Eco-religion demands sacrifice you know.

[Fiannan]

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.

Desperate measures: Toni Vernelli was steralised at age 27 to reduce her carbon footprint

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.

Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".

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

This is rather amazing -- to throw away all your genetic and cultural heritage, to ignore all the sacrifices made by your ancestors to put you here on this earth, all in the name of saving the planet. All I can say is that they remind me of the yuppie couple that goes extinct in the opening/introduction of "Idiocracy".

[pam]

Interesting article. What's sad is that the woman in the above situation feels that children would be more harmful to the planet.

[NormalMormon]

Yes, I read this and many other websites I've seen have women that are like this. It's a horrendous thought. Imagine if women stopped having children. Stopped teaching them, educating them, and helping make the world a better place. It's like they are "giving up."

[DigitalShadow]

Yes, imagine if all the unfit parents decided to sterilize themselves instead of bringing a child into this world and raising them to be just as dysfunctional as their parents. I imagine the world would be a bit better off.

Someone that obsessive would probably raise some pretty screwed up kids that society would have to deal with later. If she wants to opt herself out of the gene pool, I find it hard to believe that the gene pool is worse off for that decision.

Deciding to sterilize yourself to lower your carbon footprint is rediculous, but claiming that society is danger of collapse because people will all decide to stop having children is equally rediculous.

[Fiannan]

Yes, imagine if all the unfit parents decided to sterilize themselves instead of bringing a child into this world and raising them to be just as dysfunctional as their parents. I imagine the world would be a bit better off.

Someone that obsessive would probably raise some pretty screwed up kids that society would have to deal with later. If she wants to opt herself out of the gene pool, I find it hard to believe that the gene pool is worse off for that decision.

Deciding to sterilize yourself to lower your carbon footprint is rediculous, but claiming that society is danger of collapse because people will all decide to stop having children is equally rediculous.

Okay, I can see your point. If the only people who were failing to have children were neurotic basketcases then perhaps their weeding themselves out of the gene pool might be postitive. However, I relly believe that many people who are actually quite altruistic in nature have been coned and brainwashed into believing that if they stop having children then they are doing "Mother Earth" a big favor. Then they receive positive feedback from their social circle as well as from textbooks that still promote ´the "population explosion" as well as media that overblows ans sensationalizes any environmental problems.

I know a woman (she's not LDS) who is active in Rght to Life causes now but in the early 1970s (the height of the ZPG movement) she and her husband found out they were pregnant with their 3rd. child. They chose to abort due to environmental concerns coupled with the fact that none of their social circle had 3 kids. They are not stupid -- they are highly educated and would have been great parents to more kids. If people like this are not having children then that is not positive.

[WANDERER]

I knew someone who made this choice. It was kind of weird hearing her rant about saving the planet and how people shouldn't have kids...this caused a bit of offence at times to people (parents who can't imagine their life without their children, those who are having difficulties conceiving and parents of special needs children became quite upset when she spoke on the topic). The weird bit was that no environmentally based conversation was safe without her biological choices coming up as part of it. Inevitably, someone would mention string bags or light globes, LOL; I'll bet they had no idea they were about to launch into a discussion on the ultimate way to save the planet. I can imagine her having the conversation with her own mother and having no comprehension of how that might be upsetting. To see your own existence as not environmentally friendly, I think, speaks off some deeper issues.

[NormalMormon]

Yes, imagine if all the unfit parents decided to sterilize themselves instead of bringing a child into this world and raising them to be just as dysfunctional as their parents. I imagine the world would be a bit better off.

Someone that obsessive would probably raise some pretty screwed up kids that society would have to deal with later. If she wants to opt herself out of the gene pool, I find it hard to believe that the gene pool is worse off for that decision.

Deciding to sterilize yourself to lower your carbon footprint is rediculous, but claiming that society is danger of collapse because people will all decide to stop having children is equally rediculous.

Oh yeah, because we are all exactly like our parents. Just because someone is concerned with the environment, doesn't make them nuts or dysfunctional. And the people who don't want to have children, shouldn't. But if the ONLY thing holding them back is their environmental footprint, it doesn't make them crazy. Just cautious. Going all "China" on us won't help anything. If these people raise their children to care about the environment, unlike many of the children that are raised today, then maybe the children can actually DO something about it.

I think we need to worry about how we can make life better for our kids, not avoiding the situation by not having kids. That's a real spineless way out.

That, and if you're going to have unprotected sex, prepare to have a kid. These people who get abortions to "make the world a better place" disgust me.

