Something Old, Something New

It was only a matter of time. For years we were told that over-population was going to spell disaster for this planet, and that we were all headed for doomsday. Well, those predictions turned out to be just a wee bit overblown and somehow the earth has managed to survive. Now, however, environmental extremists have figured out a way to take their latest pet cause, global warming, and marry it to their past obsession of over-population. In so doing, they are trying to resurrect the outdated idea that human beings should put serious limits on procreation. OK, so it’s not a defunct practice in China, but do we really want to pattern ourselves after that red country?

Their argument is this: having children is bad for the environment. John Guillebaud, co-chairman of the Optimum Population Trust, was quoted as saying, “The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account.” And isn’t that what most couples do when they consider the pros and cons of having a baby?

Let’s see, on the one hand we’ve got the miracle of childbirth and the resulting precious gift from God. On the other hand, though, we’ve got to consider the carbon footprint left behind by that precious gift from God. Oh, I hate these tough decisions.

What this tells me is that the environmental extremists and those who are pro-abortion are, by and large, singing from the same hymnbook. Those calling for population control today will be working tirelessly tomorrow to loosen restrictions on abortion in this country. Democratic members in the House of Representatives are, in fact, already considering legislation that would do precisely that.

Just two weeks removed from the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion, there is already a concerted effort underway in this country to prevent any further erosion of a woman’s so-called “right to choose.” It’s called the Freedom of Choice Act, and you can read all about it at http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/FOCA2007HR1964.html. (Thanks to Angel from my comments page for this information. We may have disagreements in other areas, but we both believe in the sanctity of human life.)

One of the things that the pro-abortion crowd insists upon is that abortion be allowed to protect the health of the mother. But the way they define health allows for abortions to be performed simply because a child is going to add stress to the mother’s life. The Supreme Court has even said, “Mental & physical health may be taxed by caring for a child.” With all due respect to our past and present justices who helped write that brilliant opinion, all I can say in response is DUH!!! Of course it’s taxing caring for a child, but does that mean that if the stress gets too tough we can just kill them? Using that logic, if a woman’s husband becomes a quadriplegic and she doesn’t feel like taking care of him she should just put a bullet in his head.

I’ve also been told that, as a man, I can never understand how traumatic it is for a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy. That may be true, but by that logic we should kill every child who has ever traumatized its parents. If that were the case, I would have been dead a long, long time ago. Let me just take this moment and say thank you to my mom and dad for not killing me when I made your lives miserable. Unfortunately, many in our world today don’t feel that a baby in the womb should get the same protections that I had after I was born. Northeastern University professor Eileen McDonagh has said, “The fetus massively intrudes on a woman’s body and steals her liberty, justifying the use of deadly force to stop it.” When I read garbage like that, I feel that cold chill going down my spine again.

But let me get back to our subject. To me, it is the height of hypocrisy when those who work so hard to save the life of a tree have no problem snuffing out the life of an unborn child. I can respect the environmental extremists who stand up for life because at least their position is not inconsistent. But for someone to care more about reducing emissions than they do about reducing abortions seems like a case of misplaced priorities.

With the renewed concern today about over-population, this will be just one more excuse for the pro-abortion crowd to find new ways to devalue life in this country. Despite how they try to spin it, the truth remains that unborn babies in our country continue to be regularly discarded simply because they are an inconvenience. And that, my friends, is an inconvenient truth.

The Sky Is NOT Falling

I am not a scientist. I’m also not a climatologist or even a meteorologist. In fact, I’m not all that smart. My university years were spent at an institution with the initials J.S.U. The running joke on campus was that J.S.U. was short for “Just Show Up” (a reference to the perception that you didn’t have to be real smart or put forth much effort to receive a degree from this institution). Well, yours truly spent four years at “Just Show Up” University and I never graduated. Now in my defense, I blame this on a pesky requirement in the communications department that mandated four semesters of foreign language before one could wear the cap and gown. Unfortunately, I didn’t do so well in Spanish class. Muchas gracias Mrs. Suco!

