Controversial abortion ad airs on UK television

On May 24 British television began airing its first abortion ad, sponsored by international abortion organization Marie Stopes International:

The ad never mentions abortion, but the message is clear: If you find you're pregnant but are just launching a career, or already a harried mother, or still in school, call us to get rid of the problem. If you're late! you're late! for a very important date - abort!...

We don't hear much about Marie Stopes International here in the US, but as LifeSiteNews.com points out, MSI is "one of the major players in the international population control movement."

MSI's most recent annual report stated it would commit 500,000 abortions worldwide in 2007, including late-term up to 24 weeks.

MSI operates 560 "centres" in 42 countries (in the US only fundraising and PR). If MSI can't surgically abort, it will provide RU486 chemical abortion kits (click to enlarge)...

marie stopes chemical abortions.png

... not confining itself to legal technicalities, as in, "We do illegal abortions all over the world"...

No surprise, MSI partners with China to conduct its coerced one-child policy.

Ironically, the night before MSI's ad began airing in Britain, pregnant mother Durga Devi Khadka died at an MSI abortion mill in Nepal due to "sheer negligence on the part of doctors... while undergoing abortion of a 10-week fetus," according to MyRepublica.com.

The UK abortion ad flak got me thinking that while pro-life groups in the US have been running pro-life tv ads for years, the abortion industry has not, to my knowledge.

I wonder why not. Although there would be a major stir, and certain networks and tv shows might balk for fear of boycotts and bad PR, where there's a will, there's a way. I'm sure MTV, for instance, would run such ads.

In Planned Parenthood's case, it has tried so hard to claim only "three percent" of its business comes from abortion (although truth be told, ~ 37% of its profits come from abortion), it can't really advertise for it.

Although never say never.

There are indeed many great pro-life ads produced, such as by Vitae Caring Foundation and Life Commercials.

Here are a couple new ones by Heroic Media, being aired in WI by the WI Veritas Society...


Pro-lifers offer pregnant mothers in crisis what they really need - comfort, encouragement, and free, sacrificial help....

Pro-abort ideologues are lazy and self-centered, only willing to go so far as to lift a finger to point pregnant mothers in crisis to abortion mills like MSI and PP, both of which make quite a profit off of the crisis.

[HT: GerardNadal.com]


Comments:

Interesting.
The big beef proaborts have with the Pregnancy Counselling Centers is that they claim they don't tell women upfront that they don't offer abortion.

But this ad is completely misleading. This ad leads you to believe that you will get whatever help you need...

And no matter how positively they try to portray abortion, it's still sick that the solution offered to women who are pregnant at a difficult time in their lives is to kill their baby.
SICK SICK

Posted by: angel at May 28, 2010 6:49 AM


England is rapidly becoming an Islamic state. While MSI chases after profits, the Prophet Mohammed wins.

MSI is a useful idiot for the eventual spread of Islam to all Europe, and other parts of the world.

If Muslims do not defend against the destruction of the innocents, then the blood is on their hands as well.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 28, 2010 6:51 AM


I second angel's comment. If you didn't know what MSI was, you could very well believe that it was a pregnancy center based on this ad.

Posted by: Kelsey at May 28, 2010 7:17 AM


Yep, Kelsey. Then if you called for information about prenatal care you'd be shut down.


When I was pregnant with my first I was away at college in a new State. I didn't have a regular doctor, so I called PP thinking that they could help me since they were all about "reproductive services."

Wrong! They could help me have an abortion. That's the only reproductive service they offer, other than a urine pregnancy test.

That's why I always think it's pretty funny when they complain that CPC's don't offer "comprehensive women's services." Newsflash: Planned Parenthood, you don't either!

Posted by: Lauren at May 28, 2010 8:09 AM


That's why I always think it's pretty funny when they complain that CPC's don't offer "comprehensive women's services." Newsflash: Planned Parenthood, you don't either!

Posted by: Lauren at May 28, 2010 8:09 AM
-----

Lauren - that looks like a good basis for a "Did you know…" PSA.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 28, 2010 9:15 AM


Nice flowery packaging on the Mediprist, are women supposed to associate it with something as innocuous as feminine products? Offing your offspring ≠ natural, nor womanly, nor feminine. Makes me think of:

"Saying there are too many children
is like saying there are too many flowers."

~ Mother Teresa ~

Posted by: klynn73 at May 28, 2010 9:42 AM


Good one Klynn. Children, flowers, flowers on box, box of feminine products. Aren't daisies a euphemism for napkins (in Australia)?

I am concerned for peak oil and agriculture. Flowers don't starve to death painfully. It takes 10 calories of oil to make a calorie of food. Kids are more susceptible to death to starvation, and it is sad. Certainly enough to motivate a war. No I don't support abortion but I don't support having them left and right either like the Catholic church would. I'd actually go as far as support forced sterilization depending on the country/situation.

Posted by: ChrisInUSA at May 28, 2010 10:22 AM


Chris, please rephrase your comment. It doesn't make sense to me.

Posted by: Kelsey at May 28, 2010 10:33 AM


Mods,

I had a person writing under Marie Stopes leave comments on my blog, with all identifying info pointing to this person being a member of their organization. When called to task for the comments, the individual claimed to not be an employee, but an enthusiastic supporter. Read the original comment in the post and all subsequent comments here:

http://gerardnadal.com/2010/05/28/englands-lions-devouring-their-young/

If you want, I'll forward the identifying info to you. I honestly don't know where the truth lies in this matter.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 28, 2010 11:13 AM


Posted by: Kelsey at May 28, 2010 10:33 AM
-------

Kelsey - I think you're referring to my comment regarding England?

Not too long ago I had an in-depth conversation with someone who is exceptionally qualified when it comes to both England (actually all of the UK) and the Muslim world. I highly respect this individual and his judgement.

He indicated that at current birth and immigration rates, the UK will soon be an Islamic state. 9 major cities have Muslim mayors, and there are many areas in such cities where non-Muslim venturing is highly "discouraged". Within these enclaves is an alternative law - sharia.

Muslims condemn the practice of abortion among their own, but you will not find them protesting to halt the UK government or companies like MSI.

My point regarding MSI being a "useful idiot" is that while the secular/non-practicing Christian populations do not halt abortion, they are decimating their own progeny, against the long term interests of a continuing non-Muslim Western civilization.

MSI is aiding and abetting the equivalent of social-suicide. (The actual term is auto-genocide).

My comment re: Muslims having the blood on their hands has to do with complicity - inaction when it comes to the death of innocent humans via abortion.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 28, 2010 11:22 AM


Woman: No! Let go of me! Keep that scalpel away from me!
ChrisInUSA: Sorry, ma'am, we're going to sterilize you. It's for the good of the country.
Woman: No! Please! Please, just let me go!

Posted by: Marauder at May 28, 2010 11:24 AM


Actually I was referring to ChrisInUSA's comment. (My bad, I didn't realize we had two people named Chris.) But since you brought it up, I know quite a few pro-life Muslims-- by which I mean fully pro-life, protective of unborn children of ALL races. IMHO it's unwise to generalize about that kind of thing.

Posted by: Kelsey at May 28, 2010 11:31 AM


"No I don't support abortion but I don't support having them left and right either like the Catholic church would. I'd actually go as far as support forced sterilization depending on the country/situation. = posted by Chrisinusa"

Here's the dealio, Chris: women have been paying large sums of money for IVF, other fertility treatments, international adoptions, and more. Families could use that money directly for their children - if they could adopt. Me? I'd love to have adopted children on my left AND on my right!!

In his book "Touched by God", Bernard Nathanson writes about how the Lawrence Lader targeted the Catholic Church. page 89 You are parroting rhetoric, Chrisinusa, and contrived rhetoric at that. Way to think for yourself!

Finally, this is a little off topic, but I encourage Jill's readers to check out Alveda King's blog:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/blog/index.php/counter-response-to-lies-of-pro-abortion-voices-needed-they-say-ultrasounds-dont-change-minds-and-save-lives-they-lie-testimonies-needed#respond

Posted by: ninek at May 28, 2010 11:52 AM


Posted by: Kelsey at May 28, 2010 11:31 AM
-----

Pro-life Muslims in the USA as opposed to being in UK? Although I haven't personally met any involved in the cause, I'm not surprised.

Kelsey, I'm not alleging Muslims are pro-abortion, but there is an inconsistency which is beneficial to the growth of Islam and the demise of the secular/marginal Christianity you find in UK and Europe.

That's not a generalization as much as a simple observation.

I think it would be naive to think UK Muslim spiritual and political leaders were unaware of that impact.

