British women self-sterilize for ecological reasons

[TithonusSyndrome]

Population control advocates who have put their money where their mouth is

Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly
By NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH and MORAG TURNER - More by this author » Last updated at 22:05pm on 21st November 2007

Comments Comments (30)
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.

Scroll down for more...
Toni Vernelli

Desperate measures: Toni Vernelli was steralised at age 27 to reduce her carbon footprint

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."

While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.

It's an extreme stance which one might imagine is born from an unhappy childhood or an upbringing among parents who share similar, strong beliefs.

But nothing in Toni's safe, middle- class upbringing gave any clues as to the views which would shape her adult life. The eldest of three daughters, she enjoyed a loving, close-knit family life.

She excelled at her Roman Catholic school, and her doting parents fully expected her to grow up, settle down and start a family of her own.

"When I finished school, I got a job in retail and at 19, I met my first husband," says Toni.

"No sooner had we finished our wedding cake than all our relatives started to ask when they could expect a new addition to the family.

"I always told them that would never happen, but no one listened.

"When I was a child, I loved bird-watching, and in my teens that developed into a passion for the environment as well as the welfare of animals - I became a vegetarian when I was 15.

"Even my parents used to smile and say: 'You'll change your mind one day about babies.'

"The only person who understood how I felt was my first husband, who didn't want children either.

"We both passionately wanted to save the planet - not produce a new life which would only add to the problem."

So, instead of mapping out plans for a family, Toni and her husband began discussing medical options to ensure they would never reproduce.

Toni, from Taunton, Somerset, says: "When I was 21, I considered sterilisation for the first time.

"I'd been on the Pill for five years and didn't want to take hormone-based contraception indefinitely.

"I went to my GP, but she wouldn't even consider the idea.

"She said I was far too young and told me I could 'absolutely not' be sterilised, and that I was bound to change my mind one day.

"I found her attitude frustrating.

"We decided my husband would have a vasectomy instead. He was 25, just a few years older than me, but the GP allowed him to go ahead.

"I found it insulting that she thought that, just because I was a woman, I'd reach a point where an urge to breed would overcome all rational thought."

When Toni was 23, her marriage ended. She says: "We married very young and grew apart."

Toni found herself young, single and with a new life in London, working for an environmental charity.

But while other young women dream of marriage and babies, Toni was convinced it was her duty not to have a child.

She claims she was far from alone.

"Through my job I made many friends who, like me, were more interested in campaigning, trying to change society and save the planet rather than having families of our own.

"We used to say that if ever we did want children, we'd adopt, as there are so many children in need of a loving family.

"At least then, we'd be doing something positive for the world, rather than something negative."

Toni was happy, at last, with fellow environmentalists who shared her philosophy. But when she was 25, disaster struck.

"I discovered that despite taking the Pill, I'd accidentally fallen pregnant by my boyfriend.

"I was horrified. I knew straight away there was no option of having the baby.

"I went to my doctor about having a termination, and asked if I could be sterilised at the same time.

"This time it was a male doctor. I remember saying to him: 'I want to make sure this never happens again.'

"He said: 'You may not want a child, but one day you may meet a man who does'. He refused to consider it.

"I didn't like having a termination, but it would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world.

"I've never felt a twinge of guilt about what I did, and have honestly never wondered what might have been.

"After my abortion, I was more determined than ever to pursue sterilisation.

"By then, I had my mother's support - she realised I wasn't going to grow out of my beliefs, and was proud of my campaigning work."

At the age of 27, Toni moved to Brighton, where her dream of medical intervention was realised.

Toni says: "My new GP was more forward-thinking and referred me to hospital. I couldn't wait for the operation."

As Toni awaited the surgery which would destroy her fertility, she met her future husband, Ed, 38, an IT consultant.

"A week before my sterilisation, I went to an animal rights demonstration and met Ed.

"I liked him immediately, and I told him what I was doing straight away - because if he wanted children then he needed to know I wasn't the woman for him," she says.

