Where Leftwing Thinking Can Take You
November 24th, 2007 at 12:54am Mark Noonan
The left is filled with good intentions - and, of course, the road to perdition is paved with same:
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.
Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible “mistake” of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.
He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - “relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.
Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.
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.
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.
Having children is selfish. Other examples of this sort of thinking:
Black is white
Up is down
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
I can hear it now from our lefties - “who are you to judge this woman making her own decision?”. Well, I don’t judge her. Matter of fact, if anything, I feel sorry for her - sorry that one of my fellow human beings can be so bamboozled by a species of leftwing thinking that she’d feel it was her duty to murder her child and be sterlised for a alleged higher good.
If you read further into the linked article you’ll see that Ms. Vernelli is a vegetarian and lives as “green” as she can - she’s helping save the planet. For whom? Of what worth is the planet without human beings to appreciate it and use it? Think about it, people: eventually this world will be gone. And that is whether or not you’re a believer or unbeliever - no matter how you slice it, wrath of God or just plain physics, eventually this world will end. If you “save” the planet then you are saving it for destruction…like reaching into a fire to pull out a piece of wood, and then leaving it there for the next camper who will then burn it.
If you ever wonder why I am so ardently opposed to leftwing thinking, it is because of this sort of thing. The despair and selfishness evident in Ms. Vernelli’s life is inherent in leftwing thought. I refuse to live a life of hopelessness like that.
Entry Filed under: Kook Left, Life Issues, Religion, Social Issues
34 Comments
1. Kahn | November 24th, 2007 at 1:49 am
When I grew up, my next door neighbors worked at the same place. The retired together. They never had kids.
A couple of years after retirement, they gassed themselves in their garage. My little brother found them. All dressed in their Sunday best…
2. Ricorun | November 24th, 2007 at 1:55 am
For the record Mark, could you explain to us why you have no kids?
3. Mark Noonan | November 24th, 2007 at 2:12 am
Ricorun,
Utter failure on my part to live as I was made to live. There’s no explanation, no excuse - I slacked off and thought only of myself for decades, until it was too late.
4. Mark Noonan | November 24th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Kahn,
That was probably my eventual fate, but for the grace of God, and the love of the woman who became my wife…who, also, brought into my life children and, now, grandchildren. Not mine by blood, but still there for my love and devotion.
5. Orion | November 24th, 2007 at 3:22 am
The tragic part is that by deliberately refusing to have children she leaves the world to those who don’t believe as she does. It’s the Roe Effect all over again: in the US alone liberals have prevented as many as 40 Million liberal voters from ever being born since 1973.
6. Patrick | November 24th, 2007 at 4:09 am
I fine the whole thing sad. She is giving up the future to past her ideals, views and beliefs to the next generation of childern and voters. Pretty Soon only Republicans will be the majority and her view will not count. I am happy for that!
7. extramedium | November 24th, 2007 at 5:01 am
Rico - you’ve been around long enough to know this is a “do as I say, not as I do” kind of a place, like many conservative institutions - the strict father family, the corrupt mega church, the no-combat-service “war” administration, etc.
It seems there are some posters here who are trying to atone for their own failings in life by telling everyone else how to live. Personally, I’m more inclined to heed the talk from those who have “walked the walk”, but if it makes them feel better, let them rant.
8. TiredofLibBullShit | November 24th, 2007 at 8:05 am
Rico - you’ve been around long enough to know this is a “do as I say, not as I do” kind of a place, like many conservative institutions - the strict father family, the corrupt mega church, the no-combat-service “war” administration, etc.
It seems there are some posters here who are trying to atone for their own failings in life by telling everyone else how to live. Personally, I’m more inclined to heed the talk from those who have “walked the walk”, but if it makes them feel better, let them rant.
The only fitting response to this giberish…..
http://media.slate.com/podcast/soundplayer.swf?soundfile=Pol_070928_Laugh.mp3
9. searp | November 24th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Typical.
“Left-wing” normally refers to someone who believes in socialism, a well-defined strain of political thought.
I saw no reference, absolutely none, to any form of socialism at all in the quoted remarks.
It is as if I described a pro-lifer as authoritarian because they were pro-life.
10. weefee | November 24th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Its her choice if she doesn’t want kids, not all women have maternal urges and there is nothing that can be done; not that its wrong if a woman doesn’t want kids. It is more selfish to bring an unwanted and resented kid into the world than to decide you’re not going to have any. If a woman doesn’t feel she can cope or indeed doesn’t want kids then that should be fine, it is no one other than her and her partners decision.
11. Retired Spook | November 24th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Personally I applaud left-leaning people who chose not to procreate. Liberals aborting and sterilizing themselves out of existence is something that should be encouraged. If this were universal behavior among the Left, the planet would be a decidedly better place.
