Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly

[Valnorran]

Remember how we say some people shouldn't reproduce?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879

[Laisrean]

Link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879)

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.

:wtf:

[wolfjan1]

I LOVE children. I think they are wonderful. And I am glad their parents take them with them when they go home.
I did my mothering as a nurse. I saw many teenage mothers and many abused children, and undernourished children come through the ER and die of neglect, abuse and starvation at the hands of parents and foster parents who were just in it for the money. I have called many an authority for suspected child abuse. I have watched many people leave the ER in handcuffs, swearing and spitting at the staff for calling the police about their dead foster babies, or boyfriends who murder their girlfriends babies.
So, why think this woman strange or despicable for not wanting children. Give it a break.

[Laoghaire]

Not the first timeI hear it...

I do not care. As long as those people leave me alone. I want to have children, I cannot deny that feeling. But I'm distgusted when somebody tries to force me to see it their way. Early in 2007, there were some letters from readers in our weekly magazine, talking about the same issue. One of them literally condemned all parents. They were selfish... They killed the Earth with their dirty, filthy children. That was just so utterly rude...

You know... There are ways to make your child 'eco-friendly'...
Wolfjan, I understand you. I'm not against this woman because she does not want to have children. That's such a personal choice... I have nothing to say about that. As long as you can give kids a warm and loving place, go for it... If you do not want to have them, that's perfectly fine by me.
It's about the 'eco-friendly' thing I'm just a little bit upset... I think it's a strange reason, IMHO.

[Ceres]

I disagree with their reasoning, but if they dont want to have kids, then certainly its a good thing they arent having them.

The problem with their reasoning of course is that people who care about conserving the planet SHOULD be having babies that they can pass those values on to them. The places in the world that are overpopulated are the least likely to give a rip about the health of the planet so if those of us who do care stop having children, soon there will be no one left to care. I love being with children, I have raised them as ecologically as possible (extended breastfeeding, family bed, cloth diapers, no antibiotics) and I make sure that caring for the planet is a big part of their education, so I feel absolutely no guilt continuing my genetic line.

[SphinYote]

Good for her. I applaud her courage.

Don't get me wrong. Life is a miracle. All life. If I were to ever get pregnant, I wouldn't have an abortion unless my own life were at risk. But she is also right, and her beliefs have passed through my mind on many occasions.

Environmental concerns aside, when one considers how many children NEED good homes, but they are rejected for the sake of wanting one's OWN child, it becomes especially ironic.

I know a lot of people who keep trying for their own child. I sympathise with their pain, but I truly don't understand it. To me its one of those instances of social indoctrinatiion that causes so much pain and suffering not only to the want-to-be parents, but also to the children who already need caring families, that it hurts to watch on an entirely different level.

While my reasons are completely different, I would be more than happy to get a hysterectomy, given the excruciating pain I'm in every month. But doctors seldom perform the surgery even for legitimate medical reasons, unless its cancer or something.

Good for her for standing by her beliefs.

Yote

[wolfjan1]

This issue has been addressed on another thread. Can they be combined?
So, tell me, Valnorran, are you willing to adopt one of the millions of children on the planed who are in the foster system? Are you willing to adopt a baby of the Dr.s and nurses who are murdered in abortion clinics? Are you willing to take on a special needs child who was addicted to drugs and had HIV from some hooker Mom who delivered them prematurely then just walked?
And just when did you decide that women were baby machines?

[RainInanna]

I have no problem with those who are childless by choice for whatever reason they make that choice. I wanted to read the article and say "good for you lady for making the right choice".

However, I think the extreme response of the first lady is rather unfortunate, and probably more a rebuttal of her family pressuring her to have children. It's too bad she feels the need to be so defensive about it.

As the second lady said

"I'd never dream of preaching to others about having a family. It's a very personal choice. What I do like to do is make people aware of the facts. "

[Valnorran]

Where the hell are you getting all this?
So, tell me, Valnorran, are you willing to adopt one of the millions of children on the planed who are in the foster system? Are you willing to adopt a baby of the Dr.s and nurses who are murdered in abortion clinics? Are you willing to take on a special needs child who was addicted to drugs and had HIV from some hooker Mom who delivered them prematurely then just walked?
Seeing as how I took responsibility for the three I made, no. And I had no idea doctors and nurses getting killed in abortion clinics was such a widespread crisis. As for special needs, one of my kids has been diagnosed bi-polar, OCD, and ADHD and another is gifted. Do they count?
And just when did you decide that women were baby machines?
Beats the hell out of me. When did I? When did I say that? Lighten up.

