political relocation and Overpopulation Town Project.

Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco
friendly
By NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH and MORAG TURNER - More by this author �
Last updated at 22:05pm on 21st November 2007

Comments (30)
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.

Scroll down for more...

Desperate measures: Toni Vernelli was steralised at age 27 to reduce
her
carbon footprint

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.

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land,
more
fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution,
more
greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of
nature,
Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1&in_page_id=1&expand=true

http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/68190-political-towns-extreme-places-political-relocation.html

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.childfree/browse_thread/thread/433390c60614cc23/442c33182294bb85?hl=en
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/TurningPoints/story?id=3747045&page=1
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Why_breed/
http://freetownproject.com/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2140483&page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Exodus
http://christianexodus.org
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1918592007
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3401106
http://www.projectprevention.org

Overpopulation or Childfree Town Project
http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/68190-politic
al-towns-extreme-places-political-relocation.html

Hi.

I am writing because I am interested in overpopulation activists in
small
towns. I am hoping that if overpopulation activists concentrate
forces
like the Libertarians of the Free Town Project,
http://freetownproject.com/ we can build a majority that can replace
public school, playground, ballfield, and childcare funding with
contraception and abortion funding and end up saving a great deal of
money especially since Social Security and Medicare funding are
mostly
federal and can be imported.

Housing unit size could also be limited to crowd large families but
regular zoning is a big problem because it makes it expensive for
overpopulation activists to move in and build a majority.

Anyway, what do you think? Can such a majority be built in your
hometown.
NYC is the only municipality I know of that funds abortions and it
is too
overcrowded and thus difficult and expensive to move to or build a
majority in. And NYC's abortion funding is still only a tiny
fraction of
their education funding.

Three groups likely to be allied in this municipal cause are gays,
especially conservative gays like Log Cabin Republicans, retirees,
who
would be hypocrites because they usually have grown children and
grandchildren but these grandchildren often live in different towns
and
would be unaffected by local education cuts, and Libertarians who
are
ideologically committed to small government.

-A

--------- Forwarded message ---------
Subject: My speech to County Commission

I came accross a shocking statistic. In America, and by
inference in Buncombe County, 2 out of 3 parents are so
environmentally
callous that they would turn down even subsidized contraception and
squeeze out babies anyway; which calls into question the ability of
local
contraception funding to save the planet from overpopulation.

But in that case there is something else a county can do and that is
to
stop susidizing parenthood. It is fundamental that the
responsibility to
fund schools, childcare, playgrounds and ballfields lies exclusively
with
parents.

So how is it fair that I, as a taxpaying nonparent, should be
subsidizing
such reproductive activities? There is no ethical construct by which
that
is fair. So since none of you seem to be funding contraception
anyway, I
might as well vote for those who would defund parenthood, while
contraception and abortion are so cost effective that funds can be
raised
privately. And of course that would, and does, switch me to the true
party of the environment, affordable housing and direct democracy,
the
Republicans.

The Republicans help the environment by cutting or attempting to cut
parental subsidies like playgrounds, childcare, ballfields and
public
schools, which is effective against overpopulation in a society in
which
most babies are planned.

Local Republicans oppose zoning which is bad for affordable housing,
and
Nathan Ramsey alone proposed a direct democratic referndum on
zoning,
which makes the Republicans the party of direct democracy.
-A

To the Editor:
Contrary to most political alliances and strategies, LGBTQ people
seem to
be making the most progress in the profit driven corporate world led
by
Log Cabin Republicans and HRC. To see why, one need only look at the
economics of LGBTQ communities like Provincetown MA. According to
the
2000 census, Provincetown had only 8% children, compared to about
25% for
the nation and 31% for the generally politically allied city of
Detroit.
This means LGBTQ communities are fundamentally different from most
other
minority communities in a way that is massively under appreciated,
totally politically incorrect, and lies at the very heart of
economic
conservatism.
<lj-cut text="Read more">
You are largely nonparents, with the economic interests of
nonparents.
And despite all the political rhetoric, what the corporations can
see is
that so far liberal government subsidies have done far more to
transfer
wealth from nonparents to parents than to move wealth from rich to
poor
adults; and when nonparents, like me, form communities and more
specifically school districts, we are relieved of huge tax burdens
and
consequently experience economic (and environmental) booms. It may
behoove nonparents to better understand and acknowledge this huge
and
inherently conservative factor and perhaps use it to rethink some
political alliances with minority parents versus those with
corporations.

