John M. wrote:
> 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.
The line of reasoning, at the time of my statement, was along the lines
of natural (non-deliberate) causes of death.
Infanticide is virtually never appropriate.
>> 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?
Strictly speaking, I don't know when life actually starts. I don't
think that there is consensus in the medical community either. So, in
light of that, I'd err on the side of conservatism -- presume that an
embryo is life.
|
