Vogue UK confirms the devil is one of its writers with a recent article that questions, “Is having a baby in 2021 pure environmental vandalism?”
“While gestating my son, and probably every day since, I have wondered whether having children is, in itself, an ecologically sound or unsound decision…” is the soul-stricken query of godless heathen Nell Frizzell in her April 25 article for Vogue UK. This misanthrope classifies one of the most worthwhile and beautiful human pursuits of bearing children as “adding yet another person to our overstretched planet.” Babies are now an act of environmental terrorism.
Heinous, Malthusian sentiments such as these quite literally represent the species suicide many climate-worshippers think it morally correct to partake in. “For the scientifically-engaged person, there are few questions more troubling when looking at the current climate emergency than that of having a baby,” writes Frizzell.
This poor woman is so grieved by the “declining health of the planet” that prior to her having a child of her own she “worried feverishly about the strain on the earth’s resources that another Western child would add.” And when finally her own little boy came into the world, Frizzell obsessed in anguish that he “already contributed far more climate change than his counterpart in, say, Keral or South Sudan.” As a side note, it seems uncharacteristic of a mentally ill individual such as this to prematurely select the male gender for her child before he is able to do so himself.
Frizzell is compelled to denounce procreation, her rationale being that bringing children into this dystopian world is predestining them for painful existences. It would be better for them to not exist than to live and have potential for suffering. There is no point in investing in a future generation when this doomed rock only has “just another 60 harvests left before our overworked soil gives out” and is “running out of fresh water” according to whatever climate-alarmist research she references. Indeed, this is a dystopian world, not because of climate change, but because this anti-human perspective has taken hold under the guise of being a moral good.
The real-life implications of this sterile worldview are more abortions and state-enforced family size limits for the sake of environmental justice. Anyone who knows anything of the progressive left understands the implementation of restrictive legislation on population growth is not implausible, and perhaps not far off. This is peak degeneracy. Western culture is in swift decline and the increasing devaluation of human life only accelerates collapse.
As though contrary to her better judgement, Frizzell admits that she had a baby anyways. The desires of her heart won out in the end just like those of every other man and woman who naturally longs to bring forth little ones and secure a legacy. Tragically, she admits that she would have another baby if her partner agreed. What a poverty it is that a woman limits her unique life-giving capabilities out of misplaced concern for the environment. Instead of celebrating the procreative power of men and women, this anti-life attitude would have women feel guilty for wanting to have children. To do so is to deny an integral inclination of human nature and deprive individuals of perhaps their greatest happiness. Leading women to believe that having children contributes to their own destruction and the larger demise of the world is a sick distortion.
This ungodly, unchristian, materialistic, and selfish perspective of humanity as an inconvenience is a scourge on contemporary society. One can only hope that this sick mentality will go extinct along with those who refuse to reproduce and that the rest of the world will outbreed them. In the meantime, sane women everywhere should take their sweet revenge and have as many babies as they so desire.
