Abortion Fanatics Don’t Want Choice, They Want Fewer Babies

Abortion Fanatics Don’t Want Choice, They Want Fewer Babies

“Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children.” That’s the advice The Guardian gave readers in an article that was tweeted out enthusiastically by abortion advocates such as Cosmopolitan magazine’s senior political writer Jill Filipovic.

She means to say fewer, but the anti-human attitude comes through loud and clear.

Conservatives are accused of wrongly saying that some liberals think as Filipovic does, but her tweet and the larger movement she participates in show that the characterization is fair. A couple of years ago I noted the problem of what I termed “fecundophobia” — an open dislike of children and women’s fertility in general.

Filipovic’s tweet went over like a lead balloon, with people sending her photos of their adorable children and asking which one should be sacrificed on the altar of Gaia.

Others rightly wondered whether she also advocated suicide or otherwise offing people in order to “conserve resources.”

Others pointed to the fatal flaws of Malthusian thinking:

Malthusianism is the discredited belief that populations grow exponentially while the food supply grows arithmetically, leading to food shortages and poverty. It crops up every once in a while despite it being false, and the more fringe environmentalists, pro-abortionists, and eugenicists carry the flag of Malthusianism to this day, as we see here.

The authors of the paper being written up in The Guardian express distress that the United States isn’t telling citizens to have fewer children. Chris Goodall, an author on low-carbon living, is quoted in the article: “The paper usefully reminds us what matters in the fight against global warming. But in some ways it will just reinforce the suspicion of the political right that the threat of climate change is simply a cover for reducing people’s freedom to live as they want.”

Why, yes, one does imagine that telling people to kill children or otherwise prevent their natural arrival might give people the idea that certain elements on the Left hate babies so much they want to sacrifice them on the altar of climate change. Sadly, some women appear to adopt this idea that healthy wombs are to be fought using hormones or surgeries. The article quotes one woman taking this liberal command quite seriously:

“In life, there are many values on which people make decisions and carbon is only one of them,” she added. “I don’t have children, but it is a choice I am considering and discussing with my fiance. Because we care so much about climate change that will certainly be one factor we consider in the decision, but it won’t be the only one.”

A CNN journalist confirmed that this anti-child approach is being taken seriously among some groups:

Combined with the fact that the U.S. fertility rate just hit a “dangerous” new low even as it’s doing better in that regard than other developed countries, the climate Malthusianism all seems like a real-life version of that opening scene in “Idiocracy”:

In any case, Filipovic gave up the game today. The goal of abortion fanatics is not female autonomy or equality or self-determination. It’s fewer babies on earth. Let’s join together to love babies, instead of hate them, and love the women who gestate them, instead of making them feel guilty for the healthy operation of their wombs and life-giving systems.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
Most Popular
Related Posts