I've been assigned a post-apocalyptic novel to review and I'm bored because they didn't come up with a sufficiently interesting gimmick to distinguish it from all the other post-apocalyptic novels but it's reminding me of how I struggle with something this genre seems to take as gospel, which is the self-evident importance and centrality of babies.
Two characters living alone ended up taking care of a pair of babies, and there have been several comments about how "the babies are the priority", "save the babies", "we knew what was most important" and I guess I don't see the logic, or rather, I know it's not logical - it's emotional and also symbolic. On one hand yes, I believe that a central role of society is to take care of the vulnerable; that is a cornerstone of my politics. However, in a day to day survival scenario where you need to save either an adult or a baby, I don't think you should automatically pick the baby Just Because. It seems reasonable to save the adult, because you need their experience and pair of hands. You can always make more babies if you need to. Making an adult takes a lot more time. But babies tend to attain this exalted, near-religious status in these kinds of stories.
IDK, it would be interesting to see a post-apocalyptic setting where a contraception/abortion provider is a valued member of the community because resources are limited and pregnancy and childbirth are even more dangerous without hospitals, instead of people always popping out symbolic babies named Hope and shit.





















