Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 30 Jun 2001 15:09:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
434 times
|
| |
|
|
Speaking strictly in a biological sense, all living beings have the natural
right of reproduction. The presence of sex organs and sex hormones is proof
enough that organisms are here to thrive and repopulate. Reproduction is a
natural, hard-wired function and the purpose is to ensure the survival of
the species. When certain organisms are naturally unsuccessful at
reproduction (barring cataclysms like meteors, comets or other
extraterrastrial events), that's nature's way of getting rid of the bad
genes. They die off for a reason. That's the scientific perspective.
The human perspective is a bit different because of our societal morals,
laws and customs. Furthermore, we now more than ever have a greater
technical understanding of the processes of the life cycle we have
manipulated it more and more. I think we bend natures rules a bit here and
there, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for bad, and either
willingly or unknowingly. So, we step away from nature's rights and into the
realm of manmade rights (our morals and ethics). Should everybody have kids?
I say NO because there are exceptions.
For example, people with serious genetic abnormalities should not have
children. Nature often keeps this from happening but modern medicine
intervenes and we end up having seriously disabled or retarted children that
would normally not survive and may never function normally and independently
in our society. Another example is teens. Although they are capable of
reproducing, there are too many health risks to the baby and teen. Also, the
teens are not fit to independently support a child when they themselves are
still children. Another example is over population in societies with very
limited resources that cannot support the extra amount of people.
In my opinion, nature often finds a way to combat all these exceptions and
keeps things at an equalibrium. But people, with their sophisticated tools,
medicines and technology, throw off nature's delicate balance. Is the earth
over populated with humans? Yes. Have we interfered with nature's ability to
maintain equilibrium? Yes.
In my opinion, nature is perfection. We have yet to learn, or perhaps
unlearn, how to be as perfect as nature.
Dan
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) Ability, not right, wouldn't you agree? See below. (...) Evolution in action, as they say. <snip> I snipped the human perspective because I agree with your statements pointing out that it's not always a good idea for folks not prepared or for (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) I'm not sure if you meant it this way, or were just going quickly, but I think that sounds like a circular argument and maybe anthropomorphic. "Bad" genes are only defined after the fact because they failed to propogate. It sounds like you are (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| Dan: I know you hate it when I quote you out of context but I was just wondering, can you elaborate more on whether a person has a "right to reproduce"? That is, do people have the right to have kids no matter what, or are there preconditions that (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
244 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
