John M. wrote:
> 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.
If they are indiscernible, the conservative viewpoint would be to treat
all embryos as human.
|