Strangely, you won't find the imams calling for massive Muslim protests against MSI.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 28, 2010 12:10 PM


Mohammed (peace be upon him) once said, "Women, do not kill your children for fear of poverty." But I can't help but notice that the Muslim community does not appear present with us on the issue of life. They may believe they are pro-life, but where are they? At vigils I have met atheists, pagans, christians of all kinds of denominations, but that's been it so far. Don't they realize how much we'd appreciate them standing with us?

Posted by: ninek at May 28, 2010 12:32 PM


I stand by the need for population control.

Peak oil simply means world oil output is at maximum and likely to diminish gradually according to the Hubbert model which was true for the United States.

Meanwhile competition for oil rises all the time because we have more and more people all the time.

Food is directly associated with oil because
1. Heavy machinery to do farm labor runs on gasoline or Diesel
2. fertilizers and pesticides are petroleum products
3. transporting agricultural goods by truck requires Diesel
4. wrapping vegetables, bread, meat in plastic wrap made from oil

It is estimated each calorie of food is associated with ten calories of energy, mostly petroleum.

Watching some kid die of hunger isn't pretty. It would motivate the adults to go to war. It probably wouldn't take long to kill large numbers of people. They'd be dead before they were ill from pestilence (hungry people have weakened immune systems).

40 years past peak saw the USA get involved in two oil wars in Iraq plus the Iran-Iraq war, and get deeply involved in world terrorism. Imagine the whole world past peak, with hungry countries armed with nuclear weapons.

Note: Sterilizing a man is easy and does not require general anesthesia. There are non-invasive tubal ligations options for women as well.

Posted by: ChrisInUSA at May 28, 2010 1:28 PM


ChrisArsenault,

Isn't part of the issue of Western Europe disappearing due to secular and Christian groups contracepting, and of course, aborting? I once heard that if every family (God-willing they could) have at least 6 kids, we would once again be a Judeo-Christian nation. Are the practicing Muslims contracepting? If they are out-numbering other religious groups, I think it's safe to assume they're not using birth control. Or, maybe the vast majority.

Posted by: doe at May 28, 2010 1:35 PM


I'm not familiar with the pro-life movement in the UK/Europe, so I'm going to bow out of this conversation. I'll just leave you with a general comment: I don't feel that pro-lifers anywhere should rely too heavily on the "Roe effect" (outbreeding abortion supporters.) We can't just wait for the tides of population to turn in our favor. The longer we wait, the more babies die. Our focus should be on changing hearts and minds, not on demographics. Especially among younger activists, you find many pro-lifers with pro-abortion or neutral parents.

Posted by: Kelsey at May 28, 2010 1:52 PM


Chrisinusa, have you undergone sterilization yourself?

Oil is a justification for population control? Wow, that is reaching. As many locavores already realize, our food distribution problems can be solved a lot simpler than you think. No one on the planet needs to starve. Food production and distribution suffers more from political unrest, war, and power struggles than anything else. Population control is a lie based on a myth. We absolutely do not have a population problem on this planet. I have done my homework on this one, folks, and no matter what the deathmongers throw at me, I will not budge. People do starve on this planet, but it is needless, can be solved, and we don't need to sterilize anyone to do it.

Posted by: ninek at May 28, 2010 2:26 PM


No, I am not even married yet, and faithful to the Word.

Yeah you can grow (some) food without oil. And feed a billion or two. We did about 100 or more years ago. The only reason we have 7 billion people on Earth is because we have machinery powered by cheap oil.

1. We're guzzling the oil like there's no tomorrow. Global warming, see also 4.
2. We're guzzling the groundwater and meltwater like there's no tomorrow.
3. We're abusing the topsoil like there's no tomorrow. It blows away, washes away, takes 500 years to make an inch.
4. We're destabilizing the climate, causing drought and flood in new places.
5. We're reproducing more and more.
6. Food is going to be threatened as a result
7. Tomorrow is going to come, and for five billion, it will be the end of days.


Posted by: ChrisInUSA at May 28, 2010 2:56 PM


I am age 40 and I am likely to marry a woman of comparable age- forget six kids. I'd stop at one, I'd even settle for adoption. Actually my best friend will never have kids unless they adopt. Sounds like a sweet deal. Where do I sign up?

Posted by: ChrisInUSA at May 28, 2010 3:02 PM


I am age 40 and I am likely to marry a woman of comparable age- forget six kids. I'd stop at one, I'd even settle for adoption. Actually my best friend will never have kids unless they adopt. Sounds like a sweet deal. Where do I sign up?

