Intelligent people always knew that the buzz-phrase "freedom of choice" was a mockery, something in which the pro-abortion crowd never believed. Now they are dropping their pretenses.
Princeton "bioethicist" Peter Singer declared his latest schlock: "Women's reproductive rights may one day have to be sacrificed for the environment". And where was he when he made this none-too-surprising statement? Why, he was at that Women Deliver Conference last week, along with Melinda Gates, Kathleen Sebelius and Leroy Carhart. What a charming bunch of folks.
(By the way - Women Deliver, Inc has 501c3 status. I wonder if Lois Lerner made them jump through hoops and turn over their donor lists, website passwords, etc? But I digress!)
Read that LifeSite News article; Singer's arrogance is actually quite typical of progressives. Don't you just get a thrill when he says regarding women's rights, "there can be imaginable circumstances in which you may be justified in overriding them." Wanna bet that Carhart and other abortionists in attendance were contemplating how they might "assist" in such "overriding"?
He's concerned - very concerned - about "greenhouse gases". One immediate step he and all the other attendees could take would be to shut their mouths and stop emitting their own noxious gases. But that won't happen.
I link to a previous post regarding the anti-life underpinnings of environmentalism. These underpinnings were made starkly evident last week. Please read and pass on.
Addendum: For a nice synopsis on real ecology in the service of humankind, see what Pope Francis says about the saving of babies as being the most important aspect of preserving environment.