China Says Killing Okay Because of Global Warming
30 08 2007From Reuters AlertNet, found via Drudge Report. China is now claiming, in an effort to demonstrate that they are doing enough about “global warming” that their one-child policy helps the environment. They insist that the one-child policy has prevented about 300 million births, the population of the U.S.
And we have news stories treating what they are saying as actually having a shred of credibility. While news should be objective, there is a point where the objectivity of the news only serves to demonstrate to us how sick the world’s culture has gotten, that we place concerns about a hypothetical disaster which has mountains of proof both for and against over concerns about the murder of innocent human beings. There is little argument left as to whether a baby inside the womb can be considered a person, and therefore can be little argument left as to whether abortion is murder. This is the statement they are making. Murder is justifiable because of a “scientific” theory that claims disaster will come and is well-known largely because of the rantings, screamings, and ravings of leftist leaders. Not only is murder acceptable, but mass murder is acceptable. I’d call three HUNDRED million innocent deaths mass murder, wouldn’t you?
And now we’re saying this is in the name of protecting the environment? I’m very tempted to use some expletives in describing those who are making this argument. All for an unproven theory? Make no mistake, as long as these kinds of arguments are heard and this kind of behavior is condoned, China will NEVER be a truly successful nation, and for that matter, America will go right down the tubes as well. If it is acceptable to kill clearly alive human beings inside the womb for the sake of “the environment,” what will stop them from killing clearly alive human beings outside the womb for whatever reason strikes their fancy to excuse it?
I totally agree. If China, and America for that matter, keep on as they are going, Satan will completely destroy them. He’s already working on it. How sad. There really is a Satan out ther who is convincing these people they are justified in the sin they commit. He’s done it before and will do it again. Somewhere out there, there is someone who is being convinced they are justified. I’m here to tell you folks, it is NOT justifiable. Please, fight Satan with all you’ve got.
Well this is what happens when you worship the Mother. You lose all respect for man as created in the image of God, and see the only God as the earth. When that is your view, humans become completely expendable.
totaltransformation,
That’s a very good point. Though I’m not sure it’s quite accurate. Don’t catholics believe poeple are created on the image of the Father????
I meant to say Mother Earth.
Ohh. Now it makes more sense.
*grin*
Killing the poor also helps raise the average standard of living. We would save a ton of money on health care if we offed all the old folks who need prescriptions, hip replacements, and the like.
Killing people solves a lot of problems. So does theft. Doesn’t mean it is moral.
Bridget,
What kills (no pun intended) me about this is that they have the gall to treat this as a resolved problem when its not. Even if it was, there are ways to solve problems without doing injustice.
(I think your pun was intended.)
Here’s a thought: If humans are so bad, maybe all the countries of the world can have a nuclear bomb suicide pact, and we humans can all just eliminate ourselves (maybe on a future Earth Day) and thereby save the planet!!! What a joyous day!!!
Doesn’t that seem to be the logical conclusion of some environmentalists?
Earth was made for humanity. Human existence alone has nothing to do with global warming. Sure, humanity could come up with several creative ways to destroy the planet, but the Earth is deteriorating with or without us. I’m all for conservation, recycling, less pollution in our air and water, but killing people in the name of planet Earth just destroys her future potential and greatest resource–us.
I promise it wasn’t intended… *guilty look*
I’m not that clever!
The article you point to says nothing about forced abortions or any abortions by the way ??
Should every inch of the earth be covered with humans because we were told once ‘be fruitful and multiply’ ? And what then - do we just eat each other when all the plants and animals have died out due to our over population and pollution?
Didn’t the Bible also say that God told us to be the CARETAKERS of the animals and plants on this planet? Doesn’t that give us a sacred duty to be ecologists and not just procreators?
I am very interested to know - what is your solution for a livable planet with an ever-expanding population then if birth control should not be allowed or promoted?
Thou Shalt Not Murder. It’s as simple as that. The instructions to be the earth’s caretakers and be fruitful and multiply can coexist, quite easily as it turns out.