"But Ed was relieved when I told him how I felt and said he didn't want children for the same reasons."

On the morning of surgery, Ed gave Toni a card saying "Congratulations".

Toni says: "After the operation, which is irreversible, I didn't feel emotional - just relieved.

"I've never doubted that I made the right decision. Ed and I married in September 2002, and have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children.

"We love walking and hiking, and we often go away for weekends.

"Every year, we also take a nice holiday - we've just come back from South Africa.

"We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population.

"My only frustration is that other people are unable to accept my decision.

"When I tell people why I don't want children, they look at me as if I was planning to commit murder.

"A woman who does not have maternal-feelings is seen as some sort of anomaly.

"And a woman like me, who is not having children in order to save the planet, is considered barking mad.

"What I consider mad are those women who ferry their children short distances in gas-guzzling cars."

But Toni is far from alone.

When Sarah Irving, 31, was a teenager she sat down and wrote a wish-list for the future.

Scroll down for more...
Sarah Irving and Mark Hudson

Sarah Irving and Mark Hudson were adamant they would live the greenest possible lives

Most young girls dream of marriage and babies. But Sarah dreamed of helping the environment - and as she agonised over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child.

"I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do."

Sarah's boyfriends have been less understanding than Toni's, with the breakdown of several relationships.

"I've had boyfriends who wanted children, so I knew I couldn't be with them long term,' says Sarah.

"I've had to break up with a couple of boyfriends because I didn't think it was fair to waste their time.

"In my early 20s I had a boyfriend who I really liked, but he wanted to start a family as soon as possible.

"I was tempted to stay with him and hope he would change his mind, but I knew I couldn't provide him with what he wanted so I walked away."

Sarah started work for the Ethical Consumer magazine, and seven years ago she met her fiancÈ Mark Hudson, a 37-year- old health- care worker.

When they started dating in 2003, they immediately discussed their views on children.

"To my relief, Mark was as adamant as me that he didn't want a family. After a year of dating, we started talking about sterilisation," says Sarah.

"I didn't want to have an 'accident' if contraception didn't work - we would be faced with the dilemma of whether to keep the baby."

While other young couples sit down and discuss mortgages, Sarah and Mark discussed the medical options for one or the other to be sterilised.

"We realised it was a much more straightforward procedure, safer and easier, for a man to be sterilised through a vasectomy than a woman to be sterilised," says Sarah.

"In January 2005, Mark had a vasectomy and we both felt incredibly relieved there was no chance of us having a baby."

Ironically, the couple who have decided to deny themselves children for the sake of the planet, actively enjoy the company of young children.

Sarah says: "We both have nieces who we love dearly and I consider myself a caring, nurturing person.

"My sister recently had a little girl, and that has taken the pressure off me because my parents wanted to be grandparents.

"At first, they were surprised by my decision, but they have never criticised us.

"I'd never dream of preaching to others about having a family. It's a very personal choice. What I do like to do is make people aware of the facts.

"When I see a mother with a large family, I don't resent her, but I do hope she's thought through the implications."

Mark adds: "Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don't have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly.

"We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food.

"In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child.

"That's why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth.

"Sarah and I don't need children to feel complete. What makes us happy is knowing that we are doing our bit to save our precious planet."

Did anyone else notice the article was written in a way that made it seem as though these women were loony environmental extremists who were missing out on some kind of obligation-cum-privilege in abstaining from childrearing? I have nothing against reproduction for the blindingly obvious reasons, but I sensed a certain horrified revulsion to their choice in the article's selection of words.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Of course, because we evolved to propagate it's horrible to think that someone dares consider the fruits of procreation as being a burden on the planet. It's not as if we're overpopulated or anything, after all.

Honestly, given the number of women posting on the company bulletin board at work about their recent familiar additions or going on maternity leave, I'm starting to wonder if this message needs to be spread further. There are families that still have half a dozen kids today which is quite simply baffling to me.

