Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 1 Jul 2001 00:45:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
566 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> What I was trying to get at was the notion that some folks have that people
> have the *right* to have progeny even if they cannot properly be parents
> (can't support, are unfit, or are genetically at risk).
Yes, I know what you mean but I am forced to maintain that in the basic
biological sense all living beings have the natural right of reproduction,
whether they are fit as a fiddle or severely genetically abnormal or
diseased. BUT here's the thing: We both know that nature, if not interfered
with by man, would not allow the offspring of the unfit or diseased to
flourish anyway. So the X-factor here is man's interference with nature and
the resulting survival of offspring that would otherwise not flourish.
The other factors such as irresponsibility, adequete income or resources
seem to be societal or environmental issues. Though in the biological sense
those people still have the natural right, there may be certain rules (laws,
customs, religion) of the particular society or certain environmental
conditions (drought, famine, disease) that will influence reproductive
rights as deemed by man. In that case it is possible that the societal laws
will take precedence over the natural rights, yet both may be so similar in
wisdom (i.e. for the greater good of the person, community or species) that
it is less of a violation and more of a practical measure to ensure the
survival of said person, community or species. However, such laws can always
serve a less noble purpose when in the hands of tyrants, racists, elitists
and so on.
> Having kids is a huge responsibility and I would advocate discouraging the
> irresponsible from doing so. Not sure how to do that without trampling on
> *other* rights but do feel strongly I'd like to find a way.
Yes, there are always grey areas. Who decides who lives, who has kids and
who dies? I am very much against elitism.
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) <snipped all the rest because I'm not disagreeing with it> I'm afraid I am still "stuck" on rights. (and I've been stuck on them before) What are rights? How do you know if you have them? Let's talk about organisms other than man for a bit. (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