Does no one else see the irony here? If their attempts to be eco-friendly were to succeed, these people would be done in by the very thing they profess to love - nature. By refusing to breed, they'd die out and, through natural selection, only the not-so-eco-friendly will be left. Personally I think it's funny as hell.

[sarabethv]

Seems to me that traveling to South Africa (wonder if they rowed there) and having a "nice" vacation every year must endanger the earth as well - oh that's right, its okay for them to do that, just not have a baby breathing their air.

The second couple, I am fine with, it was their decision and they followed through with not having children. But the first woman sounds like a self righteous hypocrite, spouting about the environment as an excuse to abort a baby she just didn't want.

[wolfjan1]

Sorry, you started this. This is NOT a light subject. There are WAY more serious problems on this planet than Giving a woman a hard time about her beliefs and not wanting children. There are too many of them now who are just waiting for homes, destined to die of the most simply vaccinated diseases.
Personally, I applaud her.

[wolfjan1]

Seems to me that traveling to South Africa (wonder if they rowed there) and having a "nice" vacation every year must endanger the earth as well - oh that's right, its okay for them to do that, just not have a baby breathing their air.

The second couple, I am fine with, it was their decision and they followed through with not having children. But the first woman sounds like a self righteous hypocrite, spouting about the environment as an excuse to abort a baby she just didn't want.
but it's not your life to Judge, is it?

[SphinYote]

The problem with their reasoning of course is that people who care about conserving the planet SHOULD be having babies that they can pass those values on to them.

Er, you don't need to have babies to pass your values on to them. You can adopt. You can go into education. Indeed, focusing on your own children can potentially keep you from opportunities to reach a larger audience.

There's another thread in Political Pagan by the way on the same issue and article.

http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=175270

[Wicce]

Ahhh, don't you love the daily mail...

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

'Incredibly'...

There is a movement, especially on the internet, known as the 'childfree'. 'Childless' apparently implies you are sadly childless, not voluntarily childless. I've already been in contact with this a million times and it doesn't faze me at all. I don't exactly see the point in criticizing someone else's lifestyle.

And the fact of the matter is every live birth signals a child who did not get adopted and either died or was raised to a life of subjugation and degradation. I don't think you should adopt just to adopt - you should WANT your child, if you can't love an adopted child the same as a birth child, for the love of all things holy, don't. But to ignore the reality of orphans would be glossing over a serious issue. In many countries orphanages are full to the brim. Any time a child is adopted out they have just 1 more space for a street child to move on in. The ones who don't make the cut live meager and short lives. It sucks, and it's true, two things no one likes to see paired.

By refusing to breed, they'd die out and, through natural selection, only the not-so-eco-friendly will be left. Personally I think it's funny as hell.

Uh...huh. Because all eco-friendly people came from eco-friendly people. Or...something. You imagine some unbroken line of environmentalists spanning throughout history? You think that this woman's parents were environmentalists and their parents were environmentalists and their parents' parents were environmentalists and their parents' parents' parents were also? Do you also believe no gay people come from straight people, and no pagans from christians?

[wolfjan1]

Yes, there is another thread about this subject, on which I jumped on its starter hard.
Children are a blessing, although not everyone treats them like one. I don't think the lady in the article was REALLY stating her reason for not having children, but that's the statement she made.
While I know I would not have made the greatest mother, I am a GREAT auntie.

[Laisrean]

Darwin's law comes into play here. Being eco-friendly is a bad genetic trait. Look at how the native americans were nearly completely wiped out, despite being in "harmony with nature". They would supposedly not let any part of a buffalo go to waste. Now contrast that with European settlers who just shot all the buffalo and left them to rot so they could plop down railroads instead. Which of these two groups were most successful?

My point is, even if you do some noble thing to "save the planet" such as not having children, there is someone else who is not so noble and will just supplant your noble caring genes with their selfish sociopathic genes.

I guess my point is, noble people should be prolific in their reproduction if they REALLY want to save humanity. Don't let the narcissistic genes snuff yours out!