[The Grim Squeaker]

On the negative side, this shows why population control is pretty much doomed.
The world is filled with two sorts of people. One sort would look at a saber tooth tiger and say "Here kitty, kitty" & "What a magnificent brute". The other ran away. No prizes for guessing what everyone alive today does, or who they're descended from.

Population control is doomed beyond a few generations at the behest of only the more totalitarian governments, simply because it isn't evolutionarily feasible. There's too much momentum against it.

[Jadeite]

What a bunch of complete fucking nutjobs. The last thing any sort of environmental movement needs is retards like them making it look bad. I have mixed feelings about the abortion that Toni Vernelli had. I'm pro-choice, but feeling that your kid is going to be a 'burden' to the planet just doesn't seem like a very good reason to terminate it. It's about as bad as that woman who aborted in her eight or ninth month of pregnancy because she found out her baby would have cleft palate (which is typically fixable). On the other hand, I'd feel bad for the kid for having such an insane mother.

[Zablorg]

What a bunch of complete fucking nutjobs. The last thing any sort of environmental movement needs is retards like them making it look bad. I have mixed feelings about the abortion that Toni Vernelli had. I'm pro-choice, but feeling that your kid is going to be a 'burden' to the planet just doesn't seem like a very good reason to terminate it. It's about as bad as that woman who aborted in her eight or ninth month of pregnancy because she found out her baby would have cleft palate (which is typically fixable). On the other hand, I'd feel bad for the kid for having such an insane mother.

Do you think the people talking about population control are insane too?

[Jadeite]

Do you think the people talking about population control are insane too?

I think they are wrong, given that the First World is showing declining birth rates. Greater efficiency in how we consume resources is what is needed instead, along with more equal distribution of technology, wealth, and resources. It doesn't help that the environmentalists helped get us into this mess with their anti-nuclear hysteria, so no, I'm not exactly inclined to trust their opinion on what they think we should do.

I'm personally betting these women didn't do it out of any actual concern for the planet, although I admit I have nothing to back it up. The article just gives me a feeling that they did it so they can be holier than thou, so to speak. It happens a lot in any sort of organization centered around beliefs, the members will begin trying to prove to each other how dedicated they are, and this begins a competition of trying to one-up each other. "I sterilized myself" is going to give her a lot of dick waving ability to show how committed she is, particularly against the filthy breeders.

[LMSx]

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.

Ah, British papers.

I found it a little hard to read the article because of all the one sentence paragraphs, but I found nothing in her POV to bar this woman from, you know, adopting in a couple years if she really wants a baby to take care of. The baby's already made, so to speak, so there wouldn't be any contradiction.

[Netko]

Thing is, the overpopulation problem is mostly a third world problem with global symptoms. I haven't checked, but I assume the UK has the same kind of issues with replacement or below replacement population growth rate as the rest of Europe, so the only thing she's actually achieving by not having children is jeopardising her retirement benefits since those will have to be scaled back (or pushed back via higher retirement age) do to the ratio of working population to dependence worsening.

[bilateralrope]

I'm personally betting these women didn't do it out of any actual concern for the planet, although I admit I have nothing to back it up. The article just gives me a feeling that they did it so they can be holier than thou, so to speak. It happens a lot in any sort of organization centered around beliefs, the members will begin trying to prove to each other how dedicated they are, and this begins a competition of trying to one-up each other. "I sterilized myself" is going to give her a lot of dick waving ability to show how committed she is, particularly against the filthy breeders.

I agree with you here, especially with this paragraph:

"We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population.

Now I don't know how their carbon footprint would compare to a couple with children who don't make the long haul flights, but I get the feeling that they don't know the numbers either.

[Qwerty 42]

self-sterilize? Gah!

[Shroom Man 777]

Makes it sound like she shoved a red hot iron up hers.

