The celebration of Greta Thunberg as a child spokesperson for the climate change movement has been difficult to watch. In their desire to find a sympathetic figure who will pull at heartstrings, leftists have rallied around a minor and helped to craft her message.
They recognize that she is traumatized. Worst of all, they are glad for it.
It is true that the 16-year-old’s speech at the United Nations was uncomfortable to witness. But the problem is not Greta, who is a young, passionate person of a misguided cause; the problem is the use of a child as a purposeful puppet.
On Sept. 4, ten Democratic presidential candidates assembled for a long, exhausting climate change town hall on CNN. The hysteria was palpable. The White House hopefuls used their moments to propose progressive “solutions” and chastize Americans of all stripes for their normal living and how it is utterly ruinous for the environment.
There is nothing wrong with common-sense ideas that aim to improve the planet, wisely use its resources, and create a sustainable world for future generations. We should all strive to be good stewards of the earth. But the climate change movement relies on apocalyptic talk, uttered by distressed child leaders and campaigning politicians, to convert the masses.
If drastic action isn’t taken, they say, climate change will bring an end to our world and millions, if not billions, of lives.
All the while, they ignore a current, legitimate, science-backed, existential crisis that claims the lives of millions upon millions of victims: abortion.
Supporters of abortion contend that a child inside the womb has no right to life. However much they argue the opposite, these proponents know that life, even in its earliest stage, is present. Abortion is the termination of a process, human development, that has already begun. Unborn life is both evident and thriving until it is interrupted by the hand of an abortionist.
This is an incontrovertible, scientific truth.
It matters not whether the life inside the womb is technically viable at the moment it is destroyed. It is enough that an individual human life exists and that it is specifically chosen for eradication. Since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, there have been more than 60 million unborn lives taken by the legally protected act of abortion. Such a number has a cataclysmic, generation-altering effect. It is slaughter of unimaginable proportions. Each day, that total of unborn dead grows larger.
Notably, many who sound the alarm on climate change remain silent when it comes to abortion — or worse, give it their full support. Mayor Pete Buttigieg, the youngest Democratic presidential candidate, has grown famous for his piety as it relates to issues of moral significance. At the recent CNN town hall, he referenced God and wondered aloud as to what the Almighty would think of the sin of pollution. Only a few days later on a radio show, the religiously superior Buttigieg concluded the issue of abortion and life’s beginnings were best left to “the woman making the decision.” Apparently, his outrage falls conveniently within liberal boundaries. He can’t concern himself with abortion’s daily death toll.
Children are worth saving, but only if they’re designated as “wanted.” To put things in perspective, you could surmise that Greta Thunberg had the good fortune to be wanted by the woman in whose womb she resided. Millions of others, all around the world, have not been so lucky. But no one’s life is worth more because of their parents’ decisions. Each individual has inherent value whether they are wanted at the beginning or not.
It’s a moral shame and utter hypocrisy that the vast majority of climate change activists only care about what happens on one side of the womb. They are eager to save the planet for the future, but not the future for all originally destined to inherit it.
Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog and a columnist at Arc Digital.