[Wicce]

Darwin's law comes into play here. Being eco-friendly is a bad genetic trait. Look at how the native americans were nearly completely wiped out, despite being in "harmony with nature". They would supposedly not let any part of a buffalo go to waste. Now contrast that with European settlers who just shot all the buffalo and left them to rot so they could plop down railroads instead. Which of these two groups were most successful?

By this reasoning, this woman shouldn't exist at all.

[wolfjan1]

:fofftopicDarwin's law comes into play here. Being eco-friendly is a bad genetic trait. Look at how the native americans were nearly completely wiped out, despite being in "harmony with nature". They would supposedly not let any part of a buffalo go to waste. Now contrast that with European settlers who just shot all the buffalo and left them to rot so they could plop down railroads instead. Which of these two groups were most successful?

My point is, even if you do some noble thing to "save the planet" such as not having children, there is someone else who is not so noble and will just supplant your noble caring genes with their selfish sociopathic genes.

I guess my point is, noble people should be prolific in their reproduction if they REALLY want to save humanity. Don't let the narcissistic genes snuff yours out!
Don't forget the smallpox and the alcohol we brought them. plus all the other diseases and prejudices. That's what nearly wiped out an entire race of people. a mass genocide for profit, committed by "Christian" people wh tried to also wipe out their religions. Who was the "savage" here?

[Laisrean]

By this reasoning, this woman shouldn't exist at all.

But she won't exist forever. Meanwhile, some other person who doesn't give a hoot about the environment will end up having a dozen children. Their line will continue; hers won't.

[Laisrean]

:fofftopic
Don't forget the smallpox and the alcohol we brought them. plus all the other diseases and prejudices. That's what nearly wiped out an entire race of people. a mass genocide for profit, committed by "Christian" people wh tried to also wipe out their religions. Who was the "savage" here?

Regardless of their motives their method WAS apparently successful.

Like it or not, Darwinism is not very forgiving to those who are unselfish.

[Wicce]

But she won't exist forever. Meanwhile, some other person who doesn't give a hoot about the environment will end up having a dozen children. Their line will continue; hers won't.

You can't postulate that all kids mirror their parents' viewpoints. Otherwise there would be no gay rights movement, no voting for women and minorities, no Barack Obama, D-Ill. Obviously there hasn't been an unbroken sea of liberals since the dawn of time (maybe a small river, but that's another debate.) They sprung up out of people who would be considered extremely conservative nowadays, and liberal children continue to be born to conservative parents, and conservative children continue to be born to liberal parents.

[Phoenix Blue]

Like it or not, Darwinism is not very forgiving to those who are unselfish.
Then it's fortunate humans can step above Darwinism to do what's right.

[Ceres]

Er, you don't need to have babies to pass your values on to them. You can adopt. You can go into education. Indeed, focusing on your own children can potentially keep you from opportunities to reach a larger audience.

There's another thread in Political Pagan by the way on the same issue and article.

http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=175270


Yes you can adopt. Ask some of the ladies on this board just how easy that is. :rolleyes:

You CAN also have your own; there is nothing wrong with that if you are willing to do the job. Focusing on your own children is a very effective means of imparting values - public education maybe, maybe not. Just because someone is good with children doesnt mean they make a good teacher - teaching is not the same as parenting - not even close. Reaching audiences on a larger scale dilutes the message since the very method implies many teachers, and some will not share the same views.

[wolfjan1]

There are so many wonderful families that want to adopt. But it takes BUCKS. And the families who have the big bucks are not exactly always the best homes.
The families who would be the best have to g through too much red tape. Yet you can't adopt a child out of foster care if you don't have money. It's a big red tape knot made by overly bureaucratic agencies.
We are surely run by the government. and it's NOT for our own good.

[Valnorran]

Uh...huh. Because all eco-friendly people came from eco-friendly people. Or...something. You imagine some unbroken line of environmentalists spanning throughout history? You think that this woman's parents were environmentalists and their parents were environmentalists and their parents' parents were environmentalists and their parents' parents' parents were also? Do you also believe no gay people come from straight people, and no pagans from christians?
*smacks forehead*
It was just a joke.

Kudos to Laisrean for actually getting it...

[Laisrean]

Then it's fortunate humans can step above Darwinism to do what's right.

