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 (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...


 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.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1&in_page_id=1&expand=true

 http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/68190-political-towns-extreme-places-political-relocation.html

 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.childfree/browse_thread/thread/433390c60614cc23/442c33182294bb85?hl=en
 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/TurningPoints/story?id=3747045&page=1
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Why_breed/
 http://freetownproject.com/
 http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2140483&page=1
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Exodus
 http://christianexodus.org
 http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1918592007
 http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3401106
 http://www.projectprevention.org



 Overpopulation or Childfree Town Project
 http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/68190-politic
 al-towns-extreme-places-political-relocation.html

 Hi.

 I am writing because I am interested in overpopulation activists in
small
 towns. I am hoping that if overpopulation activists concentrate
forces
 like the Libertarians of the Free Town Project,
 http://freetownproject.com/ we can build a majority that can replace
 public school, playground, ballfield, and childcare funding with
 contraception and abortion funding and end up saving a great deal of
 money especially since Social Security and Medicare funding are
mostly
 federal and can be imported.

 Housing unit size could also be limited to crowd large families but
 regular zoning is a big problem because it makes it expensive for
 overpopulation activists to move in and build a majority.

 Anyway, what do you think? Can such a majority be built in your
hometown.
 NYC is the only municipality I know of that funds abortions and it is
too
 overcrowded and thus difficult and expensive to move to or build a
 majority in. And NYC's abortion funding is still only a tiny fraction
of
 their education funding.

 Three groups likely to be allied in this municipal cause are gays,
 especially conservative gays like Log Cabin Republicans, retirees,
who
 would be hypocrites because they usually have grown children and
 grandchildren but these grandchildren often live in different towns
and
 would be unaffected by local education cuts, and Libertarians who are
 ideologically committed to small government.

 -Alan



 --------- Forwarded message ---------
 Subject: My speech to County Commission


 I'm Alan and I came accross a shocking statistic. In America, and by
 inference in Buncombe County, 2 out of 3 parents are so
environmentally
 callous that they would turn down even subsidized contraception and
 squeeze out babies anyway; which calls into question the ability of
local
 contraception funding to save the planet from overpopulation.

 But in that case there is something else a county can do and that is
to
 stop susidizing parenthood. It is fundamental that the responsibility
to
 fund schools, childcare, playgrounds and ballfields lies exclusively
with
 parents.

 So how is it fair that I, as a taxpaying nonparent, should be
subsidizing
 such reproductive activities? There is no ethical construct by which
that
 is fair. So since none of you seem to be funding contraception
anyway, I
 might as well vote for those who would defund parenthood, while
 contraception and abortion are so cost effective that funds can be
raised
 privately. And of course that would, and does, switch me to the true
 party of the environment, affordable housing and direct democracy,
the
 Republicans.

 The Republicans help the environment by cutting or attempting to cut
 parental subsidies like playgrounds, childcare, ballfields and public
 schools, which is effective against overpopulation in a society in
which
 most babies are planned.

 Local Republicans oppose zoning which is bad for affordable housing,
and
 Nathan Ramsey alone proposed a direct democratic referndum on zoning,
 which makes the Republicans the party of direct democracy.
 -Alan

 To the Editor:
 Contrary to most political alliances and strategies, LGBTQ people
seem to
 be making the most progress in the profit driven corporate world led
by
 Log Cabin Republicans and HRC. To see why, one need only look at the
 economics of LGBTQ communities like Provincetown MA. According to the
 2000 census, Provincetown had only 8% children, compared to about 25%
for
 the nation and 31% for the generally politically allied city of
Detroit.
 This means LGBTQ communities are fundamentally different from most
other
 minority communities in a way that is massively under appreciated,
 totally politically incorrect, and lies at the very heart of economic
 conservatism.
 <lj-cut text="Read more">
 	You are largely nonparents, with the economic interests of
nonparents.
 And despite all the political rhetoric, what the corporations can see
is
 that so far liberal government subsidies have done far more to
transfer
 wealth from nonparents to parents than to move wealth from rich to
poor
 adults; and when nonparents, like me, form communities and more
 specifically school districts, we are relieved of huge tax burdens
and
 consequently experience economic (and environmental) booms. It may
 behoove nonparents to better understand and acknowledge this huge and
 inherently conservative factor and perhaps use it to rethink some
 political alliances with minority parents versus those with
corporations.