Six kids cost too damn much. Things that in Europe the government would pay for (college tuition, disability insurance, long term unemployment, retirement), you and your working wife pay for. America is living in the cultural/economic Stone Age.

Posted by: ChrisInUSA at May 28, 2010 3:05 PM


Get yourself over to the Population Research Institute's website and start learning. They've got some great info and will lead you to even more.

And if you are truly a follower of the word, do you suppose God was fibbing when he told Abraham to look up at the stars? "Just so shall your descendants be." God didn't point to a finite pile of rocks or sticks. He indicated the uncountable stars. Abraham trusted and believed what God had told him. God credited it to him as righteousness.

Posted by: ninek at May 28, 2010 3:25 PM


No I don't support abortion but I don't support having them left and right either like the Catholic church would.

Posted by: ChrisInUSA at May 28, 2010 10:22 AM

Yet another person ignorant of the Church teachings... Ho hum, will it never end?

Posted by: Kristen at May 28, 2010 3:51 PM


Actually, ChrisinUSA, if our gov't didn't tax us so much, maybe it would be more affordable for many to have six kids. And what Word (please do not take my question as being disrespectful) are you referring to? If you're talking Sacred Scripture, the Word does not endorse birth control of any kind. Read the story of Onan in Genesis. He was slain for spilling his seed on the ground (coitus interruptus), otherwise known as withdrawl.

Posted by: doe at May 28, 2010 3:56 PM


forced sterilization is what Margaret Sanger wanted.... "more from the fit, less from the unfit"...


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 28, 2010 4:09 PM


Jill aptly concludes with the following :
"Pro-abort ideologues are lazy and self-centered, only willing to go so far as to lift a finger to point pregnant mothers in crisis to abortion mills like MSI and PP, both of which make quite a profit off of the crisis."

So true! It seems to be supported by today's US News and World Report article about the increased lack of empathy in the younger generation today.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2010/05/28/todays-college-students-more-likely-to-lack-empathy.html

Posted by: Janet at May 28, 2010 4:17 PM


Actually, ChrisinUSA, my parents supported 9 children on one income. My dad doesn't have a college degree. He worked in the Truck plant of a Frightliner for a few years. That's not exactly the most high-paying or difficult-to-get job. And during that time, they owned their own house and made mortgage payments, and they have never been on food stamps in my entire life. In fact, I don't believe they've been on WIC or medicaid either. On top of that, during that time, 5 of us were in Catholic schooling.

So 6 children can be expensive if you insist on each having their own bedroom, or going out to eat regularly, or designer clothes, but if you make homecooked meals and share rooms and wear hand-me-downs and shop the sales and learn to manage your expenses, you'll find that things are a great deal less expensive than you think.

Posted by: MaryRose at May 28, 2010 4:28 PM


LizfromNebraska:

You're right. Sanger did have ties with eugenicists, ostensibly to spread the word of the birth control movement. It was a strategic alliance, a legacy that pro-choice folks aren't too proud about. But a lot has happened in the women's health movement since the turn of the century. For one, black women made their voices heard in the late 70's; they demanded that the largely white, middle class feminist mainstream incorporate them in the fight to control their bodies, to bear children and raise them in safe environments. Alliances were forged across racial and class lines as the reproductive rights agenda became more comprehensive.

With that said, there is a lot of work to be done. Pro-choicers need to publicly acknowledge the unsavory parts of the movement's history in order to move forward. Until then, it will be subject to nasty pro-life smear campaigns aimed at uncovering supposed lingering racist agendas, with the effect of dismantling coalitions formed between women across the country.

Posted by: Common sense at May 28, 2010 5:31 PM


Common sense, No. You wrote:

Sanger did have ties with eugenicists, ostensibly to spread the word of the birth control movement. It was a strategic alliance, a legacy that pro-choice folks aren't too proud about.

What is accurate: Sanger WAS a eugenicist. Read her own words. The "strategic alliance" you mention was with the Ku Klux Klan, where Sanger was welcomed to speak and invited back.

You: black women...demanded that the largely white, middle class feminist mainstream incorporate them in the fight to control their bodies

Truth: The blacks in the civil rights movement were rightly suspicious of 'population control' proponents, knowing whose populations would be targeted. Turncoats since then (a la Jesse Jackson) decided money was more important than integrity. Watch Maafa21 and then you'll understand the web of deception, semantic engineering, and bigotry that has fueled the abortion industry's bloodshed. http://www.maafa21.com/

BTW, there is nothing "lingering" about the racist agenda. Blacks make up just under 13% of the population, but have nearly 40% of the abortions.