12. neocon | November 24th, 2007 at 8:57 am
I agree Spook, let’s turn this into a liberal movement. And glancing at most of the women that occupy the left, I am sure the men wont have much of a problem either.
13. plainjane | November 24th, 2007 at 9:23 am
This is another Mark special. I am sure he is a ghost writer for Faux.
I started to underline everywhere the article mentions; left, liberal or democrat but could not find any. For all I know she is a Timothy McVeigh or Jim Jones type.
14. neocon | November 24th, 2007 at 9:31 am
She works for an environmental charity and is on a mission to save the planet.
Who would most likely be her inspiration:
A. Timothy McVeigh
B. Al Gore
C. Jim Jones
15. eric | November 24th, 2007 at 11:55 am
I am glad you posted this, Mark. I saw this yesterday and at first, I was appalled. As I thought about it, however, I reached the same conclusion as Spook and Neo.
Deeper in the article she makes the following statement:
“Every year, we also take a nice holiday - we’ve just come back from South Africa.
We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population.”
Like nearly every other so called “eco-warrior” she is a hypocrite. If she really believed that the planet was in great peril, she would never set foot in an airplane again.
16. rubbersoul | November 24th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Spook,
So you’re only pro-choice when it applies to conservatives?
17. rubbersoul | November 24th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
This is what i meant….
So you’re only PRO-LIFE when it applies to conservatives?
18. neocon | November 24th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
rubbersoul,
Not only did you screw your own post up, but you obviously are lacking a sense of humor as well.
19. LiberalNitemare | November 24th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Stories like this make me believe that liberalism is more of a social disease then a political movement.
This women didnt want to procreate, however the simple act of using protection or even simple abstinence wouldnt make the political statement she was looking for.
Ever supportive hubby was there with a congratulations card (Does hallmark make these cards?) but not there with a (reversible) vacestomy.
Nope, nothing less then irreversible sterilization was capable of providing her with the front of the line status down at the scrap paper recycling center.
Im not saying she doesnt have the right to make the decision she made, Im just saying it was a stupid decision.
20. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | November 24th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Is this not the sort of logic the GOP has used for the last oh twenty five years or so to justify all of their unethcial and anti-capitalist agenda points?
21. Retired Spook | November 24th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
rubbersoul,
neocon beat me to the punch. I’m one of those waffling, evil pro-lifers who doesn’t believe in forcing my beliefs on others, particularly on my political adversaries. My previous comment contained what I thought was a nuggest of humor, but, as neocon points out, it went right over your pointy little head (or through that vacant space between your ears).
22. rubbersoul | November 24th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
oh, i get it! rofl lol etc etc……
23. phnx | November 24th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
I thoroughly condemn the abortion of her baby, but applaud her decision for sterilization. Now there is no chance she will contaminate the gene pool.
While I am absolutely opposed to taxpayer abortion on demand, this corrageous young Eco Warrior has inspired me to lobby for taxpayer supported sterilization on demand. I can see a new role for Planned Parenthood…the sterilization of Eco Moonbats…what a noble cause.
What an inspiration she has become…why we might also have taxpayer supported euthanasia on demand. Suicidal Eco Warriors could voluntarily become feedstock for Biodiesel. Kinda of a twofer, saving the planet, ridding the world of leftists, and reduceing our dependence on foreign souces of oil.
Heyyy!!! Bonus…that’s a threefer!!!
24. phnx | November 25th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Sorry, that should have been CURrageous.
25. searp | November 25th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Can’t say I understand the conflation of a position on procreation with socialism, liberalism, or any other strain of political thought, but then again, it wouldn’t be a Mark Noonan post unless it contained the obligatory gratuitous, incoherent polemics.
26. Almiranta | November 25th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
OK, one more time, for the mouthbreathers who either didn’t get it the first few dozen times or who couldn’t process the information or who simply thrust it aside because it, like so many other facts, got in the way of a chance to hurl insults.
Socialism, fascism, and communism, all markers along the left continuuim in spite of claims that fasicm is “right-wing”, all depend heavily on the substitution of the State for the family. Read your history. Each of these movements has had, as a significant element, the aspect of encourging children, and adults, to turn away from the family unit and to see the State as their family.
Another aspect of great importance is the substitution of the State for religion—of making the State the substitute Church and the politics of the State the substitute belief system.
The erosion of respect for human life is a valuable part of both. When the family/religion of the State declare that unborn life is irrelevant, useless, “not even human”, and that the person’s highest responsibility is to herself, to her pleasure, to her convenience, if it is successful it has taken a big step toward replacing both family and religion in the heart and mind of that person.
Therefore, abortion tends to reside primarily on the left side of the aisle, as conservatives are personal-responsibility, small-State, pro-family, pro-religion (no matter what that religion may be) and generally the opposite of what is demanded by a Socialist (or communist or fascist) movement.
