Connect with us


AOC, make up your mind!

Can’t AOC make up her mind whether she wants to see more children, or fewer? Or has she bought into the depopulation agenda?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email



Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) contradicted herself recently. That doesn’t seem terribly difficult for a leftist to do, but AOC makes it a high art. Remember her complaining a week ago that we’re not having enough children to pay for government social programs? Now she compares childbearing and child-rearing to slavery! She should make up her mind whether she prefers children – or a childless society. And if she’s going to take a direct part in making our laws, she should think before she speaks.

AOC from one week to the next

Last week, AOC specifically said,

Take a look at it. And it’s not just Japan and South Korea. There are quite a few countries that are really struggling because young people, under the burdens of capitalism, and living under a society that is increasingly concentrating wealth among the rich – we’re not having kids! Or, we’re not having kids at the same rate [as before]. And we actually need immigrant populations to help balance things out. We can’t continue to fund Social Security, Medicare, all of this stuff, without immigrants. And it’s always been that way. Don’t act as if it’s some new trend, or anything like that.

Never mind her comments about “burdens of capitalism” or wealth concentration. Remember: she said many countries are struggling by reason of low birth rates.

So why, only yesterday, could Pro-life Update quote her as saying:

Forcing poor and working-class people to give birth against their will … against their ability to provide … is a profound economic issue.

When the powerful force people to give birth against their will, they trap millions into cycles of economic setback and desperation. Especially in a country without guaranteed healthcare.

And desperate workers are far easier to exploit.

Which is it, AOC? Do you prefer children, or don’t you?

Against her will? Really?

Let’s examine, again, the points AOC made. First, no one forces anyone to give birth against her will. She’s been reading too much Margaret Atwood if she really thinks anything like that is happening. That bitter, unsatisfied feminist equates Christian governance with forced siring of babies on unwilling fertile female conscripts. AOC suggests our laws permit, even enforce such conscription today. (Furthermore, a weird sort of unauthorized “cosplay” has become fashionable among young women on the political left who draw their inspiration, if you can call it that, from Margaret Atwood’s original novel and the streaming series she helped adapt from it.)

In reality, apart from someone’s dark fantasy, women do not fall pregnant without first making a certain intimate choice. Rarely, some man makes the choice for her, and uses physical force to decide the issue. That, of course, is a criminal act. And we can have a healthy debate on whether:

  1. Restitution to the victim of that act should include support during pregnancy and early child care, and
  2. The State should pay if the criminal cannot, even after the State garnishes his wages and assets.

But in the overwhelming bulk of cases, any woman can make a simple choice. But they must make that choice before they opt for an intimate night, not after.

About the ability to provide

Now if AOC wants to talk about why our society has become so costly to live in, let’s talk. Why won’t she? When has she ever proposed to examine why America is the most expensive society on earth? The typical wages she slights so cavalierly could let someone live like a king or queen in many other societies.

And, as she did before, she mentions government largesse as a necessary component of citizen support. But didn’t she say, a week ago, that the low birth rate threatens the solvency of such largesse? Whom does she expect to pay for “guaranteed healthcare,” which means socialized medicine?

Furthermore, how good would that “guaranteed healthcare” be? Joseph R. Mercola, D.O., announced his early opposition to the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” He objected to it because it provides the same-old, same-old, allopathic medicine that seems to keep people sick by design. So he says, and so CNAV is inclined to believe.

Finally, she says, “desperate workers are far easier to exploit.” Well, they found that out in the old Soviet Union, and that’s also true in Mainland China. Furthermore, in the middle of her pretense at sympathy for “desperate” workers, she supports “cancel culture.” Read this tweet in which she denies its baleful effect.

Sorry, AOC, but the jig is up. “Cancel culture” means more than ordinary people tuning you out. It means, “You’re fired,” “You may not bank here,” “You may not shop here,” take your pick.

Did AOC think any of this through?

CNAV sees two possibilities for her outburst. First, maybe she hasn’t thought the matter through. To suggest that she is simply “not very bright” has become fashionable in conservative circles today. True enough, her policy proposals fail against rigorous logical analysis. Her Green New Deal is the booby-prize example. So if she sounds an alarm about low birth rates one week, then in the next week likens childbearing and child-rearing to slavery, perhaps we see an illogical mind at work.

Or do we? Could it be, instead, that she has signed on to the depopulation agenda of the Liberal Globalist World Order? Might she really believe that the elite will have a cushy job for her in a depopulated world? (Whether she has let Klaus Schwab and company play a confidence trick on her, contrary to that belief, is irrelevant. Except: she has a reputation for making some very selfish choices and claiming entitlement to what she feels should be the perquisites of her office.)

What is likely to happen

Once again, no one seriously proposes to have women become “with child” against their wills. We see laws forbidding them to terminate pregnancy (except when it’s either that or die). But we will never see laws compelling them to initiate it. So if they prefer not to have children, fine.

If certain people stick to that choice, then in a generation or two, those who value children will outnumber those who don’t. The reason is simple: those who value children, will have them, and those who don’t, won’t.

Those who value children most highly, furthermore, are conservatives and especially those with healthy religious traditions. True enough, today the United States as a whole has a low birth rate. But certain populations within it have higher birth rates – and higher than replacement level.

And if they follow Christian or even Jewish precept, they won’t turn the care of their elders, or anything else, to the government. Nor are they as likely to follow the latest “consumer” trends. And that, more than anything else, will address directly why American life is so expensive.

But don’t expect AOC to predict that. She’s afraid to—because the consummation of these changes will render her powerless and even unnecessary. So she, who claims the freedom to tune you out, will see what happens when the rest of us tune her out.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
+ posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

1 Comment
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

[…] Representative “AOC” lamenting that “we’re not having kids”? She was really lamenting that those on her side were not having […]


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x