But if this keeps up, they’re not going to be any greens around for them to share it with:
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.
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…
“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.
“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.”
You know, the next logical step for a person so very concerned with saving the planet is to remove themselves from the carbon footprint generating picture. Somehow I rather doubt that Ms. Vernelli’s commitment goes quite so far, though. I mean, she’s selfless enough to abort her pregnancy, but even the most committed environmentalist has to draw the line somewhere.
Still, it makes you wonder: If a tree is felled in the rain forest, and there aren’t any greens left to hear about it, are we done reading these kinds of ridiculous stories?
Here’s my take on these strange people:
The growth of postmaterialist ideology is a well-studied phenomenon in the political science literature. According to Ronald Inglehart, following World War II, as the Western industrialized democracies recovered from material hardship and deprivation, many in the younger generations coming of age rejected the societal ethos of materialistic consumption in favor of more progressive views on environmentalism and the support for non-traditional values.
The decisions cited here, of the women to denounce childbearing as a threat to the survival of the world, is explicable according to this paradigm. Still, these views could be seen as representing the ideological demonization of childbearing. Without all those kids in tow, suburban moms won’t need those big, carbon-busting SUVs!
Have a great day!
Darwin strikes again…
So this fool was willing to kill (abort) another human being for the questionable but certainly minuscule effect that one person might have on the environment? If she cared so much why didn’t she use effective birth control and prevent the pregnancy in the first place? I am glad that she won’t be breeding though, we don’t need any more morally bankrupt idiots.
What that woman did was ridiculous. I know plenty of people who did not (do not) have children by choice either because they question their suitability as parents, didn’t want the responsibility, didn’t want to be tied down, didn’t think they had had the economic wherewithal to raise kids, etc. None that I know of terminated a pregnancy.
I style myself as a sort of quasi-environmentalist. Not so concerned with carbon foot prints, as I think that argument is a little thin, more concerned with known problems such as mercury emissions from coal fired power plants, acid rain, particulate pollution induced asthma, etc, etc.
It is sad to me that a person can selfishly engage in the activity that leads to pregnancy, then in an even more stunning display of self concern, blame the environment for her decision to have an abortion.
Pogue’s right. At least she will not further her genetic line. The sad part is that we are no where near carrying capacity.
Dangerous meme this is, people who want to see their own species extinct.
Actualy the next logical step for these concerned persons is to remove the less enlightened breeders from the picture.
Omelets and eggs, ya know.
Perhaps a little less environmental concern and a little more concern for morality would go a long way. And when I speak of morality, its not the getting pregnant I’m talking about.
Earth 1
Humanity 0
If she cared so much why didn’t she use effective birth control
Must have been her awareness that condoms aren’t biodegradable and exacerbate the landfill problem. [/irony]
Pogue beat me to it.
Lex is right – she’s willing to sacrifice (her unborn child), but not fully committed.
It’s like the old story:
A chicken and a pig went for a walk around the farm. As they passed the farmer’s window they noticed a wonderful breakfast prepared for the farmer and his wife sitting on the breakfast table. As they peeked closer they noticed ham and eggs on the plates.
The pig and chicken were silent for a moment as they took in the impact of what they saw. Finally, looking at the eggs and prideful of her contribution, the chicken said, “now that was a sacrifice!” The pig looked at the ham on the plate and finally turned to the chicken and said, “Yes, for you it is a sacrifice. But for us it is total commitment!”
And God Said …
‘I Think They’ve Lost What’s Left of Their Minds’
. . .
Yep, you read that right.
She had an abortion to save the planet.
I still apparently Don’t Get It. We’re carbon-based life forms. Carbon has 4 valence electrons — it bonds to practically anything, including itself. Covalent bonding isn’t quite as satisfying as ionic bonding, we’re in no danger of introducing carbon into water at the molecular layer of course, but still it’s a given that just about anything including photosynthesis has carbon in the process. We are C, and C is us.