Posted by: klynn73 at May 28, 2010 6:00 PM


If the government didn't tax us so much.....


We ain't seen nothing yet. God help us when we actually have to repay the national debt. Each trillion dollars is worth about 31,000 tons of gold if gold is $1,000 an ounce.

You know, if I was the Chinese premier I'd ask for the gold. Wouldn't you?

========

Maybe if you own your own home. That is the biggest single expense. My apartment complex is convenient to the airport Metro and my job (and my job is conveniently located too for clients). Cha-ching. I think we own this building, but I get socked for rent like a punching bag.

A graduate degree and 12 extra credits in a subject I don't use (applied research), plus a community college certificate in computer programming is not worth much in Washington.

Maybe if I left Alexandria and didn't work adjacent to the Pentagon. It's danger alley anyway if terrorists light one off. I saw Day After Disaster on the History Channel: the Federal response to a 10K terrorist nuke on the Capitol steps.


Posted by: ChrisInUSA at May 28, 2010 6:35 PM


Hm. The most vocal opponents to birth control in black rights groups were...men. Men who promoted pro-natalist ideology. Men who urged black women to procreate, to upset the racial balance in the United States. Margaret Sanger wasn't right, but then neither were male civil rights leaders who tried to use women for their own political gain.

Posted by: Common sense at May 28, 2010 9:42 PM


Common sense,
Racial balance? There's no such thing as a racial balance! We live in a melting pot, meaning that we're ALL of MANY different backgrounds. There is NOT a "balance" of races. There is no limit to the amount of any certain race. To believe such TRASH is called racism and eugenics.

Furthermore, they didn't use women. Women stood by their sides. Women fought against the genocide of abortion and birth control, themselves. It's just that some people, both women AND men, were duped into thinking it was necessary by Sanger and her crowd.

Seriously, watch Maafa21. Real eye-opener.

And please, get some help.

Posted by: Amy at May 29, 2010 1:04 AM


"I am age 40 and I am likely to marry a woman of comparable age- forget six kids. I'd stop at one, I'd even settle for adoption."

Is the potential missus aware of this? I don't have an issue with someone just wanting one kid, I just hope the two of you aren't going to get married and then find out you have wildly divergent ideas about how many kids you want.

Forced sterilization is wrong, period. Unlike abortion, sterilization really is a "my body, my choice" issue, because it involves one person with one set of DNA and one beating heart. Besides, who's going to decide who gets sterilized, you? You can't sterilize a whole country unless you want to end up with vast numbers of old people and not enough young people to take care of them.

I'm with Amy about Maafa 21. The people behind it really did their research, and it's hard to deny the eugenicist roots of Planned Parenthood and other groups after watching it.

Posted by: Marauder at May 29, 2010 7:46 AM


Well, we support SEVEN kids on one income... they share rooms, wear hand me downs, and I'm a danged good cook (as are ALL of the older children).

The four oldest are visiting Grandma and Grandpa and all I hear from them is how much they MISS their baby sisters and brother!

It's just a matter of priorities. I prioritize the fun of watching my children learn to crawl, walk, talk, read, play ball, etc.... over the latest car or latest clothes or biggest house.

Posted by: Elisabeth at May 30, 2010 11:49 AM


Posted by: klynn73 at May 28, 2010 6:00 PM

If EVERY pro-lifer, no matter what their race, talked to just ONE black person about the disproportionate number of abortions among the black population, imagine the impact we could have on promoting more pro-life activism. Let's make that a new goal for ourselves!

Posted by: Janet at May 30, 2010 12:31 PM


nice and very informative blog.i m totally against abortion except mother in danger because if you no need of more child then use any birth control procedure. now by tubal reversal every procedure can be reversed.it is a surgical procedure by which a woman can conceive pregnancy after tubal ligation again.

Posted by: tubal reversal at May 31, 2010 5:30 AM


Well at least sterilization is not murder. For thousands of years people have had to keep population within the constraints of food supply. They have used constraints on sex, abortion, and even infanticide and the voluntary suicide by the elderly (Eskimo) to carry this out (cultural anthropology).

Now we have birth control and sterilization. We do not need abortion and infanticide/suicide to control population. I know Catholics consider these all one and the same, but Protestants consider birth control up to conception fair game. As I was talking with my former pastor last weekend, a couple is responsible for the babies it makes: agents to prevent conception make sense. It is almost as though natural sex would be irresponsible if you did not want a child because you run the risk, however small, of making one.