See, I told you the ONLY answer was contraception, abortion and gay
rights. So get on task. The main problem is that the US town with
the
smallest percentage of children is not in Cascadia. It is the gay
community of Provincetown MA with 8% children compared to about 25%
nationally. Does Cascadia have a gay town like Provincetown? I will
be
voting Republican because they subsidize parenthood less in the form
of
schools, childcare, TANF, playgrounds, ballfields and family leave.
They
also reduce the population more by killing more anti-choice people
in the
middle east. Also, I am in the southeast and here the Republicans
are
further from the center and therefore more likely to seceed so that
you
can be rid of them. They are more for state's rights. Also, public
schools teach national unity, which is the real enemy of secession.
So
stop subsidizing them.
-A

Although I do some energy conservation work on a hands on basis, I
don't
think much of it as a political issue because direct
environmentalism
distracts attention and then funding from overpopulation and
contraception, which is the ONLY way to actually stop global
warming. The
windmills were for electric generation, but I don't much care. Seven
billion people just cannot live sustainably and efforts to do so are
counterproductive and diversionary. Though we could limit yachts to
400hp
(you lived in FL, those big semi-planers are truly absurd. It's
beyond me
why the little jet ski's get the complaints.) I'm more interested in
defunding parenthood including public education. Did you know that
Provincetown MA is only 8% children? San Francisco is 14%, the USA
about
25%, Detroit 31.1%, Maywood CA (a hispanic LA suburb) is 37% and
Colorado
City AZ (polygamist) is 60.4% children. What effect do you think
that has
on property taxes? especially since old age subsidies are mostly
federal.
Do you know of any towns with a larger or smaller percentage of
children
than 8% or 60.4%. If I can find a town outside the Northeast with 8%
children, I will move there and pay the property taxes. Though
Frisco is
both too big and too expensive for my tastes. Expensive may be
inevitable
because low property taxes would cause speculation. My county is
22.2%
children.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4805000.html
I'm doing a lot of political and demographic research on localities
in
the west lately so I can figure out where I want to live. I can find
very
little reference material on comparitive municipal politics. It's
badly
neglected. There are many more towns to choose from than viable
political
parties.

A libertarian county has already been chosen, Loving County in the
west.
See,
http://freetownproject.com/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2140483&page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia
http://christianexodus.org
I oppose public education because I am not a parent and wish to stop
subsidizing parenthood. However subsidized contraception is very
important and far more cost effective than public education, and
better
for the environment. Texas secession might tilt the balance enough
to
make this possible in the rest of the country.
-A

Local governments may be doing a bunch of myopic and reactive
environmental stuff, but they are doing almost nothing to reduce
fertility rates and are subsidizing parenthood heavily in the form
of
childcare, playgrounds, ballfields and public schools. Do any two
or
more members of this group live in the same town? county? state?
Anyone
here in Nevada? AZ? NM? eastern OR? west TX?
-A

Limiting housing counts does NOTHING for fertility rates and is a
myopic
digression from overpopulation. So in that sense I am pro-
development. I
want enough housing units for everyone ESPEICIALLY domestic migrants
who
may be moving for political purposes. I have no problem with
limiting the
SIZE of houses in order to crowd large families, but I oppose any
limits
on unit counts, unit densities, or building height. An
overpopulation
town funds contraception and abortion INSTEAD OF playgrounds,
ballfields,
childcare, or schools. It has NOTHING TO DO with land use policies
other
than banning ballfields.
-A

FRANCE'S HIGH BIRTH RATE PARTLY DUE TO GOVERNMENT INCENTIVE

France Only European Country With Replacement Level Fertility

France's "robust birth rate," which is "bucking the trend" of
declining
European birth rates, is "could be attributed to government support
for
people who have children.

Birth rates in European countries recently have reached a historic
low,
with the largest and most recent fall occurring in Eastern Europe.
All
European countries recorded birth rates of more than 1.3 children
per
woman.