This planet is not overcrowded. In fact, far from it:
And global warming is hardly proven fact. Scores of scientists still disagree on the “evidence” touted by hollywood lefties. Don’t kid yourself… if the elitists in this country think it’s a fact, it’s probably not.
Bitter Girl,
China and India are overpopulated. If we were to wipe those countries out, the earth would be fine. The population of Europe will be half what it is in every succeeding generation, as they are not replacing themselves.
Thing is, the ends do not justify the means nor the collateral damage. The proposed solutoin to the population problem is to MURDER children. I thought we were beyond that point in civilised development.
New York has 8 million people during the day AND is the most energy-efficient city in the country. It’s not about overpopulation; it’s about how we deal with it. No one wants to acknowledge that the way to deal with environmental issues is to move into cities, ditch the cars, live in apartments, and make everything accessible by foot or public transportation.
The proposed solution is to limit (in China) families to 1 child. They do not say you must kill them in anything I read in the article which was linked to. This ‘argument’ is ridiculously overstating the issue by saying it’s ‘murder to ask people to limit themselves to 1 child. It sounds reasonable to me in China - where they definitely do have a problem. Unless you think that a guy’s sperm not meeting an egg each time they leave his weener is ‘murder’ that is, I would think birth control is perfectly sufficient to achieve this task.
I also disagree that the planet is not overpopulated. How much ‘floor space’ we have is irrelevant - it is how much of the resources of the planet we each use up during our lives that matters. And unfortunately I am certain that it takes more than the land mass of Texas to support this whole planet. I think you will also find that New York cannot support itself if it’s cut off from all the imports of food and raw materials and power required to keep that city going.
Birth control does not take the form that you rather grossly referred to, bitter girl. You are incredibly naive if you do not think that government-forced abortion is rampant in China. Take a gander at this: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/050826a.html
Other than oil, do tell me where we have shortages in the earth’s resources? The shortages are not because the resources aren’t there, the shortages are because of massive mismanagement and manipulation and thievery by the governments of the world. The way to fix that is not abortion.
Bitter Girl,
Let’s take this apart. If the government wants to enforce the one child LAW, how may it do so? It can encourage anything that it wants to encourage, but that is not enforcement.
So you said that birth control is sufficient? First of all, I presume that you are not one of those types who think that women need abortions because birth control may fail. Secondly, how do you force women to take it? That’s right - you force them. Women are forcibly implanted with IUDs once they have had a child to prevent further child-bearing.
Those are less than 100% effective. Now, China has a population of about 1 billion; approximately 200 million of those are women in their childbearing years. A 99.9% success rate with IUDs would mean that there are 200,000 unwanted pregnancies. The government uses abortion to kill those living children.
IUDs, interestingly, work by preventing implantation of a fertilised egg. The Chinese government uses IUDs because they cannot be removed without a doctor, are very reliable, and do not require constant monitoring. It cannot force people to take Pills every day. So yeah, when you talk about “birth control,” be honest that you aren’t talking about contraceptives.
As for New York - I don’t like to insult people I’ve never met, but you either cannot read or you deliberately misunderstood my point. There are EFFICIENT and INEFFICIENT ways to use resources. New York uses theirs very efficiently (hence “the most energy-efficient city in the US”). I refuse to engage people who cannot argue on the point presented.
Theobromophile - it seems you DO like to insult people you never met, and make silly assumptions about them. I understood your point but think it’s irrelevant to the final logical conclusion of this line of logic which I see all over the place in anti-abortion circles. You seem very concieted to suddenly make personal attacks against me, I must say. I most certainly was arguing on the point presented in the ORIGINAL POST - which was saying that China was using global warming to justify forced abortions and then gave two links ‘proving’ this which contained NO statements of that sort whatsoever!
Your point was how there is no overpopulation problem because we just need to ‘deal with it better’ like New York for example, and that this would solve the issue forever. That is a very short term view point and does not take into account exponential population growth which is what happens - the worse it gets, the FASTER it continues to get worse due to exponential growth. MY point is that this is simply NOT sustainable if the population of the earth keeps growing and growing (which it is, despite the fact that a few countries here and there are not growing, others are zooming far ahead and the earth’s population as a whole is increasing yearly).
There are finite resources and a finite amount of space, and more and more people. You said if we wipe two countries off the planet, the problems are solved. Well first of all that is not going to happen so I don’t see the point of mentioning it, and secondly those are NOT the only countries with high and growing populations.
Do you think that the reason so many animal species around the world are going extinct is simply because those animals are ‘dumb’ and are dying off because of that? No - it’s because humans are overrunning their habitat and poisoning or removing their sources of food in order to expand and make more room for more of what humans want.
In the end this is going to kill us all because at a certain point in time, we will destroy the natural balance, and then what? Do we end up eating each other if there is no other food left in 500 years of this blind line of thinking? The dying out of various animal species is a direct result of over-population and continued human expansion to ‘find more resources’ to fuel the first world thirst for consumer goods. We grow, our pollution grows. We grow, our manufactured poisonous chemicals grow. We grow, forests die. We grow, animal species die out.
There is a great deal of population data and impact of humans overrunning the planet on many websites out there which do not have an agenda of either promoting or fighting against abortion - such as this one: http://www.overpopulation.org/
Thirdly what many have not mentioned is China’s use of taxation schemes to dissuade people from having more than one child. I would think that paying men to have vasectomies and other monetary means can be used to encourage people about this more than brute tactics. I also see no problem with IUDs to be quite frank.
Frankly I hate China for many reasons (such as their manufacturing industry which is completely unregulated) - but in general a policy to limit families to one child in a country that has population problems should not have to be a bad thing. If it’s enforced in ways that destroy human souls, then that is bad but as a goal or as a general policy I do not see any problem whatsoever with a country having goals of zero population growth or even population shrinkage in certain cases.
As I do not live in China and have never been there, and must rely on biased news sources from either side - I can only say that to me ideally there is no reason this could not be made into a policy that was enforced in a decent way - if that is not being done, then that should change - but I see no issue with the general philosophy or policy - if it is enforced in a poor way, then that is the bad thing. But what is being said here is that the goal of population control is bad and I entirely disagree with that.
“The dying out of various animal species is a direct result of over-population and continued human expansion to ‘find more resources’ to fuel the first world thirst for consumer goods. We grow, our pollution grows. We grow, our manufactured poisonous chemicals grow. We grow, forests die. We grow, animal species die out.”
BG,
If you believe Evolutionary Theory, animals have been dying out long before mankind showed up. Extinction of animal species seems natural from that viewpoint. I understand your sentiment on over-population, but people eventually die and women do not reproduce indefinitely. It just seems like “the sky is falling” from your viewpoint, but I just don’t see it. And people can think for themselves about family planning without a government forcing them to abort or be sterile.
EXACTLY.
China can give all the “incentives’ it wants, but the fact is, it REQUIRES people to abort their children or FORCIBLY sterlises them.
And you seem hysterical and silly, my dear. Ooohhhh…. “anti-abortion circles.” Well, at least you don’t claim to be for “choice:” you think it’s okay for China to slaughter untold millions of children every year, against the wishes of the women in question.
Malthus was wrong. Facts for you (they are stubborn things, but you’ll manage):
-The United States is barely replacing its own population;
-Europe is in a death spiral; in 35 years, its population will be cut in half;
-The “demand for consumer goods” (cars, I presume, being one of them) is finite and, again, there are ways to live a more ecologically-friendly lifestyle;
-I’m a vegetarian, in part for environmental reasons; if you eat meat, you’re a total hypocrite who would prefer for a government to slaughter children in the womb rather than eat a freakin lentil;
-Victorian England was more polluted than modern England.
I find people who think that technology = pollution are really adorable, but, sadly, people take them seriously. Engineers are taught how to make environmentally-friendly products, plants, and processes. A lot of that evil, evil technology is aimed at improving the enviroment - and, sadly for the sky is falling crowd, it WORKS.
Better technology, better living conditions, more public transportation, and the like are the answer. Forcibly sterlising women and kililng their children is NOT. You’ve yet to address that head-on, and, frankly, it’s clear to me that you approve but dont’ want to say so in those terms.
