A reader writes:

I suspect Lisa Hymas simply does not want to have children. Fine, neither do I. But altruism is a pretty fucked up reason to have or not have children.

Another writes:

It would be incredibly extreme if Hymas maintained that others shouldn't be allowed to have children; but as it is she has simply decided that it's the right decision for her.

In fact, the main thrust of her article is that being purposefully childless is a difficult and almost socially unacceptable decision, and that to even talk about it is to be viewed as freakish. I'm afraid you've just illustrated her point. In addition, the desire not to contribute to population growth only precludes having biological children. I, for one, intend to adopt, which also has the advantage of creating a loving home for a child that may not have had one otherwise.

Another:

Based on that article, it doesn’t appear that the enviro data has much to do with Hymas’s actual motives for staying child free. If all that stands between Hymas and motherhood is the disparity in CO2 production between the US and Bangladesh, why doesn’t she just emigrate, become a Bangladeshi peasant, and have lots of Bangladeshi babies?

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.