JD Vance Calls It ‘Deranged’ to Forego Having Children Over Climate Change Concerns

J. D. Vance describes the decision to remain childless due to climate change or any political motivations as “bizarre”and “deranged.”

Vance, selected as Donald Trump’s running mate for the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election, is well-known for his controversial stances on family and parenthood. He aligns with many Republicans and conservatives who look down upon those who opt not to have children for any reason. His remarks have sparked backlash, particularly when he referred to Kamala Harris as a “childless cat lady” and dismissed childless individuals as “deranged” and “psychotic.” Recently, he asserted that the United States is “pathologically anti-child” merely because some have shown frustration with misbehavior from children in public.

Vance’s radical views and alarmist rhetoric regarding the choice not to have children raise significant concerns. The decision to have children is a deeply personal one, influenced by a wide range of factors including infertility, health issues, or worries about an uncertain future. Promoting contempt and ridicule towards individuals who choose not to become parents, without recognizing their valid and private motivations, poses serious societal risks. In addressing his most reprehensible comments directed towards childless women, Vance defended his stance by saying he doesn’t consider all childless individuals to be deranged, just those who make the decision influenced by climate fears.

JD Vance specifies who he views as “deranged” and “sociopathic”

In a recent interview with The New York Times, when Vance was pressed on his earlier statements labeling certain non-parents as “deranged,” “psychotic,” or “sociopathic,” he clarified that his comments were specifically targeting those apprehensive about parenting due to climate change. He referred to them as the “childless cat ladies”he had previously criticized. Vance articulated:

Sometimes, in political discussions, you hear people suggesting that we shouldn’t have children because of climate change, which is a very deranged notion. While concerns about climate change are valid, the emphasis on so-called childless cat ladies detracts from my main message.

The interviewer sought clarification, asking if he truly meant it was “sociopathic” for women to refrain from having children due to climate anxiety. Vance affirmed it was “bizarre” and a “crazy viewpoint.” He remarked that while he believes Kamala Harris doesn’t base her choice not to have children on climate worries, he indicated that she has hinted at a justification for such thinking in some of her interviews. He concluded, “If ideological beliefs lead you to decide against having children, that represents a peculiar worldview.”

Despite Vance’s intent to convey that his statements were misunderstood and that he wasn’t overly harsh, his remarks fall short of reassurance. The appropriate response to whether he considers childless individuals “deranged” should unequivocally be “no.” Instead, he implies that the assessment of non-parents depends on their specific circumstances, thereby leaving room for extremists to continue their intolerance towards those without children. Ultimately, the reasons behind an individual’s decision to forgo parenthood are deeply personal and irrelevant to societal judgment. Choosing not to have children is not an ethical failing, irrespective of whether climate change or political issues factor into that choice.

Furthermore, Vance’s remarks expose a critical flaw within the pro-life argument. Their focus is solely on increasing birthrates without consideration for the quality of life those new individuals will face. People who opt out of parenthood for climate-related or political motivations aren’t “deranged” ; rather, they are thoughtful individuals reflecting on the world their potential children might inherit. Concerns surrounding climate change are just part of broader uncertainties that lie ahead. The political landscape, with conservatives aiming to dismantle democracy through initiatives like Project 2025, heightens fears about a deteriorating quality of life in the future. Such uncertainties are not outlandish conspiracy theories; they are genuine concerns that influence personal life choices.

One would hope that America’s leaders would heed citizens’ worries about the future and seek solutions to mitigate such fears. Instead, Vance suggests it is “deranged”to consider the nature of the future environment in making family planning decisions.

Source