A British woman who had an abortion 10 years ago and was later sterilized did so because she believes pregnancy is bad for the environment, the London Daily Mail reported Sunday.

Toni Vernelli, 35, hopes her actions would ensure her carbon footprint would be kept to a minimum, the Mail reported. The environmental advocate also sees having children as an egotistical act.

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," Vernelli told the Mail, adding she believes bringing new life into the world only adds to the problem.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312779,00.html

Yes, I have heard that this is the new line of logic from the environmental extremists. The same ones that want to reduce the world's population. Of course they won't give their lives for "the greater good." (please don't take that the wrong way, I only meant they want other people to die for their cause, not that I want them to die.)

_________________
Melissa

I read this as well... and had the same thought. They are willing to sacrifice the life of another, but not willing to take their own for the good of the environment? Talk about duplicity and selfishness.

I'm not advocating that environmentalists begin taking their own lives.... well, wait... uhm... no, that wouldnt be right...

Anyway, you get my point.

Krispy

There was a movie that was released just about a year ago the hypothesizes what the world would be like if people stopped having children, ie. mass infertilization. The movie is called 'Children of Men' and this isn't a recommendation, but the movie did have a good message about hope. A world without children is a pretty bleak thing.

_________________
Ian Smith

I look at the confusion and hysteria and stupidity that is rampant in this world today over such concerns, and how the big corporations just sit back and pull all of the strings... and not just oil companies either, but companies like GE that stand to make windfall profits whenever environmental legislation gets passed... and I have to say... I'm glad this is NOT my home.

Sorry about the "run-on" sentence.

Krispy

Well, if the environmentalists, the pro-choicers all abort their young, at least they would not be reproducing more of their kind. Add to this mix the homos and lesbians! :-P

Seriously, I am told that in Europe the birth rate is so low that it has some people very concerned about the future of their country as they know it. The people in Europe who are reproducing at an alarming rate are the Muslims. Because of their birthrate alone they could eventually take over Europe without firing a shot!

ginnyrose

_________________
Sandra Miller

Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

just when you think you've heard it all something else comes up. This was quite interesting...she sacrificed her baby to "save the world" or reduce her carbon footprint? She could have just made her carbon footprint zero and left a note...*sigh* how vain we are if we think we can saved the world! that thought leads to other foolish things like this.

Then with the concerns sis Ginnyrose raised about the pupulation expolsion of muslims in Europe...yikes...Islam is spreading and these folks are devoted...so much so that they spend much time trying to pick apart the word to disprove it and all manner of things. i pray God reveal Himself to these who have been deceived by this son of satan mohammed...let us pray a Revelation of Jesus to these as to ourselves.AMEN.

Grace and Peace are ours in Jesus.AMEN.

_________________
Farai Bamu

Saw this article from Chuck Colson and remembered this thread.

Really, this is astonishing.

Voluntary Self-Extinction
By Chuck Colson
Tuesday, December 11, 2007

"For decades, British couples campaigned to have infertility treatments included among the treatments provided by the U.K.’s National Health Service. Even after the Service agreed to pay for treatments like in vitro fertilization, there remained a shortage of potential egg donors, so that many British couples had to go overseas in their quest to have a child.

Now, just imagine what they must think now as many young people in their peak child-bearing years are having themselves sterilized as an environmental statement. A recent story in the U.K.’s Daily Mail told readers about British women who refuse to have children because children are not “eco friendly.”

One of these women, Toni, works for an environmental group. She said that she “shudders with horror” at the thought of a “little hand slipping into hers—and a voice calling her Mummy.”

The “shudder” is caused by the thought of the child’s environmental impact. As Dave Barry likes to say, “I am not making this up.” I wish I were.

So, when Toni learned she was pregnant 10 years ago, she quickly had an abortion to “protect the planet.” Then, to make sure that such a “mistake” could not happen again, she had herself sterilized at age 27.

What did the child’s father think about all this? He sent her a “congratulations card” and later married her. Apparently, he agrees that “having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet . . . ”

Toni is not alone in her sentiments. Another woman named Sarah told the paper that, growing up, she “agonized over the perils” of things like “climate change” and “the loss of animal species.” This led her to decide that she would not have children.

Eventually, Sarah met Mark who felt as passionately about the perils of children as she did. Together, they decided that Mark should undergo voluntary sterilization—in his case, a vasectomy.

They see their actions as part of their commitment to living “as green a life a possible”: recycling, using low-energy light bulbs, eating “organic, locally produced food,” and having themselves sterilized.

While these are extreme cases, the beliefs driving them are anything-but-fringe, especially among environmental activists. Much of their rhetoric depicts the relationship between man and the rest of creation as a “zero-sum game,” in which what is good for people is, by definition, bad for the planet.

It is not uncommon to read about an environmentalist saying that what the planet needs is a good catastrophe to “cull” the human herd. An award-winning scientist said just that last year.

While most people reject that kind of extremism, the basic idea—that large families are “irresponsible”—has spread to much of Western culture. People with large families are looked on as freaks, and complete strangers do not hesitate to tell them so.

However widespread this misanthropic worldview may be, it is folly, as the demographic crisis in Europe and East Asia demonstrate. Societies that view children as a burden find themselves facing extinction. That, in turn, leaves the future of our civilization, and of life itself, in the hands of the fruitful, those who believe that man, created in God’s image, is the crown of creation, not the curse."

Below in the comment section a reader added this...


This idea is definitely catching on.
Here's a letter that appeared in my local newspaper today:

In response to parents concerned about the environment: I have chosen not to breed. No child of mine will ever consume one gram of anything. This is by far the best thing anyone can do for the environment.

But I'm supposed to forego pleasure in life so people who don't have the resources to properly raise a family can have lots of kids?

Your kids take precedence over my life? I can't fly somewhere for a vacation so your kids can consume millions of tons of junk food and toys made in China?

I'm supposed to recycle my garbage to help "preserve" a world so your kids can become future consumerist "debt slaves"?

There is no way I'm giving up my only chance to enjoy life any way I please so that millions of obese spoiled brats can get rides to school (paid for with my taxes) with mommy in an SUV.

If everyone stopped breeding we could calmly shut down civilization (rather than the horrific end we are headed toward) and let the Earth return to the paradise it was before the blight of man.

Who would lose? The unborn? The way things are going I don't think they'll mind.

G. Cullins, Medford, Oregon

_________________
Mike Compton

Ignorance is bliss, until...

_________________
Christiaan

bro Mike, Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

thanks for the article you posted here regarding this issue in Europe. man the enemy sure knows how to pull the strings of selfishness alright, so much so that it seems as though we're doing things for the benefit of all when really:

_________________
Farai Bamu