I completely agree with Laura. The fact that this woman had an abortion to reduce her carbon footprint is quite scary. I think her choice to, after this occurrence, search out a doctor to perform a sterility procedure to definitively prevent any future pregnancies was a very good choice to perpetuate her interesting but understandable desire to help reduce her carbon footprint. But, I do not think reducing your carbon footprint should be a flippant justification for abortion. When you start putting "Being Green" and "Being Eco" above human life, the line gets really fuzzy.
> While a childfree lifestyle may be a valid and important ethical choice > (though probably a freedom for only a portion of the female population in > this world), the woman in the article that started this discussion chose > to > terminate a pregnancy using the save the planet rationale (as I > recall). Using "saving the planet" as an incentive or rationale to > terminate a pregnancy is ethically and morally scary path. Furthermore, > more could be accomplished by educating people, providing contraception > and > changing cultural practices in developing nations than terminating > pregnancies in nations where birth control is for the most part a broadly > accepted and relatively easy practice. > > At 02:34 PM 11/28/2007 -0800, you wrote: >>Yes, I am pleased to see the childfree movement continuing to garner >> press >>attention; a childfree lifestyle is one of many tools that may contribute >>to a long-term balance in human demand on natural resources. (In order >> to >>share experiences and ideas with others, childfree-leaning individuals >>need not reproduce; communication without procreation can be >> sufficient...) >> >>Emily Gonzales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You said: >>"All of the people who believed that they could help to save the >>planet by not having babies lived their life span and died. The rest >>of the world's population went ahead and had babies. As the genetic >>(and cultural) lines of those believers in birth control perished, >>the human population grew even faster. Mike Marsh" >> >>Some of those childless people lived their life span - contributed >>profoundly to the community through teaching, volunteerism, sharing >>their knowledge and passion - then died. Producing children is not >>the only contribution people make to the world (and for some, not >>producing children is a wonderful contribution to make to the world). >> >>It is wonderful if people who care about the natural world are able >>to pass those values onto their children. I have seen successes - but >>also failures because pressing values onto children, especially >>strongly held values, isn't well received by independent minds. >> >>Have children because it's a wonderful, rewarding experience. But >>rationalizing that it is necessary to pass on your values to them (so >>they can save the world?) is faulty logic. We have a population and >>resource use problem. Fewer people using fewer resources will help >>solve the problem. >> >>We could do greater good by devoting the time and resources spent >>parenting into teaching, sharing our passion with others, >>volunteering for community groups, conducting ecological research, >>restoring habitats, spending time with nieces and nephews, etc... >> >>I believe human behaviour is strongly influenced by genes, however, >>the decision to not have children is an intellectual and value-based >>choice that can be quite distinct from our genetic (and cultural) >>heritage. It is a difficult decision to be childless as social >>pressure is strong, but obviously those who do so have made a >>decision distinct from the values of their parents! >> >>Many of us came of our passion independent of our upbringing - >>through teachers, experiences, and intrinsic values. It can and will >>happen again. >> >>Emily Gonzales >> >> >> >>At 09:04 AM 11/28/2007, Mike Marsh wrote: >> >All of the people who believed that they could help to save the >> >planet by not having babies lived their life span and died. The rest >> >of the world's population went ahead and had babies. As the genetic >> >(and cultural) lines of those believers in birth control perished, >> >the human population grew even faster. >> > >> >Mike Marsh >> >--------- >> >Matheus Carvalho wrote: >> > >> >... to reduce her CO2 footprint. >> > >> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=4 >> 95495&in_page_id=1879 >> >>Emily Gonzales, Ph.D. Candidate >>Centre for Applied Conservation Research >>3041-2424 Main Mall, Forest Sciences >>University of British Columbia >>Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4 >>604-822-1256 (office) > > Laura W. Jodice > Research Associate > Recreation, Travel and Tourism Institute > Parks, Recreation & Tourism Management > 263 Lehotsky Hall > Box 340735 > Clemson, SC 29634-0735 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 864-656-2209 > -- Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try. *Yoda*