I agree. That is what separates man from the animals.

[Laisrean]

You can't postulate that all kids mirror their parents' viewpoints. Otherwise there would be no gay rights movement, no voting for women and minorities, no Barack Obama, D-Ill. Obviously there hasn't been an unbroken sea of liberals since the dawn of time (maybe a small river, but that's another debate.) They sprung up out of people who would be considered extremely conservative nowadays, and liberal children continue to be born to conservative parents, and conservative children continue to be born to liberal parents.

However, a conservative parent is more likely to raise their children to be conservative; and a liberal parent is more likely to... well, you know the rest.

Values aren't genetic, but they are passed on from generation to generation through parenting. A native american child could be raised at an early age by white settlers and adopt their values and customs, and vice versa. There are quite a few examples of this.

But Darwinism applies to this as much as to genetics. Values are better promoted by HAVING children and raising them with these values. Does it guarantee they won't abandon these values and do their own thing instead? No, but they are at least less likely to.

[Wicce]

*smacks forehead*
It was just a joke.

*smacks forehead*
oh shit, sorry for being serious in the Political forum. clearly it was misplaced. I'll just go turn my dvd rip of Idiocracy on again.

[SphinYote]

Several issues come to mind:

I am aware of the difficulties, financial, etc. in adopting, and the ironies of the system. It is flawed, big time. However I also know that it really depends on the agency and sometimes the cost isn't that high (now whether that means the agency is "reliable" or not is another question altogether, and a very important one, just saying that it doesn't always cost big bucks.

I do know about the legal issues involved, the religious bias, etc. It is unfortunate.

I'll confess that I don't think I'd be able to deal well with having a child, adopted or otherwise, and therefore I would not be among the people to try. That said, given my beliefs, income, the fact that I'm single, etc, I also know I likely don't qualify by most agency's standards.

That also said, if I were willing to waste resources of the agencies and my own, I suspect I could find an agency either willing to let me adopt or (much more likely, granted, given the very different circumstances) foster a child. Perhaps not (I can spew a lot of hot air when I have no intention of actually performing the deed, and my apologies), but it would be an interesting experiment if it weren't for the fact that it interferes with the process for good parents who do want to adopt.

I don't have an answer. But I also see another issue, one again that most people don't want to look at. And yes, I'll state at the outset that it is not just us who are the problem, but lack of good medicine, economic circumstances, birth control options, education in the countries in question, and that this is reflective of the larger governmental and economic circumstances. But, every human is a consumer, some more than others. First world consumers consume at the expense of not only the planet, the environment, but also at the expense of people of the third world countries (or often not so third world) in which we have set up our sweatshops and agrichemical practices, among others. Think on the fact that these people are sick and underpaid, without alternatives, and if tyhey protest they lose what little they have. Think on the fact that our economic system as it stands is fundamentally flawed right now and depends on this sweatshop system, the farms where toxic exposure to agrichemicals is high. Consider that no matter how you cut the pie, as it stands right now we are major consumers and at the expense of these people.

Babies born here means babies are ill, die elsewhere.

I am not saying that choosing not to have children will magically make th problem go away. On the contrary, a whole lot of other things have to happen first, to a system so complex that I'm not sure we can know the full ramifications. Telling people to not have children isn't a good solution, it isn't a long term one, but people play individual parts in this system that are extraordinarily complex, made more so by the fact that most of us (myself included) are so far removed from the effects of our actions. The economic and government systems themselves have to change, and the officials involved have to be willing to change, but that I don't see happening any time soon.

Ideally, even the eavy consumption that most of us practice shouldn't have the extreme effect that it does. But given the corrupt greed and laziness, combined with ignorance of the people in the middle, we unfortunately probably do have such an effect.

I know I am stating an extreme view. I don't think there is a direct one on one correlation that my attempt at both illustrating the complexity of the situation and yet also oversimplifying it probably conveys (in fact directly states at one point). One person making a change will probably make no difference (Unless that little butterfly generates a more powerful cyclone than my mind is capable of grasping).

I don't know if its possible to generate statistics either supporting or refuting what I have stated. Some might argue that we generate a market and thus pt income into the country, and that's true, but unfortunately its generally the middle people who get it.

There are so many facets to the problem, and yes, having children is a major factor. Maybe not at the level of the individual, but our coonsumption as a whole, a resounding and very negative yes.

I don't know what the answer is. I don't think "the" answer exists, except in a very nebulous way, a gradual changing of thought and practice, whether for better or for worse we don't know until any problems actually raise their heads to look around and assess how much damage they can get away with before we change yet again in response.

The fact remains, life begets life, a miracle, but life also destroys life. We can't help that, and that problem will always exist for as long as life itself exists (unless we magically transform into pure unbiologically based consciousness, but I'm sure that has challenges of its own--ever the optimist that I am :D). What I believe people should be responsible for is always keeping that in mind. The scale goes one way and then the other, and we have to be aware that even a miracle isn't always the best thing. I do think people here are more mindful of that, whatever side of the argument we're on.

Have I ever mentioned that I wish everything could be much simpler, with easy solutions (other than constantly, have I ever stated that? ;) )

[HedwigHarfang]

Seems to me that traveling to South Africa (wonder if they rowed there) and having a "nice" vacation every year must endanger the earth as well - oh that's right, its okay for them to do that, just not have a baby breathing their air.

The second couple, I am fine with, it was their decision and they followed through with not having children. But the first woman sounds like a self righteous hypocrite, spouting about the environment as an excuse to abort a baby she just didn't want.

You are right. Life is life, and personally I think that the spurious idea of not having babies to save the environment leads to the next idea, that people should be stopped from having babies to save the environment, and then what about the people who already exist but are surplus to "sustainability" goals and have to be killed.

My grandmother died in that kind of a system - the Nazi death camps - and although I am aware of Godwin's Law, I don't think it is too far-fetched to say that any ideology that depends on "culling" human beings in the name of any policy, be it reducing hunger, war, famine, improving sustainability and so on, tends towards this solution at the end of the logical spectrum. I know people here wouldn't dream of actually killing anyone, but I know people who can quite calmly suggest that wiping out the entire population of Africa is a sensible and humane solution to the world's problems.

#14 - ...or no Owlperson, Tory MP for Folkestone. I grew up in a firmly Labour supporting household and my mother always voted Labour and saw no reason to change just because I was Tory leader. She died before she had to put that bit to the test :(:(:wah:...sorry I still miss my mum...but stranger things have happened elsewhere in politics, like Boris Johnson (http://www.boris-johnson.com/) marrying a communist.

[aluokaloo]

so some people don't wanna have kids, whoop-de-doo! It's their choice not anyone else's I fail to see how it's gonna hurt anyone if so-and-so decides they don't want kids for whatever reason.

[Philosophia]

Oh well, good idea I'm not planning on having any children. :)

[Philosophia]

so some people don't wanna have kids, whoop-de-doo! It's their choice not anyone else's I fail to see how it's gonna hurt anyone if so-and-so decides they don't want kids for whatever reason.

QFT

So what if they don't want children? That is their decision.

[aluokaloo]

oh yeah and it does irk that a fully grown adult woman cannot have a sterilization surgery until they hit a certain age. but a guy can have it earlier. that's lousy

[sarabethv]

but it's not your life to Judge, is it?

No, but I have just as much right to my opinion as you do or she does for that matter. If you had bothered to read my post, instead of just seeing part of it and jumping down my throat, you might have noticed that I applauded the second couple for what seemed a reasoned and mature approach to the issue; whereas the first woman appeared to have had a knee jerk reaction to being pregnant and not only aborted but bragged about her "eco - friendly" decision while also bragging that her decision to not drain the eart allows her to take long vacations every year. The first woman seemed like a fanatic, and frankly I do not applaud those in any issue. Now, I will admit that the article may have been biased, but seemed like they quoted her pretty exactly.

[alwaysfallingup]

As my mom always says, people who want to live child-free should do exactly that. It's important to their happiness, as well as to the happiness of any unwanted children they could have had. We have enough children who are unwanted in this world as it is. People who decide not to be parents are making a responsible choice that contributes to their well-being, and responsible choices are always a great thing.

[sarabethv]

My grandmother died in that kind of a system - the Nazi death camps - .

You have my deepest sympathy. That was a horrible crime and one that we (all of humanity) should never forget.

[Ceres]

I dont think anyone is saying they shouldnt remain childfree if thats their preference. I do find it irritating that the first woman is asserting that women who do choose to have babies are irresponsible. It isnt her business what other women do with their respective uteri anymore than it is anyone's business what she does with hers.

