That’s my thought on the above-linked article regarding environmentalists who say that having more than 2 kids is “selfish.”
The basis of their argument is the amount of per capita environmental damage in developed countries. Rather than saying that people should reduce their consumption of natural resources, they argue that we should reduce the number of people. Why? Because they think that people are nothing more than Pavlov’s Dogs. They play to the lowest common denominator: don’t call people to actually sacrifice or make changes in their behavior. Just expect people to be selfish and destructive.
So, those who say “we are pro-choice” cannot be “pro-choice,” because they don’t think people really have the capacity to choose. They don’t think women in crisis pregnancies have the capacity to choose anything but abortion. They don’t think that people have the capacity to choose abstinence. They don’t think people have the capacity to choose living a temperate lifestyle.
They think that people should be slaves to their basest instincts, but they euphemize that as “choice.”
As NSSM-2000 clearly states, the Social Engineers want to reduce the population so the “powers that be” can have greater access to take over whatever resources they want. They call this “choice” so we won’t think it’s imperialistic.
Then they come up with all these “moral reasons” why it’s important to have a “small family”, such as claiming that large families harm the environment. This, too, debunks the lie of “choice”: “You have ‘freedom of choice’, so long as you choose what we want you to.”
Then there’s the whole contradiction that they say “Large families strain the environment,” but then they say, “Children in large families have to endure the hardships of homemade clothes and hand-me-downs, and not enjoying all the creature comforts that children in smaller families are able to enjoy.”