FYI, dahlin: there is a DIRECT correlation between lack of population growth and freedom, quality of living, and everything else you seem to hate on:
http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/population_growth_0.html
Jay and Pachyderm…
you tell her!
I’d also like to point out, from the male point of view, that China would be a really sucky place to live. Apparently the guys can’t get married ’cause all the girl babies were aborted…
You seem very young and naive Theo - saying that Europe is in a death spiral - not a fact at all. Saying that the western world does not produce more pollution than say African nations either as a whole or per capita - again completely wrong. Engineers can do what they like to slightly improve how many watts your hairdryer is using, to make you feel all warm and glowing inside about your consumerist lifestyle but it is all more marketing so you keep buying products — just how many people use solar power and have removed their houses from the power grid ? A rain drop in the ocean.
The list you link to proves my point exactly! God Bless! It shows population Growth Rates. Add them up. World population is growing overall. No European ‘death sprial’ and of course overall the world keeps growing and growing in population.
So - Answer the question I put to you - what then? How is constant growth sustainable? How can anyone base any reasonable economic or social policies around the theory of requiring CONSTANT GROWTH of either population or economies when you have FINITE planet size and resources?
When the USA consumes per capita many times more in resources than any African and most small Asian nations, it doesn’t matter that it’s growth rate is small - any growth is bad and the growth of consumption of goods and in the resources used to create those goods is astronomical.
Have you ever travelled in the third world to see the difference in the amount of waste we western world types produce and what we consume in power and resources each day in an average life or day’s work compared to most other places on earth?
Do you use a hair dryer? Do you use throw away paper towels to wipe up spills or dish rag? How many times to you get ‘take away’ food in 5 plastic containers, where the food stays for about 5 minutes in the containers, is eaten and then the petroleum based plastic container is tossed out - all those resources for 5 minutes of your convenient consumer lifestyle? Do you use a clothes dryer to dry your clothes - most places in the world cannot afford to run or purchas a clothes dryer or would see this as nothing other than a luxury including in all of western Europe. Dishwasher? Processed foods (require massive manufacturing resources just to give you less nutrition from the same raw ingredients - how intelligent is that)? How many changes of clothing do you own? How many cars? Walk or drive to work or the store? How big is your house in square feet - do you heat it centrally in winter - how many rooms are heated that you do not even occupy most of the time? You should see the footprints that most of the rest of the world live in and how they use energy to heat them compared to the amazing waste in the USA.
These are just tiny examples out of the hundreds of thousands of our wasteful consumer lifestyle habits in the USA which you do not find in other poorer nations where food is wrapped in paper for takeaway or cooked at home, and spills are cleaned up with reusable rags and not tossable resources and hair dryers are just unheard of luxuries and stores are close to where people live so that people can walk to shops etc..
Gradual evolution over thousands and thousands of centuries, which I most certainly do agree is scientific fact, and quick short term extinctions (extinction = total disappearance — not one species evolving into another species) caused by human OVERPOPULATION are two entirely different things. What is happening now is unprecedented in the history of the earth - man causing the disappearance of thousands of species through his filth and pollution. Clearly you do not believe in God as he told us to care for the land and creatures on this earth and we have done nothing but destroy and defile. You are purely selfish greedy consumers (with a healthy dose of pride it would seem) to ignore this part of the Word.
Just because a few countries lose population here and there does not change the fact that the world population as a whole goes up and up and up each year. You refuse to answer or address my basic questions to you. I wonder why. I guess it doesn’t fit into your black and white view of the world.
I disagree with your false claims about population and your clear lack of ability to make logical deductions or to truly look at the spirit of what is written in the Bible as well (the only subject you care about is a single one, not everything that is written about in that large and long book), so clearly there is nothing else for me to say to you here - clearly the readers/writers here do not care if facts are true or false and if you actually lie in the blog and say that something is happening without proof that it is.
You have some agression issues if your immediate reaction to my questions is to make emotional personal attacks against me for what I have written rather than actually engaging in a dialoge.
The idea espoused here of population control being by nature ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ and automatically would equal forced sterilisation and abortions is what I am questioning and none of the links provided give clear proof that China states they are linking global warming to a policy of forced abortions as the title on this post indicates. Clearly you are incapable of reading my previous post.
And washedandforgiven - you are really odd. Do you think you are watching a boxing match with that type of comment? How Christian of you.
Also, I am a vegan - so you can drop your holier than thou pridefulness. The cheese industry by the way requires the killing of veal calves - baby cows - in order to make sure the females stay in milk production. And when the girls are too old to be useful as milkers - it’s off to the slaughter house. The egg industry and factory farming conditions are hideous for laying hens. I consider all forms of life to be sacred and protected - not just certain sub-sets of creation as you do.
So apparently you enjoy eating cheese while baby calves are screaming as they are put to death, and their mothers are mooing loudly for their offspring, as their babies are led away to death each year, year after year. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Continuous population growth is unsustainable, and efforts to curtail this are not automatically equal to a call for forced abortions (now that is certainly hysterical).
I repeat what you must not have read previously:
As I do not live in China and have never been there, and must rely on biased news sources from either side - I can only say that to me ideally there is no reason this could not be made into a policy that was enforced in a decent way - if that is not being done, then that should change - but I see no issue with the general philosophy or policy - if it is enforced in a poor way, then that is the bad thing. But what is being said here is that the goal of population control is bad and I entirely disagree with that.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1123982.ece
Death spiral. A choice quote, for you, my dear:
They show that Europe’s population could decline by as much as 88 million people if present trends continue for another 15 years. The population of the European Union was about 375 million in 2000.
You seem very young and naive Theo - saying that Europe is in a death spiral - not a fact at all.
Awwwww! I’m young and naive! I thought I was a highly-educated twenty-something, not a bittter little girl.
thing. But what is being said here is that the goal of population control is bad and I entirely disagree with t
NO! You’re wrong.
No one is saying that population control is per se bad. What we ARE saying, and what you continually ignore, is that population control is being done via MURDER.
Your hypocrisy is really adorable. I mean, you tell me that I’m young, naive, don’t believe in God, call me a filthy consumer and a hypocrite. Then you say that I personally attack you. Oh, bitter girl, how you do live up to you rname.
- I can only say that to me ideally there is no reason this could not be made into a policy that was enforced in a decent
You are the young, naive one. Ideally, 1930s Germany could have recovered from its economic conditionswithout the Holocaust, so we should have turned a blind eye to that, right? China is enacting its “one chld” policy in ways that will KILL the rest of the world. They are forcibly sterilising women. They are injecting saline into their wombs. They selectively abort female babies, which results in an overabundance of young men. guess what China is going to do with too many young men? Same thing every other country in the history of the world has done: send ‘em off to war.
But we shouldn’t do anything, because we haven’t seen, with our own eyes, someone aborting an eight-month old fetus. I mean, really - what were American sin the 1940s thinking? They didn’t know for sure that there were death camps! After all, maybe Germany was being really sweet to everyone, so let’s not bother our heads about it.
State your questions clearly and I will answer them. Here are mine to you:
Do you think we should all live like people in Africa?
Do you understand that I’m not Christian, so saying that I’m “not very Christian” is laughable?
Do you live in a hut, without central heat? Or do you just think that the little, unenlightened people ought to live that way?
Do you see the revolting hypocrisy in not eating cheese but condoning abortion?
Why do you put animal life above human life?
Do you understand that you live in a dream world? Continuous population growth is unsustainable, and efforts to curtail this are not automatically equal to a call for forced abortions (now that is certainly hysterical. Sweetie, it does not NECESSARILY equate to forced abortions, but that is how China, in this little inconvenient place we call REALITY, chooses to deal with the problem. I could deal with my student loan debt by getting a well-paying job, or I could embezzle money. the fact that I could do the former does not mean that I am physically, morally, or logistically incapable of the latter. Or more to the point, the fact that a woman COULD have consented to sex with a rapist means that she must have, right? After all, it would be too horrible and hysterical to contemplate mean, nasty people in the world, right? (I’m the naive one… ha!)
