Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Killing babies saves the environment?

A friend passed this article along about women who have decided to forgo having children via abortion and sterilization in order to "save" the environment. I was startled by some of the comments:

"I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do." (Sarah Irving)

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet." (Toni Vernelli)

I'm not sure that I understand how children ruin the environment. If we all refused to be open to life, then who would inhabit the earth anyway? And since when do trees and fresh air have more importance than human life? Isn't the earth here for the use of humans? I don't advocate misusing God's creation, but we have to keep our priorities straight.

My friend Kristen, who sent the article, tried to post this response (last time I checked they hadn't added the comment): "Being a parent is the most unselfish thing you could do in your life. Abortion, contraception, sterilization, etc. are NOT the answer to protecting the planet. Overpopulation is a total myth. Hunger and such problems are not due to overpopulation, rather they are due to those countries that have an abundance of food not adequately sharing with those who don't have enough - Check out http://www.pop.org/ - It's great to recycle etc., but please get priorities in order - human life is more valuable than anything else on the planet."

No comments: