Are Liberals Insane or Just Insanely Consistent?

I actually know someone who takes part in the Voluntary Human Extinction movement. She refuses to have children because she believes people pose the primary danger to the Earth/Gaia. I'm not making this up - she is married, over thirty years-old, and absolutely will not bear children.

A "leading bioethicist" at UK's University of East Anglia has published an article condemning pregnancy as "barbaric" and an "illness...comparable to measles":

Pregnancy and childbirth are so painful, risky and socially restrictive for women that public funding should urgently be directed to the development of artificial wombs. This is the only way to achieve true equality between men and women for then neither women nor men would then be limited by having children and the burdens of reproducing the species would be shared equally.

Changes to financial and social structures may improve things marginally, but a better solution needs to be found. Either we view women as baby carriers who must subjugate their other interests to the well-being of their children or we acknowledge that our social values and level of medical expertise are no longer compatible with “natural” reproduction.

I think we need to seriously start considering if liberals fit a reasonable definition of insane - and by "insane" I mean eating-one's-own-feces-insane. Note that this "leading bioethicist" works at a large university and while the university may not explicitly countenance her positions, they do employ her. And by funding an essentially insane woman who reads Brave New World as a utopic story, academia illustrates just how much they will tolerate leftist insanity.

But leftism is not merely insane, they are almost genocidal. While most regard social, philosophical, and political movements as a means of improving human life, leftists abide by principles as the be all end all. Of course I won't begrudge this too much, as a consistent set of principles does well to motivate action and settle disputes. But when principles become the only factor in defining morality, we get ideas like "pregnancy hurts women." From an entirely leftist frame, Dr. "Artificial gestation" is actually logical; liberals view nature as wholly subordinate to cultural directives, including the imposition of abject gender equality. So, from the leftist perspective, it only makes sense that we rectify such a gross inequity in which women must bear the burden of reproduction.

Back to liberal insanity - perhaps it's unfair that I categorize someone of this particular strain of liberalism as insane. She's unique in that she differs from the Teach for America do-gooders who go on "Nice White Lady" crusades for spiritual and cultural enlightenment, Bill Gates and other billionaires who throw money down the toilet of Africa, and Paul Krugman who harbors an uncontrollable rage against any moderately right-leaning individual. She begins with a reasonable philosophical premise of gender equality, but then brings it to a conclusion that makes any sane individual's head spin. Same with my acquaintance who resolves to never have children as a sacrifice for Gaia. Sure, if we accept global warming as fact and the Earth as a valuable entity, then maybe some of us should not have children. But besides an insanely dedicated leftist, who could actually come to these kinds of final conclusions?

In a way, I agree with the arguments, at least if one accepts the context of liberal values. But ultimately we uphold principle because we value people, an idea that must motivate some sort of nuance in following one's principles. The insane and blind liberal does not understand this. The pillars of liberal philosophy, "tolerance", "equality", take precedence over absolutely all else, including even human life.