[SphinYote]

If only it were that simple, but no, it does not just affect the woman giving birth. That's what my whole previous post was about.

Babies/children affect their caretakesrs (not just the mother), they are affected by said people, when people choose to have a baby they are creating an economic circumstance that goes far beyond them. How many children end up being fostered because someone who wanted to have a child just couldn't handle parenting?

Nope, sorry, the idea that it is just the mother's decision is an empty statement. Her decision affects far more people than just herself, and I do wish there were some workable system that could regulate who could or could not have children. HOWEVER, I have to emphasize that I see more problems caused than solved with all such systems I've encountered so far, and I can't conceive of a system at this point that is incorruptable or nonprejudicial, and thus would be among the first to fight against such a system if anyone did try to implement it.

But no, the choice does not affect just the woman, it affects the entire world. Unless you keep the kid locked in a little closet for all its life and adulthood and never tell anyone of that individual's existence. Then the effects would be minimalized (read humored sarcasm here).

Yote

[Philosophia]

I dont think anyone is saying they shouldnt remain childfree if thats their preference. I do find it irritating that the first woman is asserting that women who do choose to have babies are irresponsible. It isnt her business what other women do with their respective uteri anymore than it is anyone's business what she does with hers.

Thats her opinion. Its not more right or wrong then anybody else sprouting their statements that poke into other people's business.

[wolfjan1]

Well, Yote, We definitely agree about a LOT of things, here. When I moved home, I was ASTOUNDED at the fact that there are 2 Walmarts within 5 miles of each other. We don't need that many of ANYTHING, so close together.

[Ceres]

Thats her opinion. Its not more right or wrong then anybody else sprouting their statements that poke into other people's business.


Its an opinion she is entitled to until she starts saying what other people should do. Then it becomes unsolicited advice. She can keep her nose out of my uterus and I will do the same.

[Flaire]

-Incoming thread Merge-

[Wicce]

I do find it irritating that the first woman is asserting that women who do choose to have babies are irresponsible. It isnt her business what other women do with their respective uteri anymore than it is anyone's business what she does with hers.

You should read cf_hardcore (http://community.livejournal.com/cf_hardcore/)...a few entries and you'll literally feel your brain leaking out your crevices instead of babies.

[PandoraHealer]

yeeeaaaahhhh.... this is a hard one....

I do get an... odd feeling... when i see someone in the store with 7 kids and they're running wild and the parents are screaming at them.... its like... there are so many people out there that want kids and cant have them... and i'm not big on overpopulation- hate it- china has laws restricting the # of kids you can have and at the rate America is going... i think we need to adopt similar restrictions... there are too many of the WRONG people having kids... and too many of the RIGHT people that cant concieve... and the adoption process is impossible... and expensive.... i dunno... i agree with not overpopulating the planet- by all means- there is NOTHING eco- friendly about a family of 10.... that is A LOT of diapers for one thing.... not to mention everything else... again... i dunno...

Kids aren't eco-friendly... adults aren't exactly eco friendly either... i recycle, i am careful of ozone alert days... but i also drive an old truck and a crappy car... our next car will be the biggest suburban I can find- simply because our lifestyle doesnt fit into a small car... a lot of times we take the car AND the truck places - not eco friendly either....

i think its a wierd reason not to have kids- but I soooo totally understand not wanting to have kids...

i erased most of what i had to say... not in a debating mood these days....

kudos to them for NOT having kids and having the courage to admit why they have none... and i'm sure i'd enjoy a nice cruise too if i didnt have kids...

BB-PH

[aluokaloo]

that is the only problem I have with the chick, acting all high and mighty, that's not even unsolicited advice that's just plain out snobbery. See she doesn't like it when people try and pressure her to have a kid, but by gods apparenhtly she can try to make feel bad for having kids or wanting to have them it's the same side of a coin.

[LadyKaty]

Don't mind me as I sit here rolling my eyes at Toni Vernelli. I love this part, from her:

"Every year, we also take a nice holiday - we've just come back from South Africa.

"We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population.

Riiiight. So, it's okay for you to use up non-renewable resources to take a nice holiday, because you are vegan and childless. I get it....because you are a speshul snowflake, you get to be exempt from the criticism over flying a long distance for a holiday. Gotcha.

