On May 12, 2:31 am, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> John M. wrote:
> > On May 11, 6:01 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> John M. wrote:
> >>> On May 10, 11:36 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>> John M. wrote:
> >>>>> On May 10, 3:27 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>> John M. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On May 9, 11:48 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Enough Already wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Burma has close to 48 million people in an area slightly
smaller than
> >>>>>>>>>> Texas (USA). As the population grows (mindlessly, like
everywhere),
> >>>>>>>>>> more trees are lost. Mangroves used to form a coastal buffer
against
> >>>>>>>>>> extreme storm surges, but 3/4ths of them have been cleared
for shrimp
> >>>>>>>>>> and rice farming since the 1920s. See
> >>>>>>>>>>http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/09/asia/mangrove.php
> >>>>>>>>>> This is similar to what happened with hurricane Katrina. Too
many
> >>>>>>>>>> barrier wetlands have been filled in for development (a.k.a.
> >>>>>>>>>> population growth), making them unable to absorb storm surges
as they
> >>>>>>>>>> naturally would. Florida also suffers from this condition.
Record
> >>>>>>>>>> storms reveal the idiocy of destroying nature in the name of
"economic
> >>>>>>>>>> growth."
> >>>>>>>>>> A parallel reason we're seeing larger death tolls is that
more people
> >>>>>>>>>> are living in disaster-prone areas. Population growth creates
a
> >>>>>>>>>> vicious cycle of less buffer protection and more people at
the mercy
> >>>>>>>>>> of the elements.
> >>>>>>>>>> Until it becomes politically correct to promote birth control
vs.
> >>>>>>>>>> "meeting the needs of a growing population," mindless growth
will
> >>>>>>>>>> continue until the 11th hour. Actually, the 11th hour has
long been
> >>>>>>>>>> upon us, but growthism wipes out all reason.
> >>>>>>>>> It is better to have lived and died than to never have lived
at all.
> >>>>>>>> That statement was not intended to convey a lack of
responsibility or
> >>>>>>>> resource management.
> >>>>>>> So what exactly did you intend with this statement?
> >>>>>> That arbitrary birth control is a poor choice.
> >>>>> I'm not sure I understand your qualifying adjective. Birth control
is
> >>>>> a necessary adjunct to death control. Having got the latter
working
> >>>>> fairly well, it would be a shame to swamp all our efforts by
trying to
> >>>>> have more people on the planet than its resources can handle. Not
to
> >>>>> mention the fact that child mortality is greatest in countries
with
> >>>>> little or no family planning service available.
> >>>>> What would you personally prefer if you had to start over. To live
to
> >>>>> one- or two- years old, then die from a combination of
malnutrition
> >>>>> and preventable childhood medical conditions, or to not be
conceived
> >>>>> in the first place?
> >>>> Far and away, the better choice is to live any amount of time in
any
> >>>> condition than to never have been conceived in the first place.
> >>> So you prefer the "morning after " pill that causes spontaneous
> >>> abortion shortly after conception, rather than ***ual abstinence by
> >>> the parties concerned, do you?
> >> No, not any more than I prefer any other form of infanticide.
>
> >>>> Irrespective of that, we need to better manage and control our
resources
> >>>> in a cooperative way.
> >>> When the number of people on the planet rises to a point where every
> >>> inhabitant has just a square foot each (around 2350 C.E. at current
> >>> rates of increase) management and control could just become a little
> >>> compromised, couldn't they?
> >> Yes, more than likely. So what? I'm not advocating uncontrolled
growth.
>
> > According to your idea about any life is better than no life, a
> > fertile woman who fails to make any and every possible attempt to
> > become pregnant when ovulating is willfully acting against this
> > stricture. Setting the age of consent at a point two to four years
> > after a normal female begins to menstruate is also a willful act -
> > this time by legislators.
>
> These are all of your inferences based on your ideas -- not mine.
Peter Franks wrote and subsequently defended the following:
"It is better to have lived and died than to never have lived at all."
My inference is that it is better for an ovulating woman to conceive
and subsequently abort, than to prevent conception in some way or
another.
> If you would like further clarification of my viewpoint, please ask. If
> you are going to assume, have a nice day.
Give further clarification , please. In particular do you consider a
single-celled zygote formed by the merger of a human ovum with a human
spermatazooid to be a life. If not, how do you stand on the life or
otherwise of a 2-cell, 4-cell, 8-cell embryo?
|
