Thanks to James Freeman of the Wall Street Journal (in his Best of the Web newsletter yesterday) for excerpting this “Pravda on the Hudson”, AKA New York Times, Op-Ed, by someone called Todd May.  The title of the column is “Would Human Extinction be a Tragedy?”  Emphasis mine.

One might ask here whether…it would…be a good thing for those of us who are currently here to end our lives in order to prevent further animal suffering.  Although I do not have a final answer to this question, we should recognize that the case of future humans is very different from the case of currently existing humans.  To demand of currently existing humans that they should end their lives would introduce significant suffering among those who have much to lose by dying.  In contrast, preventing future humans from existing does not introduce such suffering, since those human beings will not exist and therefore not have lives to sacrifice.  The two situations, then, are not analogous.

My response to this is something like “you go first”.  This is so horrific in so many ways, it almost hurts to think about it.  As if each living person’s “existence” affects no one but himself, and future humans would be of use to only themselves (and a threat to the survival of the planet).    Well, today’s progressives already support the prevention of new humans (birth control), and their sacraments are the obliteration of existing humans (abortion and assisted suicide).  I guess this is just taking that kind of thinking to its logical conclusion.  Progressives really hate humanity, and believe that animals deserve to thrive more than people do.  Disgusting, just throughly disgusting.