Subject:
|
Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:41:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
228 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > I mention this because others might read your 90% figure and react with the
> > same knee-jerk outrage that I felt
>
> Can you explain the outrage? We were really just bandying possible solutions.
> I suggested that sterilizing 90% of women would accomplish the same ends while
> doing less harm to the world economy.
Like I said, it was knee-jerk, rather than rationally considered, and
stemmed most likely from the usual perception of the male deciding what's
best by seizing control of the female's reproductive process. Upon
reflection I realized what you were actually suggesting, and the outrage
faded to "Hmm..."
> It's just infertility. It would suck and all, don't get me wrong, but it's not
> like gouging their eyes out.
But from an evolutionary standpoint, the denial of genetic lineage is a
far greater crime than the gouging out of eyes.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