[DigitalShadow]

Okay, I can see your point. If the only people who were failing to have children were neurotic basketcases then perhaps their weeding themselves out of the gene pool might be postitive. However, I relly believe that many people who are actually quite altruistic in nature have been coned and brainwashed into believing that if they stop having children then they are doing "Mother Earth" a big favor. Then they receive positive feedback from their social circle as well as from textbooks that still promote ´the "population explosion" as well as media that overblows ans sensationalizes any environmental problems.

I know a woman (she's not LDS) who is active in Rght to Life causes now but in the early 1970s (the height of the ZPG movement) she and her husband found out they were pregnant with their 3rd. child. They chose to abort due to environmental concerns coupled with the fact that none of their social circle had 3 kids. They are not stupid -- they are highly educated and would have been great parents to more kids. If people like this are not having children then that is not positive.

I am not of the opinion that everyone should have kids for the sake of having kids. I think most of societies ills come from dysfunctional families that probably shouldn't have had kids in the first place, or should have at least waited until they could provide a healthy environment for their children. I do see your point though.

The problem is that the people who would be good parents are not having kids, or that many kids for a variety of reasons, and the people who make horrible parents are breeding like rabbits for a variety of reasons. I don't think that calling for more worthy people to have more children will help the issue though. In my experience, it is often the least competent people that think themselves the most competent.

[MarginOfError]

Wait a minute...I'm a very competent person...what are you saying about me? ;-)

But really, if there are people that don't want to have children because they don't want to impact the environment, then let them. I'm not going to pass judgment on their ideas (which I personally feel to be beyond silly) so long as they don't pass judgment on me for wanting kids (and I welcome them to think me silly for it).

[Fiannan]

The problem is that the people who would be good parents are not having kids, or that many kids for a variety of reasons, and the people who make horrible parents are breeding like rabbits for a variety of reasons. I don't think that calling for more worthy people to have more children will help the issue though. In my experience, it is often the least competent people that think themselves the most competent.

Actually, Brigham Young felt that moral couples in the Church should strive to have as many children as they could handle, not set their sights low and then opt out of having that many chileren. Many a time his statements were of a spiritual eugenics viewpoint. And one cannot argue that good parents are more apt to have good kids than bad parents are. As for competency I suppose that depends on what we define as competent. I have known families who the world -- and many LDS people of a worldly nature -- would shudder every time the wife announced a pregnancy. Usually this had to do with economics. However, in many of these families the children grew up worthy and did a lot for the advancement of the Gospel.

As for the western world in general though, I think you'd like this music video:

[DigitalShadow]

Oh yeah, because we are all exactly like our parents. Just because someone is concerned with the environment, doesn't make them nuts or dysfunctional. And the people who don't want to have children, shouldn't. But if the ONLY thing holding them back is their environmental footprint, it doesn't make them crazy. Just cautious. Going all "China" on us won't help anything. If these people raise their children to care about the environment, unlike many of the children that are raised today, then maybe the children can actually DO something about it.

I think we need to worry about how we can make life better for our kids, not avoiding the situation by not having kids. That's a real spineless way out.

That, and if you're going to have unprotected sex, prepare to have a kid. These people who get abortions to "make the world a better place" disgust me.

I never said we are exactly like our parents. I only made the assertion that dysfunctional parents OFTEN (not always) produce dysfunctional kids, and I stand by that assertion.

I agree with you that if these people really wanted to make the world a better place, they would raise children with their values and desire to make a difference. But I also think that if these were rational people we were talking about, they would do just that. Either they don't want to have kids for a variety of other reasons and they are hiding behind an environmental excuse, or they have a genuine neurosis and should seek psychological help. Either way, I don't think having kids is a good idea for these people.

With that said, I have no problem with people opting themselves out of the gene pool. I find it far more disgusting that people who shouldn't are still having kids, bringing them up in the most hostile environment imaginable and then letting them loose on society.

[DigitalShadow]

Actually, Brigham Young felt that moral couples in the Church should strive to have as many children as they could handle, not set their sights low and then opt out of having that many chileren. Many a time his statements were of a spiritual eugenics viewpoint. And one cannot argue that good parents are more apt to have good kids than bad parents are. As for competency I suppose that depends on what we define as competent. I have known families who the world -- and many LDS people of a worldly nature -- would shudder every time the wife announced a pregnancy. Usually this had to do with economics. However, in many of these families the children grew up worthy and did a lot for the advancement of the Gospel.

As for the western world in general though, I think you'd like this music video:

I love the video :) I used to listen to Korn a while ago but haven't kept up with their work lately.

My comment about competency was mostly tongue-in-cheek. I was just thinking about my experience with co-workers where it is usually the case that the people with the biggest mouthes have the least talent. But my point is that most people think positive traits apply to them whether they do or not because people are masters of justifying their own actions while condeming others. It is simple, not many people want to think of themselves as a bad person and so they come up with excuses to justify that they are good people.

[JcDean78]

Interesting article. What's sad is that the woman in the above situation feels that children would be more harmful to the planet.

Actually I am kind of glad that person does not want to reproduce. I wish more people like that would not, would certainly make the world a better place.

[NormalMormon]

With that said, I have no problem with people opting themselves out of the gene pool. I find it far more disgusting that people who shouldn't are still having kids, bringing them up in the most hostile environment imaginable and then letting them loose on society.

That's true. Even for Mormons. Having as many kids as you can pop out isn't what I call "rational" and I would argue that these parent are far more dysfunctional or irrational than those who choose not to have kids on the basis of environmental preservation.

We all know the welfare moms who have seven children from different fathers are a problem. But we don't focus on the families that completely ignore rationale and decide to have 6 - 10 children in hopes of "raising seed unto the gospel" or for no other reason than they don't know how to time monthly intercourse. These people are the ones I would be more worried about raising "dysfunctional" children. (Okay everyone, I don't want to hear how "great" these parents are and how "wonderful" the huge families are. Yes, they have love and blah, blah, blah. But so do other, smaller, families.)

We can't really argue what's "rational" and "normal." We can't say that having 1-3 kids is perfectly healthy and normal and not dysfunctional. However, the reasons behind having or not having children is what makes these people equally irrational. If you had three genius prodigy children, I would of course go ahead and keep reproducing. If they were all idiots, I would stop. I would also not keep having kids just to contribute to the population of a church. Likewise, if the only reason to not have kids is because you might stop one person from producing car emissions, that's insane. They could argue that "well if everyone didn't have kids, the world would be a better place." Yeah, but who would live in it?

[Fiannan]

Actually I am kind of glad that person does not want to reproduce. I wish more people like that would not, would certainly make the world a better place.

As long as we have people with positive traits who will make up for the difference by having 3,4 or more kids.

[Misshalfway]

Like perfect and proficient people are the only ones who make a difference!!!!

[Fiannan]

That's true. Even for Mormons. Having as many kids as you can pop out isn't what I call "rational" and I would argue that these parent are far more dysfunctional or irrational than those who choose not to have kids on the basis of environmental preservation.

"pop out"? Nice way of putting it. Why not use the term "knock up" to describe a pregnant woman?

What is so "dysfunctional"?

"He who dies with the most toys wins!" Modern societal idea.

"He who dies with the most boys (and girls) wins!" Basically paraphrasing the context of Charls Darwin's book "Descent of Man" which should be required reading for all high school students -- along with having to watch "Idiocracy".

We all know the welfare moms who have seven children from different fathers are a problem. But we don't focus on the families that completely ignore rationale and decide to have 6 - 10 children in hopes of "raising seed unto the gospel" or for no other reason than they don't know how to time monthly intercourse.

So are we comparing Gospel-oriented families with women who are single, sleep around, get pregnant with different men and then have Uncle Sam foot the bill?

I remember reading something about Spencer W. Kimball in which he was talking with a man at the temple. The man had just married off his last child in the temple (all 8 had grown up and been sealed) yet he told President Kimball that he had not accomplished much in life. To that Presdient Kimball told him that he had been incredibly successful and he had every reason to rejoice! What was ultimately important in life is not your riches, your career or how society looks upon you but how close you are to God and how well you have tried to raise your kids. Maybe these 8 children had to make a few sacrifices but that is what makes them mature faster than some spoiled yuppie brat.

These people are the ones I would be more worried about raising "dysfunctional" children. (Okay everyone, I don't want to hear how "great" these parents are and how "wonderful" the huge families are. Yes, they have love and blah, blah, blah. But so do other, smaller, families.)

Yeah, sometimes my 8 year old girl covers her ears too.

We can't really argue what's "rational" and "normal." We can't say that having 1-3 kids is perfectly healthy and normal and not dysfunctional. However, the reasons behind having or not having children is what makes these people equally irrational. If you had three genius prodigy children, I would of course go ahead and keep reproducing. If they were all idiots, I would stop. I would also not keep having kids just to contribute to the population of a church. Likewise, if the only reason to not have kids is because you might stop one person from producing car emissions, that's insane. They could argue that "well if everyone didn't have kids, the world would be a better place." Yeah, but who would live in it?

I agree, if you make smart and healthy children (good looks might count as well:D) you should have as many kids as you can. If you have some genetic problem that makes your kids idiots or unhealthy then that's a different story.

[Guest Username-Removed]

The mind potentially outwieghs the carbon foodprint