John M. wrote:
> On May 12, 6:23 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> With only a handful of cells, how can you identify such life as
> 'human'? It is indistinguishable from the embryo of every other
> vertebrate until stem cells form and get weaving. The lack of
> consensus in the medical community originates in the disparate
> cultural backgrounds of its members.
Sure. So, given that, do you choose to err on the side conservatism? I
do.
|
