Seth Udinski, FISM News
Last week, fashion and culture magazine Vogue ran an article titled “Is Having A Baby In 2021 Pure Environmental Vandalism?” The article skirts around the subject and never clearly affirms the thesis, but the magazine’s mere proposal of such an outlandish idea suggests that it does believe pro-creating is a negative force on environmental consciousness.
The author, Nell Frizzell, attempts to tackle the question with a classic non-answer halfway through the article:
I have wondered whether having children is, in itself, an ecologically sound or unsound decision. Well, spoiler! Like so much in this life, it’s not a simple binary.
In a futile attempt to sound neutral, Frizzell’s true colors come to the surface in the article. According to the article, she does believe that having children is detrimental to the environment. Without being direct, Frizzell speaks of the apparent “danger” of bringing a child into the world during the current “environmental crisis.” She claims that the negative impact of the “rich and super-rich” on the world’s environment should make parents question bringing children into such an environment.
The most telling point in the article is when Frizzell stated,
You don’t have to look into the future or to other continents to see that the world as it is organized now is dangerous for children.
Frizzell was obviously referring to “environmental” dangers, but unintentionally, she is not wrong that the world, as it is now, is dangerous for children. Specifically, the world, as it is now, is dangerous for the unborn. There exists a far more deadly foe to children than pollution – it is abortion. Sadly, the same worldview that Vogue magazine espouses, a worldview that claims it is better to just prevent innocent children from entering an environmentally dangerous world, is also a driving force behind the legalized murder of thousands of innocent children in the womb.