Babies are not eco friendly [ What do you think about ]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/fema...in_page_id=1879

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".

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.


While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.


"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."

I am speechless... Firstly, it seems to be disgusting. I mean, it is disgusting to say that every person makes our planet more dirty. Then, logically, we must kill everybody to keep the planet clean, mustn't we? On the other hand, it's true. I partially agree that a wish to have children is selfish, but even a wish NOT TO HAVE children is selfish!

I think that these people are not honest.
If they dont`t want to have children, it`s their own biseness. But I think there is no need to think out any philosophical theories for that decision.
It looks like a attempt to justificate their fear.

I think this woman needed not sterilisation but psychological help. But she chose another way.

On the other hand, I can say that she has done very well. If she doesn't want to have children she won't be a good mother so she has saved one unhappy child in this world.

These women are clinically ill. There is so much screwed up about them, I don't even know where to start..
But also, The Daily Mail, unfortunately, is not a very reputable source to trust - they are famous for publishing things blown out of proportion, to create the sensation and sell the papers. So..... who knows whether these people really exist. But if they do, I agree with Rose - they need millions hours of therapy and even then I doubt the result.

It's incredible how some people can turn their madness, abnormality and extreme selfishness into something that they can have a secondary gain from - feeling the Greatness of themselves. And being paid for stories like this. They are saving the planet, you see. How about that for a feeling of self-importance....

I think, humanity is in a broad manner not eco friendly.
Nature is destroying by us.
But I hope, poise will be found. This is not cause having any baby.

Our predecessors hadn"t such crasy ideas, otherwise we couldn"t exist.

Сообщение отредактировал(а) Аленький Цветочек - 12.12.2007 - 23:48

Аленький Цветочек

Not is destroying - is being destroyed. Passive Voice should be used here.
But I hope, poise will be found. This is not cause having any baby.
??? What does it mean??? Gramatically not correct, and I can't understand the meaning of this statement, too.

It's written like crazy.

There are more useful ways of making our planet clean. Why do we need to talk about the aforementioned mad people?