How typical of sneering searp to admit that he simply cannot see any connection between a position on what he evasively calls “procreation” (though it is the antithesis of procreation, the actual elimination of procreation..) and “any …. strain of political thought”. As usual, he is either not paying attention or simply doesn’t get it.
From this and his other posts, it could be either one.
Or both.
27. Almiranta | November 25th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I don’t have a problem with Toni making sure she will never have a child. I think it is an excellent idea.
I just wish she had taken this action before she conceived, and put another human life into the mix.
But evidently to Toni, when human life is incompatible with convenience, fun, and political positions, it is totally insignifcant.
What DOES bother me is her smug self-righteous posturing as she tries to portray her selfish and self-indulgent excesses as somehow morally superior, as proof of her inherent superiority as a person. It is stunningly Orwellian.
While she is preening about killing a baby to save the planet, I found myself wishing that philosophy had occurred, say, one generation earlier.
28. phnx | November 25th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Has anyone else noticed that ‘conflate’ seems to be the moonbat verb de jur recently.
29. tippeecanoe | November 26th, 2007 at 4:16 am
I love your your absurd thesis: “Destroy the world since it’s all gonna end anyway! Don’t let the next generation have all the fun!”
Mark, you righty kooks (can I use that word? It seems to be acceptable here) gotta stop quoting Orwell. He was a socialist. He was slamming YOU and all your type who cheerlead your own executioners in the government.
From Wikipedia:”Orwell’s political views shifted over time, but he was a man of the political left throughout his life as a writer. In his earlier days he occasionally described himself as a “Tory anarchist”. His time in Burma made him a staunch opponent of imperialism, and his experience of poverty while researching Down and Out in Paris and London and The Road to Wigan Pier turned him into a socialist.”
Orwell described the Palestinian situation just like Carter, as apartheid: “Orwell had little sympathy with Zionism and opposed the creation of the state of Israel. In 1945, Orwell wrote that ‘few English people realise that the Palestine issue is partly a colour issue and that an Indian nationalist, for example, would probably side with the Arabs’.”
He is not one of yours.
As for this story, this woman and her husband suffer from the worst kind of despair, and you mock her, ’cause that’s what Jesus would do, right? Cruel, man. Just cruel.
30. phnx | November 26th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
I love your your absurd thesis…” Tipsie canoe,
What have you been drinking (or smoking)? What’s Orwell got to do with anything?
And while your contemplating a response, please be sure to register for sterilization.
BTW: Quoting From Wikipedia does not add to whatever limited credibiity you may have otherwise had.
31. phnx | November 26th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Ohhhh noooo!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml
32. CallMeTeach | November 26th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
“If you “save” the planet then you are saving it for destruction…like reaching into a fire to pull out a piece of wood, and then leaving it there for the next camper who will then burn it.”
Are you f’ing kidding. I agree the woman was wacko but to say that we should care less about the continuation of our planet is just as wacko. It’s not going to be here for eternity so we should just rape and pillage away. You are just to much. Don’t ever insult people for being crazy if you are far more crazy than they are.
33. Steven C | November 29th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Will God Win?
Long, long time ago, God created a planet called Earth. He said; “I should turn it into the most beautiful planet in the universe and the most comfortable home for all the living things”. He went on planted grass, flowers, and trees. He also started to create butterflies, fish and animals. Then, he realized that the Earth was a little too hot for those living things due to the excess amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Quickly, he deployed vast amount of trees to absorb CO2. When the trees died, he buried them deep underneath the ground and hoped that nobody could find them. After a while, the Earth reached a perfect balance with all the living things co-existed between each other. God was happy.
On the other hand, Satan was somewhat jealous about God’s achievement. He was determined to ruin the Earth. Knowing that he was no match with God’s power, he needed helpers. After a deep thinking, he had a plan. With the help of the people he could use CO2 to defeat God. Immediately, he led people to the fossil fuels.
People fall in love with fossil fuels instantly. They started to use fossil fuels for virtually everything, cooking food, keeping warm, making machines, building weapons, etc. Fossil fuels were cheap and abundant. People were happy and content, so does Satan.
Recognizing Satan’s evil plan, God sent secret messages to several wise people on Earth. In turn, they discovered that the excess amount of CO2 could ruin the Earth. Feeling the urgency, they hastily started to spread their words among the people.
However, it was not an easy job to persuade people to reduce the CO2 emission. First, the CO2 looks clean and does not pose a direct harm to the people around emission source. Second, the serious negative impact caused by excess CO2 would take a long time to show up. Third, the negative impact is global. That means individual nations has little incentive to cut its own CO2 emission. Fourth, most people have addicted to the fossil fuels already. Their lives are depending on the use of fossil fuels. Indeed, CO2 is a perfect weapon to defeat God. The Earth is in trouble.
Will God win in the end?
34. more&hellip | December 7th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
hello
great