Let’s just be thankful that she is ending that gene pool. She is doing the rest of us a favor. </sarcasm>
Actually, it’s quite scary that there are people who would go to the lengths this woman would. Rational people believe that she will one day “see the light”. I doubt it. She has now committed herself to a path of (self-defined, and lack of a better term) “righteousness” that she can ill afford to betray.
Such is her insanity that she will continue the charade, regardless of any doubts, because her belief in her own “Self-righteousness” is so strong, that to admit she is wrong is to admit that she is not perfect.
Selfish would seem to apply as much, if not more, to her.
or at least, self-centered.
Whether you follow a particular religion or are an atheist, it is an undeniable fact that it took a heck of a lot of effort to pass the spark of life, the primordial life force, or what ever you care to call it, on to you. It is an act of supreme ingratitude all the way back to the very beginning of your line of predecessors (human and/or otherwise) to say you have so little regard for this most precious gift, that you don’t want to pass it on to at least one person in the next generation.
Further, the effort required to responsibly conceive, care for, and guide children to adulthood is, in my opinion, perhaps the key experience that helps develop a sense of generosity and compassion in individual human beings. It also provides a transcendent shared common experience that can act as a basis for interaction among what are otherwise highly diverse peoples and cultures.
This is not an argument for high birthrates or for compulsory parenthood. There are clearly persons who have no business becoming parents. There is, arguably, a point where a family or a nation can have severe problems with having too many children (just as it can with too few children being born). The acknowledged “no net growth rate” for reproduction at the societal level is 2.1 children per woman (split almost evenly between males and females at birth). Obviously, this woman’s lack of participation (and any others like her) will be offset by women who have three or more children. However, when there are too many women having too few babies (as is currently the case in western Europe, Russia, and Japan), you get population contraction which can have devastating military, political, economic, and environmental effects on society.
There is some truth in the argument that the deliberately childless, especially those who decide to take that stance for ecological reasons, should go ahead and commit suicide. They continue to consume resources as long as they are alive. Very few of them (like the rest of us) are likely to live lives of such outstanding merit that it can justify their continued burden on the earth (poor, poor Mother Earth). This is especially true after middle age when they begin to consume resources in greater amounts than they themselves can offset by their own productive efforts. At that point, they become parasites. Now, if they had children and grand children, they could claim that their continued resource needs are offset by the surplus in the productive efforts of their descendants.
Of course, I don’t personally believe in or endorse this suicide argument because it is an affront to Almighty God, the creator and sustainer of all.