You amaze me.
So - Answer the question I put to you - what then? How is constant growth sustainable? How can anyone base any reasonable economic or social policies around the theory of requiring CONSTANT GROWTH of either population or economies when you have FINITE planet size and resources?
I don’t answer straw man questions. I never said that constant, infinite growth was sustainable; my issue is that we are not living in a state of constant growth. Well-developed nations are actually LOSING population.
Answer me this: how do you expect to retire if your generation is twice the size of the one supporting you?
Do you use a hair dryer? Do you use throw away paper towels to wipe up spills or dish rag? How many times to you get ‘take away’ food in 5 plastic containers, where the food stays for about 5 minutes in the containers, is eaten and then the petroleum based plastic container is tossed out - all those resources for 5 minutes of your convenient consumer lifestyle?
Wrong girl, babycakes.
I don’t use a hair dryer; it makes my hair gross and dry. I share an apartment with another woman; we probably have about 700 square feet between the two of us. We are in a small complex, so the heat from our apt. does not just leave; it heats our neighbour’s houses. It would be impossible to not heat parts of the house - I mean, there’s a kitchen, a living room, and two bedrooms.
I don’t eat processed foods; I do my own cooking, from sratch. I don’t much like A/C. I live a mile away from my law school and walk. I usually walk to the supermarket.
I am able to do those things, not because I’m superiour, but because the infrastructure is there. My town is sufficiently small that everything is in walking distance. (When I lived in California, I had a similar situation - Trader Joe’s was a 20-minute walk, so I did that.) I’m able to find an apartment that is big enough for two people that doesn’t have a massive carbon footprint. I’m not in the suburbs, which require large houses, large yards, and cars.
By the way, when I do get take-out, as I’m a student putting herself through law school, so I wash and keep those plastic containers. Cheaper than buying Tupperware, and better than throwing them out.
I live in a humid area, so I have to use a clothes dryer during the summer. In the winter, I hang-dry my clothes, because the dryness makes me sick otherwise.
I still fail to see why African huts are the ideal situation for all of us… after all, indoor plumbing is something that most people never had, but I doubt you would go back to the days of the outhouses.
So apparently you enjoy eating cheese while baby calves are screaming as they are put to death, and their mothers are mooing loudly for their offspring, as their babies are led away to death each year, year after year. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Awwww! You’re cute, bittergirl. Would you like to see the bone scan of my femur, where I still have some problems from a long-ago fracture (six inches, vertical - really impressive, actually)? I NEED calcium. I don’t want to be osteoperotic when I’m 60 because some pro-abortion nutjob would rather kill babies than milk a cow.
Er… when did I profess any sort of emotional need to be nice to cows? I’m not being a hypocrite; I simply choose to live my life in a healthy manner. So you enjoy, however, having the Chinese government haul women off to a clinic, shove saline into their uteruses, while their fetuses are burned to death and their mothers scream for their children? Pot. Kettle. Black.
I have not seen proof of this on any website (China burning fetuses?) and that was my original complaint about this post.
Calcium obtained from milk is very difficult for humans to digest and to absorb - the idea that calcium in milk is good for you comes only from the dairy industry - no wonder you are calcium deficient.
Take care naive one. You’ll need it.
What is your problem?
I mean, really, what is it?
Calcium from things like orange juice is more difficult to absorb. FYI: I was hit by a car and didn’t so much as fracture anything, but I do need to watch it. Vegans are so calcium deficient that their teeth start to rot.
Naive? Saying so doesn’t make it. I would appreciate it if you would not make unfounded accusations about the character of people you have never met.
Actually, you nutjob, it’s harder to absorb calcium in a vegan diet. You are confusing absorption with leeching, and you fail to understand that vegetarians and meat-eaters can have healthy diets. Well, that’s what happens when you let ideology blind you - better human infants than cows, right?
