Is it self­ish to be child­less — or have a big fam­ily?

Daily Mail - - News -

HOW re­fresh­ing to find other women who have de­cided not to have chil­dren (Mail). I made that de­ci­sion more than 45 years ago. Even then there were fears about over-pop­u­la­tion and the ef­fect on the en­vi­ron­ment and wildlife. I have never re­gret­ted my de­ci­sion. Yes, I was thought odd, but I care more for wild creatures and the health of the planet than I do for what other peo­ple think. Is there hope for the fu­ture, or has too much dam­age been done?

SHEILA TAY­LOR, Nor­wich. I HAVE never un­der­stood why peo­ple who choose not to have chil­dren are called self­ish — if you don’t want them, don’t have them. But Helen Camp­bell’s ex­cuses for stay­ing child­less are laugh­able (Mail). Let’s be frank, her and her hus­band’s life­style isn’t con­ducive to chil­dren. How­ever, if you want to have a pop at peo­ple with big fam­i­lies us­ing up the earth’s re­sources, try the Rad­fords in Lan­cashire. She had her first baby at 14, he had a va­sec­tomy af­ter baby nine (which was then re­versed). They keep say­ing they aren’t hav­ing any more — and now num­ber 21 is on the way!

ANN LANGFORD, East­bourne, E. Sus­sex. WHAT are the Rad­fords of More­cambe try­ing to prove by hav­ing 21 chil­dren? It can’t be that they have any aware­ness of the fact the world is al­ready over­pop­u­lated. To have a fam­ily of this size is ir­re­spon­si­ble, self­ish and strange. If all cou­ples be­haved like this, the world would soon run out of food, re­sult­ing in starvation and the even­tual demise of mankind. Let’s hope their chil­dren stick to the nor­mal av­er­age of two — other­wise, af­ter a gen­er­a­tion or two, there will thou­sands of them. GE­OFF ROGERS, Long Ash­ton, Bris­tol.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.