The executive director of the Sierra Club, Michael Brune, appeared on Tucker Carlson’s program on the Fox News Channel Thursday night. During his conversation he told Carlson that the folks at the Sierra Club:
[B]elieve in empowering women’s rights. We believe that women who have rights and who have the ability to have choice about their reproductive—make their own reproductive choices—will help to produce strong families and will help to protect the environment at the same time. Sierra Club is pro-choice.”
That’s not necessarily a surprise coming from the Sierra Club, which officially is an environmental group, but which lends support to all sorts of different left-wing political causes. Brune, however, took the Club’s support for abortion one step further, saying:
[I]t helps to address the number of the people that we have on this planet. We feel that one of the ways in which we can get to a sustainable population is to empower women to make choices about their own families.”
For anyone who has studied progressivism’s ugly history, even this is not a surprise. This kind of thinking is anchored in the materialistic, deterministic world view, which underlies the progressive political philosophy. This world view carries with it the capacity to deem “moral” or even “necessary” anything which ushers in a material state of the world that is deemed desirable, also known as “progress.”
In today’s progressivism, a chief material goal is to achieve an environment that is as close as possible to “natural”—which is often code for humanless, or at least devoid of certain of humankind’s technological advances, such as cars, plastics, and our ability to harness energy from coal, natural gas, and oil. For Brune and other progressive environmentalists, anything which gets us closer to that state of the environment has the capacity to be “moral.” To the extent abortion reduces human impact on the planet’s environment, it apparently is a moral good for the Sierra Club.
Let’s take a second to consider just how extreme that is. Brune is arguing that it is good not only to avoid overpopulation through means like contraception, abstinence, and delaying marriage and pregnancy until men and women are economically established and responsible, but also to avoid overpopulation by the killing of existing, innocent human life. For anyone who is pro-life, this should be revolting.
And for pro-life people who hold to a Judeo-Christian world view, this attempt to justify abortion for the sake of the environment should be especially revolting. It is a complete perversion of the first commandment given by God to humans: “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28 NKJV).
God’s very first commandment is therefore for us to reproduce. It of course is true that in the same sentence, God commands us to “fill the earth and subdue it” and to exercise “dominion” over the earth. That absolutely means that we must exercise responsible stewardship of the earth’s resources. But any world view which advocates the killing of innocent human life as a means of exercising that stewardship completely perverts God’s commandment. This kind of thinking further demonstrates just how out of touch progressives are with the morality of people in Middle America.