[General Zod]

I think they are wrong, given that the First World is showing declining birth rates. Greater efficiency in how we consume resources is what is needed instead, along with more equal distribution of technology, wealth, and resources. It doesn't help that the environmentalists helped get us into this mess with their anti-nuclear hysteria, so no, I'm not exactly inclined to trust their opinion on what they think we should do.

Greater efficiency is going to be utterly worthless if the population continues increasing exponentially.

I'm personally betting these women didn't do it out of any actual concern for the planet, although I admit I have nothing to back it up. The article just gives me a feeling that they did it so they can be holier than thou, so to speak. It happens a lot in any sort of organization centered around beliefs, the members will begin trying to prove to each other how dedicated they are, and this begins a competition of trying to one-up each other. "I sterilized myself" is going to give her a lot of dick waving ability to show how committed she is, particularly against the filthy breeders.

Because it's somehow oh so much worse to sterilize yourself realizing what a burden having a child would be as opposed to having 20 kids because your sky pixie commands you to be fruitful and multiply, damn the population problems.

[Enigma]

How about one step further in reducing her carbon footprint by her digging a large hole and blow her brains out? This way she won't be using more of the earth's resources but in fact contribute to the planet as fertilizer.

I don't care if there are such people willing to vandalize themselves to prove a point as long as they don't put it in their minds to do it to others.

[Shinova]

I think it's retarded and doesn't do anything to address the core of the overpopulation problem: that there are nutjobs who don't think about what they're doing and only do it to feel holier or more right. The lady in the article and religious families are both crazy people, just in opposite directions. What we need is less crazy, not crazy in a different direction.


And you don't need to self-sterilize to have a dwindling population. Japan's doing that just fine by itself, which goes to show if you want to really fix people you have to fix their culture.

[Starglider]

Thing is, the overpopulation problem is mostly a third world problem with global symptoms. I haven't checked, but I assume the UK has the same kind of issues with replacement or below replacement population growth rate as the rest of Europe,

No, we don't actually. The average UK population growth rate over the last five years was 0.5% per anum (source : [urlhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=6]Office for National Statistics[/url]). That's marginally higher than it was in the 1990s (0.4%/anum). That figure seems fairly reasonable to me.

I'm more concerned about one of two things happening; major lifespan extension due to accelerating progress in anti-ageing technology, or major dieoff due to catastrophic events. I'm not terribly worried about demographic decline in Europe or Japan (though Russia has population decline issues serious enough to be a real pressing problem).

[Admiral Valdemar]

Less humans by natural means is nothing to worry about. Indeed, it is the issue of what we have living longer, which means even with a minor growth rate, things can get ugly simply because economically viable practices before are no longer seen as such. The pensions crisis many have predicted is one consequence of our prosperity which, when coupled with immigration from less fortunate lands, means the workforce has to pull that much harder to keep the system on an even keel.

Those would be bad enough, were it not also for the Third World trying to play catch-up with the First in terms of per capita wealth. Everyone wants their big houses, shiny cars and holidays abroad. With the world as it is now, that's not possible for everyone.

[darthbob88]

The only part of this that I object to is that stable, successful, intelligent people, who are objectively fit to raise a child, choose not to, while the mentally ill, poor, and arguably stupid, continue to raise large families. It's not fair.

[[R_H]]

The only part of this that I object to is that stable, successful, intelligent people, who are objectively fit to raise a child, choose not to, while the mentally ill, poor, and arguably stupid, continue to raise large families. It's not fair.

Because they're the only ones who perceive, realize and or care about the problems that population growth brings.

[brianeyci]

I hate to agree with Jadeite, but I think he's right. I only skimmed the article, but it seems like these people are not having children the same reason vegetarians don't like having meat. Maybe the right decision, but definitely the wrong reasons.

Less humans on the entire planet would be great, but you have to take into account regional differences as well. You might as well consider different countries as entirely different planets when it comes to population control -- people in America don't give a flying fuck if people in Africa or India or even China die. I hate to sound like a shitbag, but if shit holes breed too much, people in Western countries will not sacrifice their lifestyle to keep them alive.

