Women Who Won’t Have Babies

Tony Vernelli will not have children, she has been sterilized, medically, by choice, her choice.

She thinks having children is selfish of her, because each child 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.”

After having her first child aborted, her husband (she is now divorced) had a vasectomy (at 25) but her doctors would not perform a permanent sterilization on her, saying she’d eventually want children. She was sure sure she wouldn’t and persisted until she found a surgeon willing to perform a permanent sterilization. She was 27.

Are the lies of the environmentalists so pernicious that this is what they’ll do to protect the earth? Apparently, the answer is yes.

Granted this is an extreme case. But how many women persist on hormone-based contraceptives until it is too late in their lives and as they try to have children they find they can’t? And in the realm of potentials: what if her children were to be the next great scientist or artist, or even if they weren’t, normally people change people’s lives forever by simply loving them. You don’t have to be famous to be worthwhile.

One of the superiorities of the Christian world-view is that to a Christian each and every human life is precious and worthwhile, regardless of it’s circumstances. It is this way because God created each and every human life in His image, giving us an unique spirit and an eternal nature in addition to an earthly body.

Further, the lies of the environmentalists are just that: lies. There is not a problem of overcrowding. We are throwing away grain and other foods wastefully based on government regulation and price fixing. We raise some cattle for food and some for leather, but rarely do we raise the same cow for both. With technology and plenty we have become wasteful and lazy. But technology has also allowed us to live closer together, and farther away from where we work. Transportation bring fresh food from wherever it is to wherever it is needed. There are vast tracts of undeveloped land, and yes, all the people in the world can still fit in a good-sized city with elbow room, or in a state with house and yard each.

Tony is a sick individual who has believed lies and has not sought to truth. That is sad.

Update: Read the Pachyderm’s take.

Update: Stand To Reason and James Lileks further the argument. A gem from Lileks on tolerance:

She had the awful thing put away, and now she and her husband enjoy hiking and vacations . . . in other countries, accessed via jets. But: “We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless.” She expresses frustration that other people are unable to accept her decision. I suspect she means “my mum” by “other people,” and I suspect she confuses “acceptance” with “full-throated endorsement.”

Update and Bumped: Investors Business Daily has this to say:

(Late economist Julian) Simon showed that “the ultimate resource is people — skilled, spirited and hopeful people who will exert their wills and imaginations for their own benefit, and inevitably they will benefit not only themselves but the rest of us as well.”

If not for their fanatical parents, who are replacing the supposedly dusty old codes of conduct associated with traditional religion with a warped new morality, the children of the two British couples might have been such people.

11 thoughts on “Women Who Won’t Have Babies”

  1. I don’t think too many are going that far.

    I am hearing of and seeing way too many young women at 18 years of age already on their third pregnacy.

    I can’t seem to figure out where Big Brother will have the next generation go….
    Less children so they can control them, or countless of babies born and unloved by these careless young women, so they can control them.

    Still trying to figure that one out…

  2. Less IS more in the case of breeding more humans- the problem is that well educated people statistically have fewer children. Which means the stoooopids are taking over the earth. (Clearly, look who got into the White House) ad we really do not need any more people who are gong to be a drain on the economy.

    Ps I am another woman who won’t be breeding….because its the respnsible thing NOT to do.

  3. Welcome to I Pandora, Maya. I’ll be visiting your blog to check it out shortly.

    Can the economy work best without humans? Is that even possible?

    Maya, consider the fact that your children will be just what the economy needs: they will create and they will consume, just what the economy ordered. But even then, an economy is a morally neutral entity: one should not make moral decisions based on the economy. Your children will be moral agents imbued with purpose. While it may seem that as a group, people are getting dumber, that does not mean that you have no choice but to allow your children to be that way.

  4. Wow. I mean, just… wow.

    I can understand each couple not having a dozen kids, but to take yourself entirely out of the gene pool and declare it selfish to have children? That’s probably one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.

  5. Hi Matthew;

    I find the opposite within the Church. Often there is “worship” of family and procreation. At the same time those who are often very pushy about procreation (I am hardly putting you in that camp as I have only just met you) also at times view God’s creation with wanton belligerence.

  6. Welcome to I Pandora, Livingsword. I agree that families and couples do tend to be the primary reach of many churches, with single people tagging along. But to term that “worship” is rather strong. What experiences have you had which lead you to use that word?

    Also, I believe that we as Christians, recognizing the Lord’s explicit command to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth. Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food” gives us the most responsibility in caring for the planet, but not in the way of those such as this woman.

