> Brian, human reproduction *IS* purely biological; you have
> male/female intercourse, resulting in sperm penetrating egg, which
> produces zygote which has potential to develop into human being.
"Potential" is the key word there. Human reproduction depends not
just on the production of the zygote, but also how the woman reacts
to her pregnancy, whether she desires it or not, whether she has
means to discontinue it safely, whether she has means to adequately
nourish herself and the fetus during the pregnancy, whether her food
and water are free of pollutants, etc. All these and many other
essential features of human reproduction are cultural.
You could take ANY human activity, isolate some biological
component of it, and on that basis call the activity biological. For
example, philosophizing requires functioning vocal cords (or
functioning hands to move chalk or tap on a keyboard), but we don't
think of philosophy as a purely biological activity. Why not?
Probably cause historically men philosophize while women reproduce,
and we want to derogate women by associating them with an already
derogated class, the animals (who are falsely thought of as
biological and not cultural).
Brian
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 4 08:51:57 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 4 08:51:56 1994
Received: from nyssa.swt.edu (nyssa.swt.edu [147.26.10.11]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id IAA17138 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 4 Oct
1994 08:51:55 -0600
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from academia.swt.edu by academia.swt.edu (PMDF V4.3-7 #6249)
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 09:54:26 CDT
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 1994 09:54:26 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: subject headers
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Southwest Texas State University
X-VMS-To: IN%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Not to be nit-picky, and I know that I'm guilty of not doing it too, but when
you respond to a message, could you please either make sure that the subject
header is relevant to what you are saying, or change it? Makes getting through
messages a heck of a lot easier - and I've been deleting many messages entitled
"ECOFEM DIGEST 34" without realizing that there's something reasonably
important going on there.
Thanks so very much :)
Tj.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 4 12:19:47 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 4 12:19:47 1994
Received: from bock.ucs.ualberta.ca (bock.ucs.ualberta.ca [129.128.5.214]) by
csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id MAA28332 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 12:19:31 -0600
Received: from colossusip.geog.ualberta by bock.ucs.ualberta.ca with SMTP
(8.6.5/UA2.0.0.93Dec20) id MAA23464
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 4 Oct 1994 12:21:28 -0600
Received: from COLOSSUS/MAILQUEUE by colossusip.geog.ualberta (Mercury 1.11);
Tue, 4 Oct 94 12:27:04 -0600
Received: from MAILQUEUE by COLOSSUS (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 4 Oct 94 12:26:37 -0600
From: "LALONDE ROXANNE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Dept. of Geography, Univ. of Alta.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 12:26:29 MDT
Subject: Re: Choice (again)
Priority: normal
X-mailer: PMail v3.0 (R1a)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A slightly belated response to the comments below:
> I believe that legislation is the most effective way to change behavior and
> eventually attitudes. Macro-level "restrictions" (such as halting the
> unethical treatment of animals in the meat industry) are a lot more effective
> than micro-level ones (such as me trying to stop one person from buying
> hamburger meat) and in the long run, probably change more people's attitudes.
> And my saying this is not me buying into the patriarchal system, it's me trying
> to change it.>
I think we need at least two levels of approach and probably more
than two because of the multiple scales of influence in the world.
Yes, we need legislation to support the promotion of activities that
are truly sustainable and to curb those that aren't. But we also need
the one-on-one process of education that can only occur in
interpersonal interactions. Stopping one person from buying hamburger
meat isn't going to change the world. But there is a great deal of
momentum being gained through the spread of such alternative
lifestyles as vegetarianism. Eating meat in itself can't be morally
or spiritually wrong or else you and I wouldn't be around to debate
this subject because our ancestors would probably have starved to
death. However, the ecological destruction and the, IMHO, completely
gratuitous suffering that many animals go through before they are
slaughtered is wrong and that is what we need to change. It is for
those reasons (and others) that I do not consume meat. However, I also
don't make a scene when I am invited to dinner and the host has gone
to a lot of trouble to prepare a nice meal that happens to include
meat. Making lifestyle choices that are a departure from the
mainstream can be a real juggling act. Sometimes we have to make
choices that we aren't entirely happy with in order to preserve a
friendship or to simply be courteous. It is those "micro" level
relationships that we have the most control over in terms of our own
behaviour. And at the same time, we all have a role to play in
changing the macro institutions as well.
Any dissenters?
Roxanne
