In one breath, a leftist will say “children are our future!” then “but humans are ruining the planet” as they sip their pinot noir. While writing a check to Planned Parenthood. Here’s looking at you, Mila Kunis. The brags about how much they love children come election time. But when the election is over (and it’ll be a while until the next one) the left races to demonize people who chose to have babies. Especially more than one. How dare you use your body to procreate more than a leftist says you should.
We’re a full week out from the last election. Here’s the latest war on children: If you have babies, you’re killing the planet:
Although culturally controversial, the scientific half of this position is fairly well-established. Several years ago, scientists showed that having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment.
Why just for the wealthy? He never explains in this opinion piece, instead hoping you’ll click the biodiversity study on carbon footprints to which he links. But if I had to guess, the reason the writer states “world’s wealthy” children, is to specifically call out first world children. The first world being North America, Europe, Australia etc. With predominately white populaces. Had the writer said “especially for the third world” the writer would’ve been set upon by a herd of rampaging feminist boars. Seeking an unsuspecting male for their Potion of Perpetual Rage. Nothing causes their cauldron to froth like the breath of a xenophobic racist male.
Consider a different case: If I release a murderer from prison, knowing full well that he intends to kill innocent people, then I bear some responsibility for those deaths — even though the killer is also fully responsible. My having released him doesn’t make him less responsible (he did it!). But his doing it doesn’t eliminate my responsibility either.
Though I’m not one to knock analogies or metaphors on the regular, as I have a general understanding of how they work, it is cute how the author reached for a murderous prisoner on the loose as a comparison for soccer moms. To a leftist, environmental boob, too many children=planetary murder.
Something similar is true, I think, when it comes to having children: Once my daughter is an autonomous agent, she will be responsible for her emissions. But that doesn’t negate my responsibility. Moral responsibility simply isn’t mathematical.
Note how our dear writer has a daughter. So he had a child, but you shouldn’t. Or you should keep your pants zipped up after you squeeze out just one screaming tot. Secondly, in the world of critical thinking, this would be called a fallacy of false comparison or moral equivalency. Meaning killing a person and crushing juice boxes, to later be tossed into recycling, are completely unrelated. But our writer seems to equate “carbon footprint” with value of human life. And he thinks babies are the problem. Cute, yeah?
If you buy this view of responsibility, you might eventually admit that having many children is wrong, or at least morally suspect, for standard environmental reasons: Having a child imposes high emissions on the world, while the parents get the benefit. So like with any high-cost luxury, we should limit our indulgence.
So see, abstaining from reproduction is noble. You, the person who’s not having children, has reached a higher state of planetary consciousness. The Smiths who live next door? Piling their children into an Eco-line van? They’re raping the planet. They’re murderous, selfish heathens with Tommy, Tiffany, and Talulah. Why, look at all the paper towels they waste. All the gas they need to chauffeur Erica to flute practice. And Charmaine to feminist dance class. Her tutu is made of nothing but the leaves of tortured trees. Tommy, with his lust for football, is a champion of male chauvinism of the whitest kind. BAN THE SMITHS. SLAY THEM ALL!
But wait, the author concludes his sanctimonious screed with this “cover my gallactic ass” closer:
I am certainly not arguing that we should shame parents, or even that we’re obligated to have a certain number of children. As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t think there is a tidy answer to the challenging questions of procreative ethics. But that does not mean we’re off the moral hook. As we face the very real prospect of catastrophic climate change, difficult — even uncomfortable — conversations are important. Yes, we should discuss the ethics of making babies with care and respect; but we should discuss it.
In the leftist code book “I’m not advocating we do [solve for x]” tends to mean “let’s do [solve for x].” The left has a habit of projecting their intentions on everyone else. Like “Trump has fantasies of licking Putin’s anal cavity” when really, the Democrats were in bed with Russia all along. Or “rape culture is bad, let’s stop it!” when Hollywood was raping everyone.
The left hates babies. The article above is but the latest in a tome of baby-hating literature (see Environmentalists Openly Blaming People with ‘Too Many Children’ for Climate Change). The left, after all, is the side of the aisle requiring abortion on demand. Being funded by us all. Even the nuns. They’re as “pro-baby” as Michael Moore is “pro-fasting.”
Aside from the clear moral problem of “discussing the ethics of making babies” (whatever happened to “your body, your choice”?) there’s the societal consequences of a shrinking population. I’d like to direct you to Denmark, where the social structure is collapsing because there are not enough young people to replace the older population. Germany, too, is facing a population crisis. Hence they’re importing people who are having babies. It’s just some of those people are also strapping bombs to their young.
Of course, our crafty little environmental shill at NBC didn’t discuss welfare benefits, or the precious state, being impacted by people refraining from procreation. No, no. We’ll just import people who are having babies. Brown babies. So they can work for us? Gosh, the more I think about this, the more problematic it becomes…