It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

she wasn't 16, she was 25. she's old enough to realize sex + pill can equal a baby. At least she could have given the child up for adoption.

And this is 2007, not back in the day when women were considered property.

We can choose who we want to marry, and we choose who we want to have sex with. But somehow we can't face the consequences of our actions. Having sex will most likely lead to conception of a child, even using birth control methods. It's not something to be taken lightly.

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 08:30 PM
I made the decision at 32 to have a tubal ligation so that I would never again have to be faced with the abortion dilemma. I'm 44 now and have never regretted that decision. Taking care of a dog and a cat has been a pretty expensive undertaking. I can't even imagine what my life would be like if I had a child.

I've had so many people over the years try to tell me that I should have children. Why? The world is already overpopulated. Why should I add to the population AND deplete my retirement savings as well?

I truly believe that people should seriously consider the option of not having kids as opposed to just having them because they can and are expected to by society.

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 08:51 PM
Babies are so gross...all they do is poop, drool and make the most awful crying noises. They scream so loud that it hurts my ears. I don't see how anyone can tolerate that...that is so horrible

I'll take a pet over some kid anyday

[edit on 25-11-2007 by laiguana]

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:21 PM

Originally posted by wingman77
Anybody who says that there is an over population problem on Earth needs to take a road trip straight through the middle of the United States and then up to Alaska. The technology is within our reach to feed a population of hundreds of billions without destroying the planet. I'm not saying that we should reach that level, what I am saying is that the situation isn't so dangerous that we need to begin worshiping death.

Doesn't it also seem wrong that an individual who thinks it's evil or bad to have a child, goes ahead and has sex? I mean these people are preaching the virtues of nature so by their own logic having sex for pleasure is unnatural. These people are so deluded, they're ignorance makes them hypocrites. If you're willing to have sex you should accept the fact that you might produce a child, despite all of the birth control methods in the world (minus surgery). But these people who don't think anybody should have children have an ethical obligation to refrain from having sex.

She must not have learned that in he sex ed class in school.

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:24 PM
It is only the cities that are overpopulated. Big cities tend to vote Democratic.

Maybe there is a correlation there?

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:25 PM

Originally posted by PrplHrt
reply to post by Johnmike

What galls you is that you can't do it without us, but we can do it without you.
We have the power now and we're not letting go of it. Get used to it.

I was gonna move on from this thread, then I saw this....

What exactly do you mean by "you can't do it without us, but we can do it without you."
Are you somehow implying you no longer need sperm from a human male for a human female to get pregnant?...I realize that the act of copulation can be forgone now (but why???), but to my understanding we still need each others contributions.
Or did I miss the day we talked about this in sex-ed class?

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:27 PM
That's pretty much the reason I choose not to have kids. We don't need anymore people on this planet. I'll probably adopt later on in life, all the while watching idiots with terrible genetics breed in mass numbers. Means to an end, I guess. Has to start somewhere.

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:33 PM
And just to throw fuel on the fire...

My wife and I have 8 children, 3 girls and 5 boys. I personally do not regret one moment of my life in realtion to being a father, yep it's difficult, expensive, thankless, sleepless etc...and there is nothing I have encountered in my life as rewarding.

In fact I now have 4 grandchildren, and I look forward to plenty more.

My wife and I say, if the human race ceases to exist due a downturn in the gene pool...well we did our best.

I hope this lady has been squirling her money away for retirement, me, I'm gonna go live with the kids...turnabout is fairplay!

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:39 PM

Originally posted by deadbang
What exactly do you mean by "you can't do it without us, but we can do it without you."
Are you somehow implying you no longer need sperm from a human male for a human female to get pregnant?...I realize that the act of copulation can be forgone now (but why???), but to my understanding we still need each others contributions.

It's a sexist feminism, you can't really expect these people to use logic.

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:42 PM
Well I can't judge this woman no more then I would want someone to judge me. It was her choice to do what she did. If she has no regrets then so be it. It doesn't effect my life in anyway and I'm not about to try to shove what I feel is right in her face. Kids are wonderful to have if you raise them right and teach them well your doing good. But to tell someone else that they should of had children is not your decision, it's theirs. I do believe that people should be more responsible for their actions, then abortion wouldn't be a problem in this world.

[edit on 11/25/2007 by Solarskye]

posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 02:50 PM
What is even sadder than people being forced to deprive themselves of the experience of parenthood because we are forced to deppend on dirty 'technology' & clean technology is hidden from us,

- What is even sadder than that is the fact that so many people still just don't get it, from some of the replies I've seen here... - WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM, we have to prove that ASAP, or they will comeout tomorrow , & publicly say 80% of us have to die, & that will surely happen before we can wake up & smell the reptillians, & the Carbon Monoxide that is destroying many children's lives. - I myself have decided it would be unethical to inflict the reality of this world upon an innocent child, even after 20 years of wondering what my son (or dauter) would be like, & that I would've been a better father to my child than my father was to me, but THANK YOU, all you ignorant people who laughed at the disclosureproject, & those who havn;t spent 2 minutes just to think about the big picture here... While we are wasting our time arguing everything that doesn't fit the norms, & our pre-concieved notions of the world, OUR world is melting before our eyes... - Alsong witht the possibility of restoring paradise & freedom by taking the great oportunity to OPEN OUR MINDS... - SPREAD THE WORD WITHOUT FEAR OF RIDUICULE, MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF THE REPTILLIAN AGENDA, as to PUT AN END TO all of our problems by demanding ERADICATION of

This poor woman did not need to kill her wonderful potential child, & her future was raped away from her, because of this [profanity removed] MADNESS we are doing to our planet, ourselves, & our potential future. Humanity could go on indeffinately, if we were not forced into oil use, deforeestation, etc by the capitalistic bloodlines that rule the world.