So why is carbon itself the big target and not, say, a more specific molecule? Used to be they complained about Flourocarbons, destroying the ozone layer and all, now it’s any carbon?
Something ain’t right with that. We emit billions of tons of carbon dioxide just breathing. If you think we emit a lot, just think of the respiration of the millions of buffalo that used to exist in North America (and added to the methane problem to boot as they belched and farted their way across the plains. Not that I’m suggesting that was their method of propulsion, you understand…).
And speaking of blanket problems, another thing cropped to mind reading Paul’s comment. The mercury was here already in the ground. Now it’s suddenly a problem because the coal was burned? Reminds me of the argument that shooting ranges are toxic dumps because of the lead in the ground. Hello? We’re putting it *back* in its natural environment, and you didn’t complain about it before it was mined now did you?
Now I hear San Francisco is considering a ban on fireplaces because of the carbon. Where does the carbon come from? Wood. Where does wood come from? Trees. How do trees grow? By photosynthesis, where they take CO2 and turn it into C, thus expending the O2 and the C they keep. Looks like a balanced equation to me.
This whole planet runs on photosysthesis. Any carbon we get in oil comes from carbon dioxide converted to oxygen and residual carbon left over to form other substances billions of years ago. To think that carbon is the problem, a mere common slut of en element, isn’t to merely say mankind as the problem, it claims the whole of life on the planet is the problem. If all life is the problem, what pray tell is the solution?
– Max
This action deserves an entirely new class of the Darwin Award, and fits right in with Mark Stein’s thesis so well described in “America Alone” that Europe is comitting suicide.
According to the article, several of the anti-repro movement claim their decisions were made during their adolescence years. No indications were made as to the influences leading to these decisions.
Cheers
Whenever I read about these bizzaros’, I think that the way Tom Clancy in some novel took care of ‘em. He had Mr. Clark take care of ‘em by landing at a remote Amazon airstrip, stripping ‘em naked and then flying them into the rainforest and ‘letting’ ‘em out, to live without all the ‘trappings’. Justice.
Many of you here are aware of the hate America crowd, well, IMO ,these folks take that one step further and hate Humankind. I wouldn’t want to guess at the psycho rationale for all that but they remind me of da dame-hitchhiker in “Five Easy Pieces” who kept saying: “Crap, crap..it’s all crap”.
They’re crazy, man!
b2
B2,
Here’s more evidence for your opinion:
http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_7529452
Somebody page Walt Kelly!
B2, it was Rainbow Six, I believe.
Poetic justice that was.
I’m not exactly sure what would have the same effect for these … ladies.
I just look on the bright side — this particular problem will be solved in only a single generation.
– Max
I can sorta-kinda see the morality in that, if I squint a bit and look at it sideways. But I have to agree that it seems like a serious attempt to rationalize a decision made for other reasons. If she was really concerned about the environment she could’ve use birth control, or, even better, sterilized herself earlier.
As a partial response to MaxDamage’s comment #12, and keeping in mind that I’m definitely not a chemist or environment researcher…
I think the reason for the “carbon footprint” is that it’s just a convenient shorthand for measuring a large complex problem. There are different kinds of carbon-based molecules that are problematic to various degrees. For instance, most types of combustion also produce carbon monoxide, which is bad. But CO weighs less than CO2, so if they showed you separate numbers for each they wouldn’t be comparable. But I could be way off here.
We and the buffalo do indeed release a lot of CO2, although I’m not sure whether it’s significant compared to industrial sources.
If she’s so concerned about the environment, then why didn’t she make her own birth control retroactive? That’s the problem with these types of movements, no real commitment. Everybody wants someone else to change so that they can get what they want. When was the last time you heard of an Imam or Cleric blowing themselves up? Nope, doesn’t happen. Instead they brainwash some poor schmuck into doing it. If her cause was so noble that her baby had to die for it, how’s come she’s still around? Oh! Wait! If she took herself out, who’d be around to spread the message? Funny that it took ten years for her story to make the media. I think that there’s a bunch of hay after it has been through a male cow here.