Sure I can appreciate the natural law. I can also appreciate the economic law. There are finite limits on resources: time, energy, and money.

Posted by: ChrisInUSA at June 2, 2010 11:09 AM


Have you tried living in the area surrounding Washington DC?

Prices are jacked up relative to many places in America because the Federal government pays many of its people darned well. All of that money is pumped into the surrounding area (Montgomery County Maryland, which borders DC, is one of the richest counties in America they say) and that jacks real estate and consumer prices up.

How about half a million to a million for a house? (The property taxes will kill you, but the schools are top notch because they are paid by property taxes.) How about a thousand and up a month for a one bedroom apartment? Drive down Arlington Ridge Road to interstate 395 and you'll see McMansion city, houses I can look at but never afford.

Why are prices so high?
Because they can.

Prices are considerably higher here than in Martinsburg WV about 100 miles away to the northwest. That is because up there you are lucky to make $6 to $10 an hour in an industrial job. Down here you are doing $20 to $50 an hour ($40,000 to $100,000 a year) and up in a professional, managerial, or technical job (your tax dollars at work in a Federal job or a Federal contracting job).

It's called capitalism.
1. Jack up consumer prices because you can
2. Jack up home prices because you can
3. Jack up rents because you can

and theoretically

4. Push your employer for more money if you can

It is not simply a matter of a bigger house a bigger car and misplaced priorities.

It is a matter of survival in THIS PLACE called Northern Virginia.

Posted by: ChrisInUSA at June 2, 2010 12:14 PM


I'd love a tiny house personally. My parents brother and I retired to one 28 by 20 feet just before I went to college. Much easier to clean.

Posted by: ChrisInUSA at June 2, 2010 12:22 PM


You can't sterilize a whole country unless you want to end up with vast numbers of old people and not enough young people to take care of them.
____________________________

True, unless you allow immigration from some other part of the planet that doesn't sterilize, maybe the Muslim or Indian world. Given the unemployment woes of young Arab men (unemployed Arab men are potential terrorists) and possibly also people in India, it might actually help them/us to let them into, say, a post-one-child-policy China.

Without the immigration, you have a problem.

But wouldn't that be a great white panic? "Oh no, the white race is going to die out!!!" Racist overtones. And maybe similar overtones in China right now.

But the Chinese can also die out from overpopulation and starvation, you know, and that isn't pretty. At least sterilization of men in places like India is humane to the millions of babies that will never be born and starve.

Posted by: ChrisInUSA at June 2, 2010 12:51 PM


Oil is a justification for population control? Wow, that is reaching. As many locavores already realize, our food distribution problems can be solved a lot simpler than you think. No one on the planet needs to starve. Food production and distribution suffers more from political unrest, war, and power struggles than anything else. Population control is a lie based on a myth. We absolutely do not have a population problem on this planet. I have done my homework on this one
_____________________________

What do you know about peak oil and Hubbert's curve ninek?

Posted by: ChrisInUSA at June 2, 2010 1:45 PM


One calorie of food equals nine calories of energy (usually petroleum)

More people = more calories of food we need to feed them

Peak oil/Hubbert's curve means we will extract less and less oil from known world reserves. That is demonstrated from American reserves since 1970. That is not to say America doesn't have any oil any more. We do.

It isn't as much or as quickly flowing as it was in 1970. And there is nothing we can do to hurry up the flow.

The only difference about world known oil reserves is substitute 2005-2010 for 1970.

The world will still produce oil. But not as much as we will need right away. And there is nothing we can do to hurry it up.

After 1970, America increasingly imported petroleum. We had the Carter Doctrine in 1980 to go to war in the Middle East over oil if it was threatened. We intervened against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War and reflagged Kuwaiti tankers. We invaded Iraq twice and occupied it once. In 1979 we had terrorism in the Tehran embassy and since the 1980s it came closer and closer to home, finally coming to the Twin Towers in 2001.

When the world has to share decreasing oil with increasing oil, it won't just be a regional problem, it will be a global problem. Hungry people in many places because oil-driven agriculture means food for the billions we have. Wars over oil, food, and possibly water as that is running low, too. Wars that could go nuclear.

We will have a population problem then that will be solved very easily, either on its own (starvation and illness) or by war (conventional or nuclear).

Posted by: ChrisInUSA at June 2, 2010 3:44 PM