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