October 17, 2009
Al Gore called out by journalist
Knut, the “green” polar bear
The myth of global warming has women (allegedly) refusing to have children because of their carbon footprint. It’s their right to do whatever they want but one wonders if they weren’t going to have children anyway and chose to have a cause. One also wonders what they think of their own parents’ choices.
Source: The Daily Mail’s NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH & MORAG TURNER
UK woman TONI VERNELLI made her first husband have a vasectomy (he was 25 when they divorced), had herself sterilized and had an abortion in order to “save the planet”.
Having children is selfish.
It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet. 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 says folks look at her crazy when she says she doesn’t want children.
My only frustration is that other people are unable to accept my decision. When I tell people why I don’t want children, they look at me as if I was planning to commit murder. A woman who does not have maternal-feelings is seen as some sort of anomaly.
So why tell them? And why care about whether someone accepts her decision?
It sounds like she’s non-accepting of their non-acceptance. And it’s not the lack of maternal feelings – it’s the explanation of why and the need to share the why.
And then talk of adoption:
We used to say that if ever we did want children, we’d adopt, as there are so many children in need of a loving family.
At least then, we’d be doing something positive for the world, rather than something negative.
Read that again. They don’t think very highly of their eggs and sperm, do they?
But jetting off to South Africa – no problem.
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.
Two people in an industrialized country combating overpopulation?
One wonders why she thinks Man exists and why she is so certain Man and Earth will survive barry’s presidency.
And then there’s SARAH IRVING:
I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do.
How many hundreds of folks could her child teach about the environment? Why can’t she find something active to do?
I didn’t want to have an ‘accident’ if contraception didn’t work – we would be faced with the dilemma of whether to keep the baby.
One wonders if it is natural selection taking care of itself – if one thinks a baby is pollution then they shouldn’t be anywhere near one.
When I see a mother with a large family, I don’t resent her,
but I do hope she’s thought through the implications.
The implications of having children vs the complications of contraception, abortion, sterilization and pollution?
Husband MARK:
Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don’t have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly. We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food.
And when they have no teeth and are wearing disposable diapers and being kept alive with tube feedings and being ferried back and forth from the ER in an ambulance because they have no one to care for them?
In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint.
But all this would be undone if we had a child.
And Mrs Einstein? What would be undone if she never gave birth to Albert?
That’s why I had a vasectomy.
It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth.
And when they finally realize climate change is a convenient non-truth, will they regret not having had children?
