"Earth Day" was yesterday, April 22nd. Our friends at the Family Research Council remind us that anti-life agendas piggy-back on the day. (My underlining below).
An estimated billion people are celebrating Earth Day around the world, but few seem to understand its true motivation. Today isn't just another reminder to use recycled paper or drive energy-efficient cars. It's a calculated attack on the sanctity of human life. Population control is inextricably linked to the environmental and abortion movements. For years, the Sierra Club and other green militants have said that the best way to consume fewer resources is to have fewer children. Their own website says, "Talk to your decision-makers and demand an increase of funding for voluntary family planning programs and access to comprehensive sex education for young people." Last year, Optimum Population Trust released
a paper that was even less subtle. It claimed that children are "bad for the planet" and called on nations to reduce the global population by five billion--which would only be possible by forced abortion and sterilization. And how could we forget Barry Walters? The Australian professor published an article last year advocating a "baby tax" for every couple with more than two children. The crisis du jour is global warming, but even that is just another excuse to fund "Planet" Parenthood and similar groups. Stewardship of God's creation is the responsibility of every Christian. But we must realize that there's a greater threat to the environment than climate change or scarce resources--and that's the threat of environmental extremism that elevates the planet above people.
Additional Resources
Children 'bad for planet'
Update 4/29/08 - See also Don Feder - Global Warming: The Left's Latest War on the Family
Update 5/8/08 - Arthur C. Brooks - Hug the Children, Not the trees He writes:
A new trend among some of the world's most eco-conscious is to forgo children for the sake of the planet. In a recent interview with Britain's Daily Mail, one woman who works for an environmental charity told of aborting her baby because she felt it was "immoral to give birth to a child that . . . would only be a burden to the world." She also had herself permanently sterilized at age 27 for good measure. According to another woman, who works for Ethical Consumer magazine, sterilization was the most ethical decision because " . . . a baby would pollute the planet--and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do."