By Jonathon Van Maren
Back when I was still a university student in British Columbia, I used to travel to other campuses quite often to help out with pro-life displays. Debating secular university students is an always interesting and sometimes infuriating experience, and one of my friends used to box pro-abortion philosophy students into admitting that if their position on the value of pre-born human life was an ethically sound one, society might have a moral responsibility to use fetuses for meat (lower carbon footprint, ready supply—the benefits were endless.) It was a savage and clever way of illustrating just how awful the consequences of denying the humanity of human beings of a certain age group could be.
Unfortunately, it sometimes seems as if those of us who point out the potential results of an anti-human worldview are just giving our ideological opponents ideas—who, after all, would have thought that infanticide would be such a debate in 2019, and that the Democrats would refuse to condemn it—including almost every single major Democratic presidential candidate? But I still did a double-take when I spotted a headline reading: “Swedish Scientist Proposes Cannibalism to Fight Climate Change.”