Bill Maher Made Adam Schiff and Don Lemon Look Like Morons Last Night
The Nine Lives of Kristi Noem...and She Used Them All Very Quickly
Report: Russia Is Helping Iran Target US Forces
It Must Be Nice Being Married to a Democrat
U.S. Embassy in Norway Targeted by Explosive in New Wave of Attacks on...
Virginia Fraud Ring Allegedly Used Jail Inmates’ Identities to Steal Pandemic Benefits
Illegal Immigrant Arrested for Allegedly Voting in 2024 Pennsylvania Federal Election
Key Iranian Oil Infrastructure Targeted in Latest Operation Epic Fury Strikes
Six U.S. Soldiers Killed in Iran Strike Honored at Dover Air Force Base
FBI: Two Charged in Fraud Ring That Targeted Seniors Across Ohio, Michigan, and...
This New Report Destroys the Leftist Narrative on the Iranian Ship Sinking
Jury Convicts Two Women of Stalking ICE Officer After Livestreamed Pursuit
Southwest Flight Diverted Over Bomb Threat While Democrats Keep DHS Defunded
John Cornyn Announces Support for Ending Silent Filibuster to Pass SAVE America Act
Anti-Communist Protests Erupt in Havana As Trump Eyes Shake-Up in Cuban Leadership
Tipsheet
Premium

Insane: Vogue Columnist Wonders If Having a Baby Is 'Environmental Vandalism'

Insane: Vogue Columnist Wonders If Having a Baby Is 'Environmental Vandalism'
Michael Zamora/Corpus Christi Caller-Times via AP

As Michael Crichton noted in a talk in 2003, environmentalism is a religion and one that even back then he argued was one of the most powerful in the Western World. It’s not for everyone, of course—but urban atheists are particularly drawn to it, which helps explain their view of childrearing.

While God called His people to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth,” environmentalists are sending the opposite message. 

In a Vogue column titled “Is Having a Baby in 2021 Pure Environmental Vandalism?” author Nell Frizzell wrote about her worries when she was expecting.

Is having a child an act of environmental vandalism or an investment in the future? Is it possible to live an ecologically responsible life while adding yet another person to our overstretched planet? Can I get away with it if I just never learn to drive, never get a dog and keep wearing the same three pairs of jeans for the rest of my life?

For the scientifically-engaged person, there are few questions more troubling when looking at the current climate emergency than that of having a baby. Whether your body throbs to reproduce, you passively believe that it is on the cards for you one day, or you actively seek to remain child-free, the declining health of the planet cannot help but factor in your thinking. Before I got pregnant, I worried feverishly about the strain on the earth’s resources that another Western child would add. The food he ate, the nappies he wore, the electricity he would use; before he’d even started sitting up, my child would have already contributed far more to climate change than his counterpart in, say, Kerala or South Sudan. But I also worried about the sort of world that I would bring my child into – where we have perhaps just another 60 harvests left before our overworked soil gives out and we are running out of fresh water. Could I really have a baby, knowing that by the time he was my father’s age, he may be living on a dry and barren earth?

While gestating my son, and probably every day since, I have wondered whether having children is, in itself, an ecologically sound or unsound decision. (Vogue)

Honestly, what can you say about this other than it's insane? These are the people who actually believe the AOCs of the world who put specific dates on when the world will come to an end if climate change isn't addressed. They're always wrong.

But to Frizzell's specific arguments, Human Progress, a Cato Institute project, had quite of few responses.

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement