I wish to second the points Shirley Reynolds makes in her recent letter concerning All Saints refusing to perform tubal ligations (and now vasectomies as well).
She states, "... limiting family size is an important responsibility." Indeed it is as we are quite overpopulated.
To make this plain, imagine a “role reversal” in numbers with an endangered species. Imagine, for instance over 7,000,000,000 vaquita porpoises and less than 30 humans. We might regard in this example that the planet is infested with vaquitas, but it’s the other way around. And keep in mind, when populations get very low, there is the danger of inbreeding.
With mass extinctions, we unravel the web of life ultimately at our own peril. Likewise for our drawdown of aquifers, mowing down of forests, and so forth.
Not only do we do a poor job of sharing the planet with one another, we are abysmally failing to share it with other species.
The only way to humanely reduce human numbers is to lower the birthrate to lower than the natural death rate.
Smaller families are therefore in order. Overpopulation is the world’s biggest problem. Remember, Nature always has the last word.
As for the vaquita porpoises, tell the president of Mexico to protect them:
And keep your impact low not only by having two or fewer children, but refraining from meat/fish/dairy and flying less, Skyping more.
Mark M. Giese