By Selwyn Duke
There is a news story today about women who will not have babies because they don't want to contribute to the strain on the environment. The piece mentions an environmental charity worker named Toni Vernelli who said,
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet."
Vernelli is a true believer. After becoming pregnant accidentally, she had the child inside her womb murdered and then underwent a sterilization procedure. And she says that she feels not a twinge of regret.
The article states,
"While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal."
Religious zeal is an apt characterization. I have long maintained that when you watch these leftists protest, lobby, complain and condemn, it's obvious that they pursue their aims with a passion unsurpassed by Islamic extremists.
It also reminds me of a sad chapter in history: The Albigensian heresy of the 12th and 13th centuries. The Albigenses, or Cathars, were a sect that wrote the book on the culture of death, as they believed that all flesh was evil. Among other things, they didn't believe in marriage or procreation, expected believers to abstain from eating meat and dairy products, thought sexual affairs were preferable to marriage, completely condemned war and capitol punishment, and thought it was desirable to leave one's spouse. Does this remind you of anyone? Anyone at all?
One difference between these pro-deathers and ours is that the former believed suicide was commendable. I've always noted that our environmentalist-wacko, zero-population-growth types never propose to kill themselves. Presumably, the world absolutely cannot do without their enlightened stewardship.
Of course, we should be good shepherds of the Earth, and no one loves the blessings of nature more than I do; however, there's a difference between wondering at the world and worshiping it.
People descend into the pro-death lie because they are shallow, they never delve into the true meaning of life. They should ask themselves why they believe that saving the environment is so important that the extinction of man is preferable to the extinction of animals. Is it because God has willed it? I doubt it, since most of these folks are quite secular in orientation.
This brings us to an important philosophical point. If there's no God or Truth, if morals are relative, how could preserving the environment be any more moral than destroying it? How can any value or priority be superior to any other? If this is the case, then, sure, we can't say that the destruction of human life is wrong, but neither can we say that the destruction of any other kind of life is wrong.
You can't make these judgments without using something as your yardstick, and if there is nothing above man to serve in that capacity, then those who make these judgments are presuming that they can act as that yardstick themselves. But, pro-deathers, why should people accept your playing of God and take your values seriously?
You can only claim with credibility that your priorities carry weight if you can marshal a convincing argument that they have a basis in Truth. Has God decreed that man is a pox upon the Earth? I think not. God made the Earth for man, not man for the Earth.
I can fully understand why people might be reluctant to bring children into the world; there is the threat of terrorism, the decay of civilization and the degradation of the environment. But evil has always been afoot. People didn't stop having children during the days of the Roman Empire, when the average lifespan was 22 years; they didn't stop during the black plague, which killed off nearly half the population of Europe; they didn't stop even though they often lived with the understanding that barbarians could pillage their town at any time and that if the rains didn't fall, the crops wouldn't grow and their families could starve to death.
The truth is that life has always been fraught with danger, and usually far more so than today. It's also true that while we may look forward with a sense of foreboding, we cannot truly know what the future holds or all the details of God's plan.
But there are things we can know.
First, most people's calling is to marry, to become one flesh with a member of the opposite sex. Then, the fruits of conjugal love are children; married people are enjoined to be open to life and have a welcoming spirit when they are blessed with it.
Of course, we are to cherish the natural world as well, but we must keep our priorities straight. There is a profound difference between creatures of God and children of God. No, man is not just another one of the animals, and he should not be subordinated to them.