On May 13, 7:56 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
So an embryo removed from the uterus of a laboratory rat might be
human in the mind of a conservative?
|
