"What do abortion and global warming have in common? Tons..."

Those are the first words of an article written by Bradley Mattes with the Life Issues Institute.

He goes on to say:

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.

Isn't that a bit far fetched to connect abortion to the environmental movement? Not if you look at some of the comments coming out from radical environmentalists.

Mattes notes several comments by environmental groups.

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.

Then Matte notes the editorial in the September 19, 2009 issue of British medical journal Lancet which says:

"There is now an emerging debate and interest about the links between population dynamics, sexual and reproductive health and rights [abortion], and climate change.”

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.

Then there's the study from Oregon State University.

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.

Frankly, a closer examination of the issue shows a very logical relationship between radical environmentalism and abortion. They flow from the same materialist, secular naturalist worldview. If man isn't made in the image of God and nature is all that exists and there's no life beyond this life, then man is really an impediment to the environment. And if the god of nature has replaced the Creator God then we better do all that we can to protect nature including killing the unborn and the elderly and the physically and mentally handicapped.

Abortion and radical environmentalism are very closely related.