John M. wrote:
> 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?
No: "treat" and "might be" are two entirely different things.
I said "treat", I meant "treat". The viewpoint you proffered as
conservative is liberal. I've outlined the conservative viewpoint, and
stand behind it. Will you admit that your viewpoint is liberal, and
stand behind it, or play word games?
|
