Refusing to have babies because they're not eco-friendly?

Wow. I just came across this article, in which a woman says that she was sterilized so as to never have any children (because she considered having children contrary to her desire to "protect the planet").

Now, anyone who knows me knows that I'm pro-choice, so if this is what people want to do, by all means, they should go ahead. (And I would much rather have people get sterilized than have unwanted, potentially abused/neglected children). However, I despise the underlying tone of this article, that children are a burden and anyone who procreates is automatically selfish.

Since when did the noble and wonderful calling of having a family become a "burden"? Yes, I most definitely agree we need to do things to protect our environment; use energy-efficient light sources, recycle as much as possible, drive fuel-efficient cars, etc. But not have children? I can't even fathom the idea.

It's not that the birth of children themselves affects the environment; it's the way that we (and these children, as they grow) treat the environment. So instead of advocating a cessation of children, why don't we teach the children we have or will have how to protect and care for their environment? That, to me, seems much more noble (and effective) than sterilization.

Toni Vernelli, one of the women cited in this article, said, "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."

Now, I don't take any issue with the first sentence in her statement. Our plan has always been to have two biological kids (because we desperately want to experience the miracle of pregnancy and birth) and then adopt one (because there are so many children in need, and we don't necessarily need to give birth to a child in order to consider it ours.) And in fact, I wish more people would utilize the adoptive route, rather than popping out 17 biological kids (the Duggars, anyone?) I really wish that more people would create their family through both biological and adoptive means. But to each their own.

But it's the second part of her statement that I take offense to. Bringing children into the world, into a loving home where they will be nurtured and cherished, is somehow negative? Please. I can honestly think of no greater joy! And that's all right if she doesn't agree, but there is no need to characterize it as a negative.

She then goes on to say that she and her husband have a "much nicer life" as the result of not having children; they are able to go on long trips and vacations (they recently got back from South Africa). Now, I love to travel as much as anyone (we went to France for our honeymoon in May; LOVED it!), but doesn't it seem rather materialistic to say, "We're so glad we didn't have children because now we're able to go on more vacations"??? I, personally, would rather have a happy home life with my husband and children rather than jet all over the world (although, in a perfect world, I'd have both :)). But, ummm, speaking of environmental impact, isn't jetting all over the world not exactly eco-friendly, either? I don't know, I guess I don't get it.

I'm all for people making their own choices, and if this is their choice, so be it. But I also wish that the world would begin to reclaim the nobility of motherhood, fatherhood, and family and realize that this is what our society is made of.