pastormatthew.net

“Hold me up, that I may be safe . . . .” What a remarkable phrase lifted  right out of Psalm 119:117. Can’t you picture it? The Eternal God of Heaven cradling you in his arms, like a protective father gathering his lads and lassies to himself to protect them from the storm, or from the traffic, or from whatever else it is that might give their little hearts pause. And yours.

“Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy. But the very thought makes her shudder with horror. Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet . . . .” [Click here for the rest of the article from the Daily Mail]

Yes . . . the paragraph above is taken straight out of the pages of the November 21, 2007, edition of London’s Daily Mail. There’s even a lovely full-color photo of this environmentally sensitive woman, gazing proudly at the camera because of her contribution to the cause of rescuing the planet.

“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” she is quoted as saying. “Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

She’s not the only one, evidently. The Daily Mail article also quotes Mark Hudson who tells about having a vasectomy because it “would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth.”

Morally wrong? If ever there were an example of utter selfishness it is this. But then you wouldn’t know it by the way the article makes it seem so, well, normal; or acceptable; or downright appropriate, as if people reading the article should say to themselves, “Well, of course, why didn’t I think of that?” Even the title of the article refers to such as “Eco-Friendly.” It makes you want to smile doesn’t it?

But consider the following thoughts. If it seems acceptable to abort a child so as to protect the environment, minimizing the carbon footprint, then why not begin eradicating vast numbers of those people whose manner of living greatly disturbs environmental balance? For example, in Haiti thousands upon thousands of people spend their days decimating the already sparse forests in order to burn charcoal for food and warmth. Perhaps for them (er . . . because of them) there should be a “termination” (to use Vernelli’s term) by which the forests are spared and the smoke of the charcoal fires dissipates. After all, if one can so easily abort the baby growing inside of the tummy, for environmental purposes of course, then would it not be easy to rid our desperately needy planet of those we don’t know but who clearly contribute to Earth’s profound environmental dilemma?

Or (dare I actually suggest what you have already thought about?) perhaps we should raise the bar and come together for a world-wide Kool-Aid drinking experience wherein we enter into a gigantic pact to rid the planet of ourselves so that whatever life forms remain may breathe a deep sigh of relief because we awful humans are finally gone and, thus, no longer contribuing to Earth’s demise. I have noted duly that no where in the Daily Mail’s article was there any reference to this sort of option. Perhaps Vernelli and her ilk have moral principles after all.

But I think not, frankly. They remind me, if I may, of those profoundly passionate Muslim clerics who preach jihad and empower suicide bombers so that justice may be done and heavenly glory had, but who never offer themselves up for the sacrificial task which they demand of others.

God help us.