 Alan

 See, I told you the ONLY answer was contraception, abortion and gay
 rights. So get on task. The main problem is that the US town with the
 smallest percentage of children is not in Cascadia. It is the gay
 community of Provincetown MA with 8% children compared to about 25%
 nationally. Does Cascadia have a gay town like Provincetown? I will
be
 voting Republican because they subsidize parenthood less in the form
of
 schools, childcare, TANF, playgrounds, ballfields and family leave.
They
 also reduce the population more by killing more anti-choice people in
the
 middle east. Also, I am in the southeast and here the Republicans are
 further from the center and therefore more likely to seceed so that
you
 can be rid of them. They are more for state's rights. Also, public
 schools teach national unity, which is the real enemy of secession.
So
 stop subsidizing them.
 -Alan

 Although I do some energy conservation work on a hands on basis, I
don't
 think much of it as a political issue because direct environmentalism
 distracts attention and then funding from overpopulation and
 contraception, which is the ONLY way to actually stop global warming.
The
 windmills were for electric generation, but I don't much care. Seven
 billion people just cannot live sustainably and efforts to do so are
 counterproductive and diversionary. Though we could limit yachts to
400hp
 (you lived in FL, those big semi-planers are truly absurd. It's
beyond me
 why the little jet ski's get the complaints.) I'm more interested in
 defunding parenthood including public education. Did you know that
 Provincetown MA is only 8% children? San Francisco is 14%, the USA
about
 25%, Detroit 31.1%, Maywood CA (a hispanic LA suburb) is 37% and
Colorado
 City AZ (polygamist) is 60.4% children. What effect do you think that
has
 on property taxes? especially since old age subsidies are mostly
federal.
 Do you know of any towns with a larger or smaller percentage of
children
 than 8% or 60.4%. If I can find a town outside the Northeast with 8%
 children, I will move there and pay the property taxes. Though Frisco
is
 both too big and too expensive for my tastes. Expensive may be
inevitable
 because low property taxes would cause speculation. My county is
22.2%
 children.
 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4805000.html
 I'm doing a lot of political and demographic research on localities
in
 the west lately so I can figure out where I want to live. I can find
very
 little reference material on comparitive municipal politics. It's
badly
 neglected. There are many more towns to choose from than viable
political
 parties.

 A libertarian county has already been chosen, Loving County in the
west.
 See,
  http://freetownproject.com/
 http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2140483&page=1
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia
 http://christianexodus.org
 I oppose public education because I am not a parent and wish to stop
 subsidizing parenthood. However subsidized contraception is very
 important and far more cost effective than public education, and
better
 for the environment. Texas secession might tilt the balance enough to
 make this possible in the rest of the country.
 -Alan

 Local governments may be doing a bunch of myopic and reactive
 environmental stuff, but they are doing almost nothing to reduce
 fertility rates and are subsidizing parenthood heavily in the form
of
 childcare, playgrounds, ballfields and public schools. Do any two or
 more members of this group live in the same town? county? state?
 Anyone
 here in Nevada? AZ? NM? eastern OR? west TX?
 -Alan

 Limiting housing counts does NOTHING for fertility rates and is a
myopic
 digression from overpopulation. So in that sense I am pro-
development. I
 want enough housing units for everyone ESPEICIALLY domestic migrants
who
 may be moving for political purposes. I have no problem with limiting
the
 SIZE of houses in order to crowd large families, but I oppose any
limits
 on unit counts, unit densities, or building height. An overpopulation
 town funds contraception and abortion INSTEAD OF playgrounds,
ballfields,
 childcare, or schools. It has NOTHING TO DO with land use policies
other
 than banning ballfields.
 -Alan

 FRANCE'S HIGH BIRTH RATE PARTLY DUE TO GOVERNMENT INCENTIVE

 France Only European Country With Replacement Level Fertility

 France's "robust birth rate," which is "bucking the trend" of
declining
 European birth rates, is "could be attributed to government support
for
 people who have children.

 Birth rates in European countries recently have reached a historic
low,
 with the largest and most recent fall occurring in Eastern Europe.
All
 European countries recorded birth rates of more than 1.3 children per
 woman.