Toni Vernelli is full of crap, honestly. She has a point, but the second woman in the article, Sarah Irving makes it better. Mostly because Sarah Irving isn't trying to pound her beliefs into anyone else, and tell other people that they are godawfully horrible because they choose to have children.

[Calen]

"While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future. "

...to what future?
We don't reproduce, the species dies out. We reproduce, we kill the planet (so she says).
I guess it's a matter of wanting to leave the place in good condition for the critters, then, because her way kills us off in what...100 years?

I have no problem with people who choose not to have kids. This woman just rubbed me the wrong way. She seems really closedminded and fanatical.

The second couple, on the other hand, seemed more reasonable. Same beliefs, but they don't demonize those who don't agree.

[Libris]

Regardless of their motives their method WAS apparently successful.

Like it or not, Darwinism is not very forgiving to those who are unselfish.

Not quite. Altruism is a strongly favored trait in the right circumstances and is favored to some degree in most social animals (ants, bees, humans). I don't want to get OT so much on this thread, but if you want to talk about it please PM me! I studied evolution academically for some time before I moved to the boonies and I loves to talk about it :D

Also, you might want to check out Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It explains the current thinking on the inequities between the Native Americans and the Europeans very well. Basically, the difference between the two has to do with the availability of both nutritious and easily domesticated animal and plant species. It's a really good book.

ETA: as to the original point of the thread- meh, I don't really care. If the lady doesn't want to have kids, I'm glad she isn't having them.

[WitchJezebel]

so some people don't wanna have kids, whoop-de-doo! It's their choice not anyone else's I fail to see how it's gonna hurt anyone if so-and-so decides they don't want kids for whatever reason.

QFT

oh yeah and it does irk that a fully grown adult woman cannot have a sterilization surgery until they hit a certain age. but a guy can have it earlier. that's lousy

I'm not even touching that one. I'm 40 years old and I asked my gyno about getting my tubes tied and she doesn't want to authorize it... I'll keep hounding her until she does though, I'm nothing if not persistant.

[Ariste]

I have to say i found that article disturbing. Not their choice to not have children, but their reasons. I agree the earth is overpopulated and that's an issue, but if everyone stops having kids the human race would cease to exist. I'm also VERY anti-abortion. I know that's not really a popular stance. I'm sorry if that offends anyone but especially after having a child...I just can't imagine. I really believe that abortions should be limited to rape, and medical neccesity...and I don't know that i could personally make that choice even then. I believe in taking responsibility for your actions, and that includes realizing that sex can result in pregnancy and being prepared to care for a child if it does. Her reaction of horror and immediately having it "disposed of" just made me cry and want to vomit. The hormones right now prob don't help any. Anyways not trying to offend anyone, just stating my feelings.

[Kes]

One more person in the world thinks I'm doing something wrong with my parenting. Whoop-de-doo. She can now join the ranks of people who think that my kids are too spoiled, or too indulged, or too sheltered, or too brusquely shoved into the world, or too dependent on modern medicine, or too often given herbal remedies, or too exposed to strange animals, or not out among nature enough.

In a big way, she's right - having children is pretty socially irresponsible and bad for the planet.

I do it anyway.

And I acknowledge that I am making a socially irresponsible and ecologically damaging decision.

I presume we're all big boys and girls who know when we're making decisions which others might think are wrong or selfish. Don't be offended if she points out what all of us should already know, and don't be surprised that people exist who are going to judge you for the decisions you make.

[Brightshores]

While I respect everyone's individual decisions as to whether or not to have children...

I would imagine that it's better to bring the next generation into the world and teach them to be ecologically aware and to minimize their environmental footprints as much as possible. Just because you have kids doesn't mean they are going to be consumer-driven resource monsters.

[WytherWyskers]

I don't agree with having an abortion to be "eco friendly" I think it's completely ridiculous.

[WytherWyskers]

Her reaction of horror and immediately having it "disposed of" just made me cry and want to vomit.

I had similar feelings after reading it as well. I can't see how she thinks killing an unborn child is going to help the planet. If she's so concerned about human waste and consumption why doesn't she take her own life as well? I'm not wishing her any harm, I'm just trying to make a point. It seems like she was just being selfish in my opinion.