In other words overpopulation is only a problem for the First World if the First World cares enough to keep everybody alive. We don't, so there will be massive die offs.

[[R_H]]

In other words overpopulation is only a problem for the First World if the First World cares enough to keep everybody alive. We don't, so there will be massive die offs.

Massive die-offs because of natural disasters due to climate change, or massive die-offs due to the use of violence?

[brianeyci]

Less humans by natural means is nothing to worry about. Indeed, it is the issue of what we have living longer, which means even with a minor growth rate, things can get ugly simply because economically viable practices before are no longer seen as such. The pensions crisis many have predicted is one consequence of our prosperity which, when coupled with immigration from less fortunate lands, means the workforce has to pull that much harder to keep the system on an even keel.

How is denying reproductive instinct "natural"?

Well it seems dumb not to have children if you're a reasonably intelligent person. If the crisis is because there's too many old fucks and not enough young workers, then you need more young workers and not having children only exacerbates the problem. The old people have had their good life front loaded, so they will simply die or have their pensions stripped or benefits destroyed as governments move to protect their workforce. The only problem is if the old move in large numbers to protect their interests, but there's no reason to believe the young won't similarly move to protect their own interests.

And again I hate to sound like a shitbag, but if you're intelligent and another person is not and they're having kids well... you better shit out your own kid and do everything in your power to give your kid a good life, even if it means taking away from the other family. IP has this nailed down right with his own idea of having children and fighting and dying for them, and IP hates overpopulation.

[brianeyci]

Massive die-offs because of natural disasters due to climate change, or massive die-offs due to the use of violence?

Both. That's a good point though. Please, nobody mistake my prediction of die offs as me liking the idea that millions of people will fight each other and compete for food and resources. I don't like that idea one bit, and I don't like the idea that I have to fight others of my own species to ensure my own survival at all.

But I don't see a point in denying reality. There's people dying in Chad right now and nobody gives a flying fuck, and that's through violence. If food riots start in China, tribal cleansings start in Africa, Pakistan gets torn apart by radicals and millions starve in India, America will send help sure, but the instant it starts costing any kind of lifestyle changes Americans will say no fucking way. The only reason why Iraq has gone on for so long is Americans don't feel the cost immediately. After Iraq, anything seen with the stink of long-term deployment will not happen for decades.

[Broomstick]

When the Other Half and I realized that we would not be having children without medical intervention we choose not to intervene - and the fact that there is no shortage of people factored into that. What also factored into the decision was that his sibling and two out three of my siblings had already reproduced - there will be "replacements" in the next generation for us, but no additional population growth from our families. If our siblings had NOT reproduced we may well have felt differently.

I've known a few people in my life who chose not to reproduce due to genetic issues, which can also a valid reason.

And that's a major flaw in these eco-sterilizers' arguments - for the species to continue there must be young. If a couple have just one child they are providing a young replacement without adding to population. If they have two they replace themselves - but due to accidents and illness/medical issues that will still result in a slight loss of population over time.

I don't have a problem with people choosing not to reproduce - where I would have a problem is forcing that choice onto others, or acting like their better than others for doing so.

[brianeyci]

The problem I have with religious nutjobs shitting out six kids isn't the number, but that they're shitting out potentially dumb kids. It's the genetics point Broomstick mentioned. Some people have it some people don't.

If a physicist decides to shit out six kids I couldn't give a fuck. We could use another line of Bernoullis, but Bible thumpers are garbage. I feel fine making fun of Bible thumping morons who shit out a lot of kids and looking at people who have intellect (especially in math) and saying fuck like rabbits. It's not a contradiction, because let's face it some people are worth more than others. One mathematical genius who will turn out to research nuclear fusion is not the same as a dumb Bible fuck, who probably turns into a lawyer.