    To care for the planet requires that we be sensible and take true fact in hand before acting. There is plenty of misinformation which tends to paint doomsday scenarios of our pollutants killing the planet. Movies such as The Core and The Day After Tomorrow and other such eco-scripts have popularized the idea that mankind currently has the tools to destroy the earth. But that is just not so. Later today I’ll post an article regarding nuclear disasters over the years and how in actuality they are much less destructive than popular myth has led us to believe, both in terms of human damage and loss and in terms of environmental issues.

    The fires in southern California are particularly destructive as a direct result of environmentalist policies which do benefit neither the environment nor the people, and in fact directly lead to great loss for both.

    For instance, if people were allowed to clear away brush and trees from immediately surrounding their houses in fire-prone areas, the fire would have a more difficult time getting large enough and gaining enough momentum to destroy as much acreage as they do. Also, the people would still have to evacuate, but there would be a greater chance they’d not suffer the catastrophic loss they currently experience.

    Also, the catch phrase of many environmentalists is “Old-growth forest” which is actually an invention of man. Before we stopped fires, entire forests would burn every 10-15 years as trees aged and became weak. New growth would then be freed to growth and thrive.
    Old-growth forests shade the ground to such an extent that young growth is not capable of growing. Old trees are more likely to be harmed by disease and pests. Old growth trees contribute less to the warming and cooling cycles of the earth as they cannot process as much Carbon Dioxide as young trees can.

    As a Christian, it is my responsibility to be a good steward, allowing the old to die and the young to thrive and growth through their natural cycles of life. Unfortunately, with the current political climate, that translates into what can easily be confused with a lack of interest in the environment as I find myself fighting against misinformed and overzealous attempts to protect the environment at the expense of legitimate interests.

    Those misinformed and overzealous environmental policies do more damage over time as people see them not working and hurting their own interests. People lose interest in environmental protection and default to selfish and destructive activities, habits, and policies.

    Wanton belligerence may indeed just be a lack of interest because of the lies currently ruling politics.

  7. Mercurial, I agree that it is stupid to make it so you can never have children. I also think it selfish because you never know what your children could have been or how they would have contributed to the world today.

    However (and this is addressed to everyone), every person is of value whether they are retarded or slow or whatever term you care to call them. Someone doesn’t have to make a great scientific or literary contribution to the world to be worthwhile. Some of my greatest joys came from a little boy with fetal alcohol syndrome. He didn’t judge anyone- all received a smile and a hug. Think of the lessons we all could take from that.

    Maya, so well educated people are shown to have fewer children. So what happens if the well educated people sit back, simply content with their few children? Then they aren’t helping to contribute better educated people to the earth and letting those with lesser educations have more children. Hmm, does that mean those who are well educated are really being smart?

  8. “I can understand each couple not having a dozen kids, but to take yourself entirely out of the gene pool and declare it selfish to have children? That’s probably one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.”

    Well, some of us think that we would be bad mothers. I, however, am delegating my 2.1 children (or 1.05) to another couple who would do a better job raising them.

    Besides, it’s not all about my genes. Some of us simply do not wish to procreate with the men who find us attractive. My lack of procreation is a sacrifice of my genes in the name of keeping their genes out of the next generation. 🙂

  9. On the subject of multiply and fill.

    It might say that in the beginning of the book, but what about what it says in the end about the woman, a child and the dragon. This is something I feel god wants our attention drawn to, and I have no problem seeing her as a woman in China, trying to out run the one child rule. There is a dragon in that story.

    Ironically the atomic number for gold is 79 and it was in 79 that this rule was first applied. I became familiar with this because my government took the first two children I had off me. Not because I was a bad mother, but because I was young single mother with no family of my own to help me. Then when I asked them to cut and tie my tubes, they said no because I had no children.

    I was one of those in the 2% contraception didn’t work for, not even the copper seven. So what part in all of that did god play for me on the subject of be fruitful and multiply? A part where an Australian woman is told she can have none, while in the worst of it all worldwide, woman in China could at least have one.

    2,000 years ago a local girl had a hard time finding a local husband after Herod’s slaughter, and now a Chinese man struggles to find a wife in his own country. And somewhere in the world there’s a woman boasting the birth of her 18th child.

    It’s a big sea creature that man was not given dominion over, unless you read it into scripture. But perhaps it is something that god gave Jesus dominion over and what he wrote in revelations is there to help us figure it out.

    Just a thought from Skeeter.

Leave a Reply