I do not see a necessary connection between having children and the destruction of Nature. How you live is crucial here; but liberalism--which also means caste disorder--allows some citizens to do what they want, not what is best, and get away with it, like dumping acid into a river etc.
Life IS sacred. But God gives and takes it. No abortion, but also no drugs or machines that sustain life that is supposed to end--think about the consequences. I think that religion is the key here, because the destruction of Nature will continue as long as she is not made sacred again. Religion could do that.
Secular humanism, where every person is what's most sacred, causes overpopulation + lack of reverence = ecocide.
When each person is what's most sacred, we apply drugs, machines, and surplus food exports to save every life. The public principle is altruism. The private principle is fear of mortality. The result is a surplus of people who each take life for granted because there is always a safety net like medicine or welfare to back them up. At its simplest, this linear logic says we've beaten nature, so it does not deserve our respect.
I have also encountered the most biologically illiterate strain which claims we do not or eventually will not require nature (natural processes and other lifeforms) for anything. These people should try a day in the sun with a belly full of food and get back to us.
I don't know whether you agree, or whether you just tried a strawman. For this reason, let me say:
That Life is sacred does not mean that the will to live of every creature is sacred.
Concerning overpopulation: I agree that overpopulation is a problem, but without such advanced medicine and machines which sustain life when it is supposed to end naturally, there would be no overpopulation at all.
Also, those of you who believe that Christianity means or causes (bad) humanism or liberalism are flat out wrong. Infected with modernism, every civilization degenerates, not only Christian ones. Cf. India, China, Japan, etc. Religions teach that there is something which infinitely transcends all creatures, something that is all-good and all-wise, and which gives and takes life justly. Religion even tells us that this earthly life is not the true Life, and that therefore, if we want to earn the true Life, we must sacrifice this earthly life in case virtue demands it. By this, religion puts the worth of creatures in perspective: have creatures ever created life? No. Then by what right should they end it? By no right.
And why should one prolong this earthly, miserable life when the true, good, and blissful Life awaits? The answer is that only idiots and vicious creatures want to prolong the earthly life, because they know no better, and fear death or the hell that awaits them.
To Umbrage, specifically: what is humanism?