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/food/nutrition/calcium.php
Wow - thanks once again for proving my point! It’s actually EASIER and HEALTHIER to get calcium out of a balanced vegan diet than by getting them from cow’s milk. Your own link to the vegan site says this:
Vegan Sources of Calcium
Good plant sources of calcium include tofu (if prepared using calcium sulphate contains MORE THAN FOUR TIMES THE CALCIUM OF WHOLE COW’S MILK), green leafy vegetables, seeds and nuts. The calcium in green vegetables which are not high in oxalate e.g. kale, IS ABSORBED AS WELL OR BETTER THAN THE CALCIUM FROM COW’S MILK. Some soya milks e.g. Provamel, Plamil, Granovita are fortified with calcium. Drinking hard water can provide 200mg of calcium daily but soft water contains almost none. Other calcium rich foods include black molasses, edible seaweeds, watercress, parsley and dried figs.
Protein & Calcium
A high protein diet, especially derived from animal foods, causes calcium loss in the body. The higher sulphur-to-calcium ratio of meat increases calcium excretion, and a diet rich in meat can cause bone demineralisation.
The link goes on to state why milk is so bad for your health, and lists the doctors who now no longer recommend it as a calcium source due to it’s other associated health problems. You also can read on plenty of osteoporosis sites that weight bearing exercise builds up strong bones more than simply increasing the intake of calcium would.
There are certainly ways to get enough calcium in a vegan diet - you simply must be aware and plan your meals. You do not need to rely on cow’s milk for this nutrient as you claim.
You might also consider that several Aisan countries such as Japan eat little to no milk products as part of the traditional diet there. Yet, the risk of osteoporosis is not greater in these countries (and there tofu and leafy green vegetables are even eaten by meat eaters in greater quantities than the average UK or American diet).
There is a good natural child rearing website which talks quite a lot about the cow’s milk myth:
http://www.babyreference.com/MilkingYourBones.htm
[...] Kanter amazed me. It amazed me not what it said (it’s what I’ve been saying here and being criticized for when commenting on other people’s blogs for some time now) - but it amazed me by the fact that it was published as the front page headline [...]
Oh, yeah, let me remind you:
*Animal iron is much more readily absorbed than plant iron. I give blood regularly and have never had a problem.
*Percentages don’t equate to whole numbers. If there is more calcium in milk but a slightly smaller percentage is absorbed, the body is still getting more calcium.
*Here’s a debate:
http://www.milkprocon.org/questions/calcium.htm
Read it and weep. It’s not as settled as you would like to think. Drink a glass of milk. Have an ice cream. Maybe it will improve your disposition.
ZING. Concede. Admit defeat.
Sorry broccoli is not one of the big calcium vegetables that anyone recommends. Try Kale or bok choy. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2321572&dopt=AbstractPlus . Your claim that you MUST have milk to get enough calcium in your diet is still unsubstantiated as I mentioned earlier. There are even non-animal based calcium supplements you can take each day and do not involve killing anything, which is my point. I am perfectly happy with myself and certainly have no need for killing cows’ babies in order to make you happy, thanks.
Okay, bittergirl, here I must step in. Where do you get this nonsense about killing cows’ babies? EXCUSE ME!?!?!?!? I have a cousin that runs a very large dairy farm in Wisconsin which has been in the family for three generations now and can tell you for a certainty that they have never killed a calf in order to milk a cow. It began as a small operation with a dozen or so cows and they now have over five hundred. There is no “killing calves” going on. You obviously know nothing about the dairy industry.
Also, I consider it interesting how much of a priority, misguided and misinformed though it may be, you put on calves’ lives, yet you think nothing of government sanctioned mass murder of babies. Yes, I said mass murder. It has been proven time and time again that those who perform abortions murder “viable fetuses,” babies with a heartbeat, and ability to feel pain and attachment. You are the sort that thinks we should kill anybody who is “not convenient.” Guess what, under that idea, if I have the power, I can declare you not convenient and have you killed. You’re not headed down a slippery slope, you’re careening down the side of a greased wall made out of aluminum. Wake up and get your head out of the filth pit, and you might begin to think rationally.
I’ve had to delete two comments on this thread with profanity, now. Read the comments policy, ppl. None. Allowed. Whatsoever.
Thread closed.