First, Gregory Dicum's article to the SFGate, Is having a child -- even one -- environmentally destructive? starts off with a pretty blunt assertion:
"We can't be breeding right now," says Les Knight. "It's obvious that the intentional creation of another [human being] by anyone anywhere can't be justified today."Knight is the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, an informal network of people dedicated to phasing out the human race in the interest of the health of the Earth. Knight, whose convictions led him to get a vasectomy in the 1970s, when he was 25, believes that the human race is inherently dangerous to the planet and inevitably creates an unsustainable situation.
Clearly, then, we must not breed. Right?
According to Knight, there are other ways people can have kids in their lives. "Adoption, foster-parenting, stepparenting -- there are a lot of opportunities for people who really do want to get involved with children." Knight himself is a substitute high school teacher in Portland, as befits his patient but forcefully clear demeanor.Knight takes care to point out that VHEMT isn't anti-child.
No, of course not!
Many of its members are parents.
Darn hypocrites!
Some of its members are children.
Fly, you fools!
In many ways, the idea of reducing the world's population is as much about human quality of life as it is about the health of the planet."May we live long and die out," says Naomi Thompson, quoting the VHEMT slogan. Thompson, who is in her late 20s and works as an analyst for Wells Fargo in San Francisco, has also concluded that childbearing is irresponsible. "It's not about wanting to kill people, but it's selfish to have a kid at this point when so many aren't getting the love and attention that they deserve."
Right. Let's swat flies with 2000 lb. bombs. How 'bout, and oh I'm just spit-ballin' here, we, oh, say, just simply give the "so many" the love and attention they do deserve? Newsflash: "Non-breeding" won't bring more love into the world.
"I really do love kids," she continues.
Sure ya do, sweetie! And I love black mold--which is why I don't have any around.
(Thompson and Knight say they were raised in large, happy families.) "I know it might seem odd for someone who really likes kids to have this stance on breeding --
Is that what they're calling it nowdays? Those crazy kids.
--women are mothering, nurturing people, and I definitely have that in me. But women in this society feel a lot of pressure to have babies, and I would like to see more people expressing that by adopting instead."
Gosh. Isn't it just terrible? Women feeling pressure to be mothers. Horrible. Standby. It gets even more disturbing.
"Nobody will come right out and say that this [population growth] is unsustainable, you can't do this," says Knight. "If you really are serious about the environment and your impact, zero is the optimal number of offspring that we should be producing."But the Brunes are sanguine. "We brought a new person into the world," says Mary Brune, "and we hope that she'll be one more soldier on the front lines who's going to fight for the Earth when she grows up."
Knight says even if little Olivia [Brune] becomes the "firecracker radical activist" her father hopes, it's going to be extremely difficult for her to overcome the environmental original sin she embodies. (emphasis added)
A fifteen month old girl is the embodiment of sin? This isn't the concept of ancestral sin of the Scriptures and the Christian Faith: this is the ascription of positive evil to the mere existence of a little toddler who didn't cause her own existence.
The above is just to illustrate the extremes in our narcissistic society, (like No Kidding!) where children are more and more being seen as robot-like-consumers (at best) or positive hindrances and evils to self-fulfillment (at worst).
Says Albert Mohler, in his Touchstone article, Rebel Without an Issue:
Modern Americans are determined not only to liberate sex from marriage, and not only to separate sex from the realities of male and female, but to liberate sex from procreation.Posted by Clifton at November 18, 2005 11:15 AM | TrackBackThis rebellion against parenthood is nothing less than an absolute revolt against God’s design. The Scripture points to barrenness as a great curse and children as a divine gift. The Psalmist declares: “Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate” (Psalm 127:3–5).
“Make love, not babies” expresses a worldview the Scripture rejects. Marriage, sex, and children are part of one package. To deny any part of this wholeness is to reject God’s intention in creation—and his mandate revealed in the Bible. You can’t make love (though you can have sex) if you refuse to make babies.
The Scripture does not even envision married couples who choose not to have children. The shocking reality is that some Christians have bought into this lifestyle and claim that childlessness is a legitimate “lifestyle option” for Christians. The rise of modern contraceptives and sterilization surgery has made this possible for the first time in human history. But though willed childlessness may have been made possible by the contraceptive revolution almost every American thinks a perfect blessing, it remains a form of rebellion against God’s design and order.