- STOP threatening us with eugenics, population control fear-mongering, & START providing solar, wind & free-energy RIGHT [profanity removed] NOW!!!

posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 02:53 PM
reply to post by criticalunity

...and there's zero proof of any of that. Try again.

posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 03:14 PM
reply to post by Jim_Kraken

I was going to complain at your response to him, before reading his post.

Then I realized.
I wish it was funnier than it was sad and disheartening.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:55 AM
Yaey euginics and abortion!

My favourite forum debate topic; it's like watching a manure throwing contest, only with a much smaller chance of becoming collateral damage. If I'm feeling masochistic later I'll jump in on it and see if I can sling enough moo-cow byproducts (not milk) to get Valerie Solanas and the Vatican Janissaries to unite against me.

Right now I'm gonna note the irony of her being able to get an abortion in a matter of days or weeks whilst spending two years looking for someone to cut her Fallopian tubes. What's up doc? 'Fraid you'll run out of business?

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Firestorm_]

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:06 AM

Originally posted by apc
Plus in my opinion people like this woman are actually an evolutionary response to overpopulation.

That would be a more tenable hypothesis if you could find cases of this happening in Nigeria, India or Indonesia. Otherwise I figure it's just your typical oversocialized wealthy white gal who's goals may be just but who's impact on industrial society will fade away as soon as she does.


posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 07:40 AM
If this were a natural response it would be one of perspective rather than adaptation, since the trait obviously would not be passed. If so, the successful practice would depend on how permissive the surrounding culture would be. How do the cultures in the countries you reference feel towards the role of women as mothers and reproductive rights? I know in some Asian cultures the role of women as mothers is, or at least was, taken so seriously that if a wife failed to produce children the husband would kill her.

Although you're probably right that this completely unfounded. After all, the most common explanation for why someone does something is that they're an idiot.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:24 AM
I have so many problems with this woman's stupidity and hypocrisy that my head is spinning.

So, she won't support the killing of animals for food and nutrition, but she will kill her own child for her own convenience and the environment!?!?
She is environmental but yet works in retail - the mecca of consumerism which does more to destroy the planet than anything else?

Hmmmm... the only silver lining that I can find in this whole story is that perhaps the gene pool has received a bit of chlorine by her choice to not procreate.

Edited to add: Perhaps if she is so environmentally conscious she and her husband might consider offing themselves in order to save the planet from their selfish and wasteful existence that is so destroying the planet.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by kozmo]

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:37 PM
Two things: She says she does not want to reproduce, then she should not get pregnant, I see abortion as the evidence that they were irresponsible in the first place. Being responsible means no sex unless you know you can't get pregnant.
Also without women there would be no children, and without children no civilization.
Second thing: MAny people get on welfare because of lost work or simply fallen on hard times, they don't want to stay on it, but the system is set up to keep them dependent. The only way off the system is cold turkey. They give you say... $300 a month, you get an extra $25 this month and next month they give you $75 less.
In all a very small percentage on assistance are sucking the system, but dead beat dads and no child support payers are more the culprti for so many going on in the first place.

My ex owes me over $80,000. But I did not go on welfare and I barely get by.

One final note... we talk about over population, but has anyone kept a tally on actual human beings at any given time? 3000 die in a tornado or 10000 i an earth quake... we should have a giant flashing board that keeps a tally so we know how many of us there really are...just a thought.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:32 PM

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.

Where are those puking "smilies" when you need them...?!

"Unconditional love" my foot... A baby doesn't even know what "love" is.
She / he needs certain things to feel comfortable, and the ma-ma or da-da (it's both the same to them, y'know?) provides them.

Come to think of it... Do people - adults, fully grown-up people - actually believe that by saying ma-ma and/or da-da the baby is actually "addressing" or naming the mother and the father, respectively?
It's the opposite, of course: ma-ma, da-da, ba-ba are the ONLY sounds a young baby is able to utter.
It is only later, when the first two recipients of this lofty speech begin repeating these sounds, that the baby "learns" that the one with the milk is "mum" and the other one, whose function is as yet unclear, is "dad"...

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Vanitas]

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:40 PM

Originally posted by neformore
Her life.

Her body

Her beliefs

Her choice.

Provided she doesn't try and force her beliefs on anyone that doesn't already subscribe to them through manipulation, coertion or force then its;

End of story.

Sorry, darling: it's NOT (only) her body - not anymore.
And that's a fact.

It is only "end of story" for the child.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Vanitas]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in