In Vogue: Having a Baby is Environmental Vandalism

With a show of stupidity notable even for an already dumb publication, Vogue magazine recently published an article in which the author mused upon whether having a child in 2021 is environmentally sustainable.

The idiocy speaks for itself, but make no mistake; this is only a beginning, and the assault on humanity will continue. In my opinion, anyone agreeing with the premise of the article is a hypocrite of the most awful kind-- hoping to continue his/her own selfish existence here while attempting to block anyone else’s access to life on this planet. Of course, most of the more well known eugenecists have no problem generating more of their own stock (commonly having 2 or 3 children of their own), just with you. and yours. If this eugenecist (Charles Davenport) were in charge of the world, his stock would pass the test--he had two daughters of his own--but your might not. It's up to whatever par he'd like to set


Here’s the Vogue article in all its ignorance:
www.vogue.co.uk...

Just wanted to bring this line of thinking to the attention of the ATS community. I predict this brand of self-hating lunacy will only amp up in the coming years as the Agenda 20-what ever crowd becomes bolder.

Have a good one, friends!

a reply to: zosimov

I agree with people not having babies only until the last orphan is adopted by decent parents.

i read the article and feel the same.

do you think forced pregnancy would be ok? or, is that me being melodramatic?

how exactly is the author self hating???

a reply to: knoxie

That's your melodrama. I believe in free will, and the right of every human to decide for him/herself.

I'm glad my parents had the choice. You?

a reply to: zosimov

I'm glad your parents had you too.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Haha, thanks, Augustus! I feel the same about you!

a reply to: zosimov

Those who believe in depopulation should lead by example.
When they start to mass depopulate themselves I'll maybe believe they are sincere.

But it's always those "others" that are the problem.

a reply to: zosimov

i don't understand why you think the author is self hating. and, what's wrong with being concerned about the kids future in this world.

i wouldn't want to have a child now. i think water shortages are just around the corner. why would i want a child to live through that? and, what's wrong with contemplating all that when deciding to procreate?

i'm personally glad people are, why vilify them?

originally posted by: knoxie


i read the article and feel the same.

do you think forced pregnancy would be ok? or, is that me being melodramatic?

how exactly is the author self hating???

Who's forcing pregnancy?

a reply to: Trueman

no one. like wise no one is forcing people not to get pregnant. it's one person's choice.

my point - the op is a bit dramatic.

a reply to: knoxie

If she didn't want to have a kid (and she did want to, and did end up having a kid) then she has that right. If she wants to front the idea that the best way to fix the environment is to remove the pesky humans, she should lead by example or risk being called a self-hating fool.

Imo.

I read the article and found that the author has had a child and would have another. So do you condemn this woman for having a baby or for being concerned for the health of our future children as our modern civilization continues to make our world an unhealthy place to live?

a reply to: knoxie

Lol, as if suggesting that having a baby is committing environmental vandalism isn't dramatic. I'm just pointing out the idiocy.

a reply to: zosimov

Having offspring is the most natural thing in the world.

a reply to: zosimov

fair enough, i may have missed your point.

my point is if people don't want to have kids because they're concerned with the environment and the life that child might have in this world, that's ok.

a reply to: knoxie

I completely agree with you. The Vogue author had a kid and wants more, so I find her to be quite grating.

This is an OLD OLD idea. I remember this idea being everywhere in the MSM in the 1970's, that it was irresponsible and was killing the planet to have children. In the 1970's this was huge and in nearly every magazine and on TV news. They said you were killing the planet if you had children. I remember one of the biggest proponents (I can't recall his name right now) had 5 children, I thought about writing him and suggesting post-birth abortion for 4 of his nearly grown children, since he went on and on about it.

Anyway.

As a retired Prof who taught Human Growth and Development, Marriage and Parenting, etc. I can tell you that anyone that feels this way should not have children. Anyone who doesn't want children should not have them, period, and no one should try to convince them otherwise. Anyone who questions having children should never be talked into it by parents, siblings, partners, EVER. I don't care what the reasons are for not wanting to have a child, NO ONE should ever be talked into it. The kids will suffer from unconscious poor parenting.

We don't need to purposely bring into the world a child who is unconsciously unwanted and will be unconsciously neglected out of underlying feelings of rejection by the parent. We have enough neglected kids in this world as is seen clearly in ANTIFA and the BLM rioters who are crying for attention from authorities and taking out their rage on the world around them.

a reply to: The2Billies

lolololol

can't have a thread on ats without throwing in antifa and blm - too funny! thank you for the laugh, seriously!


the rest of your post i agree with. to me, there's nothing sadder than an unwanted child, just heartbreaking.

a reply to: knoxie

how exactly is the author self hating???

She's a typical guilty white liberal. Self-hating is part of the equation.
Did you notice that she said she felt guilty bringing a "Western baby" into the world?

a reply to: ColeYounger

better than your full on hate.