What do global warming and abortion have in common? Tons, according to environmentalists—tons of carbon dioxide emissions that is. There’s a growing trend within the environmental activist community to promote abortion as a way of going green. Reducing the world’s population, they claim, is central to protecting the planet.
First of all, it’s helpful to understand that when these groups talk about access to birth control and reproductive health they’re talking about more than condoms and birth control pills. It almost universally means that abortion is a critical element of their strategy.
One of the most extreme examples of this earth-worship theology is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. According to them, all of the earth’s environmental problems would disappear if we followed their plan—but then, so would all of mankind: “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health.” Before you dismiss the misguided link between abortion and global warming as some “wing-nut” segment of environ-mentalism, take note that the National Wildlife Federation, Audubon Society, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Policy Institute, Friends of the Earth and the Cousteau Society all subscribe to the view that people are a major threat to the environment, even if their answer isn’t wiping out the entire population.
Recently so-called mainstream, green-advocacy experts are jumping on the abortion bandwagon. A September 19, 2009 editorial in the British medical journal Lancet said, “There is now an emerging debate and interest about the links between population dynamics, sexual and reproductive health and rights [abortion], and climate change.” An expansive distribution of abortion and other population control strategies would, in their opinion, slow population growth and ease pressure on the environment.
Following their lead, the prestigious London School of Economics and Political Science was commissioned by a group called the Optimum Population Trust to come up with a “cost-benefit analysis of reducing carbon emissions.” The study equated human beings with the derogatory term of “emitters.” The title of the study is “Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost.” Their finding was that for every seven dollars spent on “basic family planning”—by their own definition this includes abortion—they would cut carbon dioxide emissions by more than one ton. This proposed solution, they say, should be considered a “primary method” of solving global warming.
Lest you think America is going to let the British have all the glory labeling humans a plague on the earth, Oregon State University weighed in. Its research says the best thing you can do for the environment is to not have any children at all. According to their report, “Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals,” we’re responsible for the carbon footprint of our descendents. They say going childless is more “green” than a lifetime of recycling.
My more entrepreneurial readers are probably wondering if abortionists have yet caught on to this trend. The answer would be yes. They don’t call it the abortion industry for nothing. Warren Hern operates an abortion facility in Boulder, Colorado, and is one of the few remaining notorious, late-term abortionists. He has written extensively on man and his impact on the environment, but has gone farther than most though by calling humans a “malignant eco-tumor.” Therefore he’s come to the conclusion that his gruesome practice of killing unborn babies is healing the planet and thus all mankind. He said to an Esquire magazine reporter that abortion “is highly consistent with helping people be responsible citizens of the planet.” What planet does he live on?
No doubt Mr. Hern has found it hard to gain the acceptance of his peers and society when, according to his website, his “specialty” is late-term abortions through the 8th month of pregnancy. By joining countless other modern-day hucksters selling their products as helpful to the environment, regardless of their value, Mr. Hern hopes to eclipse the ghastly reality of his bloody trade.
Being good stewards of the environment is a noble idea. However, not everyone is on the same page as to how that can effectively be done, including the reality of global warming. But we should all agree the intentional killing of innocent unborn babies cannot ever be an acceptable strategy for a better world. If abortion is part of the environmental equation, we won’t be “green,” we’ll be stained red from the blood of our children.
Leave a Reply