Making the World a Safer Place for my SUV

December 1, 2007 at 11:36 pm 10 comments

At the ripe age of 27, Toni Vernelli got sterilized in order to reduce her carbon footprint. She had an abortion as a teenager and begged her doctor at the time to sterilize her, which he refused to do at such a young age. Toni, now 35, stated, “Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet.” Another rabid environmentalist, Sarah Irving, featured in The Daily Mail story took the same course of action:

“Most young girls dream of marriage and babies. But Sarah dreamed of helping the environment – and as she agonised over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child. ”

This is aggravating on a number of levels. These two British women may not represent a widespread trend toward mass sterilization in the name of saving the earth, but clearly they are sidestepping the greater economic issue facing England and Europe in years to come: they’re not having enough children to replace themselves. Secondly, since when should the “perils of climate change” keep one up at night? Also, the elitist attitude that those who procreate are selfish is offensive. Clearly, these women know nothing about the level of self-sacrifice and selflessness parenting requires, and oops, they never will get the chance.

Now I’m all for cutting off unfit mothers from continued breeding, but to declare having even one child eco-unfriendly is a sign of how off-balance our “climate crisis” has become.

-Posted by JL

Advertisements

Entry filed under: Children, Commentary, Current Events, JL's Posts. Tags: , , , .

The Lamentations of Lowry – Chapter 2 Mom Jeans

10 Comments Add your own

  • 1. TRussell  |  December 2, 2007 at 1:17 am

    Translation: “I would like to jump head-on into a bath of hedonistic sexual conduct without having to risk needing another abortion that would cause me severe psychological trauma”.

    Yeah, she’s not selfish at all!

    I wonder if this woman has thought about how her own conduct is contributing to the risk of spreading HIV and other sexual diseases. But why talk about that brand of selfishness? That would just take all the fun out of it.

    Reply
  • 2. lowdogg  |  December 2, 2007 at 9:17 am

    I’m totally comfortable with her decision. Here’s why:

    By removing herself from the gene pool (along with a like-minded male) she reduces the influence that she will have over future generations. She will sterilize herself into irrelevance.

    James Taranto at Opinion Journal calls this the “Roe Effect,” and it refers to the shifting toward conservatism by younger people, this because some or many liberal youngsters never got this far, having been aborted by their parents.

    Reply
  • 3. lemare  |  December 2, 2007 at 12:17 pm

    Let’s make the world a better place for NO ONE to enjoy. Totally smart.

    I really do think that we need to take care of the earth and use our resources wisely, but this is ABSURD.

    In reference to countries in Europe, Sweden is offering CRAZY economic rewards for having babies, but it’s not working. The country is on the brink of economic disaster because it is so HIGHLY socialist, that (with the negative growth rate) will not be able to sustain itself because there won’t be enough workers in the system paying taxes to support the elderly.

    And I think many of us remember RUSSIA’S attempt to increase the population growth rate:
    https://inrareform.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/national-day-of-conception/

    Am I the only one singing, “Zero population is the answer, my friend, without it, the rest of us are through!” in my head? Saturday’s Warrior–it’s amazing those of us who saw it didn’t apostatize.

    Reply
  • 4. Sportsattitude  |  December 3, 2007 at 4:54 pm

    Yeah, I had to read this a couple of times to absorb what was being promoted by these folks…have no children and help save the Earth. Well, who the hell is gonna be left on the Earth to enjoy how much its been “saved?” Here’s why my wife and I decided to not have children…we didn’t want to. At no time did Al & Tipper Gore, the Pacific Northwest logging industry, owls or more hurricanes factor into that decision-making.

    Reply
  • 5. Cody  |  December 4, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    Good thing this isn’t a trend.

    Reply
  • 6. pammyshep  |  December 5, 2007 at 9:30 pm

    I tested my carbon footprint a few days ago (www.nature.org) and found out that I emit at 42. I have no clue what that means but I realize tat I do need to protect the enviornment. Silly me… I decided to recycle more, use less water, and buy a hybrid. Why didn’t I think of sterlization???

    Reply
  • 7. lowdogg  |  December 5, 2007 at 10:59 pm

    Enjoy your hybrid. Just don’t think too much about the environmental impact of those batteries.

    Reply
  • 8. ian in hamburg  |  December 8, 2007 at 1:47 pm

    The depth of cynicism displayed among this array of commenters makes my Ferris Bueller look-alike head spin.

    So are you now in favour of abortion because it gets rid of Liberal kids for future generations?

    Unsaid in the OP is that Britain, Sweden and elsewhere are letting in immigrants so that the babies not born to, uh… real Brits and Swedes… will be replaced. That really peeves the white-is-right crowd and those who think makin’ babies til the cows come home is the duty of every female.

    Reply
  • 9. lemare  |  December 8, 2007 at 2:05 pm

    Ian, I am not concerned about diluting the blonde/blue in Sweden (I’m a Swedish Brown/Hazel). No one here is for “political cleansing” through killing babies.

    The whole Sweden thing is brought up because I was just there visiting my cousin, and we discussed the low growth rate problem extensively (along with the incentives the govt is offering, to no avail). Also a similar problem in Russia (as discussed in our National Day of Conception post) though they are getting immigrants from China.

    If making babies is every female’s duty, I’m failing miserably.

    Reply
  • 10. lowdogg  |  December 8, 2007 at 2:37 pm

    If she were systematically aborting pregnancy after pregnancy I would be disgusted and outraged. Her decision to sterilize herself is unfortunate, but doesn’t kill anybody or anything.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


December 2007
S M T W T F S
« Nov   Jan »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

RSS The Heritage Foundation

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS The Daily Universe

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Archives

Feeds

Blog Stats

  • 275,970 hits

%d bloggers like this: