On May 13, 4:35 am, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
The conservative viewpoint would say that if there are no differences
discernible, there are no differences. Therefore treat human embryos
like any other animal embryo.
|