So why do I list here, for the whole world to see, my less than stellar academic credentials? Because in spite of my obvious lack of intelligence and formal education, I am just as eminently qualified to speak on global warming as is our former Vice-President Al Gore. Mr. Gore, however, has been given a highly visible platform to spout his views on planetary climate change (as have those paragons of scientific truth Sheryl Crow and Laurie David). When a person like the former V.P. says the debate is over about the cause of global warming, it should be a clear indication that he is out in left field. Instead, Mr. Gore is rewarded with a fawning national media and an Academy Award.

The truth is that there is not a universal consensus in the scientific community concerning the cause of climate change. There does seem to be, however, near absolute agreement on this issue among the Hollywood elite and politicians that lean to the left. Forgive me if I don’t take it seriously when great scientific minds like Leonardo DeCaprio and Madonna wax eloquent on the dangers of global warming.

What really gets under my skin is the hypocrisy of those who would take away my internal combustion engine. Al Gore, for example, suggests that we should conserve energy in our homes and carpool to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Gore, however, has a Tennessee home where he uses more electricity in one month than the average American home uses in an entire year. Oh yeah, and he jet sets around the globe in a private plane to spread his politically correct message of conserving fossil fuels.

I will give props to one celebrity who has taken a clear-cut step to help solve this planetary crisis known as global warming. Sheryl Crow has decided to limit herself to one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit and she wants us all to do the same. She’s not just talking about saving the planet; she has figured out a way to stop climate change in its tracks (no pun intended). And why shouldn’t we take our cues on environmental solutions and bathroom etiquette from the one who brought us that ultra-intellectual song All I Wanna Do Is Have Some Fun? She’s obviously an expert on planetary climate patterns just like Al Gore. One word of caution though: if you meet Ms. Crow after one of her concerts, I would advise against a handshake. She seems to be more passionate about cleaning up the environment than she is about cleaning up herself.

One thing I’ve noticed about those sounding the alarm about global warming is that they are horrible planetists. Not a word you’re familiar with? Well, a planetist is to the planet what a racist is to race. While those who are against the Jews are known as anti-Semites, the environmental extremists are, for the most part, rabid anti-planetites. While the greenies are screaming about global warming here on earth, nobody’s trying to do anything to solve the problems on Mars. The polar ice caps on the red planet are melting at an alarming rate due to Martian warming. Why is no one on the environmental fringe trying to do away with the SUV’s on Mars? Does no one care that the Martians are destroying their planet just like we are destroying ours?

Oh, wait a minute. There are no Martians on Mars because there’s no life on Mars! But if there’s no life on Mars, who is it that is destroying the planet? They can’t even blame George W. Bush or Karl Rove for this one. Well, the left did blame Bush for Katrina, so that last statement may be a bit premature.

One article in Monday’s Times Online stated, “Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.” You think? And why do they use the words “could be” when it is obvious that this is not something that’s up for debate. When it comes to Mars, it has to be natural phenomena. But for the environmental extremists, there’s no possible way the Earth could be warming up without us mean old humans having a hand in it. Good science and reasonable logic have taken a back seat to the politics of fear.

Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not anti-environment. I love clean air and clean water just as much as the planetists do. But the answers to the planet’s problems are not going to be found by following Al Gore's advice or going to a Sheryl Crow concert. Actually, the problems our planet is facing are nothing new. The Bible tells us in Romans 8:22:

For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. (NKJV)

See, the planetary problems didn't begin with the internal combustion engine; they began with the fall in the Garden of Eden. Since that time, all of creation has been out of kilter. The earth has been groaning, eagerly anticipating the day when it will be redeemed. We need to understand that we are not the ones who can or will save the planet. Romans 8:21 says:

Because the creation itself will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (NKJV)

Translation: the only hope of salvation for the planet is the same hope that we have as fallen mankind. That hope is found only in Jesus Christ; for us as sinners and for the world. Just as we believers will one day be given a new body, there will also be a new heavens and a new earth.

Until then, we need to take care of this old earth without thinking that we have the power to destroy it or to save it. That is the height of arrogance.