What is your stance on climate change? Lots of people think that it’s mostly the result of human activity. On the other side of the fence, some climate scientists and other skeptics posit that the Earth’s temperature has been subjected to many ‘mood swings’ across the ages, and that human activity is largely unrelated to our planet’s current temperature. Though I leave it up to the experts to debate about the data, I think we should all take some concrete measures to be better stewards of our planet… unless said measures happen to be as Hitlerian as Gloria Steinem’s latest proposal.
Steinem, a radical feminist and noted abortion activist, recently made the argument that the real reason for climate change is that women haven’t had enough abortions.
“Listen,” she stated during an interview with Lindsey Stanberry, “what causes climate deprivation is population. If we had not been systematically forcing women to have children they don’t want or can’t care for over the 500 years of patriarchy, we wouldn’t have the climate problems that we have. That’s the fundamental cause of climate change. Even if the Vatican doesn’t tell us that.”
But in Steinem’s book, it appears that these hundreds of millions of deaths don’t even make the cut.
Her logic is quite appealing to many neo-Malthusian heads of state around the world. According to the Population Research Institute, women in India, China, Myanmar, and many other countries are being subjected to coercive abortion, contraception, and sterilization campaigns. The idea being promoted here is that large-scale problems such as poverty and climage change should be blamed on the raw quantity of people living in the world. Therefore, if we sterilize some and we kill off others, a few decades from now everything should be fine. Simple, right?
Right. Actually, this concept goes way beyond “simple”— it oversimplifies the problem, to an absurd and painful degree.
I can agree that there’s a correlation between the earth’s current warming trends and population levels. But we have to remember that correlation doesn’t equal causality. Instead of shallowly blaming the problem on “the masses” and proposing the institutionalized extermination of the unborn as the solution, why don’t we explore the impact that various juridical, political, economic, and ideological forces have had on the matter?
A thorough analysis of our influence on the earth’s temperature needs to take into account the full spectrum of human activities that contribute to carbon emissions. These are enabled and driven by our economic, legislative and ideological structures, all of which come together in a complex interplay to determine the way we relate to the environment. Ultimately, these structures provide the framework within which human beings (institutions, politicians, corporations, consumers, policy-makers…) move and act. Faulty structures give rise to situations that can collectively deteriorate the earth, such as the culture of consumerism and the irresponsible use of fossil fuels. Somehow or other we all take part in these activities because they are a given that we were simply born into, but the bulk of responsibility lies not with the individual but with those who, by determining our structures, have brought about the environmental context in which we live.
This is not to say that we ordinary people are not responsible for helping improve the world we inherited. I’m simply pointing out that the solution to the climate problem is NOT to preemptively kill the human participants of society. Rather, we need to address the societal structures and ideologies that govern our relationship with our planet in the large scale.
Of course, pushing for the killing of unborn children is easier. Not to mention more profitable. Which is the reason so many people prefer it that way, I guess.
Now, Catholic apologist Trent Horn is not “the Vatican”, but here I yield the mic to him so he can give you more tools to deal with the pro-aborts’ intellectually dishonest claims: