to give me. I suspect that even if my children were perfectly behaved, if I had seventeen of them, you would want to take away my ability to have more. Maybe you are the exception, but even if you are, most of those who subscribe to VHEMT probably want to take away my rights.

    Comment posted March 5th, 2007 at 9:47 am
  12. Mike says:

    Mary Kay,

    I found the answer. It was so difficult to find. So anyone interested should probably save this thread as a favorite. Thanks. In case your interested here it is…

    Biological Explanation for the Link

    The explanation for the independent link makes good biological sense. It remains unrefuted and unchallenged by scientists because it is physiologically correct.

    A never-pregnant woman has a network of primitive, immature and cancer-vulnerable breast cells which make up her milk glands. It is only in the third trimester of pregnancy – after 32 weeks gestation – that her cells start to mature and are fashioned into milk producing tissue whose cells are cancer resistant.

    When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called “proliferation.” By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.

    If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called “differentiation” takes place. Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk producing tissue. It shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.

    If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated — and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells — than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.

    In contrast, research has shown that most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. This is due to a lack of estrogen overexposure. Miscarriages are frequently precipitated by a decline in the production of progesterone which is needed to maintain a pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone, so the levels of each hormone rise and fall together during pregnancy.

    For a thorough biological explanation of the abortion-breast cancer link, see this second website for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, and click on its online booklet, “Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention.”


    Network of Primitive Immature and Cancer-Vulnerable Breast Cells


    Comment posted March 5th, 2007 at 11:27 am
  13. Quinn says:

    We’re facing an UNDERpopulation problem, not an OVERpopulation problem.

    Comment posted March 5th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
  14. Quinn says:

    Voluntary suicide = FORFEIT

    Comment posted March 5th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
  15. Mike says:

    Eric, Annie and John,

    Is there any way to add two continuous threads somewhere on the left hand side of the website? I was just visiting the PLAL Hotline News and was stunned to see the legislation coming up in the Illinois Congress this session. It would be nice to add two continuous threads for the following purposes…

    1. To give everyone a heads up on upcoming Pro-Life National and Local Legislation.

    2. To give everyone a chance to interact about anything including Pro-Life topics.

    Just wanted to hear your thoughts.



    Illinois, Have You Contacted Your Legislators Today?

    Comment posted March 6th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
  16. Nikolia says:

    Not about this post…Eric, I heard you visited my church last Friday. The woman who showed you around is also our Sanctity of Life coordinator. When she told me you dropped in, I was like “Hey, I know him! Well…not really.”

    Comment posted March 7th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
  17. Eric says:

    Nikolia—Thanks for dropping by the blog. I really enjoyed my visit to St. John’s. The mosaic icons are beautiful—I was stunned by the icons of the saints all gathered on the outside wall of the choir loft. Amazing! I hope I can come for Liturgy some time.

    Comment posted March 8th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
  18. Pansy Moss says:

    I have a job in a restaurant, and I see a lot of families. I can tell within 10 seconds of meeting a family how well the kids are being raised. 9 times out of 10, the kids who are not raised well will cry at the table or run around the restaurant by the time the meal is over.

    I think this is the scariest thing I read all day. You can tell whether or not parents are deserving of their children if their children behave like…children. Yeesh.

    Out of the 6 I have, I have one that runs around (ADHD), one that is extremely impressive and the rest all fall in between to different degrees depending on their ages, time of the year (they act up more this time of the year when they have been cooped up too long through winter), naptime, medications etc…

    Comment posted March 8th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
  19. Rosie says:

    I agree, if you expect children to act like little adults, you will always be let down.

    Comment posted March 8th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
  20. Mike says:

    If anyone has time to debate, it would be much appreciated if you could join Jill Stanek and I fend off a massive Pro-Abortion attack on one of the threads on another Pro-Life website. We are trying to debate 25 Pro-Aborts at once. Any help would be much appreciated!


    Comment posted March 8th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
  21. Rosie says:

    I think you and Mary Kay are doing pretty good. Their arguements are so dumb I could barely keep a straight face reading it. I am not really sure how to argue such with stupid points. They sure do hold on tightly to the rape scenario don’t they? Then they ask the pro-lifers to cite their sources!!

    Comment posted March 9th, 2007 at 10:06 am
  22. Eric says:

    Rebecca writes: “I can tell within 10 seconds of meeting a family how well the kids are being raised. 9 times out of 10, the kids who are not raised well will cry at the table or run around the restaurant by the time the meal is over.”

    So what you’re saying is that one time out of ten, the poorly raised kids are perfectly well behaved and yet still you can tell within ten seconds that they’re poorly raised.

    These are truly amazing powers of observation!

    Can you also tell within ten seconds:

    • Which kids aren’t feeling well
    • Which kids didn’t get a nap
    • Which kid is having a birthday
    • Which kid spent the weekend with deliquent cousins
    • Which parent is having a bad day
    • Which parent is clinically depressed

    . . . or any of the other circumstances that might lead this particular family to behave less than ideally on the particular day when subjected to your astonishingly acute powers of observation?

    Comment posted March 9th, 2007 at 10:32 am
  23. mary kay says:

    you rival me in sarcasm…
    good work

    Comment posted March 9th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
  24. Mike says:

    Mary Kay,

    Thanks for helping out with the debate at Jill’s website. I was working today and could not contribute. I at least wanted to ask many tough abortion questions to hopefully help plant a seed in the minds of the Pro-Aborts debating there.

    These questions are designed to rip up their arguments by adding follow up questions.


    Comment posted March 9th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
  25. mary kay says:

    No problem mike,
    great website by the way?
    Are you doing Corapi?

    Comment posted March 9th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
  26. Rosie says:

    here’s something that’s been going around..

    Comment posted March 10th, 2007 at 9:19 am
  27. Mike says:

    Mary Kay,

    No, I saw Fr. Corapi last March when he spoke for Sacred Heart Church/Lombard at Montini Catholic High School. He was excellent. I also listen to Fr. Corapi on Relevant Radio often. So I think I will let someone else get the chance to go.


    Comment posted March 13th, 2007 at 10:25 am
  28. Helen Keller says:

    What would you do with yourselves if it were proved without a doubt that there was no god?

    I don’t really care about your answers, the question is simply intended to make you ponder. I just want you to really think about the question: how would you live your life if there wasn’t a god?

    If you find reward in living the way you live today, and you would continue to do so regardless of “proof” or “faith”… why does it matter if a god even exists?

    Without choice, there can be no morality. If a person cannot choose to “sin”, if they are not allowed to exert free will, they are not truly human – just animals.

    Eliminating a woman’s choice to have an abortion takes away her chance to choose life. Don’t you think a god would want a person to be able to make the “right” choice? How can someone make that choice if there is no choice?

    Death is a tragedy. Murder is wrong. But who are you to judge someone’s sins? Isn’t that the job of a god? Are you without sin?

    Comment posted April 14th, 2007 at 9:02 am
  29. Molly says:


    There is a choice, even if that thing was illegal. If what you’re saying is true, then we wouldn’t have any murders or rapes or any crimes of any type. They’re illegal, but they still happen. If and when abortion becomes illegal there is a good chance some people will still do it, illegally. But just because people can do something despite the fact that it is illegal does not mean that we should make everything legal.

    If what you’re saying is true, then we should legalize _everything_ in order to give people a “choice” to do the right thing.

    Comment posted September 18th, 2007 at 4:30 pm